# Eating catfish is just as sinful as homosexuality



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

Read it in the bible and weep folks.

Eating fish without scales is a sin.

Interesting how some churches have catfish dinners...

Guess they should have Homo day as well?


----------



## High_Gravity (Jun 30, 2011)

Where does it say that?


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

For fish to be considered clean to eat they must have fins and scales.  It is in Leviticus.  I can't quote chapter and verse though.
the same book that says hosexuality is a sin as well.
And a sin is a sin.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jun 30, 2011)

You need to quote chapter and verse for every biblical assertion.

Also, you will note in Acts that the rules of Kashrut don't apply to Christians.


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

Baruch Menachem said:


> You need to quote chapter and verse for every biblical assertion.
> 
> Also, you will note in Acts that the rules of Kashrut don't apply to Christians.



Tell that to the homophobes, that is who this thread is targeting.

shucks I will go get the chapter and verse, back in a bit.


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

Leviticus 11:9-12


----------



## Stash (Jun 30, 2011)

Well yeah the same is true of pork, but that rule has been repealed, the rule against homosexuality has not been repealed. How do we know? Well those are the rules.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 30, 2011)

Baruch Menachem said:


> You need to quote chapter and verse for every biblical assertion.
> 
> Also, you will note in Acts that the rules of Kashrut don't apply to Christians.



The restrictions on homosexuality, however appear in both books. 

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."


----------



## Stash (Jun 30, 2011)

martybegan said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > You need to quote chapter and verse for every biblical assertion.
> ...



Actually, in this passage, you will notice that homosexuality is not the sin, but the punishment. These people died off after God made them all homosexuals.


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

Stash said:


> Well yeah the same is true of pork, but that rule has been repealed, the rule against homosexuality has not been repealed. How do we know? Well those are the rules.



Where in the bible was pork declared clean to eat?

I recall Jesus supposedly cast out demons from an man into some pigs.
Poor little pigs...
Maybe that was the beginnings of republicans?


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

Stash said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Baruch Menachem said:
> ...



died off thru not procreating?  So God says it is genetic?


----------



## Warrior102 (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...



Slow news day?


----------



## Stash (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Stash said:
> 
> 
> > Well yeah the same is true of pork, but that rule has been repealed, the rule against homosexuality has not been repealed. How do we know? Well those are the rules.
> ...



It must have been repealed...Christians eat pork all the time...what a minute...are you telling me that it hasn't been repealed!!!...Oh my GOD!!! We're all going to hell!!!


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

Stash said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Stash said:
> ...



why do you think that only 3 people dissapeared during the Rapture a few weeks ago?


----------



## Stash (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Stash said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Well, Paul says it's genetic or otherwise natural, this is just his story.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jun 30, 2011)

Baruch Menachem said:


> You need to quote chapter and verse for every biblical assertion.
> 
> Also, you will note in Acts that the rules of Kashrut don't apply to Christians.



 Christians to be righteous in the eyes of Jews only have to follow the 7 Noahide Laws.


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

Stash said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Stash said:
> ...



But, but the bible is the word of God isn't it?


----------



## High_Gravity (Jun 30, 2011)

Isn't drinking alcohol also technically a sin in the Bible?


----------



## Sunni Man (Jun 30, 2011)

Stash said:


> Well yeah the same is true of pork, but that rule has been repealed, the rule against homosexuality has not been repealed. How do we know? Well those are the rules.



 Jesus never repealed the Jewish dietary laws.

 In fact he kept everyone of them during his life.

 It was Paul who came and changed the law.

 But he had no authority to do so.


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Isn't drinking alcohol also technically a sin in the Bible?



No, Jesus turned the water into wine.  But drunkness is a sin.


----------



## Warrior102 (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> For fish to be considered clean to eat they must have fins and scales.  It is in Leviticus.  I can't quote chapter and verse though.
> the same book that says hosexuality is a sin as well.
> And a sin is a sin.



Well, if you sin - go confess your sins. 
That's in the bible too.
I won't get into all the details. You can Google it at your leisure.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jun 30, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Isn't drinking alcohol also technically a sin in the Bible?



 Drinking alcohol is not a sin in the Bible.

 They only thing that it says is do not become a drunk and neglect your responsibilities.

 But it is never forbidden.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jun 30, 2011)

Try Acts 9:11-16 and Timothy 4:3-5. There are more, but those are all that come to mind right now.


----------



## Dr.House (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...



As a non-Christian, you can continue practicing your homosexuality and catfish eating guilt free...  I'm happy for you...


----------



## martybegan (Jun 30, 2011)

Here we go:

"About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." 

The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." 

Acts 10 (9-15)


----------



## KissMy (Jun 30, 2011)

It just means shell fish may make you sick. It says abomination unto you. Not an abomination of GOD.

Leviticus 11:9-12 King James Version (KJV)


> 9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
> 
> 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
> 
> ...


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jun 30, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Isn't drinking alcohol also technically a sin in the Bible?



No, getting blatto is.


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > For fish to be considered clean to eat they must have fins and scales.  It is in Leviticus.  I can't quote chapter and verse though.
> ...



Sin then confess.  Repeat as the desire to sin happens.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 30, 2011)

If you were a nomadic desert people with no means of refrigeration, wouldn't making dietary laws and then saying those laws are a mandate from God make sense?  

With that in mind, wouldn't a homphobe make a law that justifies his prejudice in the same light?

If Jesus of Nazareth ever said that homosexuality is a sin, then maybe I'd go along.  But He didn't, did He?

And since wehn have the laws of any given religion been the laws of the state?  Sure, in Iran, but who wants America to be a theocracy?


----------



## Stash (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Stash said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



When Paul implied that God caused people to be homosexuals, he must have got his wires crossed.


----------



## Marie888 (Jun 30, 2011)

FOOD
What does the Bible say about what foods we should eat (kosher)? Are there foods a Christian should avoid?  <--Link to read in full
Question: "What does the Bible say about what foods we should eat (kosher)? Are there foods a Christian should avoid?"



> Answer: Leviticus chapter 11 lists the dietary restrictions God gave to the nation of Israel. The dietary laws included prohibitions against eating pork, shrimp, shellfish and many types of seafood, most insects, scavenger birds, and various other animals. The dietary rules were never intended to apply to anyone other than the Israelites. The purpose of the food laws was to make the Israelites distinct from all other nations. After this purpose had ended, Jesus declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19). God gave the apostle Peter a vision in which He declared that formerly unclean animals could be eaten: Do not call anything impure that God has made clean (Acts 10:15). When Jesus died on the cross, He fulfilled the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:24-26; Ephesians 2:15). This includes the laws regarding clean and unclean foods.


..


HOMOSEXUALITY
What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin?    <--Link to read in full
Question: "What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin?"



> Answer: The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When people continue in sin and unbelief, God gives them over to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God.


.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 30, 2011)

Our Bibles are composed of two major parts, an Old Testament and a New Testament. Why were these names selected? A testament is a will or a covenant. We still use the word today when we speak of a person's "last will and testament." These names indicate that the Bible is composed of two wills of God -- an old will and a new will.

The change in wills is discussed at length in the letter to the Hebrews. In Hebrews 1:1-2, the author says, "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world." God has changed the manner in which he directs his people. This change was foretold in Jeremiah 31:31-34: ""Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."" Notice that God said the covenant (or testament) would be different from the law given at Mount Sinai. Why would God change his law? Did he change his mind? I think not. Rather, the change in the law was planned from the very beginning. Before the world was created, God planned to send his Son and that through Jesus we would obtain salvation (I Peter 1:19-20, II Timothy 1:9, II Thessalonians 2: 13-14). Such a salvation through Jesus Christ could not take place under the law given by Moses.

The Hebrew writer lists several proofs that the covenant between man and God had changed.

1) There was a change in the priesthood. The author of Hebrews proves that Jesus is now our High Priest (Hebrews 5:1-10). However, Jesus was not a descendent of Aaron -- he was not even of the tribe of Levi! Rather, we find that the order of Aaron was not meant to be permanent (Hebrews 7:11). Hence, a change in the order implies there was a change in the Law (Hebrews 7:12-17). Suppose for a moment that the Law of Moses was still in effect. We would be forced to say that Jesus violated the law when he became our High Priest. However, no violation of the law has occurred because there is a new law in effect.

2) There was a change in the covenant. There was a problem with the Old Testament; the people did not keep it. There was nothing wrong the Old Law itself, but it did create a dilemma. The law defined what sin was, but it brought no relief from sin. It could only offer a future hope of salvation (Romans 7:7-13). The law bound sin to men, but Christ freed us from sin (Galatians 4:21-31; 5:1-4).

3) There was a change in sacrifices (Hebrews 9:16-28; 10:1-8). The Old Law had yearly sacrifices which could not free us from sin. The New Law had a single sacrifice that did free us from sin.

Jesus fulfilled the Law (Matthew 5:17-18). In other words, He brought it to its completion (Romans 10:4). Before Christ, no one could perfectly keep the law, but Jesus proved that it was possible to keep the law. Jesus showed that God's law was good, it was man who was the sinner.

So when did this change take place? Paul said that the Old Law was nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14). In Ephesians 2:15, we are told that it was put to death on the cross. Hence, the law changed when Christ died on the cross at Calvary. The author of Hebrews put it this way, "For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives." (Hebrews 9:16-17). At the acceptance of the Old Law, Moses sprinkled the people with blood (Exodus 24:8). The new covenant also began with the shedding of blood -- Christ's death on the cross. Christ's testament could not come into effect until he, as its author, died.

Though the laws are different, can't we follow both of them? Does it make any difference which law we turn to, since both laws came from God? God said that he took away the first to establish the second (Hebrews 10:9). We became dead to the Old Law, so that we might be joined to a New Law (Romans 7:4-6). It is the same situation as a husband whose wife had died. While his wife is alive, he cannot be joined to a second woman (Romans 7:1-4), but after his first wife dies he is free to marry. In the same manner, we can't join ourselves to the new Law until the first Law was taken away. If we didn't wait until that point in time, we would have committed spiritual adultery. 

We cannot even keep a select portion of the Old Law. The first problem is: How do we determine which portion to keep and which to discard? We know that we are inadequate to make such a decision (Jeremiah 10:23). Besides, it wouldn't work. If we justify ourselves by one part of the Law, we obligate ourselves to uphold the whole thing (Galatians 5:3). It is this very point that caused Paul to argue so strongly against the false teachers of his day. Some Christians, who came from the Jewish faith, were teaching that those who were once Gentiles, must become Jews. However, notice Paul's strong words, "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." (Galatians 5:4).

Why then is the Old Testament still a part of our Bibles? Romans 15:4 tells us that it was written for our learning -- to bring us patience, comfort, and hope. It contains examples for us, so that we will not be caught unaware and make the same mistakes that the Israelites made (I Corinthians 10:1-12). In Galatians 3:24-25, we find that the Old Law is our schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ. Now that Christ has come, we are no longer under its dominion. Therefore, we see that we can learn from the examples found in the Old Testament, but when we must determine what God would have us to do today, we must turn to his current will -- the New Testament.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> For fish to be considered clean to eat they must have fins and scales.  It is in Leviticus.  I can't quote chapter and verse though.
> the same book that says hosexuality is a sin as well.
> And a sin is a sin.



Old testiment diet restrictions don't fully apply to christians.

And I'm not all that certain it was a sin in the first place.  I think it was a more food warning than anything else.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...



What fish doesn't have scales?


----------



## Marie888 (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't drinking alcohol also technically a sin in the Bible?
> ...



Yep yep, lol.  There's also disagreements about this too, unfortunately.. pppftt.  My stance is with what this site says.

Did Jesus change the water into wine or grape juice?


> Those who oppose the drinking of alcohol, in any quantity, argue that Jesus would not have turned the water into wine, as He would have been promoting the consumption of a substance that is tainted by sin. In this understanding, alcohol itself is inherently sinful, and consumption of alcohol in any quantity is sin. That is not a biblical understanding, however. Some Scriptures discuss alcohol in positive terms. Ecclesiastes 9:7 instructs, &#8220;Drink your wine with a merry heart.&#8221; Psalm 104:14-15 states that God gives wine &#8220;that makes glad the heart of men.&#8221; Amos 9:14 discusses drinking wine from your own vineyard as a sign of God&#8217;s blessing. Isaiah 55:1 encourages, &#8220;Yes, come buy wine and milk&#8230;&#8221; From these and other Scriptures, it is clear that alcohol itself is not inherently sinful. Rather, it is the abuse of alcohol, drunkenness and/or addiction, that is sinful (Ephesians 5:18; Proverbs 23:29-35; 1 Corinthians 6:12; 2 Peter 2:19). Therefore, it would not have been a sin for Jesus to create a drink that contained alcohol.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jun 30, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> ...



Catfish have skin.

and I think bullheads


----------



## tonystewart1 (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...



I love it when somebody goes trolling for some good anti christian hate and it is painfully obivious they never researched their topic. 

Next time read your bible and do the research.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jun 30, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > For fish to be considered clean to eat they must have fins and scales.  It is in Leviticus.  I can't quote chapter and verse though.
> ...



They dont apply at all. 

1 Timothy 4:3,

"Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanks giving by those who believe and know the truth, For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanks giving. For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer". 

Lots in the new testament dealing with this issue.


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

KissMy said:


> It just means shell fish may make you sick. It says abomination unto you. Not an abomination of GOD.
> 
> Leviticus 11:9-12 King James Version (KJV)
> 
> ...



Umm catfish have no scales they have skin similar to a salamander or eel.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jun 30, 2011)

And the law is still valid.

Jesus fulfilled the Law (Matthew 5:17-18). In other words, He brought it to its completion (Romans 10:4). Before Christ, no one could perfectly keep the law, but Jesus proved that it was possible to keep the law. Jesus showed that God's law was good, it was man who was the sinner.

This is what Jesus said,

17 &#8220;Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

It still applies, and it is perfect. We are not.


----------



## tonystewart1 (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > It just means shell fish may make you sick. It says abomination unto you. Not an abomination of GOD.
> ...



Acts chapter 9 and 10 read it.


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

tonystewart1 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Why?  Surely Gods word would not contradict itself?


----------



## xsited1 (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Eating catfish is just as sinful as homosexuality



I wonder what the Jewish people have to say about this?


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

xsited1 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Eating catfish is just as sinful as homosexuality
> ...



I dunno not many jewish hillbillies for me to ask around here.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 30, 2011)

Momanohedhunter said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Romans 15:4 

Galatians 3:24-25


----------



## xsited1 (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Jillian is a Jewish hillbilly.  Here's a recent picture of her:


----------



## Sunni Man (Jun 30, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> ...



Catfish, among many others.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



That's racist.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...



Well im damned to hell 

Catfish... lobster.....pork...


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jun 30, 2011)

Sunni Man said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > You need to quote chapter and verse for every biblical assertion.
> ...



Not just Christians, it applies to everyone.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jun 30, 2011)

syrenn said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> ...



Bacon wrapped catfish!!

Save me a seat, I need a place to fry that up!


----------



## Mr Natural (Jun 30, 2011)

Who made up all these goofy rules in the first place?

And why?


----------



## Warrior102 (Jun 30, 2011)

Mr Clean said:


> Who made up all these goofy rules in the first place?
> 
> And why?



God "made them up," as well as everything else.

And there's actually only 10 rules.


----------



## Mr Natural (Jun 30, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > Who made up all these goofy rules in the first place?
> ...




Which one was the  "thou shalt not eat catfish or pork" commandment?


----------



## Warrior102 (Jun 30, 2011)

Mr Clean said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



I'm sure it falls under one of the 10. Sorry, I am not a real bible-knowing person. Just a believer. You'll have to check with someone else on this.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jun 30, 2011)

Mr Clean said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



Catfish and pork are awesome, I am going to keep eating them.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jun 30, 2011)

Mr Clean said:


> Who made up all these goofy rules in the first place?
> 
> And why?



back in the day, eating the wrong thing could kill you.  Or eating to much of it.

take rabbit

It's off the OT menu.  But you can enjoy it now, BUT if you eat a lot of it you end up with protien poisoning.


----------



## Mr Natural (Jun 30, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...




Yep, me too.

And raw clams and oysters.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jun 30, 2011)

Mr Clean said:


> Who made up all these goofy rules in the first place?
> 
> And why?



To keep all the tasty pork chops and catfish to themselves.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jun 30, 2011)

Mr Clean said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



And scallops and sushi.


----------



## Mr Natural (Jun 30, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



And steamed mussels in marinara.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jun 30, 2011)

Mr Clean said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



Crab legs and bacon wrapped scallops!


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > xsited1 said:
> ...



LMAO.  Hillbilly is not a race or even a skintone.  Nor is redckism, nor prickism.


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

Mr Clean said:


> Who made up all these goofy rules in the first place?
> 
> And why?



Actually I think they were the first food safety laws.  they were written up by the only educated portion of the population.  If you consider the most of the Kosher food laws they make health sense.

Like Lepers were unclean.  Not a bad rule to stop the spread of leprosy.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 30, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...




Two Thumbs and i will save you a seat at out table in hell.


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



You really should study the bible to better understand what you believe in.
I recommend the new testament excluding revelations.
Try to live like Jesus and you will be a better person.

Regardless of heaven or hell you will live a better life for it.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 30, 2011)

Mr Clean said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...




You to MrClean


Damn...we are gonna need a bigger table!


----------



## High_Gravity (Jun 30, 2011)

syrenn said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



Thanks.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Jun 30, 2011)

syrenn said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



Oh no, there's no seat saved for me!  I'll be in hell AND be eating crappy food!!!


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

Yep no pork in heaven.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jun 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



I'll be there with the strippers and the Hennessy.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



LOL

I said we were going to need a bigger table ya know...seems as if we are going to need a banquet room too.  

come on along... everyone is invited to the table...all the best people will attend.


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

You mean breaking bread and communing is not so attractive?


----------



## syrenn (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Yep no pork in heaven.






You're coming with me then! Seems as if the table is getting bitter for all of us sinners.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 30, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...




Classy good looking ones please.....  None of the skanky ones.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> You mean breaking bread and communing is not so attractive?



If all they have is bread....ill pass and wine. It also would depend on who i was communing with and how that communion would tale place.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jun 30, 2011)

syrenn said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



I'll try my best, I'll round up a few that look like Scarlett Johannsen.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 30, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jun 30, 2011)

I see the heathens have taken over this thread.

Thank God!!  [pun intended]


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

Will there be tatoos in heaven?


----------



## syrenn (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Will there be tatoos in heaven?




I knew a couple in TX. The woman was heavily tattooed...and the husband insisted she have them all removed because she would not be allowed into heaven with them on her body. Many painful surgeries later removing them (or most of them)..... they are divorced.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jun 30, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/user/jewinthecity#p/u/13/dy5TyuQLVAI


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jun 30, 2011)

syrenn said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...




---------------------------
Microsoft Internet Explorer
---------------------------
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to syrenn again.
---------------------------
OK   
---------------------------


It's a commie plot to piss me off.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 30, 2011)

First off, Leviticus is a manual for JEWISH PRIESTS........not Christians.



> The majority of scholars agree that the Pentateuch probably received its final form during the Persian period (538-332 BCE).[14] Nevertheless, they also agree that Leviticus had a long period of growth, with many additions and editings, before reaching that form.[15]
> 
> The entire book of Leviticus is probably composed of Priestly literature.[16] Most scholars see chapters 1-16 (the Priestly code) and chapters 17-26 (the Holiness code) as the work of two related schools, but while the Holiness material employs the same technical terms as the Priestly code, it broadens their meaning from pure ritual to the theological and moral, turning the ritual of the Priestly code into a model for the relationship of Israel to God: as the tabernacle is made holy by the presence of Yahweh and kept apart from uncleanliness, so Yahweh will dwell among Israel when Israel is purified (made holy) and separated from other peoples.[17]
> 
> The ritual instructions in the Priestly code apparently grew from priests giving instruction and answering questions about ritual matters; the Holiness code (or H) used to be regarded as a separate document later incorporated into Leviticus, but it seems better to think of the Holiness authors as editors who worked with the Priestly code and actually produced Leviticus as we now have it.[18]



Book of Leviticus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as the 613 Mitzvot?  Well, those are guidelines for keeping a community happy and healthy and growing.  Why shouldn't you eat pork back then?  Ever heard of trichinosis?  Same with shellfish, because we all know that you shouldn't eat oysters except in months that have an "r" in them.

As far as the 7 Noahide or the 10 Commandments?  Again........that is for everyone else who ISN'T Jewish, which is why there are so few of them.

Basically, those 2 groups of commandments are designed for the survival of the human race.

Thou shalt not have any Gods before me.  Why?  Because if you place your faith in something that is not eternal, it may fail you.

Thou shalt not make any graven idols.  Again, see Commandment 1.  If you worship objects, those objects can't help you.

Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain.  Think about it........if someone disrespects your name, are you willing to help them?  Remember who God is and be respectful.

Honor thy Father and thy Mother.  Remember where you came from.

Thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy.  Taking a day off each week reduces stress, especially if you spend some of it praying.

Thou shalt not murder.  Don't kill an innocent.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.  Why?  If you sleep around with your neighbor's spouse, they're gonna wanna murder you.

Thou shalt not steal.  Why?  Same with adultery, if you steal something from someone, they may wish to kill you.

Thou shalt not bear false witness.  Again, if you lie, someone may wish to harm or murder you.

Thou shalt not covet.  Why?  If you covet something from someone else, eventually, you may steal it or do worse.

I just find it interesting that so many good Christians don't know the reason why behind those commandments.

And........the 7 Noahide commandments are a condensed version of the 10 Commandments, even though they came first, guess God thought we needed a bit more clarification.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 30, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 30, 2011)

syrenn said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Will there be tatoos in heaven?
> ...



Got a Bible verse for that?


----------



## syrenn (Jun 30, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...





Hi ABS  


Did i claim it was a bible verse?


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

syrenn said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Will there be tatoos in heaven?
> ...



Ahh stupid people abound all over.  But TX does seem to attract more than their natural allotment.


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

I was taught in the Assemblies of God that I would not go to heaven for going to movies.
Dancing was the same problem.

However now it is ok in the Assemblies of God.

Go figure.


----------



## Zona (Jun 30, 2011)

11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: 12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her. 

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. 

Leviticus 20:10

The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).  



(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)



     As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

 (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)



    If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

 (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)



    Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house.  I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor.  He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.  You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'

    Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord."  Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die.  But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."  [The child dies seven days later.]



Oh yeah...go by that book and go by it word for word.  If not, you are not holy and if you only take out cedrtain passages, you are a sham.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jun 30, 2011)

syrenn said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Will there be tatoos in heaven?
> ...



Thats crazy, did we take our physical husk with us when we go to heaven or whatever?


----------



## tonystewart1 (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> tonystewart1 said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



No the bible does not contridict itself.

With the birth, death, and resurection of Jesus a new covnent was formed between God and man. The old rules and ceremonies are not needed anymore. We dont sacrifice animals for salvation, we dont need to restrict our diet or circumcise ourselves to stand out as God chosen people. 

The blood of Christ that was applied to our hearts when we were saved is all we need to be considered Gods child. 

Just one old hillbillies opinion.


----------



## editec (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...


 
Nah!

Homos are way too boney.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jun 30, 2011)

I eat the hell out of some Cat fish.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jun 30, 2011)

syrenn said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Will there be tatoos in heaven?
> ...



I have been told that I can not go to heaven because I am tattoo heavy. That it yet another Bible quote taken out of context. So you know, It was a Pasteur Wife who told me that . Got me booted from teaching archery and everything. Shortly there after, her and the Pasteur got booted for DUI and possession of a controlled substance. Now I teach kids archery again.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 30, 2011)

Momanohedhunter said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Long story short on the woman: He husband was a biker...and died saving 3 drowning people from a frozen lake.... the people made it but he drowned. She was devastated. The biker group got her drunk one weekend and had her husbands life tattooed onto her back...It covered her whole back.  It was long and painful having it removed. 

Good to know you are back teaching


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

tonystewart1 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > tonystewart1 said:
> ...



then why is the old testament still preached from extensively in christian churches?


----------



## Toro (Jun 30, 2011)

tonystewart1 said:


> No the bible does not contridict itself.



A List Of Biblical Contradictions


----------



## jillian (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...



well.. they do seem to pick and choose from leviticus.


----------



## logical4u (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...



Read Acts, that was changes for those that are not practicing Hebrews.


----------



## Liability (Jun 30, 2011)

FUCKING the catfish is a sure fire way to land in hell.


----------



## jillian (Jun 30, 2011)

I thought all sins are equal.


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

Liability said:


> FUCKING the catfish is a sure fire way to land in hell.



Perhaps, but you go to a mental institution first.


----------



## hortysir (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...


Please don't concern yourself with the splinter in my eye whilst you have a plank in your own.
We ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

I turn your attention to the teachings of Paul to the Romans:


			
				 Romans 14 said:
			
		

> 2)For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.3) Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him  which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.4) Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he  standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make  him stand.


----------



## Liability (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > FUCKING the catfish is a sure fire way to land in hell.
> ...



Not me.  I never fucked that fish.  Ms. Lewinsky.


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 30, 2011)

hortysir said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> ...



LOL.  A bunch of confused Romans after that no doubt.


----------



## hortysir (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


I contemplated quoting the NIV to make it easier for ya, but I only read the KJV.


----------



## tonystewart1 (Jun 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> tonystewart1 said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



If you actually read your bible you would see that the whole old testament is fortelling of the coming of Christ. We are not boung by old testament law because of the new convenant with Christ.

You are not interested in anything anyone has to say that is contrary to what you want to beileve. I will pray for you.


----------



## tonystewart1 (Jun 30, 2011)

hortysir said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



I prefer the KJV myself. I thing the NIV is not as beautifully written as the KJV.


----------



## xotoxi (Jun 30, 2011)

The Bible forbids a man lying with a man.

What if they do it standing up?


----------



## syrenn (Jun 30, 2011)

xotoxi said:


> The Bible forbids a man lying with a man.
> 
> What if they do it standing up?




So they can lie only to women? I would hope if you lie to someone you do it face to face and look them in the eye. 

That sounds about right for the bible. 


Now laying with a man would be another story......


----------



## Toro (Jul 1, 2011)

tonystewart1 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > tonystewart1 said:
> ...



The *whole* of the OT is not the foretelling of the coming of Christ. It is in there but it is not the entirety.


----------



## xotoxi (Jul 1, 2011)

syrenn said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible forbids a man lying with a man.
> ...



My bad...does that mean the slang term "getting laid" goes all the way back to the bibble?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 1, 2011)

tonystewart1 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > tonystewart1 said:
> ...



Show me where Jesus said anything negative about homosexuals.
Where is it?
I follow him and accept everyone regardless of their sexual orientation. 
Believe what you want and I stand for that but do not come anywhere, anyplace wanting to deny law abiding citizens their rights with your religous beliefs. 
Because when you do we are going to stop you. 
If we can't stand up for the rights of those that may be different than us then how can anyone stand up for us when someone is trying to take our rights away?
Something about being AMERICAN.


----------



## Toro (Jul 1, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> tonystewart1 said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Jesus said more bad things about bankers and rich people than gays.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jul 1, 2011)

Dear USCitizen: The point that I get from your criticism, where I believe
many Christians also agree with you, is that
* enforcing laws literally by the letter fails
* as does enforcing laws by threat of punishment or retribution
The OT is full of genocide and destruction, greed and corruption in
human history, attesting to the fact that man cannot obey laws this way.
We fail, we corrupt and abuse laws, and end up accusing others while excusing ourselves.
We have our own self-serving interests and biases, and are not perfectly just
however we may strive for "equal justice under law." Humans are not that perfect,
and our judgments are going to reflect that, with biases here and there
if not whole systems corrupted by the influence of private interests.

Both the church laws and the state laws suffer abuses by human authority this way.
Not just the Bible, but our civil laws as well.  Both religious authority and
legal authority have abused laws to violate rights instead of defending them.

For every moot law you can cite in the Bible, how many cases of
obsolete secular laws are still on the books? How many cases of
people enforcing by the letter but violating the spirit of the law
using civil laws the same way you point out with the Bible?
If you look online, there are as many sites against religious and cult abuse
as there are against legal and judicial abuse (which I think causes worse damage since the civil laws and public authority are mandatory, while religions are optional to follow)

Your point is well-taken, that this way of interpreting/enforcing laws
is not going to work. It has not stopped murder or crime (which is only stopped
when people follow the spirit of the laws and respect others equally, so the letter of the law is upheld naturally as a consequence, not imposed as a condition.)

So with the NT we have a choice
* we can follow the spirit of the laws and the letter will be taken care of in the process
where any conflicts can be resolved in the spirit of truth and justice
* we can keep trying to use the old ways, of playing with the letter of the law
to ensnare people, to accuse or to excuse selectively, and keep on with
the abuses this leads to that goes nowhere. It does not work, it destroys
relationships and whole nations, and creates more problems for humanity
in a vicious cycle of retribution that keeps people stuck in conflicts from the past.

You have a choice, and I choose not to keep doing things the old ways that did not work.

Your message makes that point
of why we would not choose to live by laws that way,
by literal interpretations or by retributive threat of punishment.

This kills relationships, and escalates conflict and oppression
into violence and wars that kill people.

No thank you to that way of life that leads to death.

But thank you for your message
that points out why this approach fails.

Yours truly,
Emily


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 1, 2011)

Toro said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > tonystewart1 said:
> ...



He also hung out with hookers.


----------



## logical4u (Jul 1, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> tonystewart1 said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



The OT is a book of spiritual growth.  It can help you to become a better person if you are willing to learn the lessons there.
The OT also has many prophesies for the then, future that demonstrate things about the Christ before He was born.  (It shows that the Lord planned the Christ's life from the beginning)
The OT also has many prophesies for the future, that we will see or have seen in our lifetimes.  That is for us to learn and figure out with help from the Holy Spirit.
Before the new Covenant (the Christ), people were held responsible for their ancestors' sins.  It was a mercy to the children to kill those that lived a sinful life (their children had a better chance with the Lord).  Once the Christ lived, sins were no longer held over from one generation to the next.  Better yet, you can be forgiven your sins by sincerely asking the Lord for forgiveness.


----------



## logical4u (Jul 1, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> tonystewart1 said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



"Lewd" and "perverse" behavior, read it and weep.


----------



## tonystewart1 (Jul 1, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > tonystewart1 said:
> ...



Leviticus. 

I never said anything about stopping gays from anything. As I stated in the other thread i dont oppose gay civil commitments. My point on the whole subject was that God does not apporve of a gay life style and that NY exemption for the clergy would be tested in the liberal courts. 

You are going to stop me. Trust me I dont want to go anywhere near people who are exercising that paticular right.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jul 1, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Show me where Jesus said anything negative about homosexuals.
> Where is it?
> I follow him and accept everyone regardless of their sexual orientation.
> Believe what you want and I stand for that but do not come anywhere, anyplace wanting to deny law abiding citizens their rights with your religous beliefs.
> ...



Yes and no Gadawg.

In general, people are to respect committed relations between "spiritual husband and wife" however you wish to interpret who is spiritually committed as partners. I am okay if "spiritual husband and wife" turn out to be different races, religions, ages, or whatever maybe the case, as long as they respect the same level of committed spiritual relations.

Since "fornication" and "adultery" are clearly prohibited in the Bible,
the point is for people to reserve sexual relations for their spiritual partners within a mutual commitment.

Relationship abuse occurs when people do things outside the bounds of consent of one or both parties.
This includes pressuring or manipulating to coerce things that are not by true consent or informed consent.
This is so common, many people do not even recognize they are contributing to it, as we all have at times.

So whether homosexual or heterosexual, any sexual relations between people who are not committed spiritual partners would be equally a violation of spiritual laws.
So it depends on the case.

I believe this is consistent with the spirit of the Bible.
If people want to say there is no way that homosexual people can be joined by God,
it would be because the level of spiritual commitment is less than "husband and wife"
which makes them not spiritual partners. That is a private matter that can only be
known by the partners and God, so it is not for others to guess and certainly not the state.

NOTE: This does not have to be enforced in relation to God but can just be for practical reasons to avoid relationship abuse. Obviously, what cases constitute relationship abuse cannot be legislated or micromanaged/regulated by outside persons except where the damages violate criminal or civil laws by becoming an issue of personal or public safety.

Questioning or rejecting a couple as invalid is very common and not just a homosexual issue. People of different preferences, races, religions, ages, etc. have all suffered harassment and discrimination, even by friends and family, which technically violates civil laws against harassment. I don't agree with it, but it happens: families have rejected and abused their own either emotionally verbally or financially because of dating or marrying people they didn't recognize, regardless what the reason was, personal, racial or religious. Homosexual partners suffer these same abuses and wrongs, as any other partner the family does not approve or recognize. (I have even gotten flack, because my boyfriend is not Christian while I consider myself both secular gentile and Constitutionalist Christian, from people saying I should not be yoked with him or God would not permit that so I am going against God's will, etc. I was so devastated I threatened to renounce my Christian faith if it really teaches that! If my boyfriend and I are wrong for each other, it is because we are wrong for each other, not because of who is gentile and who is Christian.
I accept the fact we may not be spiritual partners, but it is not based on external reasons!)

I feel just as bad for the cases I read about couples who get married later, and have a legal normal relationship, but because the sexual relations started when one partner was underage, then the other partner was prosecuted under the law. That is just unfortunate.

Overall, I believe attention and resources are better focused on preventing relationship abuse of all kinds, and less on trying to dictate which relations are a problem based on any one factor as a rule.  Abuses occur in any type relationship. That is the issue to avoid.

Thank you for your messages
Yours truly,
Emily


----------



## LAfrique (Jul 1, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...




(Laughs) True that the Bible warns against eating sea creatures without fins or scales or eating certain animals:

"You can eat any animal that has divided hoofs, completely split, and that re-chews food. ... You may eat anything in the water that has fins and scales, whether in sea or stream." - Leviticus chapter 11.

These verses are cautionary towards good health. You will note that creatures not permitted for human consumption in Leviticus are in fact laden with bad cholesterol which is bad for human health. While homosexuality and lesbianism are revolting, I speak against the lifestyle in terms of health:

Supposed your City informs you that it has bleached and properly cleansed the City's sewage pipes and henceforth will be using the cleansed sewage pipes to source drinking water to your household. Does the facts that the pipes have been bleached and cleansed make them completely free of toxins or acceptable routes to transport your drinking water?

Some die-hard bacterias will remain in pipes as well as the nasty stench from years of transporting stinky toxins! Those formal sewage pipes, though treated, will forever be health hazards.

The human exit is meant to transport waste materials that your body does not need and that are unhealthy to your health. Inserting the most vital human organ into this toxic exit is very unhealthy, since one is bound to ingest or absorb toxins. Likewise, women who insect objects into them risk contracting various infections. 

Long and short: Stay away from the human exit. The a-hole is an exit pipe meant to rid your body of unwanted materials to help you develop a healthy lifestyle.


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 1, 2011)

The front pipe also gets rid of toxic wastes does it not?

We should avoid it as well?

note:  I do not do the rear pipe, Nor to I do the front pipe, well on ladies.....

I guess that is why that only the missionary position is approved for sex in most all christian churches?

so oral sex is just as bad as homosexuality?


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 1, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> The front pipe also gets rid of toxic wastes does it not?
> 
> We should avoid it as well?
> 
> ...



Actually, Poo is 95+% bacteria and disease. If you had to, you can drink your pee on the first pass.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 1, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> The front pipe also gets rid of toxic wastes does it not?
> 
> We should avoid it as well?
> 
> ...



WHAAAAA !!!!???? Dude, what church do you belong to ? Our Church out breeds the Latinos. And I dont remember the last time I made whoopie missionary. And aside from that, if the preacher came to may and recommended how I lay pipe he would get his ass beat. None of his business at all. Don't treat your partner like a piece of meat and you are fine.


----------



## LAfrique (Jul 1, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> The front pipe also gets rid of toxic wastes does it not?
> 
> We should avoid it as well?
> 
> ...



What a husband and wife, of free will, decide to do in privacy of their bedroom is none of my business. I only hope they remember, for health sake, to keep all clean. The male sexual organ often naturally rid itself of concentrates from urinating, just as the female's naturally cleans itself of remnants from monthly flows or other discharges. 

And as per Missionary Position: I wonder how this came about.


----------



## rstrats (Jul 1, 2011)

hortysir,

re: I turn your attention to the teachings of Paul to the Romans:...14"

I assume that you are pointing out that the subject of the chapter from start to finish has to do with asceticism. Some in the church at Rome believed Christians should eat only vegetables. Paul calls these people weak in the faith (verses 1-2). The stronger in faith know they could also eat meat. Nothing in Gods law prescribes vegetarianism. The stronger in faith knew they were free from non-biblical asceticism. A part of the controversy that had sprung up between the weak and the strong Christians was the esteeming of days. In Rome some people had the pagan idea that on certain days certain foods should or should not be eaten. In this whole chapter Paul was just showing that others should not be offended, particularly weak members who have not yet learned the truth about the proper Christian diet and that they should not be judged by the stronger in the faith. This passage has nothing to do with clean versus unclean animals.


----------



## rstrats (Jul 1, 2011)

In Isaiah God speaks about a rebellious people which walk in a way that is not good, after their own thoughts; a people that provoke Me to anger continually to My face, (65:2,3). One of the reasons these people provoke the Lord is because they eat swines flesh, and broth of unclean meat is in their pots, (65:4).

Also, before the new heavens and new earth are established, God declares that He will consume those people who eat swines flesh, detestable things, and mice (Isa.66:17).  The context of this prophecy is the end times, right before the new heaven and new earth.   This would certainly seem to suggest that the Lord will still expect an obedience to His dietary laws.


----------



## mattskramer (Jul 1, 2011)

There are all sorts of bizarre rules and words of advice and such - even in the New Testament.  There is something about not giving charity to young widows or some such nonsense.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 1, 2011)

rstrats said:


> hortysir,
> 
> re: I turn your attention to the teachings of Paul to the Romans:...14"
> 
> I assume that you are pointing out that the subject of the chapter from start to finish has to do with asceticism. Some in the church at Rome believed Christians should eat only vegetables. Paul calls these people weak in the faith (verses 1-2). The stronger in faith know they could also eat meat. Nothing in Gods law prescribes vegetarianism. The stronger in faith knew they were free from non-biblical asceticism. A part of the controversy that had sprung up between the weak and the strong Christians was the esteeming of days. In Rome some people had the pagan idea that on certain days certain foods should or should not be eaten. In this whole chapter Paul was just showing that others should not be offended, particularly weak members who have not yet learned the truth about the proper Christian diet and that they should not be judged by the stronger in the faith. This passage has nothing to do with clean versus unclean animals.


My opening remark about the splinter in my eye should have been a clue as to my point of rebuttal.
Paul's teaching was about putting stumbling blocks in others' paths and, yes, his teachings had everything to do with clean and unclean.

Fast-forward to Romans 14:14 -17


> I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that _there is_ nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him _it is_ unclean.
> But if thy brother be grieved with _thy_ meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
> Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
> For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 1, 2011)

LAfrique said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > The front pipe also gets rid of toxic wastes does it not?
> ...



I hear republicans like it doggie style so they can both keep watching Fox News.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 2, 2011)

How did we Americans get so twisted up about sex and morality?  Simple.......anyone remember the Pilgrims?  How's about the Salem Witch Trials?

As far as a "new covenant" because of Yeshua?  Quick question for all you rabid Christians......what part of "God is Eternal", do you keep forgetting?

Might wanna check up on the definition of forever as well, because God told Abraham that He would bless his line of descendants FOREVER.


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 2, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> How did we Americans get so twisted up about sex and morality?  Simple.......anyone remember the Pilgrims?  How's about the Salem Witch Trials?
> 
> As far as a "new covenant" because of Yeshua?  Quick question for all you rabid Christians......what part of "God is Eternal", do you keep forgetting?
> 
> Might wanna check up on the definition of forever as well, because God told Abraham that He would bless his line of descendants FOREVER.



Umm wasn't the founder of the muslims descended from Abraham?


----------



## Wingsofwind (Jul 2, 2011)

I have not read every responce in this thread yet. However, I will respond with what I understad about what you can and can not eat....

Before Leviticus:



> Gen 9:1  And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
> Gen 9:2  And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
> Gen 9:3  *Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you*; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
> Gen 9:4  *But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. *
> ...


Here God is saying that man can eat of anything except another human. All meat and green herb is given to man to eat.  

After Leviticus:


> Mar 7:15  There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
> Mar 7:16  If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
> Mar 7:17  And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
> Mar 7:18  And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
> ...



Here Jesus is telling us that even if something is unclean and we eat it, it does not make us unclean. What makes us unclean is what is in our hearts, not what we eat. (This is also something to consider with homosexuality. Being gay is what is in one's heart, thus makes them unclean.) 



> Luk 10:8  And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:


 
They were told to eat whatever is set before them. If they go into a city where people eat what the Leviticus law says is unclean, they are still to eat it. This would mean that the Lord made the unclean clean.



> Act 10:9  On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
> Act 10:10  And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
> Act 10:11  And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
> Act 10:12  Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
> ...


--This is also continued in Chapter 11

Here we see that Peter came to the conclusion that the vison was telling him that the people who were comming to see him(gentiles) were no longer 'unclean' or 'common'. God had made them 'clean' so that Peter can keep company with them. In the vison, God made the meat clean so that Peter would be able to eat. Peter knew that if God had made meat clean so that he can eat of it, then God would make the Gentiles clean so that he can keep company with them.



> Rom 14:13  Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
> Rom 14:14  I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
> Rom 14:15  But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
> Rom 14:16  Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
> ...



Nothing is unclean of itself. It is only unclean if YOU believe it to be. If a brother believes something to be unclean then you treat it as if it is unclean in their presence even if you believe it is clean. You do this so as to not offend you brother. 

By taking all these verses and studying on them, I have come to the conclusion that there are no unclean meat. The only unclean would be from what YOU consider to be unclean. If you eat without the faith that the meat is clean, then it would be unclean to you and therefor, to you, it is a sin to eat of it.



> *Rom 14:14  I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. *


----------



## logical4u (Jul 2, 2011)

Wingsofwind said:


> I have not read every responce in this thread yet. However, I will respond with what I understad about what you can and can not eat....
> 
> Before Leviticus:
> 
> ...





Wonder how many will try to comprehend what you have here?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 3, 2011)

> Sure, in Iran, but who wants America to be a theocracy?



You're kidding, right?


----------



## hortysir (Jul 3, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Sure, in Iran, but who wants America to be a theocracy?
> 
> 
> You're kidding, right?


Who are you quoting?


----------



## editec (Jul 3, 2011)

FWIW urine is essantially bacteria free.

As a field medic we were told that if we had no choice and needed to wash a wound off, we could use urine.

We were also adviced (sagely I think) that pissing on the wounded Marines while in combat might be hazardous to our health. (_ya' think?!)_

So if we had to wash a wound and we had no water, we ought to piss in a container _first,_ and then use the urine to wash off the wounds.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 3, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > How did we Americans get so twisted up about sex and morality?  Simple.......anyone remember the Pilgrims?  How's about the Salem Witch Trials?
> ...



Actually........no.  Ishmael was the son of Abraham and his wife Sarah's servant.  Issac was the son of Abraham and Sarah, and so therefore, it is Issac who has claim to the birthright.

Ishmael and his mother were eventually kicked out of the tribe, because she was trying to get Ishmael to get the birthright because he was born first, but since he wasn't a full son to Abraham, the birthright fell to Issac.

I believe the person you are referring to is Mohammed.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 3, 2011)

The religous kooks of that day labeled you an abomination and immoral for eating shellfish and catfish.
Those are the same kind of folks we have today condemning others and pointing fingers because of "The Bible says it" mentality.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 3, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> The religous kooks of that day labeled you an abomination and immoral for eating shellfish and catfish.
> Those are the same kind of folks we have today condemning others and pointing fingers because of "The Bible says it" mentality.



Can you be more specific or are you stereo-typing all Christians ?


----------



## Mr Natural (Jul 3, 2011)

Youwerecreated said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The religous kooks of that day labeled you an abomination and immoral for eating shellfish and catfish.
> ...



No, I think he's stereotyping religious kooks in general.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 4, 2011)

Mr Clean said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...




Declaring oneself a Christian victim is the rage these days.
Before the days of preachers endorsing political candidates in church and scorning all that may disagree, a Christian could disagree and point out Blblical facts without being labeled as anti God and "stereo-typing all Christians".


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 4, 2011)

editec said:


> FWIW urine is essantially bacteria free.
> 
> As a field medic we were told that if we had no choice and needed to wash a wound off, we could use urine.
> 
> ...



But only on the first pass. You can also drink it.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 4, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You mean like thees guys ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hPR5jnjtLo]YouTube - &#x202a;GOD DAMN AMERICA Rev Jeremiah Wright, Farrakhan & Obama&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## xsited1 (Jul 4, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Eating catfish is just as sinful as homosexuality



Last night I had catfish and today I'm speaking with a lisp.  Damn you sinful catfish!


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 4, 2011)

xsited1 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Eating catfish is just as sinful as homosexuality
> ...



You need to let it cool down before you eat it and that wont happen.


----------



## Liability (Jul 4, 2011)

xsited1 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Eating catfish is just as sinful as homosexuality
> ...



Antiderivative fucked a catfish right up the poop shoot.

Gay as gay can be in a bestiality kinda way.


----------



## Spoonman (Jul 4, 2011)

syrenn said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Did someone call for a classy stripper?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 4, 2011)

Momanohedhunter said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > FWIW urine is essantially bacteria free.
> ...



Actually, you can go up to 3 times for drinking it, according to Bear Grylls (Man vs. Wild).


----------



## Missourian (Jul 4, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...


 

This thread has officially.....





blown up in your face.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 4, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Ok, dude you almost got negged for that. You are only allowed to post pics of nice boobs. Do that again and I will report you AND neg you.


----------



## Iridescence (Jul 4, 2011)

omgorsh... nothing productive here, i see....


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 4, 2011)

1melissa3 said:


> omgorsh... nothing productive here, i see....



Nope. Dead thread for sure. Sorry you had to see that.


----------



## Sunshine (Jul 4, 2011)

So there's no redemption in the hush puppies?


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 4, 2011)

Sunshine said:


> So there's no redemption in the hush puppies?



Only ones that are not to greasy. I ate about  two pounds of good ones today. Yum.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 18, 2011)

Bump for those catholics who ate catfish today.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Aug 18, 2011)

a) today is thursday, not friday.
b)the 613 weird commandments don't apply to catholics.   They can sinlessly eat all the catfish and porkchops they want
c)We covered all this back in june and july, bringing it back in august is just being a jerkass
d) necromancy is bad.   I don't believe it is specifically prohibited though.


----------



## Lokiate (Aug 18, 2011)

Stash said:


> Well yeah the same is true of pork, but that rule has been repealed, the rule against homosexuality has not been repealed. How do we know? Well those are the rules.


There's an inherent problem with biblical law: It's all bullshit.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Aug 19, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...


Wrong. Read Acts. Jesus made clean that which was unclean to eat. Homosexuality has never been justified in the Bible. Funny how sinners always try to justify it by lying that according to the Bible it is no big deal, boy are they WRONG!!!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 19, 2011)

AmericanFirst said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> ...



Want to talk about the fact that King David and Jonathan hand a formally recognized same sex union in the eyes of the state of Israel?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 20, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Yes, please give chapter and verse where it says that David and Jonathan had any relationship besides a close friendship (more like Jonathan idolized David).

They spoke of supporting each other's children (that would mean legitimate marriage, and all that goes with it).  

By what authority do you declare homosexuality NOT sinful?  The Lord did say that a man sleeping with another man as a woman was wrong.  In Leviticus, it says that the man that does that "forfeits" his life (I do not know what that means, but it is the only place, the only sin that I remember having this stigma).  In the NT, Yeshua spoke against lewd and perverse behavior.  When Yeshua stopped the men from stoning the adulterous woman, what did he tell her?  I will give you a hint: STOP THAT (sinful behavior).  The Holy Spirit can give us the "grace" to overcome our sinful behavior, and only through the Lord can we go beyond our physical world and walk towards His light.

Today, those that want to practice Christanity, condemn homosexual behavior (notice they do not condemn the homosexual).  Every person has sinful behaviors.  Christians acknowledge those sins, and work to become better people.  It is only homosexual activists that not only want this sin to be "tolerated", but they want this sinful behavior elevated to acceptable and even "preferred" behavior.  

For someone that reads the Bible, it should be noted there are numerous places where deceit is strongly condemned.  There are also mentions of those that lead the children astray from the Lord; it does not please the Lord.  There are also places that mention "twisting" or changing the Bible for our own purposes; it does not please the Lord.  Homosexual activists that claim to "love" the Lord should consider how their "love" will be regarded.  Yeshua narrowed the Commandments to two.  Our job as Christians is even more simple: give thanks and praise to the Lord (notice there is no telling the Lord that He is wrong).

I wish you peace.  I hope you can find that passage about David and Jonathan, so you can gain a better understanding of the Lord.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 20, 2011)

AmericanFirst said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> ...



Where is being left handed "justified in the Bible"?


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 20, 2011)

Nice how one part of the bible can negate another part you do not like.  If you want it to if not then it stays in effect.
And yet the entire Bible is the truth of God.
And is to be followed.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 20, 2011)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst said:
> ...



Where did Jesus condemn homosexual behavior?
The Christian church I attend opens our doors to everyone and we accept homosexuals as they are. Just like Jesus did.
Something about being Christlike in our lives living along other people that there IS NOTHING AT ALL WRONG WITH.
Quit telling me what my job as a Christian is and what relationship I should have with the Lord. I am sure you want "peace" with homosexuals while you condmen that they fall in love with someone of the same sex. 
Mind your own business.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 20, 2011)

I appreciate all those who showed me that eating catfish is just a sinful as homosexuality.
Jesus changed all of that so that neither are sinful.


That was my entire purpose for this thread.


----------



## yidnar (Aug 20, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...


bwaa haaa haaa ....you are desperate aren't you faggot!!!....bwaaaa haaa haaa


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 20, 2011)

yidnar said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> ...



Faggot?

LMAO.
I have not one gay inclination at all.  I do not even do anal with women.


----------



## rdean (Aug 20, 2011)

I love catfish.  Deep fried, crispy, soft tender flesh and a dollop of rich tartar sauce.  No wonder it's a "sin".


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2011)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst said:
> ...



Not a problem......here ya go........

Bible verses are also provided.......



> David and Jonathan
> There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.
> 
> Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.
> ...



Internet Sacred Text Archive Home


----------



## Douger (Aug 20, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...


Fuck that asshole. If he made me in his own image; I improved that image and will kick his arrogant, egotistical, ass.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2011)

Douger said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> ...



So........lemmie get this straight..............

You're saying that you'd IMPROVE on what God created in you, improve it, and then use it to kick His ass?

Blasphemy much?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 20, 2011)

Neither eating catfish nor being gay is a sin.


----------



## FurthurBB (Aug 20, 2011)

tonystewart1 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > tonystewart1 said:
> ...



True, once it was taken out of context and made into the KJV of the bible it did seem like the old testament was a set up for the new.


----------



## FurthurBB (Aug 20, 2011)

LAfrique said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> ...



Ewww, who is inserting hearts into anuses?  I am truly disgusted.  Also, what do lesbians have to do with any of this?


----------



## whitehall (Aug 20, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...




Go dig up some more Bible trivia and get back to us, cat-with-groucho-glasses.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 20, 2011)

FurthurBB said:


> LAfrique said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Yeah who mentioned Nuns?


----------



## yidnar (Aug 20, 2011)

well i guess if I feel like sinning I"LL have a catfish dinner!!you libs can go and have a %$#@


----------



## Lokiate (Aug 20, 2011)

lolwut?


----------



## FurthurBB (Aug 20, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Nice how one part of the bible can negate another part you do not like.  If you want it to if not then it stays in effect.
> And yet the entire Bible is the truth of God.
> And is to be followed.



I think the truth of the matter is that Paul went to a pig roast and thought it was delicious so decided he better change some of the laws in his new book.


----------



## Woyzeck (Aug 20, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...



Guess what else the Bible doesn't like you doing? 

Shaving (Leviticus 19:27)
Cursing (Ephesians (5:4)
Gossip (Leviticus 19:16)
Football on Saturdays (Exodus 20:8)
Eating Lobster (Leviticus 11:10)
Eating Pork (Leviticus 11:7)
Cotton/Polyester Blends (Leviticus 19:19)
Associating With Women Who Are On Their Periods (Leviticus 15:19-20)


----------



## tinydancer (Aug 20, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...



What part of old testament vs  the new testament don't you get? This is stupid but I guess I'll deal with it. 

With all due respect you look like a real freaking idiot here referring to Leviticus when we are all New T.

* 

In Mark 7:14-23, Jesus declares all foods "clean". Does this statement nullify the Old Testament dietary law outlined in Leviticus 11?


This is a very interesting question. Lets first read the text in question.

Mark 7:14-23: Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean.

 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. Are you so dull? he asked. Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him `unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

 He went on: What comes out of a man is what makes him `unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man `unclean.

Now lets back away and read what precedes these words from Jesus. Why was Jesus saying those words?

Mark 7:1-13: The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)

So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with `unclean' hands?

He replied, Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.

 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men. And he said to them: You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said,


`Honor your father and your mother,' and, `Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: `Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.

Jesus was reacting to the Pharisees criticism concerning his disciples eating with unwashed hands. Immediately Jesus points out that they have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.

Jesus wasnt pleased that a human was putting tradition above His fathers laws. Its unbelievable, but we humans make so many laws (tradition) and confuse them with Gods will. How indignant Jesus was with that thought.

That is when Jesus made this famous comment: Nothing outside a man can make him `unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him `unclean. How true He was. It is not because his disciples ate food with unwashed hands that they were sinners. It is what comes out of the heart of men that makes him/her a sinner (unclean). (verse 15, 16)


*


----------



## whitehall (Aug 20, 2011)

Here's a thought, why not research obscure passages in the Koran and explain why they want to decapitate the infidels.


----------



## tinydancer (Aug 20, 2011)

Woyzeck said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> ...



I'm a Christian not a Jew. What part of the OT don't you get you moron. 

I swear, you people are freaking idiots. The OT is basically a history lesson you fools for Christians.

Lord I hate stupid people. And by the way I can call you out on that because I am a Ted Nugent type of Christian and you people just piss me clean off when you insult my Saviour, my Christ, my being and let alone my Lord Jehovah.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Aug 20, 2011)

Eating fried catfish is good for you.  Especially if you eat it with cold slaw, french fries and a big glass of sweet iced tea.


----------



## tinydancer (Aug 20, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...



If one's wife age is in the single digits and you waited 3 years before she matured before double digits, would you consider this a sin?

You know. That champ of a lifetime of Islam. He marries his main chick at 6 years old and waits, earnestly waits to take her at nine.

A champ. A left wing Icon. Having the patience to wait until she was 9 or 10?

Talk to me about sins.


----------



## tinydancer (Aug 20, 2011)

Big Black Dog said:


> Eating fried catfish is good for you.  Especially if you eat it with cold slaw, french fries and a big glass of sweet iced tea.



Darlin, one party I'm in with juleps but give me mud pie every every time. Great place just about an hour out of outside of Boaz. Hope they are still out there.

We rolled in a tad late. They kept going for us (had some friends down from Canada). The chef had done a marinara sauce for the catfish.

It was moist, it was flakey, and superbly delicious. Awesome.


----------



## Caroljo (Aug 20, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> I was taught in the Assemblies of God that I would not go to heaven for going to movies.
> Dancing was the same problem.
> 
> However now it is ok in the Assemblies of God.
> ...



This is why i have a problem with man made laws that a lot of church's go by.  it was the same in the Nazarene Church for years, now it's ok.  That's because too many organized religions have their own laws.  I'm a Christian, but i believe just what is told me in the Bible, not something a person has made up.  Now i do believe you need to be careful what kind of movies you watch, and what kind of dancing you do!  But it's not a sin!


----------



## Caroljo (Aug 20, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Neither eating catfish nor being gay is a sin.



You got one right.....guess which one!


----------



## Caroljo (Aug 20, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



Why would someone want to exclude Revelation?  I think that's the most exciting book in the Bible!!!  yes, it can be overwhelming, and it has to be read in a Bible with "everyday" language to be able to understand everything, but i think it's awesome!


----------



## chesswarsnow (Aug 20, 2011)

Sorry bout that,



1. Food laws are gone, except we are not to eat things strangled, or eat blood, for life is in the blood, why would we want too anyways?
2. Other than that, as long as we are grateful for our food, everythings clean to us, even bloody foods, and things strangled.
3. Because everything that enters into the mouth, doesn't go into the heart, its what comes out of the mouth, the words we say, that come from the heart.
4. Thats something everyone could work on here.
5. And I'm just as bad as a lot of you too, I admit it.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 20, 2011)

Caroljo said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Neither eating catfish nor being gay is a sin.
> ...



Well since god made many people as gay then it must be eating the catfish is a sin because it is a choice.


----------



## Caroljo (Aug 20, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Sorry...wrong again 

1 Corinthians 6:8-10
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

8 On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.

 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]*effeminate, nor **homosexuals*, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 

or:

1 Timothy 1:9-11
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 [a]and *immoral men [c]and homosexuals [d]and kidnappers [e]and liars [f]and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.*


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2011)

You people DO realize that homosexuality and lesbianism are different, right?

Do you ALSO realize that there is nothing in the Bible against lesbianism?


----------



## mattskramer (Aug 21, 2011)

tinydancer said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



That's a nice bit of name-calling.  Anyway, according to Matthew 5:18, "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

It looks like the earth is still here.  Therefore, the Law still applies. Check out 1 Corinthians for some more interesting rules.


----------



## CitizenPained (Aug 21, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...



Are you that spiteful or are you just extremely ignorant on matters of Biblical law?


----------



## Big Black Dog (Aug 21, 2011)

I'll eat fish or anything that smells like it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 21, 2011)

tinydancer said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> ...



What about Jesus not condemning homosexuality do you not get?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 21, 2011)

tinydancer said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Ted Nugent is a draft dodging hot air buffoon.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



"In the NT, Yeshua spoke against lewd and perverse behavior."  Homosexual behavior is "lewd" and "perverse".

In your church......   In the gospels it tells us to notify those that are doing sinful behavior that their behavior is sinful.  Once you do that it is up to them to change.  If they are unwilling to listen, you should "shake the dust" off your feet when you leave.  It goes on to say the Lord will treat them the same way.  It also talks about if you do not "inform" someone that their behavior is sinful, that you, you, will be accountable for their sins, as if you had committed their sin (as well as your other sins).

I would love to mind my own business.  Unfortunately, I have small percentages of the population telling me that their sinful ways should be "mainstream" and taught as "fact".  Sorry, I will speak out against falsehoods.  I can understand why "cowardly" churches do not want to do this (the same goes for churches that encourage members to ignore illegal aliens).  It could affect their bottom line.  The Bible says differently, and I will go by the Bible, not some preacher that decided real work was to hard and so they started running a con, preaching what the congregation wants to hear.  If you choose to listen to a "person" over the Lord, that is up to you, but do not tell me that I am wrong for reading and understanding the Bible.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



1 Samuel 18

Sauls Growing Fear of David
 1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt. 
 5 Whatever mission Saul sent him on, David was so successful that Saul gave him a high rank in the army. This pleased all the troops, and Sauls officers as well.

Are you ignoring this: 
1 Samuel 17:37-40

New International Version (NIV)


37 The LORD who rescued me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will rescue me from the hand of this Philistine. 

   Saul said to David, Go, and the LORD be with you. 

 38 Then Saul dressed David in his own tunic. He put a coat of armor on him and a bronze helmet on his head. 39 David fastened on his sword over the tunic and tried walking around, because he was not used to them. 

   I cannot go in these, he said to Saul, because I am not used to them. So he took them off. 40 Then he took his staff in his hand, chose five smooth stones from the stream, put them in the pouch of his shepherds bag and, with his sling in his hand, approached the Philistine. 

Do you now want to claim that Saul had a relationship with David because he "gave" him his clothes too?

1 Samuel 19:1-7

New International Version (NIV)



1 Samuel 19

Saul Tries to Kill David
 1 Saul told his son Jonathan and all the attendants to kill David. But Jonathan had taken a great liking to David 2 and warned him, My father Saul is looking for a chance to kill you. Be on your guard tomorrow morning; go into hiding and stay there. 3 I will go out and stand with my father in the field where you are. Ill speak to him about you and will tell you what I find out. 
 4 Jonathan spoke well of David to Saul his father and said to him, Let not the king do wrong to his servant David; he has not wronged you, and what he has done has benefited you greatly. 5 He took his life in his hands when he killed the Philistine. The LORD won a great victory for all Israel, and you saw it and were glad. Why then would you do wrong to an innocent man like David by killing him for no reason? 

 6 Saul listened to Jonathan and took this oath: As surely as the LORD lives, David will not be put to death. 

 7 So Jonathan called David and told him the whole conversation. He brought him to Saul, and David was with Saul as before. 


1 Samuel 20:30-42

New International Version (NIV)

No mention of a homosexual union there.

 30 Sauls anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Dont I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you? 31 As long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Now send someone to bring him to me, for he must die! 

 32 Why should he be put to death? What has he done? Jonathan asked his father. 33 But Saul hurled his spear at him to kill him. Then Jonathan knew that his father intended to kill David. 

 34 Jonathan got up from the table in fierce anger; on that second day of the feast he did not eat, because he was grieved at his fathers shameful treatment of David. 

 35 In the morning Jonathan went out to the field for his meeting with David. He had a small boy with him, 36 and he said to the boy, Run and find the arrows I shoot. As the boy ran, he shot an arrow beyond him. 37 When the boy came to the place where Jonathans arrow had fallen, Jonathan called out after him, Isnt the arrow beyond you? 38 Then he shouted, Hurry! Go quickly! Dont stop! The boy picked up the arrow and returned to his master. 39 (The boy knew nothing about all this; only Jonathan and David knew.) 40 Then Jonathan gave his weapons to the boy and said, Go, carry them back to town. 

 41 After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept togetherbut David wept the most. 

 42 Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, for we have sworn friendship with each other in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD is witness between you and me, and between your descendants and my descendants forever. Then David left, and Jonathan went back to the town.[a] 

Friendship is not a homosexual union.  This sounds more like a political treaty between tribes than a "homosexual" union.

2 Samuel 1:25-26

New International Version (NIV)



 25 How the mighty have fallen in battle! 
   Jonathan lies slain on your heights. 
26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; 
   you were very dear to me. 
Your love for me was wonderful, 
   more wonderful than that of women. 

Did he ever speak of him after Bathsheba?

1 Samuel 20:41

New International Version (NIV)



 41 After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept togetherbut David wept the most. 

Sounds like the common custom of that area when a great sacrifice has been made for another (Johathan gave up his ability to inherit due to his disobedience to his father)

2 Samuel 1:18-27

New International Version (NIV)


18 and he ordered that the people of Judah be taught this lament of the bow (it is written in the Book of Jashar): 

 19 A gazelle[a] lies slain on your heights, Israel. 
   How the mighty have fallen! 

 20 Tell it not in Gath, 
   proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon, 
lest the daughters of the Philistines be glad, 
   lest the daughters of the uncircumcised rejoice. 

 21 Mountains of Gilboa, 
   may you have neither dew nor rain, 
   may no showers fall on your terraced fields.* 
For there the shield of the mighty was despised, 
   the shield of Saulno longer rubbed with oil. 

 22 From the blood of the slain, 
   from the flesh of the mighty, 
the bow of Jonathan did not turn back, 
   the sword of Saul did not return unsatisfied. 
23 Saul and Jonathan 
   in life they were loved and admired, 
   and in death they were not parted. 
They were swifter than eagles, 
   they were stronger than lions. 

 24 Daughters of Israel, 
   weep for Saul, 
who clothed you in scarlet and finery, 
   who adorned your garments with ornaments of gold. 

 25 How the mighty have fallen in battle! 
   Jonathan lies slain on your heights. 
26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; 
   you were very dear to me. 
Your love for me was wonderful, 
   more wonderful than that of women. 

 27 How the mighty have fallen! 
   The weapons of war have perished! 

2 Samuel 9:7-12

New International Version (NIV)



 7 Dont be afraid, David said to him, for I will surely show you kindness for the sake of your father Jonathan. I will restore to you all the land that belonged to your grandfather Saul, and you will always eat at my table. 

 8 Mephibosheth bowed down and said, What is your servant, that you should notice a dead dog like me? 

 9 Then the king summoned Ziba, Sauls steward, and said to him, I have given your masters grandson everything that belonged to Saul and his family. 10 You and your sons and your servants are to farm the land for him and bring in the crops, so that your masters grandson may be provided for. And Mephibosheth, grandson of your master, will always eat at my table. (Now Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants.) 

 11 Then Ziba said to the king, Your servant will do whatever my lord the king commands his servant to do. So Mephibosheth ate at Davids[a] table like one of the kings sons. 

 12 Mephibosheth had a young son named Mika, and all the members of Zibas household were servants of Mephibosheth. 
Again there is no mention of a homosexual union.  There is respect and honor.

Point: if David was homosexual, why didn't he use his power as king to have male lovers?  Why did he take wives?*


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Neither eating catfish nor being gay is a sin.



What authority do you have to declare an act of sin, no so?


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 21, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Neither eating catfish nor being gay is a sin.
> ...



As Emperor of the known universe.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

tinydancer said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> ...



I believe those terms fit homosexual acts as well as all other forms of sexula immortality.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> You people DO realize that homosexuality and lesbianism are different, right?
> 
> Do you ALSO realize that there is nothing in the Bible against lesbianism?



There is something in the Bible against:

Bearing false witness (that would be deceiving a family)
Not honoring your parents (seriously, how many parents introduce their toddles as future homosexuals)
Coveting (your neighbors' children, no matter what age)

Do lesbians do any of those?  If they do, they are acting sinfully.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 21, 2011)

I dont eat catfish. Not sure what your point is


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



...."He went on: What comes out of a man is what makes him `unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man `unclean."  ....

I believe those thouroughly cover homosexual behavior.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



In their own mind???


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 21, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...




Murder and homosexuality are equal sins in your book?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 21, 2011)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You people DO realize that homosexuality and lesbianism are different, right?
> ...



The word, "lesbian" is not in the bible.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



I agree.  Jesus did not condemn homosexuals.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



It is a Biblical quote.  I did not say it.  In Biblical terms, they are both sins against the Lord.  All people sin.  It is "only" the homosexual activists that claim "their" sinful behavior is not a sin.  To people, some sins seem worse than others, but for the Lord, we don't know how He judges sins.  We will discover that on judgement day.  I know that I have as sinned, and that I will have to answer for those sins.  I will not be standing there arguing with the Lord about how he made me prone to sin or about why He put temptations in my path.  He also gave me the power (thru prayer) to overcome and lessen my sinning (thru the Holy Spirit).  He gave the same power to every other person.  It is up to them to choose.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Did I say it was?

Do lesbians do any of these:
Bearing false witness (that would be deceiving a family)
Not honoring your parents (seriously, how many parents introduce their toddles as future homosexuals)
Coveting (your neighbors' children, no matter what age)


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 21, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



It's complete bullshit.   Homosexuality is not a sin, adultery is.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 21, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



You're nuts.  You're looking for sin everywhere.  I feel sorry for you.  Why don't you mind your own business?


----------



## Caroljo (Aug 21, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Homosexuality is in the OLD and NEW testaments...it says it is an abomination to the Lord.  How is that stating it is not a sin???  Guess it really doesn't matter, you'll know for sure one day and i have a feeling you're not going to like the answer God gives you!


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 21, 2011)

Caroljo said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Really?  You just told me to go to hell, didn't you?

God doesn't exist.  What would be a sin, would be for me to leave my love of 26 years because of YOUR negative judgment.


----------



## chesswarsnow (Aug 21, 2011)

Sorry bout that,


1. Its worse than just sin, its an *abomination*.
2. The truth will always win this debate, and in the end, the word of God shall be followed, and sure, its going to suck being a homosexual.
3. Its weird how the negative aspect of being a homosexual will end up being its own judgment.
4. Its a good day to start again eh?



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 21, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



I am a straight, non "homosexual activist", country boy, flannel shirt wearing, former football playing, married with 3 children, tobacco chewing, beer swilling, deer hunting and bass catching southerner that claims homosexuals are not committing sin with their behavior.
Jesus never said it was so I do not believe it. 
And if you claim that religous activists treat those that drink a little too much the same way they do gay folks you are in serious denial.
Gay folks are persecuted for being what God made them. 
Why don't you focus on that and call out those so called "Christians" that are at the head of the line gay bashing?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 21, 2011)

God is going to PISSED when you folks get to heaven and he confronts you on how badly you have treated gay folks.


----------



## chesswarsnow (Aug 21, 2011)

Sorry bout that,






Gadawg73 said:


> God is going to PISSED when you folks get to heaven and he confronts you on how badly you have treated gay folks.





1. No he won't, we will be praised for keeping his word.
2. You on the other hand are being the homosexuals keeper, and I wonder why?
3. Why is that?
4. Homosexuals are totally against creation, so in my view, you can't follow Jesus and condone homosexuals, you either love the one, or you love the other, you can not love Jesus and love homosexuals, and thats final.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 21, 2011)

Sunni Man said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > You need to quote chapter and verse for every biblical assertion.
> ...



And Lord knows it's vital for Christians to appear to be righteous in the eyes of Jews. 

( it would be cool if people new the difference between the old and new testaments tho )


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 21, 2011)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Show me where Jesus condemned homosexuals.
I, unlike you, follow Jesus and am Christlike in my living.
You, on the other hand, do not follow Jesus' teachings.
Love thy neighbor is in the Bible more than any other message. And no where does it distinguish who that neighbor is.
You are doomed to hell and burning for eternity because you do not know or follow your Bible.


----------



## chesswarsnow (Aug 21, 2011)

Sorry bout that,





Gadawg73 said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...






1. Sorry ol chum,......
2. But you have made the cardinal sin, you have judged me to go to hell.
3. I myself, have condemned no one.
4. You have an outstanding lack of knowledge of Jesus.
5. If you think you know what Jesus has taught about homosexuals you sadly are mistaken, it is written, maybe you should read it again Tony.
6. These arm chair scholars of scripture are a laugh.
7. You are like the arm chair quarterback, saying how you could of done better on some play, while you never even cracked open the Bible, maybe once when you were a kid.
8. Go back to your snuff chewing and beer guzzling, its your strength.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Caroljo (Aug 21, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I did NOT tell you that you were going to hell....that's not up to me.  If you think God doesn't exist, why does this bother you?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 21, 2011)

Caroljo said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Caroljo said:
> ...



I just know where you get off calling homosexuality an "abomination".  You don't know me.  I have had a number of single heterosexual friends who wish they were as lucky in love as I am.


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 21, 2011)

Bu........what about the catfish?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc_huHb4PMc]Redneck Cat Fishing - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Demonstrate with the Bible that is "complete bullshit".  You have the Biblical passages that clearly state lewd or immoral sex IS a sin.  You can see that homosexual acts break at least 3 of the 10 Commandments.  Yet, you still want to claim that you are more powerful than the Lord to declare these acts "not a sin".  What authority do you have to do so?  Who are you to misguide those that would respect you?  You claim that you are not Christian, yet, you want to tell Christians how to interpret "their" Bible?  Haven't you already denied the Lord (which is a far greater sin than homosexual acts)?  You have no authority over Christians, but as in other areas of your life, you choose to pretend that you are something that you are not.  Please quit telling us how to "interpret" the Book that you claim not to believe.  You have made your choices, let other people decide for themselves.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Are you suggesting that I leave people that deceive others keep deceiving?  Are you saying that people that steal and murder should be allowed to continue as long as "it is not my business"?


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 21, 2011)

Given that the Bible is a government publication, why, then, would the government of the 1600s be interested in where you put your junk?

Authorized King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 21, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



There is a difference in sin and crime.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



...."He went on: What comes out of a man is what makes him `unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man `unclean." ....

Are you calling Yeshua a liar?  By what authority do you declare an act pure, when the Lord, himself has declared it a sin, and His Son also?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> God is going to PISSED when you folks get to heaven and he confronts you on how badly you have treated gay folks.



Because we told them the truth?

Where have "we" treated gay folks badly?  Aren't you being judgemental?  Where have I said anything hateful against homosexuals?  Please feel free to use quotes.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I did not see where you were told to "go to hell".
You are the only person that has "control" over your life.  You have made your choices up to this point and will continue to do so for the rest of your life.  You are the one that wanted to flaunt your choices and claim they were not a sin.  Many of us disagree with you and can demonstrate where the Lord has declared that behavior "sinful".

Do you tell everyone they have negatively judged you that disagrees with you?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

Sunshine said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



One leads to the other, unless addressed.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 21, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Bull shit.  I'm living with a woman for the last 26 years.  We have committed NO crimes.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 21, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Caroljo said:
> ...



I tell people who negatively judge me that they have negatively judged me.  Like you for instance.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 21, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


WTF don't you get on the cases of people who committ crimes like murder, instead of trying to police everyone's bedroom?

Why are YOU so hung up on other people's sex lives?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 21, 2011)

Sunshine said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



They know that but their belief and support of everything and anything "Christian" allows fraud and fabrication to enter into their arguments.
Very unChristlike.
Follow Jesus and one does not worry about or condemn homosexuals.
Humans made that up, not Jesus.
And shame on those that condemn others for being what God made them.


----------



## yidnar (Aug 21, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...


homosexuality is just as sinful as murder!!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 21, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



"his son also"
BS. Jesus never condemned homosexuals.
Weak attempt but once again YOU ARE WRONG.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Is that because people are aware of your sins, so you keep yourself in check?
Do you bear false witness against the Lord by telling little Christian lesbians that their behavior is not sinful?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I use my "judgement" as you use your "judgement".  I have absolutely no power what so ever to "judge" you.  I would not want to, you see my sins are probably worse than yours (except maybe denying the Lord part).  I pray that the Lord has mercy on us all, including homosexuals.


----------



## yidnar (Aug 21, 2011)

faggots wear their underwear backwards..


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Why do "you" keep bringing your bedroom into public?  I would be thrilled if you took it back to your bedroom and spoke no more about it.

I am not "hung up" on other people's sex lives.  I was correcting you deceitfulness of telling others that homosexual acts are not a sin.

When I go after "murderers", you defend them and want to claim that the people that support them are good people (does islam ring a bell).

You still did not answer my question: should I leave deception alone, or should I point it out as a deception?  If crimes are terrible to you, how do you feel about leading people away from eternal life?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 21, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


I never talk about the bedroom.  Homosexuality is a sin to the narrow minded bigots like you.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



You have seen the scriptures where Yeshua declares lewd and immoral sex (among other things) as sinful behavior.  I have asked if you are calling Yeshua a liar.  You have not answered, but continue the bearing of false witness against the Lord (and you want to say that I am "unChristlike").  

The Lord made the people that are murderers, cleptos, drug addicts, etc., are you telling them that they should act on their temptations because that is the way "God made them"?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 21, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Homosexual and lesbians are not automatically evil.  We have the same humanity as anyone else.

You are a bigot.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Sky, now the names .... how disappointing.

Yes, you speak of the bedroom: my love of 26 years..... Are you aware of my sexual status?  Do you know if I am in a relationship?  If you don't that might be because I do not throw my "bedroom" into public discussion.  You do.

Again:
You still did not answer my question: should I leave deception alone, or should I point it out as a deception?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I have never, NEVER stated that homosexuals "automatically evil".  I have repeatedly stated that others, including myself commit sins, and are no better than those that participate in homosexual acts.  I have given homosexual credit for being just as human as everyone else, hence the opportunity to make better choices.

You are a bigot.  I have pointed out that Christian communities are among the safest and most productive in the world, yet you claim that is a poor choice.  The facts are on my side, yet you cling to your superstitious beliefs that somehow the faith you have chosen will magically make all mankind better, when it's leaders are systematically being murdered by the "religion of peace".  I repeat: you are a bigot.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 21, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



If you say you have a husband, is that throwing the bedroom into public discussion?

No, it's not.  YOU are a bigot.  YOU can ONLY think of gay people in SEXUAL terms.  We are not even human to you.


----------



## Zona (Aug 21, 2011)

Is it still true that having sex other than to pro create is a sin?  I am pretty sure masturbation is still a no no.

I am really sure molesting choir boys is still wrong somewhere in the book.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 21, 2011)

Zona said:


> Is it still true that having sex other than to pro create is a sin?  I am pretty sure masturbation is still a no no.
> 
> I am really sure molesting choir boys is still wrong somewhere in the book.



Some people don't know the difference between sex and sex abuse.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



More deception?  Where did I say that I only thought of homosexuals in SEXUAL terms?  Where did I claim that you are not "even human".

It is quite the opposite.  I am suggesting holding homosexuals responsible for their decisions and their actions.  I know that is a "mature" viewpoint, and I can see how you would not want to be held responsible for your actions, but I have suggested nothing more serious than that.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 21, 2011)

Zona said:


> Is it still true that having sex other than to pro create is a sin?  I am pretty sure masturbation is still a no no.
> 
> I am really sure molesting choir boys is still wrong somewhere in the book.



So, tell us how you feel about "dancing boys"?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 21, 2011)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You people DO realize that homosexuality and lesbianism are different, right?
> ...



Hey.......if you come clean and your family accepts it, then you're not bearing false witness nor are you dishonoring your parents (because you trust them enough to tell them the truth).

Incidentally, more pedophiles are heterosexual in nature than gay or lesbian.  And no, I've never met a lesbian who was a pedophile, and I've known a few.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 21, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



There is absolutely NOTHING sinful in two women loving each other and being family for each other for many decades.

It is YOU who have the problem.  You want us to go to hell.  Fuck you.


----------



## yidnar (Aug 21, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


faggots can take a 10 min shit in 5 min


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 21, 2011)

yidnar said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



That must mean that a closet case like yourself can totally evacuate their bowels in less than 2 min.

If you had as many pricks poking outta you as you've apparently had shoved in you, you'd probably look like a fucking porcupine.


----------



## yidnar (Aug 21, 2011)

what do you call hemorrhoids on a faggot ???....SPEED BUMPS!!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 21, 2011)

yidnar said:


> what do you call hemorrhoids on a faggot ???....SPEED BUMPS!!



So........which were you, the bumper, or the bumpee?


----------



## Caroljo (Aug 22, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I didn't call it an abomination...GOD did!  Read the Bible!  You can make excuses all you want, doesn't matter to me, but it matters to God.  How can you read the passage below and not SEE that God is saying it's immoral?  Just because you're in a relationship with another woman?? Homosexuality includes men AND women...You're only decieving yourself by denying it....

1 Corinthians 6 TNIV - Lawsuits Among Believers If any of you - Bible Gateway


----------



## Caroljo (Aug 22, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



You're wrong...homosexuality in the Bible does NOT mean only 2 men.  It's the same for both men and women.  You don't see the word "lesbian" in the bible because that name was made up MUCH later for women.  It's still being homosexual...no difference.  Nobody said they want you to go to hell...usually when someone gets into a conversation about this subject with a Christian, it's because the Christian would like to be able to say something to help you turn away from your lifestyle and turn to the Lord.  If you don't want to hear it, then don't get into a conversation about it because you KNOW what's going to be said.  I think you have alot of guilt feelings about what you're doing, and the only way you're going to get through it is by talking to God and confessing your sin.  Otherwise, you'll be suffering with it your whole life.....and i'll pray for you.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 22, 2011)

The homosexuality issue is the one time a lot of christians ignore the "What would Jesus do?" line.


He certainly never attacked gays or the act of being gay, and I know a lot of his messages about loving your fellow human, loving your neighbor, even loving your enemy if you're a gay hating bigot, like my signature shows.


----------



## Caroljo (Aug 22, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> The homosexuality issue is the one time a lot of christians ignore the "What would Jesus do?" line.
> 
> 
> He certainly never attacked gays or the act of being gay, and I know a lot of his messages about loving your fellow human, loving your neighbor, even loving your enemy if you're a gay hating bigot, like my signature shows.



You're right...He said we're to love everyone.  I have friends that are gay.  It doesn't mean i have to agree with their lifestyle though.  You can love a person but not love what they do (Love the sinner, hate the sin).  That's what God has directed us to do.  That still doesn't mean it's not a sin to be a homosexual.  Jesus loves them all, but it doesn't mean they're going to get away with their sin if they don't confess to Him that they have sinned and ask for forgiveness, then do something about getting out of that lifestyle.  

An adulterer will be forgiven if he asks for it, but they also have to stop doing what they're doing and be repentant of that sin.  Same with even a murderer.  If they really do turn to God, they may not get out of prison, but they'll be forgiven and be with God when they pass on.  All of us sin, and all sins are the same to God....


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 22, 2011)

Caroljo said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > The homosexuality issue is the one time a lot of christians ignore the "What would Jesus do?" line.
> ...



Just surprising that an issue that's so important to a lot of christians is something Jesus didn't even waste 5 minutes on.  

If it's in the Old Testament only I dunno why it's a big deal, the Old Testament says rape victims have to marry their rapist, christians certainly don't take that seriously.  Seems the new testament deals with sodomy more than specifically being gay, and if that's the issue than lesbians are a-ok to your God and a lot of straight people are in trouble.


----------



## peach174 (Aug 22, 2011)

Old Testament rules are exempt from Christians.
Romans 10:4
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Galatians 3:23&#8211;25
23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,

In place of the Old Testament law, we are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), which is to &#8220;love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind&#8230;and to love your neighbor as yourself&#8221; (Matthew 22:37-39). If we obey those two commands, we will be fulfilling all that Christ requires of us: &#8220;All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments&#8221;


----------



## Liability (Aug 22, 2011)

I think I asked this before, but in case I didn't, it has to be addressed.

Wouldn't fucking a catfish (of the same sex, that is) be considered worse than either homosexuality or the eating of scale-less fish?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 22, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Old Testament rules are exempt from Christians.
> Romans 10:4
> 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
> 
> ...



Glad to see another poster rejects the Old Testament's anti-gay view and accepts the New Testament's view of non-judgement on being gay.

What the New Testament Says about Homosexuality

This article sums it up perfectly.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 22, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Yidnars bowels are so loose he can evacuate them in 7 seconds.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 22, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > yidnar said:
> ...



I dunno, sounds like he always has something stuck in there, prolly clogs up, gets backed up, and comes shooting out his face in the form of verbal diarhea.


----------



## Caroljo (Aug 22, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Corinthians IS the New Testament...it's in both the old and new, so it still very important.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 22, 2011)

Caroljo said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Caroljo said:
> ...



and every site I look says there are different meanings for the translations to the verses that supposed talk down being gay.  Here's a site that addresses the Corinthians verses, among others.

Gay Christadelphians: 1 Corinthians & 1 Timothy

"The correct translation of these words is highly debated, and there is no consensus among Bible translators. Malakos is translated as "effeminate" (King James Version, American Standard Version), "pervert" (Contemporary English Version), "male prostitutes" (New Revised Standard Version), and even "the self-indulgent" (New Jerusalem Bible). In the NIV, arsenokoites is translated as "homosexual offenders" in 1 Corinthians but as "perverts" in 1 Timothy. As it is possible to be a heterosexual pervert, these English terms are clearly two different things. Other translations for arsenokoites include "homosexuals" (New American Standard Bible, New Living Translation), and "sodomites" (New Revised Standard Version, New King James Version). Some translations translate malakos and arsenokoites as one word or phrase, such as "men who practise homosexuality" (English Standard Version), "homosexual perverts" (Good News Bible), or "sexual perverts" (Revised English Bible, Revised Standard Version (2nd Edition)).

When translators cannot agree on the general meaning of a Greek word, it is a sign of their uncertainty. These verses are important for Christadelphians when thinking about same-sex relationships, so it is very important to look at these words as carefully as we can."


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 22, 2011)

Caroljo said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Caroljo said:
> ...



I wisely avoid the bible.  I don't believe in your god or the abomination label.  What is abominating to me, is Christian Africans calling for the execution of gay people.  That is serious evil.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 22, 2011)

The Bible has been trnaslated so many times over the years and it was men that did the translating.
This "inspired by and spoken to by God" BS that I hear concerning the many scribes that translated the King James version is laughable.
Ordinary men, with their bias', marching orders of the day and conflicting text to conversion all contributed to the translations. 
Bottom line there is nothing wrong with gay folk. Anyone that quotes 2000 year old Jewish customs is  just a little kooky but we all know the real reason they do it and it has nothing to do with the Bible.
They look down on gays the same way blacks and others were and have always have been looked down upon.
Some folks have to condemn somebody, anybody just to make them feel better about themselves. 
The sick part about it is they claim their religion forces them to.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 22, 2011)

Caroljo said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Caroljo said:
> ...



CJ, respectfully, do you know what the book of Corinthians is and what it is all about?
Where does God or Jesus condemn homosexuals in Corinthians?
And who was speaking to the Jews in Corinthians, what was the occasion, what was he trying to do and why was he trying to do it?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 22, 2011)

It is very offensive to hear someone state that the fact I have always been attracted to women, fell in love with and married one makes that my "lifestyle". 
What a joke that is.
NO ONE has a lifestyle that makes them attracted to someone they love be it heterosexual or homosexual and to state that someone else does is offensive as hell.
God made people that are attracted to and fall in love with folks of the same sex.
You are born with what attracts you to others. Gay folks fall in love with other gay folks.
And to date no one has any evidence whatsoever that God objects to that.
The Bible is not evidence as man wrote that book.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 22, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Honoring is not the same thing as "coming clean" (that would imply guilt).  If your parents do not know that homosexuality is sin (maybe they don't read the Bible, much), how could they tell you that it is a sin?  When you honor a person, they would go about bragging on your actions, proud that you have made the choices for their honor.  I don't hear many parents bragging about their "homosexual child".

The pedophile thing: at what age do most homosexuals "discover" themselves?  I was under the impression that a whole lot of them were molested or seduced by an adult partner, before they became an adult.  Wouldn't that make them ...... pedophiles?
BTW, where is your evidence on straight versus homosexual pedophilia?  If a man molests a boy, doesn't that make him homosexual or bi-sexual?  Isn't that ..... pedophilia?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 22, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



"That" statement is absolutely correct.  There is no sin in loving each other.  The sin comes from homosexual acts.  I DO NOT WANT YOU TO GO TO HELL.  I have told you before that I pray the Lord will be merciful for all sinners (especially me!).  I have also told you the only way that "we" can stop sinning is by receiving "grace" from the Holy Spirit.  It is a gift from the Lord (and yes, even though you claim not to believe in Him, He believes in you).  If you do not remember the gifts, I will repeat them, because you, obviously, have received a few of them: Knowledge, Council, Understanding, Wisdom, Piety (Fear of the Lord), Joy of piety, and Fortitude. 

Yes I do have some problems, but no, no thank you, I would not care for a fuck.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 22, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



You're disgusting.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 22, 2011)

Caroljo said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Caroljo said:
> ...



All catfish eaters will burn in hell!


----------



## logical4u (Aug 22, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> The homosexuality issue is the one time a lot of christians ignore the "What would Jesus do?" line.
> 
> 
> He certainly never attacked gays or the act of being gay, and I know a lot of his messages about loving your fellow human, loving your neighbor, even loving your enemy if you're a gay hating bigot, like my signature shows.



Would you please list: book, chapter, and verse where Yeshua told someone: by all means continue to sin, it will be okay, Dad won't be mad at all.

Yeshua did the opposite.  The ONLY time you saw Him angry in the Gospels was when the money changers and cons where in His Father's house.  Did He leave them alone, or did He run them out?  What did he tell the adulterous woman after He convinced the men they weren't without sin to be casting stones?  Did He tell her, just keep on having immoral sex?  Or did He tell her to STOP THAT?

Oh, please, please answer with Biblical passages, showing that Yeshua ignored sin!!!


----------



## logical4u (Aug 22, 2011)

Liability said:


> I think I asked this before, but in case I didn't, it has to be addressed.
> 
> Wouldn't fucking a catfish (of the same sex, that is) be considered worse than either homosexuality or the eating of scale-less fish?



Bad, bad, Liability.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 22, 2011)

You do know that catfish have terrible spines that would cause serious damage...


----------



## logical4u (Aug 22, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Yeshua probably did not spend a lot of time "listing sins".  The Hebrews knew what the sins were (they broke all of them and were periodically punished by the Lord for doing so). 

 Their "traditions" interferred with the will of the Lord.  Yeshua mentions that.  His time here was to tell us how things had "changed": no longer would a person be responsible for the sins of their ancestors (the Caananite woman showed that), the Lord would be written onto every heart so that "religious instruction" would not be needed (those that thirst for knowledge still seek knowledge), the 10 Commandments were "simplified", and eternal life was available to any willing to reach for it.  Yeshua lumped what we consider "crimes" in with what we would consider "smaller" sins.  He told us, in the eyes of the Lord they were all sins; He did not place them with any priority.  Immoral sexual behavior (includes heterosexuals as well as bi-sexual, and homosexual behavior) was on His list, not our list.

Why do people that think it is okay to declare lying, coveting, stealing (kidnapping), murdering, real sins accept immoral sexual behavior is sinful, UNLESS it is including homosexual behavior?  I don't get it.  All of us sin, but only the homosexual activists want to declare their actions not sinful (by what authority, the Lord, the LORD declared it sinful, what human has the ability to nullify the Lord's Word?)


----------



## logical4u (Aug 22, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Question, why didn't you mention the "muslims" that ARE executing gay people?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 22, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> The Bible has been trnaslated so many times over the years and it was men that did the translating.
> This "inspired by and spoken to by God" BS that I hear concerning the many scribes that translated the King James version is laughable.
> Ordinary men, with their bias', marching orders of the day and conflicting text to conversion all contributed to the translations.
> Bottom line there is nothing wrong with gay folk. Anyone that quotes 2000 year old Jewish customs is  just a little kooky but we all know the real reason they do it and it has nothing to do with the Bible.
> ...



So, you don't have the guts to call the Lord a liar, but continue to bear false witness, against Him?  Immoral sexual behavior is a sin, same as "bearing false witness", or coveting, or any of the more serious sins.  You are a person, you have no, NO authority to declare a behavior the Lord declared "sinful", not so.  Please quit lying to people.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 22, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Caroljo said:
> ...



Why should I?  Everyone knows about the muslims, few know the christians want the same thing.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 22, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



but, but Sky, I like you.


----------



## Dr Grump (Aug 22, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible has been trnaslated so many times over the years and it was men that did the translating.
> ...



Exhibit A as to why more and more people are turning away from religion....


----------



## logical4u (Aug 22, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Maybe some wacko Christians.  That is not the general opinion of Christians that I know.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 22, 2011)

Everyone knows about the Muslims because they do it, and it's true.

Nobody knows about the Christians because they DON'T do it.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 23, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Nope, because the general Christian opinion is that it is a choice, so they then tell you you have to pray for salvation via Jesus, so you can "pray away the gay".

Sorry, but you can't pray body chemistry and neural networks into something they're not.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 23, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



If you can't "pray away the gay" go to Uganda.  They have the final solution there.  Compliments of Scott Lively.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 23, 2011)

Stash said:


> Well, Paul says it's genetic or otherwise natural, this is just his story.



Yeah, but Paul was gay - ergo his aversion to women and marriage...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 23, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Isn't drinking alcohol also technically a sin in the Bible?



Nope, Jesus drank wine.


----------



## oracle (Aug 23, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Where does it say that?



Read from St. peter.


----------



## oracle (Aug 23, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> For fish to be considered clean to eat they must have fins and scales.  It is in Leviticus.  I can't quote chapter and verse though.
> the same book that says hosexuality is a sin as well.
> And a sin is a sin.



Save for murder and suicide. In the gay community it's HOMOcide.


----------



## oracle (Aug 23, 2011)

Stash said:


> Well yeah the same is true of pork, but that rule has been repealed, the rule against homosexuality has not been repealed. How do we know? Well those are the rules.



NO pork has not. The rules still apply...sorry.


----------



## oracle (Aug 23, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Stash said:
> 
> 
> > Well yeah the same is true of pork, but that rule has been repealed, the rule against homosexuality has not been repealed. How do we know? Well those are the rules.
> ...



It would be a great mascot. Don't forget Peter laid down the no no meat: no fish without scales, cloven hoofed animals (deer, goat, moose, etc PORK for they are unclean to you.


----------



## oracle (Aug 23, 2011)

Stash said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Stash said:
> ...



Don't feel bad. Jews aren't so pious either...Of course, they don't believe in hell.


----------



## oracle (Aug 23, 2011)

Stash said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Stash said:
> ...



Kids with diabetes, or down syndrome are genetic too, that is, "defects"...wait, you don't mean to say....


----------



## oracle (Aug 23, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Caroljo said:
> ...



The fact that you used a small m shows why there's no need.


----------



## oracle (Aug 23, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible has been trnaslated so many times over the years and it was men that did the translating.
> ...



If gadawg is right, then since there's no need to worry about contraception, why use condoms. Seeing as being gay isn't a problem. God wants you to be the pickle smoocher you are? then he'll also protect you from aids as well right?


----------



## oracle (Aug 23, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



The klan claims to be christian, as do the vatican, the spaniards, italians, mexicans, germans, irish, etc;. I could do this all night and follow up with examples of how none of these groups I MEAN NONE have standing based on their OWN laws.


----------



## oracle (Aug 23, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Everyone knows about the Muslims because they do it, and it's true.
> 
> Nobody knows about the Christians because they DON'T do it.



REALLY? It's a FACT that Germany openly embraced homosexuality UNTIL Hitler enforced christian law.


----------



## oracle (Aug 23, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



If that's the case then why was there movies like broke back mountain, or milk? They didn't hide because the would be prayed to death.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 23, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Everyone is prone to temptation.  It is our choice if we "wallow" in that temptation, we resist it or we fight it with everything we have.

One of my favorite lines in the Lord's prayer is: "lead us not into temptation".  It is something that all of us have.  We are not declaring that we know better than the Lord by saying the opposite of the Bible.

Even when we think we have our stuff together, we will find ourselves sinning.  We ask for mercy and the strength (emotional) to overcome, and grace from the Lord (think of it as willpower on steroids).

I don't usually go into Revelations (mostly because I don't get it that well), but there is something about the end times tribulations being shortened because NONE of us could resist the deceptions and temptations laid out by Satan.  Only with the Lord can we improve, to become more "Christ-like".


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 23, 2011)

I am more than happy to go to hell for the love of my life.  Not so much for eating catfish.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 23, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't drinking alcohol also technically a sin in the Bible?
> ...



There is also a Bible verse that states "wine is a gift from God to gladden the hearts of men".

No.........contrary to what the Baptists and others tell you, drinking is NOT a sin.

However, getting drunk and sloppy isn't really approved.  For answers to that, see the Song of Solomon.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 23, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> I am more than happy to go to hell for the love of my life.  Not so much for eating catfish.



The Lord is loving and merciful.  Maybe He will bestow His mercy on us all.  He is a "just" Lord and we will still have to pay for our sins, but maybe, He will grant mercy.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 23, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > I am more than happy to go to hell for the love of my life.  Not so much for eating catfish.
> ...



OF COURSE God is going to bestow His mercy on us all.

Damn sure that mercy isn't going to come from fanatical religious zealots such as yourself, you guys show NO mercy to anyone different from you.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 23, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Yep in spite of the pentecostal (Assmebly of God) preachers I have heard that said drinking would send you to hell.

I asked one why jesus would turn water into wine and he told me that they did not have good water to drink back then.

When a preacher lies to you is is time to leave the church.
Unfortunately I was forced to attend for many more years.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 23, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> You do know that catfish have terrible spines that would cause serious damage...



Not all catfish. Only a few and most of them are not edible anyway.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 23, 2011)

Channel Cats are the only real good catfish.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 23, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible has been trnaslated so many times over the years and it was men that did the translating.
> ...



I have the guts to stand in front of you and attempt to stop you every day, every second, every hour when you try to shove your religous beliefs down my throat or anyone's throat.
I will not allow you to make your bogus claims that gay folk are immoral citizens because of your backward ignorant belief that a book says it is so.
You are a person and have no authority to declare a damn thing about another human being that is different than you and is a law abiding citizen. You and your higher than thou attitude is not acceptable to me and the Christian church I go to. You may walk like a zombie and do exactly what someone else tells you to do because "the Bible says so" but we do not turn our backs on the facts. Jesus NEVER said a damn thing about gay folks. 
I, unlike you, follow Jesus. Persecute all you want. Those of us that are Christlike are now in the majority and are running the likes of you off. 
Get used to it. 
That is what guts is all about. BTW, your post is a pack of lies.
We call that rank hearsay in my world. I do not lie Moe. 
Get used to it. The facts are on our side.
Peace be with you. Read your Bible and next time, love thy neighbor and do not judge him.
Fat chance.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 23, 2011)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



So when you fall in love with someone you are not tempted to be with them and ask them to be committed to you?
And God condemns that love and says do not be tempted and lead us not into temptation?
You folks are a bunch of KOOKS. Gay folks fall in love with folks of the same sex.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Aug 23, 2011)

Everyone knows the new testament called a do-over on all the old testament rules because Jesus died.  Why Jesus dying somehow changes the core of cosmic morality makes no sense, but when it comes to catfish, none of those rules apply anymore.  Except the ones we want.  That's how cherry picking works, you infidel/abomination!


----------



## logical4u (Aug 23, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Did Yeshua say that immoral sex was sinful behavior?
Did Yeshua say that lewdness was sinful behavior?

That "Book" is what your preacher uses to teach (even though he twists it for his own purposes).  That Book is our link to the Lord.
Thank you for showing just what type of "Christian" you are, that would be a cafeteria Christian (you know, pick and choose what "you" want, not what the Lord teaches).

Please demonstrate where I persecuted, anyone.  I have stated that several behaviors were sinful (some of which I am also guilty).  Unlike you, that choose to deliberately misrepresent the "Word" and lie to others, possibly causing them to sin more.

You are not interested in "facts".  They were presented in this thread and you acted like you could not even read what was in front of your face.  You are calling me a liar?  What have I lied about?  

It figures, you are a dawg fan.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 23, 2011)

Whew I'm glad you made the comparisan with catfish because I don't like either.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 23, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Whew I'm glad you made the comparisan with catfish because I don't like either.



It might include anything that smells like fish?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 24, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Just exactly WHO determines what is "immoral"?  Christine O'donnell?  Shit.....that woman thinks that masturbation is a sin because it incorporates lust.  And exactly WHAT constitutes "lewd" behavior?  Because of the moral standard that you impose based on your narrow beliefs?

Let me ask you.......is it "lewd" to notice a nice pair of tits that are bare and bouncing while walking along the beach?  Because it's normal behavior in Europe and the Med.

You don't think you persecute anyone?  Really?  Because you sure as hell go after those who don't fit in your own little narrow slice of what you concieve God as being.

The only sin is to limit the Is.  Don't.  (from Illusions by Richard Bach).


----------



## oracle (Aug 24, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I hate to disagree with you but: there's nothing christlike about being gay. You can say the bible doesn't condemn it but, it doesn't condemn cigarettes, crack, heroine, polygamy,or racism either. Does that make those things o.k.? people say they are born gay. o.k. let's say that's true. Are people born killers as well? how about bi-polar? maybe... with asthma? My point is, because you believe you are born this way, doesn't make it o.k. If you do then why wear condoms? God may not have covered gays to your satisfaction, but he did say to be fruitful and multiply. Can you do that without science? Don't get me wrong, I don't care if you're gay, I just take exception when you try to use the bible as a backdrop. Nothing could be more to the contrary of what the bible teaches. Now you go be gay, that's between you and God. Is he's o.k. with it? you'll know soon enough. In the mean time just because reverend make me rich accepts all denominations (10s and 20s mostly) doesn't mean all is well. You said yourself man has no authority to judge, nor can he abide in good faith, your behavior because it's not your desire BUT your behavior that is off putting to most . If you think I'm wrong, test his faith and ask him where he stood on this subject 10 years ago, 20, or longer. See how forthcoming he is.  Remember even if you don't believe in god,or believe you defying him, you ARE defying the law of nature. Think about that for awhile.


----------



## oracle (Aug 24, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



F.Y.I. Alcohol  refers to spirits, not wine, so don't run out for your absolute just yet mkay.


----------



## oracle (Aug 24, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > I am more than happy to go to hell for the love of my life.  Not so much for eating catfish.
> ...



HE IS? You really MUST read the book of job, or about lot's wife. Amazing what he takes offense to that's a smaller issue than being gay. Hell job was as devout as christ, look what god let happen or should I say "did" to him. You better read the whole bible, not just the parts that make you think you'll get a pass.


----------



## oracle (Aug 24, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > You do know that catfish have terrible spines that would cause serious damage...
> ...



They all have a period though. blood wings anyone?


----------



## oracle (Aug 24, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Defensive are we? Do what you want with your life. jesus said: laugh now cry later, or did I get that wrong?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 24, 2011)

oracle said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Splitting hairs to prove your point and then cherry picking?

Alllllllllrighty then.


----------



## oracle (Aug 24, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> oracle said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Noooo, the process for wine making and spirits are two different things. Like said to richard simmons earlier, do what you want with your life. God will judge YOU for that...no one else. I find it funny to listen to pro bad behavior advocates, because you don't argue, in my opinion, to convince me, but yourself. I mean, why does my opinion get under your skin? I don't know you, pay your bills, feed or clothe you. So If you believe you're right, why not just go be right? Unless...you feel the guilt and are now fishing for a co signer. Misery loves company.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 24, 2011)

oracle said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > oracle said:
> ...



Tell ya what douchenozzle........MANY Christians have lied to me about the Bible.

Provide chapter and verse where alcohol is forbidden.


----------



## Lokiate (Aug 24, 2011)

logical4u said:
			
		

> So, you don't have the guts to call the Lord a liar


Oh hell, I'm your huckleberry. 

Jesus was a liar. He's not a god, he's not even a demigod, he was a Palestinian Jew that thought he was the only begotten son of an ancient semitic god named Yahweh. He was just a man, nothing more, nothing less. He said he didn't come to change the laws, but to fulfill prophesy, but those prophesies didn't say shit about only the sin free casting stones, working on the sabbath, eating whatever you wanted, etc. He also didn't fulfill the requirements to be the Jewish Messiah. 

I actually blame Paul for most of the shit, though. He was an opportunistic little bastard that cashed in big-time on his friend getting beaten half to death, then crucified. Paul was a sinister little creep that got a lot of people killed in horrible ways. Beheading was too good for him.


----------



## Liability (Aug 24, 2011)

Lokiate said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice hate filled rant. dopey.

Look.  Nobody cares what you believe or don't believe, stupid.

But why do dickheads like you always find it so damn necessary to go out of your way to insult the beliefs of others?

Good grief.  You are one miserable little rodent.


----------



## Caroljo (Aug 24, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Sounds like you're pretty good at judging people too.  It's hard for me to believe that you actually go to a "Christian" church.  I don't know what church you go to, but any Christian church i've been to over the years taught that the Bible is the Word of God.  Yes it's written by man, but with Gods inspiration and direction, when God was more interactive with the people.  Besides, God made Adam and Eve...not Adam and Edward   He said it was not good that man be alone, so he made a WOMAN to be his partner.  You can think what you want, but i have a very strong feeling that one day you'll be very sorry.  But, God is the Judge, not me.  

When i die, i'm not worried that God may tell me that i was wrong about homosexuals, because those were just my thoughts and i didn't sin just by thinking it and misunderstanding His word....i was just wrong.  It would be better than being gay and having to listen to God tell me i have sinned my whole life and didn't believe in His word even though many try to help me and i was stubborn and didn't want to believe it.  One day we will all know the truth...but in the meantime i'm not worried about my salvation.  I think many gays are worried about it, or else they would just stop bringing up the subject and just go about their lives.


----------



## JMadison (Aug 24, 2011)

Stash said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Stash said:
> ...


 The only wires that got crossed are the ones they used for your electroshock therapy.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 24, 2011)

Caroljo said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



This is the first time I've ever heard that telling people to quit lying is "persecution"...

It's one thing to attempt to live by the bible, in honesty and integrity, and to be incorrect about something.

It's another thing entirely to challenge the bible and tell people it's wrong and that they should challenge it as well, or be labeled as "persecutors" or "stupid" or "weak willed".

At least in terms of the hereafter. I've no interest in telling people they're stupid for not believing the bible, and I've no interest in lying to them to bring them around to my way of thinking. If they don't believe the bible, meh, so be it, eventually we'll know who was right and who was wrong. That's not persecuting non-believers.  it's a lie to say it is.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 24, 2011)

oracle said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Now smoking cigarettes means you're going to hell?


What causes people to pretend to take the Bible seriously?  Either do or don't, you don't get to add your own editions (well unless you're Joseph Smith) and condemn people to hell based on your edition.


Even though people do exactly that pretty much round the clock.


----------



## Lokiate (Aug 24, 2011)

Liability said:


> But why do dickheads like you always find it so damn necessary to go out of your way to insult the beliefs of others?


Because dumbfucks like the guy I responded to freely parade their hate filled bullshit all over the internet. If some guy is going to use their religion to denigrate millions of people, cool shit, I got something for that.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 24, 2011)

Caroljo said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Peace to you also.
Where in the Bible does Jesus condemn homosexuals?
Did God write the Bible in English?
How did we get the English version?
And where was the word homosexual in the Greek version translated from?
Where was it?
Do you know it does not exist and that it was added in by men in the King James version?
When has God told you that gay folk are bad other than your reading of a politically charged translation that is not accurate?
Love thy neighbor.
If you deny that homosexuals have been drastically persecuted 1000 times more than any other "sinner" you are either in serious denial or not able to see the truth.
Being Christlike means to accept everyone for how God made them. 
Go ahead and claim your church is better than mine all you want. We are gaining members at a pace of 30% a year.
Christians have tired of the persecution of others. Wake up and quit swallowing the lies.


----------



## oracle (Aug 24, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> oracle said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



I'm not a christian dumbass! I'm also not some co dependent pickle smootcher like you who clearly didn't read/comprehend the post you were set off by.


----------



## oracle (Aug 24, 2011)

Liability said:


> Lokiate said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Sounds like you care to me.


----------



## oracle (Aug 24, 2011)

JMadison said:


> Stash said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



A homo says what?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 24, 2011)

Lokiate said:


> Because dumbfucks like the guy I responded to freely parade their hate filled bullshit all over the internet.



You seem pretty free parading your hate filled bullshit. 

Is this the typical leftist "I can but you can't" shit?

How many times did you vote for Obama?


----------



## oracle (Aug 24, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> oracle said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You missed the point pinhead. I'll say again. Just because you don't see bullet points in the bible, doesn't mean you get a pass. Do you understand now YOU FUCKING DUMMY!!! It's just a reference, or parable. If you bothered to read the whole post, instead of responding the minute you saw cigarette you wouldn't need to put up that stupid comment. Unless you just like wearing stupid like it's bling.


----------



## oracle (Aug 24, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Lokiate said:
> 
> 
> > Because dumbfucks like the guy I responded to freely parade their hate filled bullshit all over the internet.
> ...





Explain the whole "leftist" thing. I lean more to the left and I don't advocate gay rights. Believe it or not, you don't have to be a back woods sister fucking shit kicker to be a non supporter of the "gay agenda". And considering how many of you seem to be getting outed for YOUR gay tendencies, I'd try not bringing in left versus right if I were you. insert wide stance here


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 24, 2011)

oracle said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > oracle said:
> ...



I did read it, unknot your panties and settle down.

You made reference to smoking cigs as to being somehow wrong for a christian to do or sinful or immoral or whatever.  Which is stupid of course.

I don't smoke, I think smoking is idiotic, however I only think it's immoral if a woman is pregnant or if you have younger kids.

People try to pretend there's a connection to condemning gays and the Bible, it's very remote if anything.  I don't think there is, as GADawg showed there was no word for homosexual in how the Bible was originally written and Jesus certainly NEVER spoke out against it.  If he thought it was important, I'm sure he would have.


----------



## Caroljo (Aug 24, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



First of all, i know the Bible was translated by man and i would never say that the Bible is COMPLETELY correct.  You may not find the word "homosexual" in the original, but that word most likely wasn't even known of at that time.  Just like the word "Rapture" isn't in the bible, it was taken from a greek word that means "taking up" or "to rise up".  Just because a word that is used today isn't there, doesn't mean that God (or Jesus) didn't talk about it.  

Second, i've never said that homosexuals aren't persecuted, they are.  I'm not trying to persecute them, believe it or not.  I have friends that are gay, they're all good people, fun to be with, and i accept them.  I don't have to agree with their lifestyle though because i believe it's wrong.  Yes Jesus said Love they Neighbor as yourself..He says Love the sinner but hate the sin.  Jesus also told us that in the end days Christians will be persecuted for their beliefs, and that many Christians will turn to a false doctrine (like all the "feel good" churches that are now popping up all over that don't teach the whole Bible, only what they want to accept).  

You think i'm accepting lies, and i think you are.  So, guess we wait and find out huh???


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 24, 2011)

oracle said:


> Explain the whole "leftist" thing.



If someone is stupid and anti-liberty, it's a sure bet they're a leftist.



> I lean more to the left and I don't advocate gay rights.



What a shocker, a lefty opposing civil rights - what will they think of next, water that's wet? 



> Believe it or not, you don't have to be a back woods sister fucking shit kicker to be a non supporter of the "gay agenda".



So you're just a back woods sister fucking shit kicker because you enjoy it?


----------



## Liability (Aug 24, 2011)

Lokiate said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > But why do dickheads like you always find it so damn necessary to go out of your way to insult the beliefs of others?
> ...




So one person insults your frail ego and your response (with pride and what you think is justification) is to go out of your way to insult and offend all others who share his religious belief?

I'd patiently explain to you how fucking ridiculously stupid that is, but you are clearly too fucking dumb to understand it, anyway.

You are still just a rodent.


----------



## Lokiate (Aug 24, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> You seem pretty free parading your hate filled bullshit.


 The difference is that I don't hate people for being different, because of a couple verses in a book.



> Is this the typical leftist "I can but you can't" shit?


Lulz, can't stand the vile taste of your own medicine, I see. It's alright to bash gays, talk shit about Muslims and call other religions cults, and dismiss the nonreligious because they're soulless heathens that are going to hell anyway. But if anyone dare say a cross word about Christianity, and it's a horrible attrocity by a hearless bigot that wants to oppress the good god fearing people. What was it you said last time you had a bitch fit? "You don't have a right to not be offended"? Yeah, how's that working out for you?



> How many times did you vote for Obama?


 Zero. How about you, since you have an obsession with the man.


----------



## Lokiate (Aug 24, 2011)

Liability said:


> Lokiate said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


Tell it to someone who gives a fuck, shithead.


----------



## Liability (Aug 24, 2011)

Lokiate said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Lokiate said:
> ...



I did you dopey shit for breath muthafuckah.  That's why you're still responding, you whining sissified puss.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 24, 2011)

Lokiate said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > You seem pretty free parading your hate filled bullshit.
> ...



Unless they have different views of religion that is, then you hate them.



> Lulz, can't stand the vile taste of your own medicine, I see. It's alright to bash gays,



I'm sorry, where did bash gays? Yer making shit up again, to support your own bigotry.



> talk shit about Muslims and call other religions cults,









When Christians do this, then they will be on par with Muslims, until then....



> Zero.



Come on, you can be honest.

(Funny how no one voted for Dear Leader - not anyone at all....)



> How about you, since you have an obsession with the man.



I voted for Bob Barr.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 24, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Lokiate said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Another bigot claiming 1.7 billion muslims had a hand in 9/11.

Just like I'm the same as Mao/Stalin/Hitler lol.

Keep it coming Uncensored, you're a great entertainer I must say.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 24, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Another bigot claiming 1.7 billion muslims had a hand in 9/11.



Can you post a link to where I said that?

I mean, unless you're just lying? You DO tend to lie a great deal.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 24, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Another bigot claiming 1.7 billion muslims had a hand in 9/11.
> ...



"When Christians do this, then they will be on par with Muslims, until then...."

That's most def saying muslims had a hand in 9/11, you very much on purpose did not call them terrorists or muslim terrorists.

It'd be like me saying christians are picketing soldiers funerals saying god loves dead soldiers, but that'd make me a bigot which I'm not.  Instead I'd say idiot Westboro baptists are doing that.

It's really not as complex as you try to pretend to make it.  You're just a loud and proud bigot, plain and simple.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 24, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> "When Christians do this, then they will be on par with Muslims, until then...."



So, as I suspected, you were just lying.

Well, that IS your way.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 24, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > "When Christians do this, then they will be on par with Muslims, until then...."
> ...



Cowardly backing away from your claim.


Well at least you know your bigotry is immoral, you don't take responsibility for it like a real man would and instead attack others for calling you out on it, but you're halfway home at least.  That's better than most muslim haters.


----------



## Lokiate (Aug 24, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> When Christians do this, then they will be on par with Muslims, until then....


This is exactly what I'm talking about. Not only was your response completely unwarranted, but yeah, 19 fucktards pull off the worst terrorist attack in American history, and idiots like you automatically assume that all 1.6 billion of them are terrorists. Now fade back to my original point that you have so successfully proven, you dipshits parade your bigotry around, and justify it through some passages in a book, but if anybody says anything bad about Christianity, all the little martyrs come out to cry about the terrible intolerance, and bigotry. Fucking lulz, but somehow, I doubt you'll ever get it.

And yes, I was an asshole about it, and went about making my point  the wrong way. I make mistakes too.


----------



## Lokiate (Aug 24, 2011)

Liability said:


> Lokiate said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 24, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Cowardly backing away from your claim.



Your rancid straw man isn't my claim.

This is why you lose every time you engage, you honestly think logical fallacy is reason...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 24, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Cowardly backing away from your claim.
> ...



You're right I can't ever win a debate with you because you're mind isn't open to information.  People certainly don't become bigots for logical reasons, they become bigots for ignorant reasons, so me bringing logic to you many times in the past fell on deaf ears.  

I know better now.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 24, 2011)

Lokiate said:


> [This is exactly what I'm talking about.



Of course it is.



> Not only was your response completely unwarranted



Yeah, we should have apologized for 9/11.

Oh wait, Deal Leader DID...



> but yeah, 19 fucktards pull off the worst terrorist attack in American history,



Yeah, but they had no particular philosophy or motivation, it was just random....

Right, brite boi?



> and idiots like you automatically assume that all 1.6 billion of them are terrorists.



I like how you added 300 million... Regardless: what if only 1% are actively engaged in following the commands of the Koran and Muhammad? By your inflated  figures, that's 16 million terrorists.  Ah, but nothing to be concerned with, I mean, Christians sometimes say people will go to hell. Gotta have priorities, right dumbfuck? (You don't mind if I call you "dumbfuck" do you? I'm not trying to be too familiar.)



> Now fade back to my original point that you have so successfully proven, you dipshits parade your bigotry around



If there is anything you show expertise at, it's bigotry. I take it some Christian told you that you'd not only grow hair on your palms, but go to hell, right? So you vowed revenge and are determined to extract it....



> , and justify it through some passages in a book, but if anybody says anything bad about Christianity, all the little martyrs come out to cry about the terrible intolerance,



Well, we can't all be "tolerant" the way you are, bigot boi....


----------



## Lokiate (Aug 24, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Yeah, we should have apologized for 9/11.


How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?





> Yeah, but they had no particular philosophy or motivation, it was just random....
> 
> Right, brite boi?



Oh sure, just like These guys did. So what?





> I like how you added 300 million...


Islam is the world's second largest religion after Christianity. *According to a 2011 demographic study, Islam has 1.6 billion adherents*, making up 23% of the world population

You were saying?



> Regardless: what if only 1% are actively engaged in following the commands of the Koran and Muhammad? By your inflated  figures, that's 16 million terrorists.  Ah, but nothing to be concerned with, I mean, Christians sometimes say people will go to hell. Gotta have priorities, right dumbfuck? (You don't mind if I call you "dumbfuck" do you? I'm not trying to be too familiar.)


Go for it, your ignorance of your own kind is no skin off my nose.  



> If there is anything you show expertise at, it's bigotry. I take it some Christian told you that you'd not only grow hair on your palms, but go to hell, right? So you vowed revenge and are determined to extract it....


You're really terrible at this. Where's that other guy, he's on the ball with these insults.
But yeah, poor lil ole you, some meanie atheist said some not nice things about Jesus and Paul.



> Well, we can't all be "tolerant" the way you are, bigot boi....


Certainly not your brand of 'tolerance'. What was it? "you don't have a right to not be offended"?


----------



## Caroljo (Aug 24, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Lokiate said:
> ...



I don't think anyone believes all 1.7 billion muslims are terrorists....but you get to the point that you don't know which ones you can trust since the majority of other attacks (like Ft Hood, underwear bomber....) or attempted attacks have all been muslims!  And you can't deny there are many out there that want to do the US alot of harm.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 24, 2011)

Caroljo said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



He's the one who categorically said it.  

It all depends on what you label as attacks, I view our entire foreign policy as disgusting and murderous.  We've killed hundreds of thousands of people, all of our bureacrats who install our foreign policy are christians, but I'm not going to blame christianity for our foreign policy or blame all christians for the acts of our christian bureacrats.

What percentage of christians make up our bureacrats?  What percentage of muslims make up terrorists?  .000001% for both?  Not a high enough number certainly for anyone to rationalize being a bigot against either group.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 24, 2011)

Lokiate said:


> How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?



78% less than you, obviously...



> Oh sure, just like These guys did. So what?



Oh my gawd, third world savages being mean to each other...

Damn, that makes Islam the "religion of peace."



> You're really terrible at this.



Well, not everyone can be the master that you are.

Bigotry is a hard art to master...



> But yeah, poor lil ole you, some meanie atheist said some not nice things about Jesus and Paul.



Damn, and I missed it?



> Certainly not your brand of 'tolerance'. What was it? "you don't have a right to not be offended"?



Yep, no one has a right to not be offended.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 24, 2011)

You mean the right to experience nothing but unmitigated joy and contentment isn't a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT?

Say it isn't so!!!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 24, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> You mean the right to experience nothing but unmitigated joy and contentment isn't a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT?
> 
> Say it isn't so!!!



It's a basic human right only if you're a human that is straight, Christian, and has accepted Jesus into your heart.  THEN it's okay to seek joy and contentment.

All others?  You must gnash your teeth and tear your clothes in shame until you finally pray away the gay, accept Jesus as the only way, and then start prostelytizing to others.


----------



## Lokiate (Aug 24, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:
			
		

> Yep, no one has a right to not be offended.


Then don't get mad when it turns out this catchy one-liner turns out to go both ways.


----------



## Lokiate (Aug 24, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> You mean the right to experience nothing but unmitigated joy and contentment isn't a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT?
> 
> Say it isn't so!!!



Who suggested this?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 24, 2011)

Lokiate said:


> Then don't get mad when it turns out this catchy one-liner turns out to go both ways.



You understand that flying planes into buildings goes a little beyond "offense," doncha sparky?


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 24, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Lokiate said:
> 
> 
> > Then don't get mad when it turns out this catchy one-liner turns out to go both ways.
> ...



I doubt it.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 24, 2011)

oracle said:


> JMadison said:
> 
> 
> > Stash said:
> ...





Homosapiens?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Aug 25, 2011)

oracle said:


> I hate to disagree with you but: there's nothing christlike about being gay.


I wouldn't say that.  Both are men.  Both don't sleep with women. Both enjoy a good strawberry daiquiri. Neither like to be persecuted, hated, or crucified.  I don't know if I'd say "nothing" is the same there.



oracle said:


> You can say the bible doesn't condemn it but, it doesn't condemn cigarettes, crack, heroine, polygamy,or racism either. Does that make those things o.k.? people say they are born gay. o.k. let's say that's true. Are people born killers as well? how about bi-polar? maybe... with asthma? My point is, because you believe you are born this way, doesn't make it o.k.


So apparently anything not in the bible is bad.  Computers, cars, Starbucks.  All evil, because the bible doesn't say otherwise. Right?  I love these contrived explanations hicks come up with to justify their prejudice and hatred, all the while hiding behind their personally constructed deity as the facade that scorns so much spite. 



oracle said:


> Remember even if you don't believe in god,or believe you defying him, you ARE defying the law of nature. Think about that for awhile.


Laws of nature?!  Which laws are those?  I don't remember ever coming across those.  Are they in the library of congress?  Perhaps you keep them under your mattress?  Where are these laws you speak of?  This should be interesting.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > "When Christians do this, then they will be on par with Muslims, until then...."
> ...


What a drama queen.  LYING?  Really?  Go read this thread.  And then drop the drama.

Yes, attributing the actions of a handful of people to a religion that comprises millions is generalizing, without you explicitly stating it.  The majority of crime in this country comes from Christians.  Shall we assume Christianity is to blame?  What about extremist or radical Christian groups known to promote terrorism?  Shall we also assume the KKK are accurate representations of Christians based on your grossly generalized interpretation of a few people crashing a plane into a building?

Such ignorance.  Such drama.  You amuse me.  Carry on.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 25, 2011)

What extremist Christian groups promote terrorism?

I don't know of any. I assume you don't, either, or you would have named them. Instead, as usual, it's just the general, bland and vague reference..aka..."lie".


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> What extremist Christian groups promote terrorism?
> 
> I don't know of any. I assume you don't, either, or you would have named them. Instead, as usual, it's just the general, bland and vague reference..aka..."lie".



Christian terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


That was easy.



However the argument made isn't trying to show christians as terrorists, it's showing how stupid it is to paint a broad brush over every follower of a religion based on what the worst .0001% of its members do.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Aug 25, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> I don't know of any. I assume you don't, either


This is brilliant reasoning.  Since you have no knowledge on the matter, instead of running a quick google search to enlighten yourself, you just assume everyone else in the world is just as ignorant. Well done.  Oh and I did name one in my previous post as well.

You should read the thread I mentioned in my previous post here too regarding lying. Good drama.





yep. no radical christian groups down here!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 25, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> What extremist Christian groups promote terrorism?
> 
> I don't know of any. I assume you don't, either, or you would have named them. Instead, as usual, it's just the general, bland and vague reference..aka..."lie".



You must be very young and naive so I give you a full pass on this one.
Having grown up in the 60s in the deep south I know first hand the support the Klan had from almost every church in the south.
And it is still going on but no where near as bad.
You do know about the Klan, don't you?


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 25, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > What extremist Christian groups promote terrorism?
> ...


 
Lol..the wiki article...did you read it? How funny.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Wow, in a couple short minutes you were able to read the wiki article debunk that and debunk their 81 references they have to their information.


Please direct me to your spead reading course and please provide a comprehensive breakdown of how you know the information provided is false.


Thanks


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Aug 25, 2011)

That's interesting.  Up here you say 


			
				koshergrl said:
			
		

> Instead, as usual, it's just the general, bland and vague reference..aka..."lie".


And then down here you hand waive all of history's radical Christian organizations with the supporting evidence of:



koshergrl said:


> Lol..the wiki article...did you read it? How funny.



Care to actually support something you're saying?


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 25, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know of any. I assume you don't, either
> ...


 
Oh..so when you make a specious claim, it's my job to look it up?

Afraid not. When people refuse to back up their claims, I assume they're lying.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 25, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> That's interesting. Up here you say
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Hmm...tribal violence attributed to Christianity on wiki, and the same old same old pretense that anti-abortionists and the KKK are radical Christian groups.

Weak, and predictable.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > That's interesting. Up here you say
> ...



They are radical christian groups, not anti-abortionists in general but anti-abortionists who turn to violence.  I'm not sure how you could possibly deny that.

And if I were to judge you based on their actions I'd be a disgusting bigot, like Uncensored since he does that with terrorists and broadly judges all muslims as if they're terrorists.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 25, 2011)

The difference being that the imams of Islam support terrorism...but you won't find the church speaking in defense of, or funding, the weird little groups here and there who claim they are motivated by God.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 25, 2011)

But that's a different subject and has nothing to do with the alleged laws being created by graffiti that you all are so afraid of.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 25, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> what extremist christian groups promote terrorism?
> 
> I don't know of any. I assume you don't, either, or you would have named them. Instead, as usual, it's just the general, bland and vague reference..aka..."lie".


kkk


----------



## blu (Aug 25, 2011)

christians always need at least one group to discriminate against and always manage to justify it with the bible.... first it was keeping slaves in america, then it was giving black people rights, then it was interracial marriage, now its gay people... I wonder who will be next?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> The difference being that the imams of Islam support terrorism...but you won't find the church speaking in defense of, or funding, the weird little groups here and there who claim they are motivated by God.



And I never hear preachers speaking out against those in Uganda or Northern Ireland or the abortion clinic bombers, or the KKK, should I do my best impersonation of an idiot and pretend that means they support the horrible things those people are doing?  

No, religious leaders aren't obligated to quell the fear of bigots by denouncing the acts of the worst people in the religion, like you're trying to pretend they are.

"But that's a different subject and has nothing to do with the alleged laws being created by graffiti that you all are so afraid of. "

I'm not afraid of them, just trying to get people to take the Constitution seriously again.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

blu said:


> christians always need at least one group to discriminate against and always manage to justify it with the bible.... first it was keeping slaves in america, then it was giving black people rights, then it was interracial marriage, now its gay people... I wonder who will be next?



Gays have a lot of money, so I'm confident the gay hating will quiet down quickly.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> What a drama queen.  LYING?  Really?  Go read



Zzzzzzz

oh, did you babble something, dumberthanshit?



> Yes, attributing the actions of a handful of people to a religion that comprises millions is generalizing, without you explicitly stating it.



Oh, well how nice.



> The majority of crime in this country comes from Christians.



Damn, and they are such a small percentage of the population compared to the Muslim majority.



> Shall we assume Christianity is to blame?



A safer assumption is that you're mentally retarded.



> What about extremist or radical Christian groups known to promote terrorism?



Christian terrorism is a global problem. Every single day, dozens of terror attacks by Christians occur. Christian youth screaming "Jesus Akbar" rage through the streets of London, Madrid and Detroit. Christian theocratic dictatorship in Iran and Sudan stone women and girls, hang gays from cranes. It's just awful what these Christians are doing.


Retards, what would the left do without them?

DumberThanShit, you live up to your name.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 25, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > christians always need at least one group to discriminate against and always manage to justify it with the bible.... first it was keeping slaves in america, then it was giving black people rights, then it was interracial marriage, now its gay people... I wonder who will be next?
> ...



Does that mean that Gays are true conservatives?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> What extremist Christian groups promote terrorism?



Al Christa, led by Osama bin Jesus. Just ask Drock or DumberThanShit!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> And then down here you hand waive all of history's radical Christian organizations with the supporting evidence of:



In 1634, a group of Christains burned down a barn... 

SEE, they are EXACTLY like the Muslims, SEE, SEE, SEE!

Jeezus Dumberthanshit, you're dumber than shit.

2011.08.25 (Yala, Thailand) - A 3-year-old girl and her father are shot to death by Holy Warriors.
2011.08.24 (Avdesh, India) - Two brothers are abducted and murdered by Hizb-ul-Mujahideen.
2011.08.24 (Ramadi, Iraq) - A suicide car bomber takes out a half dozen Iraqis.
2011.08.24 (Diyala, Iraq) - A woman and child are among five innocents exterminated by Jihadi bombers.
2011.08.24 (Paktia, Afghanistan) - Islamists send rockets into a market, taking out at least three patrons, including a child.
2011.08.23 (Pattani, Thailand) - Buddhist monks are among the casualties of two bombings that claim two lives.

That's not 500 years ago, stupid fuck, that's this week.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > What extremist Christian groups promote terrorism?
> ...



Lol what an idiot, it gets worse by the day.


Name anything I've said that even marginally implies anything you just said.




I said the worst version of christians that represent about .00001% of them are terrorists, how is that insulting?  Wouldn't the worst .000001% of anyone with any background be a pretty bad group of people.

Being the bigot you are, I doubt you have the common sense to be aware of such a thing.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> kkk



Ohh MY GAWD...

THE KKK....



In the last 20 years they are responsible for .... Um - uh, being BOOOGGGGY men that stupid fuck leftists can point to as justification for their bigotry.

Hey shit fer brains, does the KKK scare you as much as Baldemort?


----------



## Zona (Aug 25, 2011)

So Jesus never said homosexuality was a bad thing?  Wow.  Homophobes, comments?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

blu said:


> christians always need at least one group to discriminate against and always manage to justify it with the bible.... first it was keeping slaves in america, then it was giving black people rights, then it was interracial marriage, now its gay people... I wonder who will be next?



Poor poor gays..

Christians are stoning and hanging them from cranes. Not like the peaceful Muslims who protect them.

No wonder you leftists hate Christians and love Muslims.






Damn Christians.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



There's only a tiny pocket of americans I'd consider conservative, but i'm sure there's some gay people in there.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > christians always need at least one group to discriminate against and always manage to justify it with the bible.... first it was keeping slaves in america, then it was giving black people rights, then it was interracial marriage, now its gay people... I wonder who will be next?
> ...



There you have it again, 1.7 billion muslims are stoning and hanging gays from cranes.

Keep it coming, then tell me out of the other side of your mouth you aren't a bigot.  

It's great entertainment.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Lol what an idiot, it gets worse by the day.
> 
> 
> Name anything I've said that even marginally implies anything you just said.



Your retardation is progressing.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...s-sinful-as-homosexuality-26.html#post4051051

You keep hunting those Al Christa terrorists, Allah is depending on you to keep America safe from the terrorists...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

Zona said:


> So Jesus never said homosexuality was a bad thing?  Wow.  Homophobes, comments?



Typically homophobes are the one hour a week type of christians.  The love your neighbor stuff and the golden rule, jibberish the rest of the week.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> There you have it again, 1.7 billion muslims are stoning and hanging gays from cranes.



Hey stupid fuck, it's a bummer that "Islamic Theocracy" has no meaning to you.

Yeah, that does mean that you're stupid.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 25, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


 
The nonsensical and irrational assumption that because Islam and Christianity are both religions, they are BOTH equally guilty of promoting terrorism is just that..nonsensical and irrational.

And not true besides.


----------



## FuelRod (Aug 25, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > christians always need at least one group to discriminate against and always manage to justify it with the bible.... first it was keeping slaves in america, then it was giving black people rights, then it was interracial marriage, now its gay people... I wonder who will be next?
> ...



Of course they do.  If they're dating someone their same size, one wardrobe.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Lol what an idiot, it gets worse by the day.
> ...



I'll give you that, morally the KKK and Al-Qaeda are on the same level.  However the difference between disgusting bigots like you and fair minded people like me is you equate all muslims to Al-Qaeda, and I assume 99.999999% of christians are nothing like the KKK.

Which I've already stated, and repeated, was the purpose of showing that christian terrorists exist.  It's impossible for a group of humans, religious or non-religious, to not have a disgusting group of immoral people in its bottom .00001%.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Typically homophobes are the one hour a week type of christians.



Yep, those damn Christians.. Why can't they be like your beloved Muslim allies?






You promote Islam because you're for gay rights!


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Where did I say they equally promote terrorism? I'd never say something that stupid, it's impossible to measure such a thing.  

The overwhelming majority of christians and muslims are good peaceful people, it's too bad others refuse to see such an obvious truth.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Typically homophobes are the one hour a week type of christians.
> ...



I didn't say all christians are homophobes, the majority are not.


Continue on with your desperate, weak and false assumptions.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

and another Uncensored lie, his quota is going up, I've never promoted Islam in my life and certainly haven't on this thread.


Islam is stupid, I wish it never existed.  Now spin that into a promotion lol.


----------



## 2twsted4colorTV (Aug 25, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> For fish to be considered clean to eat they must have fins and scales.  It is in Leviticus.  I can't quote chapter and verse though.
> the same book that says hosexuality is a sin as well.
> And a sin is a sin.



That's the same place where the Jehovah's Witnesses get that they shouldn't eat blood, therefore they refuse blood transfusions because they see it as "eating" blood -  this is all taken out of context.  Reading the entire chapter shows that they are talking about back then whenever this was written.  

As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't in the 10 commandments, it isn't meant to be. There is no commandment that says "thou shalt not eat blood, nonscaly fish, etc."


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 25, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


 
You did it right there. "It's impossible to measure..." No, it's not.

"the overwhelming majority of christians and muslims..." WAIT...you just said it's impossible to measure....AND you said they don't equally promote terrorism..and yet you claim they are parallel right here.

You need to make up your mind and get down to specifics instead of all this silly feel-good gobbledygook.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

FuelRod said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



I'd say more because most of them don't have children.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> I'll give you that, morally the KKK and Al-Qaeda are on the same level.



Oh, you'll give me that, huh?

Yeah, I still remember 5/7, when the KKK flew planes into the Empire State building...

Yep, the KKK is just like Al Qaeda, it's a constant threat. Just LOOK at all the acts of violence the KKK perpetrates? 

Say, I heard there are more FBI agents in Al Qaeda than there are actual members, because the organization has been virtually dead since the 1950's.

Oh wait, that was the Klan... But you say they're exactly the same..



> However the difference between disgusting bigots like you and fair minded people like me



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Fair minded? A bigot like you? A stupid fuck who makes the most absurd posts to try and paint Christians as if they were Al Qaeda?



> Which I've already stated, and repeated, was the purpose of showing that christian terrorists exist.



Your reason is known, you are an anti-Christian bigot who wants to smear Christians as the same as Muslim. You don't mind bending the truth and outright lying to do it.

You're kind of a scumbag, ya know?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



It's not?  Please provide me the scientific report that measures such a thing.

It's not impossible to measure the overwhelming majority of christians and muslims are peaceful, the world would be expolding if they weren't.  Good is more subjective and can't be measured, but I stand by that and am confident I'm right.

Feel good gobbledygook?  That's how you characterize me saying most christians and muslims are good peaceful people?  I'm sorry you have such a miserable opinion of your fellow man.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> I didn't say all christians are homophobes, the majority are not.



Hey stupid fuck, does Islam treat homosexuals the same way Christians do?

That is an Islamic Theocracy with 200 million people that did that. It sits next to a dozen other Islamic theocracies totaling nearly a billion people, which do the same thing.

Oh, but it's the Christians we should hate..


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 25, 2011)

We should fear US Christians because they promote freedom of religion and speech, and exercise it...we should create laws which prevent them from doing so...

But we're Islamophobes if we fear Muslims who have set up theocracies and commit human rights violations all over the world.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > I'll give you that, morally the KKK and Al-Qaeda are on the same level.
> ...



Morals=Threat?  That's cute, I never referenced anything about threat level.  I view neither as much of a threat.

Me saying .000001% of christians are terrorists and that the overwhelming majority are good peaceful people=me painting all christians as terrorists?  Keep it coming, I'm loving your lunacy.

I have never and would never compare 2.1 billion people to 1.7 billion people, that's impossible.  You're the one with an amazing ability to compare dozens of people, or in other cases hundreds of people to billions of people.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say all christians are homophobes, the majority are not.
> ...



So billions of muslims run those governments?  I didn't think you could look any dumber, but with each post you make you prove me wrong.


Of course, I've never stated anything in the ballpark of we should hate christians, we should love christians as our brothers and sisters.


Hence why I have great quotes from great christians in my signature.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> We should fear US Christians because they promote freedom of religion and speech, and exercise it...we should create laws which prevent them from doing so...
> 
> But we're Islamophobes if we fear Muslims who have set up theocracies and commit human rights violations all over the world.



You're an islamophobe if you equate all muslims as terrorists the way Uncensored does, I don't know if you do that, I hope not.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> We should fear US Christians because they promote freedom of religion and speech, and exercise it..



That is EXACTLY why Drock fears and hates them!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Morals=Threat?



The Klan is a fantasy, a phantom that you fucktards roll out to support your bigotry.

There is no Klan, the pathetic losers who play wannabe have no organization, no structure and no funding..

Pull the FBI out, and the paltry 500 members nation wide drops to 150.

You're an idiot Drock.

Seriously.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Lol what an idiot, it gets worse by the day.
> ...


Giving the location of where I live, I have a larger fear of some crazy right wing loon who could be a christian committing a terrorist act than I do a Muslim. They are the only ones who have set bombs in my city so far.. ONe just set one, that is said to be one of the most sophisticated bombs found the US to date, and it was set by a white christian male at a MLK parade. 
Don't get me started on the Aryans just across the border, so yes some crazy Christian with hate for another group is a bigger threat to me than some Muslim.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> So billions of muslims run those governments?



Yes, in a very real sense they do.

Did you think George W. Bush imposed Sharia on them, against their will?

You truly are a fucking moron Drock, truly.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Morals=Threat?
> ...



They aren't the Klan, but I doubt you have been to Northern Idaho or Eastern Washington. 

And a few of them have done some not so nice almost terrorist like acts.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

Luissa said:


> Giving the location of where I live, I have a larger fear of some crazy right wing loon who could be a christian committing a terrorist act than I do a Muslim.



You're sharing the fact that you are not rational nor stable with me, for what reason?



> They are the only ones who have set bombs in my city so far.. ONe just set one, that is said to be one of the most sophisticated bombs found the US to date, and it was set by a white christian male at a MLK parade.



So you have a link to the bomb set by these evil Christians just recently?

{Paul Mullet, who heads The Aryan Nations Socialist Party of Athol, Idaho, told the Journal that he had been in touch with Harpham   many times after he inquired about information of the group. 

"He seemed like a real nice guy," Mullet reportedly said, adding that he sent Mr. Harpham literature but he never joined the movement.

Special Agent Frederick Gutt said the intense, nearly two-month-long investigation included hostage rescue teams, agents flown in from Washington, D.C., and evidence collection experts.

This is the end of chapter one of the investigation, Gutt told Foxnews.com.

Read more: Ex-Soldier Charged In Connection To MLK Parade Bomb Plot | FoxNews.com
}

Oh damn, looks like it was a racist,

Hey, that's okay - you *have* to lie, what else have you got?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > So billions of muslims run those governments?
> ...



Yep billions of people run those countries, I'm sure all the countries you're talking about have just great open ballot elections.


So for those of your keeping score, 1.7 billion muslims (even american muslims) committed 9/11 and 1.7 billlion muslims (again, including american muslims) are responsible for the actions of the governments of muslim majority countries.


I'll keep you updated for everything else that is the fault of all muslims, Uncensored has no problem letting us all know.  I'm sure Hurricane Irene is all their fault too.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 25, 2011)

Are you saying he wasn't a Christian?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 25, 2011)

Luissa said:


> Are you saying he wasn't a Christian?


Denial is not a river in Egypt.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

Luissa said:


> They aren't the Klan, but I doubt you have been to Northern Idaho or Eastern Washington.



Sure I have. I know who Aryan Nations are, just as I know who the Black Panthers and Southern Law and Poverty Center are.

There are race hate groups out there. The Aryans are particularly nasty. A prison based group running the Meth trade in much of the West.



> And a few of them have done some not so nice almost terrorist like acts.



The drug trade is what drives them. Even the MLK parade bombing was meant to kill Crips in the parade to open more area for the Aryans to traffic in.  In a very real sense, the Aryans are more dangerous than the Klan ever was, because they have no actual core beliefs, they are really just a drug cartel. A very violent one.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > They aren't the Klan, but I doubt you have been to Northern Idaho or Eastern Washington.
> ...



To be honest the Aryans have become just like the Black gangs and Mexican cartels they claim to hate so much.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Yep billions of people run those countries, I'm sure all the countries you're talking about have just great open ballot elections.



You're head shakingly stupid.

Iranian Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Holy fuck are you a stupid one.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

Luissa said:


> Are you saying he wasn't a Christian?



He is a Meth dealer for AN, can you point to where Jesus told the flock to "Go forth and spread the speed?"


----------



## Luissa (Aug 25, 2011)

DO you have proof the Aryans here and Harpham was a meth dealer? or that he was trying to get rid of Crips?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> To be honest the Aryans have become just like the Black gangs and Mexican cartels they claim to hate so much.



I agree 100%

Aryan Nations has zero redeeming qualities.

I live in the Los Angeles area. There is a shit hole in the Southland known as "San Bernardino." Anyone going there and seeing the devastation meth has inflicted on the white population can only conclude that Aryan Nations is at war with whites and seeking to exterminate them.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Yep billions of people run those countries, I'm sure all the countries you're talking about have just great open ballot elections.
> ...



So the Iranian revolution is proof 1.7 billion muslims execute gays and they all had a hand in 9/11?


Yep, I'm the stupid one............................


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

Luissa said:


> DO you have proof the Aryans here and Harpham was a meth dealer? or that he was trying to get rid of Crips?



Only what that idiot Mullet told the FBI.

But it fits with their methods. These are drug dealers, it's what they do.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest the Aryans have become just like the Black gangs and Mexican cartels they claim to hate so much.
> ...



I guess the Aryans have adopted the motto if you can't beat them join them? I have watched several documentaries on the group and they claim to be so much better than blacks and Mexican gangs but I see no damn difference between them besides skin color, the Aryans bring absolutlely nothing to help the white race.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > They aren't the Klan, but I doubt you have been to Northern Idaho or Eastern Washington.
> ...



I want a link stating he was trying to kill crips in the parade..


----------



## Luissa (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > DO you have proof the Aryans here and Harpham was a meth dealer? or that he was trying to get rid of Crips?
> ...



Well if he was, he picked a bad place to do it. I would put money on there maybe being two gang members at the most at the parade. qw


----------



## Luissa (Aug 25, 2011)

That's weird, I couldn't find anything about him being a meth dealer or anything having to do with meth in regards to his name. 
For one, I doubt anyone would go after the Crips in Spokane if they wanted to control the meth market.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> So the Iranian revolution is proof 1.7 billion muslims execute gays and they all had a hand in 9/11?



No, stupid fuck. The Iranian revolution shows that the Iranian people DID establish the Islamic theocracy there. The acts of the Iranian theocracy DO follow the will of the Muslim population that put it in place.



> Yep, I'm the stupid one............................



Yes, you sure are.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

Luissa said:


> That's weird, I couldn't find anything about him being a meth dealer or anything having to do with meth in regards to his name.
> For one, I doubt anyone would go after the Crips in Spokane if they wanted to control the meth market.



So lets recap then;

It's Christians behind terrorism. There are at most two black gang member in Spokane, and the Aryan Nations has nothing to do with Methamphetamine production and distribution.

That about right?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > So the Iranian revolution is proof 1.7 billion muslims execute gays and they all had a hand in 9/11?
> ...



So is that your backwards way of finally admitting you were wrong to categorize all muslims as having a hand in 9/11 and killing gays?

You certainly didn't limit it to a particular group of muslims, at least now (still incorrectly) you're only putting blame for muslims in a certain area killing gays in the same area.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > That's weird, I couldn't find anything about him being a meth dealer or anything having to do with meth in regards to his name.
> ...



No, I am saying gang members were probably not at the rally. I have known the guy who leads the parade since I was a child. Most of the African Americans that are involved with Happy have lived in Spokane for awhile and have nothing to do with gangs. I never said all christians were behind terrorism. I also never said Aryan didn't deal meth.. But nice try... 
But you could try showing proof this guy had anything to do with dealing meth in Spokane, or that even had anything to do with meth. 
You do realize he lived an hour and half away from Spokane, right?


----------



## Luissa (Aug 25, 2011)

Most African American gang members in Spokane are not from Spokane, and do not go to MLK parades. 
He would have had a better chance of killing a white meth dealer in downtown Spokane, than a black gang member.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> So is that your backwards way of finally admitting you were wrong to categorize all muslims as having a hand in 9/11 and killing gays?



So then, you're on psychotropic drugs at this very moment?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

Luissa said:


> No, I am saying gang members were probably not at the rally.



Spokane must be unique then. Here in Los Angeles, no Black Gang would fail to represent in an MLK parade.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > So is that your backwards way of finally admitting you were wrong to categorize all muslims as having a hand in 9/11 and killing gays?
> ...



Lol at myself, how could I think you'd admit to being wrong when you're constantly proven wrong and never admit to it.


Maybe I should get some of those drugs, your posts would make more sense then.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Lol at myself, how could I think you'd admit to being wrong when you're constantly proven wrong and never admit to it.



So in your alleged mind; you making the statement that Iran doesn't reflect the will of Islam in general - then my showing your that Iran was an Islamic uprising where the people openly revolted for the purpose of establishing an Islamic theocracy, somehow is you "proving me wrong?"

ROFL

And you wonder why I view you as being stupid as a fucking door post....

Drock, you're either on drugs, or stupid beyond belief. Those *literally* are the only options.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > No, I am saying gang members were probably not at the rally.
> ...



never been to spokane? LOL

First off, there isn't a whole lot of black people for one, even less are black gang members, and most are not from Spokane. The rally here is small and is usually white people or member of Happy Watkins church. 
They also don't have much control over the meth market here, and would be a stupid target if you were trying to take over an area.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

Luissa said:


> never been to spokane? LOL



I've been to Spokane many times. I used to fly in there to go up to a facility we had in Bonner's Ferry, Idaho.



> First off, there isn't a whole lot of black people for one, even less are black gang members, and most are not from Spokane. The rally here is small and is usually white people or member of Happy Watkins church.
> 
> They also don't have much control over the meth market here, and would be a stupid target if you were trying to take over an area.



Fair enough.  

If you didn't pick up on this, I really detest the Aryans, so them being stupid wouldn't surprise me. That scumbag Mullet is libel to say anything.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Lol at myself, how could I think you'd admit to being wrong when you're constantly proven wrong and never admit to it.
> ...



You used Iran to back your views that muslims in general are responsible for 9/11 and killing gays, I'm sure you realize how stupid that is, but you don't have the integrity to admit it.


Also, are you now going to take back your ridiculous childish claim that I want chrsitians hated and that all christians are terrorists when I've stated the exact opposite of those things repeatedly right on this very thread?


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 25, 2011)

Luissa said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...


 
Spokane is crawling with gang activity.
Not primarily black, however.

This is what you have going on in Spokane and Walla Walla (and Yakama):

"As law enforcement target violent gangs, gang members migrate from the city to suburbia when they attempt to blend in to escape threat of law enforcement action.  As gangs move into new communities; crime and violence follows. 
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*How Transnational Gangs are Different from Street Gangs 
*[/FONT]
The primary distinction between transnational gangs and other domestic street gangs is that they are criminally active and operate in more than one country.  Transnational gangs tend to operate globally and their criminal activities transcend borders.   They are sophisticated and their activities resemble those of organized criminal syndicates.  As  transnational gangs migrate to the U.S., they bring their gang culture, style and violence with them.
A transnational gang has the following characteristics: 

Criminally active and operational in more than one country.
Criminal activities tend to be sophisticated and transcend borders.
Criminal activities committed by members are planned, directed, and controlled by gang leaders in another country.
Such gangs tend to be mobile and adapt to new areas."
Organized Crime and Criminal Activity


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> You used Iran to back your views that muslims in general are responsible for 9/11 and killing gays,



Hey stupid, there is something known as Sharia. This is Islamic law. When Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Tunisia put homosexuals to death, they do so in accordance with and based on Sharia, Islamic law. 

Fuck but you are stupid. I mean, I don't know if it's desperation because of the hole you've dug yourself in, but fuck you are stupid..


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 25, 2011)

Well techincally it was not terrorism, but how about the right wing religious support of invading Iraq and the subsequent war there?
Since a gummit did it it is not terrorism, but I am sure it terrorized lots of Iraqi.  And killed hundreds of thousands as well.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > You used Iran to back your views that muslims in general are responsible for 9/11 and killing gays,
> ...



Now it gets fun, as you've finally exposed that you're blaming citizens of the country for what their military tyrannical dictators do.  

It's their fault for ELECTING *KING* Abdullah, lol.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you agreed with Osama Bin Laden on his calls for a holy war, being as loud and proud of a bigot as you are.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Well techincally it was not terrorism, but how about the right wing religious support of invading Iraq and the subsequent war there?



Relax there kitty, no need to try so hard: we already know that you're a fucking moron, you have nothing to prove.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Now it gets fun, as you've finally exposed that you're blaming citizens of the country for what their military tyrannical dictators do.



Iran isn't a military dictatorship, shit fer brains. It is the result of a popular uprising that DEMANDED a theocracy.

Fuck but you are stupid. I mean, I don't know if it's desperation because of the hole you've dug yourself in, but fuck you are stupid..


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > You used Iran to back your views that muslims in general are responsible for 9/11 and killing gays,
> ...



So why is it again that Uganda is putting homosexuals to death?  

Oh yeah...........



> Americans Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push Twitter
> By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
> Published: January 3, 2010
> 
> ...



Americans&#8217; Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push - NYTimes.com


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 25, 2011)

Texans have been known to put homosexuals to death as well.
Something about dragging them with a truck?
Hell of a way to go out in drag.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 25, 2011)

How does going to Uganda to talk to gays translate into killing them?

Never mind. It doesn't.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 25, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> How does going to Uganda to talk to gays translate into killing them?
> 
> Never mind. It doesn't.



It was because of the Christian anti-gay diatribe (helped along by C Street by the way), that Uganda decided that gays needed to be put to death.

Real good Christians you're sending there, eh?


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 25, 2011)

No it's not. It's because of their psychotic leader, who is using Christianity as a front for a tribal agenda.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 25, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> No it's not. It's because of their psychotic leader, who is using Christianity as a front for a tribal agenda.



Furthered by the assistance they pick up from C Street Christians here in the US.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 25, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> No it's not. It's because of their psychotic leader, who is using Christianity as a front for a tribal agenda.



the bible says not to judge anothers faith.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 25, 2011)

Where do you get judgement of faith out of that? It's not about faith, it's about tribal warfare.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 25, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Where do you get judgement of faith out of that? It's not about faith, it's about tribal warfare.



Judgement of faith is what one set of Christians does to another set.  Wanna see it in action?  Watch Northern and Southern Baptists debate the Bible sometime.

And......fwiw........all the different sects of Christianity is kinda like a whole bunch of different tribes.

Whenever someone tells me they're Chrisitian, the first question I ask is "what variety?" because even though they may be Christian, they don't always agree.

They actually ARE kinda tribal in how they judge the faith of other Christians.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 25, 2011)

You know strange thing.  I tried to search the net for gay catfish and could not find any.

A part of gods master plan reinforcing that eating catfish is just as bad as homosexuality?


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 25, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Where do you get judgement of faith out of that? It's not about faith, it's about tribal warfare.
> ...


 
All very interesting.

Has nothing to do with the situation in Uganda.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 25, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> You know strange thing. I tried to search the net for gay catfish and could not find any.
> 
> A part of gods master plan reinforcing that eating catfish is just as bad as homosexuality?


 
Well I personally think eating catfish is a bad idea...anything that thrives on human shit and has to be killed with a board and a nail can't be meant for human consumption.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 25, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Really?



> C Street politics: The Christian mafia is advocating the death penalty for homosexuals in Uganda. The Family at C Street, aka the Christian mafia, is backing proposed anti-gay legislation in Uganda that will sentence homosexuals to death.
> 
> The Family at C Street is actively supporting the Ugandan leaders who are championing this draconian legislation, legislation that would institute the death penalty for homosexuality.
> 
> ...



C Street politics: The Family sponsors death for homosexuals in Uganda - Portland Progressive | Examiner.com


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 25, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > You know strange thing. I tried to search the net for gay catfish and could not find any.
> ...



Ahh so you do not know about Channel Catfish?
They are the only good catfish.

Lobster however live in the slime in the bottom of the ocean.  So do oysters, etc.

You did however describe politicians pretty well.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Aug 26, 2011)

I'd swap homos for catfish any day.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 26, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Oysters do not live in slime. They have to have very clean water to live. Any change in that clean water for any period of time kills them.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 26, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Now it gets fun, as you've finally exposed that you're blaming citizens of the country for what their military tyrannical dictators do.
> ...



You are good at deleting parts of quotes in order to cover yourself.  But it doesn't do much because a simple scroll up and people can see the rest of what was said.

You brought up Saudi Arabia, not me, KING Abdullah runs that country.  You're blaming the muslim citizens for sharia law in Saudi Arabia, like I said blaming the citizens for what their tyrannical dictator does.  Which is another example of why your stupidity should result in you being in straitjacket somewhere with heavily padded walls.

Don't worry I'm patient, I can keep walking you through this very slowly and point out the many mistakes you manage to make in your short, 1-2 sentence posts.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 26, 2011)

You know, I don't know about the Christian Mafia. I do know that the information on this alleged "support" is really skinny, despite the fact that it has been hinted at for years. My understanding is that the church or whatever it is was visiting Uganda and ministering to the lunatic running that country, but that they withdrew their support and denounced the slaughter of gays.

I've searched and searched for more information, and all I can find are old articles with suppositions and accusations...but absolutely no hard evidence. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I know the mainstream Christian community will never support the slaughter of homosexuals. It won't happen, and it hasn't.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 27, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Christine O'Donnell is not the Lord.

There are specific Biblical statements for what is and what is not, immoral.  Lewd acts have not been re-defined by the homosexual activists, yet.  They still mean the same thing.
Your words would be an example of those that Yeshua was speaking of when He said you were more concerned with the rule of men, than the will of the Lord.

Are we "re-defining" go after, now?  I have not attacked anyone for presenting a valid point of view.  I have offered a different view with Biblical statements or stories to back up my understanding.  I can't say that has been the case for the homosexual activists on this board.   They basically are telling people: because I said, it is not immoral.  They will not list their authority.  They will not list their Biblical references, unless they are being extremely vauge, and never in context of the Biblical story.

I would say that it is immoral to focus on another person's body with thoughts about their body, only.  There is no consideration for personality or their family relationships: mother, sister, daughter, only a demeaning, objectification of a person.  If you see another person and simply admire them for being beautiful or athletic, or what ever, without wanting them to be an OBJECT for your lusts, then I would say that is NOT immoral.

I don't have a "little narrow slice" for what I thing the Lord is.  The Lord is way bigger than I can understand or know.  He gave us rules to obey, after, the Hebrews petitioned Moses for Him to do so.  Yeshua spoke of similar sins against the Father.  Those are pretty clear.  They do not come from me, but I can see the sense that they make.  It is the homosexual activists that want to "preach" to Christians about how "Christians should behave", using Biblical references, yet ignore and defy the Biblical references to homosexual acts.  What is up with that?  Is it deliberate deception?  Do you meet enough ignorant (Biblically, worldly) Christians, that this works on some?  Or do you really believe that humans have the power to VOID, the Lord's Word?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 27, 2011)

Lokiate said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Would you demonstrate with the gospels to where Yeshua, lied?  Could you provide a list of people that could: make more food when a small amount was present, control the weather, walk on water, heal others, ...... and come back from the dead and be seen for forty days afterward?

Paul didn't know Yeshua when he was living.  He saw him "after" his physical body had been crucified.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 27, 2011)

Lokiate said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > But why do dickheads like you always find it so damn necessary to go out of your way to insult the beliefs of others?
> ...



So you hate all muslims now (cause they despise homosexuals, and want to actually murder them, dead)?


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 27, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > How does going to Uganda to talk to gays translate into killing them?
> ...


 
 It is a TRIBAL practice that he brought with him. He may say he does it as a Christian, but the church doesn't (and has never) supported that, and they have publicly said so as well as telling him this face to face...and when they saw he could not be counseled they regretfully withdrew what support they had given him. This is a man who was raised in brutal poverty, by tribal lunatics, and who embraced the church in a skewed and schizophrenic way..the only way he could. 

 The church, even the C Street church, NEVER endorsed such a heinous activity. They were appalled by it, and they told him so, and told the world so. SUPPORTING it would require they do just that...support it. They sent missionaries to Uganda (and there are missionaries there still) who risk their lives to lead these poor people in their search for God. They do not risk their lives in order to promote genocide (which is essentially what is is, as the homosexuals that are being targeted come from one particular region and so are unique to themselves).  

I don't think people who have never been involved with missionary work, who jeer at it and simplify it, really understand what risks these people take, and the amazing things they do. They go into the absolutely worst situations in the world...where the horrific crimes are taking place, where people are dying brutally and frequently, and they help people. This is what he was exposed to as a child. But nobody realizes just how bad those situations are...you think if missionaries are there, it must be peachy! It's not. Missionaries arrive before the Red Cross, years before. Brutality breeds brutality, and of course there are people who rise up out of that mess claiming themselves to be Christian, and with a fair understanding of what it is to be Christian...but who are so warped and so sick they cannot reconcile their Christianity with what they have experienced.

The leader of Uganda is one of those. Christians will always reach out to such people because those are the places where people need us the most.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 27, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



What percentage of our politicians are claiming they are going to war for "Christ"?  What Christians are dancing in the street because a muslim community was bombed?  What Christians rip out the intestines of muslims and hold them up as victory, along with hands covered in the blood of their "non-believers"?

It amazes me when idiots want to say that muslims and Christians are "just the same".  They have to reach far and wide for Christian-proclaimed crimminals over a period of decades.  Yet they overlook muslim terrorist acts that are committed almost daily, muslim human slavery trafficing, stoning women, murdering homosexuals, just in general deceit, destruction and death by thousands, on a global basis.  Just where are those piles of be-headed bodies the Christians, have?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 27, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > kkk
> ...



They (KKK) did have some members serving in congress as democrats.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 27, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Caroljo said:
> ...



You were going real good there, making a lot of sense then you started your last paragraph. 
I overlook no Muslim terror acts. I have always been one of the first to proclaim that only a small % of Muslims are terrorists but a very large of terrorists are Muslim.
Stick with the facts and you do fine. When you allow your ideology to come out, you stray from common sense into opinion only.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 27, 2011)

So you think Muslims and Christians are just the same, do you?


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 27, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Lokiate said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



so this same Paul that wrote most of the new testament did not even know Jesus when he was alive?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 27, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> So you think Muslims and Christians are just the same, do you?



Well, one set of folks believe in Muhammad and my set of folks believe in the teachings of Jesus. 
Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 27, 2011)

Mustlims and Christians and Jews all believe in the god of Abraham.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 27, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Mustlims and Christians and Jews all believe in the god of Abraham.



But that ain't what the preachers say in church. 
That fact does not fill the plate.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 27, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Mustlims and Christians and Jews all believe in the god of Abraham.
> ...



that is what the bible and Doctors of theology at the local siminary tell me.

Preacher often lie.

Preachers have told me it was a sin to dance, go to movies, have long hair (on a man), etc.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 27, 2011)

I'm stunned.

Enjoy jihad.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 27, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Interestingly enough...........Yeshua had long hair and was male.  I'd also be willing to bet that He danced at weddings.

Movies weren't invented yet though, but I'd be willing to bet He'd go watch a few.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 27, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I asked about the water into wine thing and Jesus drinking wine and the preacher told me that they did not have any good water and had to drink wine.  I would still go to hell for drinking.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 27, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Really?  Next time you talk to someone like that, hit 'em up with Psalm 104:15.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 28, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Lokiate said:
> ...



Yeshua has never died.  Paul knew Him after He was resurrected.  Otherwise there would be five gospels.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 28, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > So you think Muslims and Christians are just the same, do you?
> ...



Ask them if they follow Yeshua's teachings.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 29, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...





Do you follow their teachings?
Something about The United States of America and respect of other religions.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 29, 2011)

logical4u said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


Umm how could he be ressurected if he had never died?


----------



## peach174 (Aug 29, 2011)

Eating catfish is not sinful.
That is under mosaic law.
Christians are exempt from mosaic law after Christ's death.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 29, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Eating catfish is not sinful.
> That is under mosaic law.
> Christians are exempt from mosaic law after Christ's death.



Same with Homosexuality.


----------



## peach174 (Aug 29, 2011)

Sodomy- is an "anal or other copulation-like act, especially between males or between male persons or between human being and animal," and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite.

1 Corinthians 6:9&#8211;10 as follows:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers&#8212;none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

No homosexuality is not exempt.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 29, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Sodomy- is an "anal or other copulation-like act, especially between males or between male persons or between human being and animal," and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 6:910 as follows:
> 
> ...



According to that verse none will inherit the kingdom of god.


----------



## chesswarsnow (Aug 29, 2011)

Sorry bout that,






uscitizen said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sodomy- is an "anal or other copulation-like act, especially between males or between male persons or between human being and animal," and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite.
> ...







1. If you aint in then where are you?




Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## peach174 (Aug 29, 2011)

You must believe.

The Bible says that, "If you confess with your mouth, &#8216;Jesus is Lord,&#8217; and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." As you yield your life to Him, God will help you turn from your sins. You cannot overcome sin without His help. The Bible says, "Unless you repent you will all likewise perish."

The Bible teaches that we cannot be saved through our own efforts, or works. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith&#8212;and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God&#8212;not by works, so that no one can boast."

Some people believe that they cannot be saved because they have done too many bad things. Do not listen to this lie. The Bible says, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

The Bible compares our salvation experience to becoming a "new creation" or being "born again". "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

Pray

So, how do you go about getting saved? It is very simple. You need to pray to God. Just talk to Him like you would your very best friend, because no one loves you as much as God does. Just pour your heart out to Him and tell Him how sorry you are for the sins you have committed and the pain they have caused Him. Thank Him for sending Jesus to die on the cross in your place and for raising Him from the dead. Ask Jesus to come into your heart, to save your soul, and to become the Lord of your life, so that you can spend eternity in Heaven.

Remember the Bible says, "If you confess with your mouth, &#8216;Jesus is Lord,&#8217; and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." It really is that simple. This is not a magic spell. The exact words do not matter as much as the attitude of your heart. If you do not truly mean what you say, you will still go to Hell.

Assurance of salvation.

If you prayed a prayer similar to the one described above and you meant it with all your heart, then you can be assured that you are saved and will go to Heaven. No one can take this away from you. For this not to be true, God would have to be a liar. Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, whoever hears My Word and believes Him Who sent Me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand."

By faith in Jesus you can be saved because all of us are sinners.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 29, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Caroljo said:
> ...



What's the excuse for killing matter?  I'm not using the word terrorist.  I'm saying our bureacrats who claim to be christian are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, whatever label you want to put on that have at it.  I never said they did it in the name of christ or anything to do with religion.  Killing/murdering is a flaw in humans as a species, it can't be blamed on christianity, islam or any religion.

Why do you put things in quotes that were never said?  Does it make it into a more sentimental way of playing the victim card?

Sadly, murder will always be done by humans, people worshipping the same god but a different prophet won't keep murder from happening.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 29, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> What's the excuse for killing matter?  I'm not using the word terrorist.  I'm saying our bureacrats who claim to be christian are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, whatever label you want to put on that have at it.  I never said they did it in the name of christ or anything to do with religion.  Killing/murdering is a flaw in humans as a species, it can't be blamed on christianity, islam or any religion.
> 
> Why do you put things in quotes that were never said?  Does it make it into a more sentimental way of playing the victim card?
> 
> Sadly, murder will always be done by humans, people worshipping the same god but a different prophet won't keep murder from happening.



So you can show where US Service men are being told that when they bomb enemy positions that they must say "I Bomb thee in the name of Jesus?"

Yer bullshitting again, the wars by the USA have nothing to do with religion, they are not "Christian," as you lie, but the purely military act of the nation.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 29, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > What's the excuse for killing matter?  I'm not using the word terrorist.  I'm saying our bureacrats who claim to be christian are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, whatever label you want to put on that have at it.  I never said they did it in the name of christ or anything to do with religion.  Killing/murdering is a flaw in humans as a species, it can't be blamed on christianity, islam or any religion.
> ...



*I never said they did it in the name of christ or anything to do with religion. Killing/murdering is a flaw in humans as a species, it can't be blamed on christianity, islam or any religion.*

The above is copy and pasted, might I suggest you take a course in 1st grade level reading, I'm sure there's some available online.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 29, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > What's the excuse for killing matter?  I'm not using the word terrorist.  I'm saying our bureacrats who claim to be christian are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, whatever label you want to put on that have at it.  I never said they did it in the name of christ or anything to do with religion.  Killing/murdering is a flaw in humans as a species, it can't be blamed on christianity, islam or any religion.
> ...



He specifically stated that it did not have anything to do with religion. Can't you read?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 29, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



I'm not sure if you've ever chatted with Uncensored, but all discussions are like this.  He invents things you said and sticks to it, even if he quotes you saying the exact opposite.

You have to talk to him and the many competeing voices and false assumptions going on in his head.  For instance since I don't believe in god, he informed me I'm the same as Mao/Stalin.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 29, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


 
they actually had two types of wine ... everyday wine, which was fermented a little, like beer maybe, or possibly mead. Not super heady, not super great.

Then they had the GOOD wine which was fairly intoxicating.

At weddings they would often have both kinds...I think they'd start out with the good stuff and then when that was gone, serve the crap. Kind of like weddings today.

Jesus turned the water into GOOD wine.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 29, 2011)

And there is zero reference to Jesus' hair being long.

Chances are, it was quite short, like the hair of his contemporary Jewish males.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 29, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> And there is zero reference to Jesus' hair being long.
> 
> Chances are, it was quite short, like the hair of his contemporary Jewish males.



Then why does the Shroud of Turin show a long haired man?


----------



## mal (Aug 29, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> For fish to be considered clean to eat they must have fins and scales.  It is in Leviticus.  I can't quote chapter and verse though.
> the same book that says hosexuality is a sin as well.
> And a sin is a sin.



You are Incorrectly Equating Jewish Ceremonial Law to Moral Law.

Homosexuality is listed with Child Sacrifice and Beastiality...

Chapter 18 says nothing about Fish. 



peace...


----------



## Shogun (Aug 29, 2011)

Can you show me the scripture that indicates a distinction between "ceremonial" law and "moral" law?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 29, 2011)

Shogun said:


> Can you show me the scripture that indicates a distinction between "ceremonial" law and "moral" law?



There isn't any. He makes it up as he goes like all gay haters.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 29, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> *I never said they did it in the name of christ or anything to do with religion. Killing/murdering is a flaw in humans as a species, it can't be blamed on christianity, islam or any religion.*
> 
> The above is copy and pasted, might I suggest you take a course in 1st grade level reading, I'm sure there's some available online.



Yes, in fact you did.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...s-sinful-as-homosexuality-25.html#post4048546


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 29, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> He specifically stated that it did not have anything to do with religion. Can't you read?



Try again.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...s-sinful-as-homosexuality-25.html#post4048546


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 29, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> And there is zero reference to Jesus' hair being long.
> 
> Chances are, it was quite short, like the hair of his contemporary Jewish males.



Jesus was a radical, an outsider and nonconformer to many things contemporary Jewish of his day as an adult. 

The images of Jesus through history are as varied as the people that embrace him.
I do believe the current historical accounts offered by religous scholars are more accurate than the earlier ones. The earlier ones relied more on myths of the early church while the most recent ones support your opinion and show Jesus the Jew and Jesus and the world of Judaism.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 29, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > And there is zero reference to Jesus' hair being long.
> ...



I've never seen any valid evidence that Jesus even existed. What are you going by?


----------



## mal (Aug 29, 2011)

Shogun said:


> Can you show me the scripture that indicates a distinction between "ceremonial" law and "moral" law?



Why would you ignore the Fact that chapter 18 says nothing about catfish but does equate, in order, chid sacrifice,  beastiality and homosexuality... even speaking harsher of homosexuality than beastiality?....

And again, no mention of fish.



peace...


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 29, 2011)

Perhaps Shogun is hungry.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 29, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > And there is zero reference to Jesus' hair being long.
> ...



then those pictures of Jesus in the bibles with Jesus with long light colored hair?


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 29, 2011)

Omg, the shroud?

Seriously?

Anyway, are hush puppies also evil? Along with catfish? I am going to have to rethink my menu.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 29, 2011)

Are we basing our understanding of Christ on a painted piece of fabric now??


----------



## mal (Aug 29, 2011)

mal said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Can you show me the scripture that indicates a distinction between "ceremonial" law and "moral" law?
> ...



And where in the Bible was Beastiality made Ok with Homosexuality?...



peace...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > *I never said they did it in the name of christ or anything to do with religion. Killing/murdering is a flaw in humans as a species, it can't be blamed on christianity, islam or any religion.*
> ...



LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God I hope you're posting on here as long as I do, I can't imagine this board without your entertainment.  

Well folks here's the "proof" of me blaming christianity for our murderous foreign policy.

*"but I'm not going to blame christianity for our foreign policy or blame all christians for the acts of our christian bureacrats."*

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...s-sinful-as-homosexuality-25.html#post4048546

You truly would rather make yourself look dumber and dumber and DUMBER rather than expose a shred of dignity or integrity by simply admitting you're wrong.


----------



## mal (Aug 30, 2011)

Jewish Moral Law as Opposed to Jewish Cerimonial Law?...

*The Third Book of Moses, Called Leviticus 18 *

*Acts of Immorality Forbidden * <King James has it...

*Unlawful Sexual Relations* <The New International Version has it...

1  And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

2  Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God.

3  After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

4  Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.

5  Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: Neh. 9.29 · Ezek. 18.9 ; 20.11-13 · Lk. 10.28 · Rom. 10.5 · Gal. 3.12 I am the LORD.

6  ¶ None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.

7  The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

8  The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness. Lev. 20.11 · Deut. 22.30 ; 27.20 

9  The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. Lev. 20.17 · Deut. 27.22 

10  The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.

11  The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

12  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.

13  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.

14  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt. Lev. 20.19, 20 

15  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter-in-law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. Lev. 20.12 

16  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness. Lev. 20.21 

17  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness. Lev. 20.14 · Deut. 27.23 

18  Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her life time.

19  ¶ Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. Lev. 20.18 

20  Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbor's wife, to defile thyself with her. Lev. 20.10 

*21  And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: Lev. 20.1-5 I am the LORD.

22  Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Lev. 20.13 

23  Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Ex. 22.19 · Lev. 20.15, 16 · Deut. 27.21 * 
24  ¶ Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:

25  and the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

26  Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:

27  (for all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled

28  that the land spew not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were before you.

29  For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

30  Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.



---

Damn it... I just can't Find ANYTHING in there about Food...

Interesting, that...

And those 3 there that I highlighted...

Difficult, they are... To Seperate.



peace...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 30, 2011)

mal said:


> Jewish Moral Law as Opposed to Jewish Cerimonial Law?...
> 
> *The Third Book of Moses, Called Leviticus 18 *
> 
> ...



Are you Jewish?


----------



## mal (Aug 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Jewish Moral Law as Opposed to Jewish Cerimonial Law?...
> ...



Idiocy.

The Dishonestly of this Thread is Inherent...

The Bible doesn't Condone nor OK Homosexuality... EVER.

It ONLY Speaks of it as an Abomination.

It does NOT Compare it to Food as an Equal Sin, and the 18th Chapter of Leviticus Illustrates this 100% IN CONTEXT.

Stop fucking being so Dishonest, Liberals...

If Homosexuality can't find Validation on it's own, so be it...

But stop Lying about the Bible in some Lame Attempt at find Validation there.

Homosexuality is Sin in Christianity.

Don't like it?... Stop the Homosexuality or don't be a Christian.

Fairly Basic.

We aren't a Muslim Country, so you won't be Executed for being Homosexual 



peace...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

mal said:


> Jewish Moral Law as Opposed to Jewish Cerimonial Law?...
> 
> *The Third Book of Moses, Called Leviticus 18 *
> 
> ...



So you take the Old Testament as your moral guide?



That's pretty frightening.............................


----------



## Shogun (Aug 30, 2011)

mal said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Can you show me the scripture that indicates a distinction between "ceremonial" law and "moral" law?
> ...



Why would you infer more that what is written.  examples of sin in the bible are not, each, comprehensive lists.  If all sin is equal it is simply illogical to assume that there is a segregation between sinful behavior just because some are mentioned here while others mentioned there.

So, again, without your inference, can you provide scripture that illustrates a difference between moral and ceremonial law?


----------



## Shogun (Aug 30, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Perhaps Shogun is hungry.



I don't eat fish.  Fish are, literally, the rat of the water.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 30, 2011)

mal said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



uh, what?


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 30, 2011)

Proof that eating catfish is sinful:

Fish Group,                 General Population,           Special Population,           Contaminant(s) 

Suckers/Carp,              1 meal per month,            6 meals per year,             PCB

Black Bass,                    1 meal per month,            6 meals per year,             Mercury

Catfish/Drum,                 1 meal per month,             6 meals per year ,          Mercury

KY: Kentucky Dept Fish and Wildlife -


----------



## Shogun (Aug 30, 2011)

mal said:


> Jewish Moral Law as Opposed to Jewish Cerimonial Law?...
> 
> *The Third Book of Moses, Called Leviticus 18 *
> 
> ...





Is that the only scripture in the bible that describes sinful behavior?




If leviticus is the ONLY source list of sins.. well....


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 30, 2011)

Verse 22 so it is ok to lie to women?

Most men do seem to abide by that rule.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

Shogun said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Jewish Moral Law as Opposed to Jewish Cerimonial Law?...
> ...



Bigots will give any reason to continue their bigotry.

Just saying, "I'm a bigot because I'm an idiot", despite it being the most accurate line isn't the one they go to.

You'll have ppl like mal saying that when God commands them to kill non-believers it doesn't apply anymore because it's the Old Testament, but then they'll say they have to hate homosexuals because the Old Testament speaks against homosexuality.

Must be nice to be able to pick and choose what parts of the book to take seriously.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Little bit of snipping there Del, er Drock;

You seem to have left out "We've killed hundreds of thousands of people, all of our bureacrats who install our foreign policy are christians," 

Now ARE all of our bureacrats who install our foreign policy Christians?  Is there ANY evidence to support that? Further, is the ANYTHING, anything at all that indicates they are acting on behalf of Christianity, or any religion?  Do they shout out "Jesus Akbar" while they make strategic plans? Do the kowtow toward Jerusalem? No, of course not - there is NOTHING indicating Christianity at all, you toss out shit like; but I'm not going to blame christianity for our foreign policy or blame all christians for the acts of our christian bureacrats." PURELY to dishonestly create a link. Christians bureaucrats? What the fuck? What a lying scumbag you are.

Drock, just another liar for Allah.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 30, 2011)

mal said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



No, it doesn't illustrate it 100%.  Sure, sure the bible is clear that homosexuality is an abomination and a sin....  but it is also clear that some foods are an abomination to eat...

Leviticus 11:10

 10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you

... which is no less a biblical commandment than any other standard of the word of god, yes?  

after all....


James 2:10

 10For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



They all say they're christians, sure they might be liars, but i'll need proof otherwise to say they aren't christian.

How many times do you want me to repeat their actions have nothing to do with christianity or the fact that they're christian?  Seriously tell me.  10?  20?  50?  I can copy and paste real quick so I'd be happy to oblige.

A liar for Allah, lol, like I said PLEASE never leave this board for as long as I'm posting.  You're my #1 source of entertainment on this board.  Just downright terrific, I should be paying you for the smiles you put on my face and the chuckles you bring me.


----------



## Toro (Aug 30, 2011)

I covet my neighbor's ass. She's pretty hot!


----------



## mal (Aug 30, 2011)

Toro said:


> I covet my neighbor's ass. She's pretty hot!



Ask the Baby Jesus for Forgiveness before you make him Cry... 



peace...


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...


 
A) I have lived all over the country and have never seen a church have a "catfish fry." I've seen fish frys at the Elks Lodge but not a "catfish fry" at any church.

I would like to see some evidence for that.


B) Christians don't follow the JEWISH dietary laws. We don't feel bound because of what Christ said:



> *Matthew 15 King James Version*
> 
> *11*Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
> 
> ...


 

C) Next you are going to be stupid enough to say, "THEN HOW COME YOU FOLLOW THE JEWISH LAW ON HOMOSEXUALITY, HUH?????????????"

The answer to that is WE DON'T! If we were, we would be stoning homosexuals all over the country.

Even the Jews don't follow that.


D) Next you will ask, "THEN HOW CAN YOU SAY HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN, HUH???????????"

That's an easy one to answer. Because BOTH the Old Testement and the New Testement make it plain homosexuality is a sin:



> Romans 1 King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 
> *26*For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
> ...


 

Thus your premise is based on the usual ignorance of the Bible.

It really cracks me up when someone that hates Christianity because of their ignorance of the same tries to malign Christianity.

It reminds me of another verse from Romans:



> *Romans 1 King James Version (KJV)*
> 
> *22*Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


----------



## mal (Aug 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Verse 22 so it is ok to lie to women?
> 
> Most men do seem to abide by that rule.



Also not Relevant to the Original FALSE Assertion in the OP...

The 18th in Context has nothing to do with Equating Sexual Perversions to Eating Certain Foods...

And nobody can Find ANYWHERE in the Bible that Homosexuality is other than a Sin and an Abomination.

End of List.

Actively Engaging in Homosexual Sex is not OK if you are a Christian... Period.

So find another Religion instead of trying to find ways to make the Bible and Christianity say or stand for something it simply does not. 



peace...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> They all say they're christians, sure they might be liars, but i'll need proof otherwise to say they aren't christian.



Really?

You can post cites of them saying they are all Christians?

Oh wait, you just made that up, or course you can't cite it.



> How many times do you want me to repeat their actions have nothing to do with christianity or the fact that they're christian?  Seriously tell me.  10?  20?  50?  I can copy and paste real quick so I'd be happy to oblige.
> 
> A liar for Allah, lol, like I said PLEASE never leave this board for as long as I'm posting.  You're my #1 source of entertainment on this board.  Just downright terrific, I should be paying you for the smiles you put on my face and the chuckles you bring me.



If their actions have nothing to do with Christianity - which there is no evidence that "all" or even "most" are, then how does that excuse the acts of your Muslim allies who directly state that they are acting on behalf of Islam?

You definitely are a liar for Allah.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

I read Romans 1 through 32, it's about unrighteous men in general, never a word about being gay.  

Teaparty jumped to that conclusion on his own.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > They all say they're christians, sure they might be liars, but i'll need proof otherwise to say they aren't christian.
> ...



Post cites of our politicians saying they're christian?  Um of course I could, is that really necessary?  

I've never once tried to excuse the acts of muslim terrorists, again that's one of the many competing voices in your head that I can't be held responsible for.

My muslim allies and I'm a liar for Allah, lol, like I said, keep it coming.  I love every word of it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Post cites of our politicians saying they're christian?  Um of course I could, is that really necessary?



That's nice.

Your claim was "ALL of our bureaucrats are Christians." Posting a cite of Rick Perry saying he's a Christian doesn't quite prove that all the mid-level functionaries at the state department, CIA, NSA, DHS, et al are Christians. 

As we ALL know, you made it up and toss it out in hopes of diminishing the threat from radical Islam.



> I've never once tried to excuse the acts of muslim terrorists,



ROFL

Yeah, and you never lie either...



> again that's one of the many competing voices in your head that I can't be held responsible for.
> 
> My muslim allies and I'm a liar for Allah, lol, like I said, keep it coming.  I love every word of it.



....


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Post cites of our politicians saying they're christian?  Um of course I could, is that really necessary?
> ...



By bureacrats I meant our politicians, I may have used the term wrong, but that's what I meant.  All our politicians are christian, but our foreign policy has nothing to do with them being christian.  Besides even using the term incorrectly I'll bet the overwhelming majority of mid-level people in those organizations are also christian, which again, is entirely inconsequential as I've repeatedly stated.  


There is almost no threat from radical islam, or radical any religion.  That's just drummed up fearmongering from your heros.  So there is a threat, it's just nothing like our politicians pretend it to be where trillions and trillions of taxpayer dollars are needed to "save" us.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 30, 2011)

Matthew 15 King James Version

11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. 

17Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 

18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 

19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 

20These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Pay reall close attention to those verses.
Those who speak of libtards, etc....

Real Christians pay attention the ALL of the verses there.
and we know that it is unhealthy to eat Catfish more than once a week for helathy people.
And we also know it is unhealthy to eat with unwashed hands or to eat tainted or spoiled food.
ecoli?  Salmonella, etc...


----------



## peach174 (Aug 30, 2011)

The lefts agenda of vilifying Christians for this 2012 election, is not doing so well.

The top five religious affiliations in the 111th Congress were Roman Catholic (30.1%), Baptist (12.4%), Methodist (10.7%), Jewish (8.4%), and Presbyterian (8.1%). Protestant denominations have held a large majority throughout congressional history, reflecting American's traditional demographics. In the 111th Congress, 54.7% of seats were held by members of Protestant denominations.
The 111th congress was held by a majority of Dems.
Yet they are vilifying Christians.
This is the same tactic that Dems have used to keep blacks voting for them,by vilifying Black republicans.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 30, 2011)

peach174 said:


> The lefts agenda of vilifying Christians for this 2012 election, is not doing so well.
> 
> The top five religious affiliations in the 111th Congress were Roman Catholic (30.1%), Baptist (12.4%), Methodist (10.7%), Jewish (8.4%), and Presbyterian (8.1%). Protestant denominations have held a large majority throughout congressional history, reflecting American's traditional demographics. In the 111th Congress, 54.7% of seats were held by members of Protestant denominations.
> The 111th congress was held by a majority of Dems.
> ...



Trying to make this a political issue?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > The lefts agenda of vilifying Christians for this 2012 election, is not doing so well.
> ...



It's peach, every post he makes is about showing how partisan he is.  If you disagree with him, he assumes you vote differently, if you agree with him, he assumes you vote the same as him.


----------



## peach174 (Aug 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Your the one who brought it up,not me.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> By bureacrats I meant our politicians,



Sure you did, now that you got nailed for your bullshit.



> I may have used the term wrong, but that's what I meant.  All our politicians are christian,



Anyway, that's what Ellison keeps saying...



> but our foreign policy has nothing to do with them being christian.  Besides even using the term incorrectly I'll bet the overwhelming majority of mid-level people in those organizations are also christian, which again, is entirely inconsequential as I've repeatedly stated.



What's inconsequential is your attempt, yet again, to create parity between the Islamic theocracies and our completely secular republic.



> There is almost no threat from radical islam, or radical any religion.



Even you aren't this stupid, you ARE agenda driven, but not stupid enough to believe an idiotic lie like that.



> That's just drummed up fearmongering from your heros.  So there is a threat, it's just nothing like our politicians pretend it to be where trillions and trillions of taxpayer dollars are needed to "save" us.



Yawn, your Al Jazeera bullshit is tired, boring.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Trying to make this a political issue?



You're more comfortable keeping it a bigotry issue?

How about a new slogan? "Democrats, bigots since the time we kept slaves!" Or perhaps, "Christians, you're the new N!ggers, we're your Massahs - The DNC, keeping you down since 1821"


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > By bureacrats I meant our politicians,
> ...



If you don't believe I misspoke fine, keep believing I meant almost all our mid level agents are christian since that's true also.

My bullshit?  Lol that's cute, everything you say is bullshit.  I've said a thousand times that I think Islam is stupid and I wish it never existed, to you that translates to me being a liar for Allah and pro-Islam.  I've stated another thousand times that most christians are good people and our government flaws have nothing to do with our leaders being christian, yet you keep repeating that I hate christians and am anti-christian despite my signature being nothing but the most hardcore type of Bible-thumping christians.  

You're amazed that I'm willing to admit I made a mistake when I chose the wrong terminology, that amazes you because despite you being wrong on every post you make you still don't have the integrity to ever admit being wrong.  Even when your own quotes you provide links to prove you're wrong.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



I didn't bring up your post with stats, that came out of left field.  

It's a silly post of course because the overwhelming majority of democrats are christian, to democrats their #1 issue for most of them is that their party members are christian, just like with republicans.

Your similarities far outweigh your differences politically.


----------



## mal (Aug 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> For fish to be considered clean to eat they must have fins and scales.  It is in Leviticus.  I can't quote chapter and verse though.
> the same book that says hosexuality is a sin as well.
> And a sin is a sin.



So we don't Lose Track of what this Thread was about...

A False and out of Context Premise, here's the Context:



mal said:


> Jewish Moral Law as Opposed to Jewish Cerimonial Law?...
> 
> *The Third Book of Moses, Called Leviticus 18 *
> 
> ...



When someone has a Verse from the Bible saying Homosexuality is OK, I'll be here...

Until then, find another Religion. 

I hear Islam is Tolerant.



peace...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> If you don't believe I misspoke fine, keep believing I meant almost all our mid level agents are christian since that's true also.



What I believe is that you are so desperate to whitewash the threat from radical Islam and the aggression of theocratic Muslims that you'll say virtually anything.

If what you say happens to have some truth to it, that's fine, if not? Just as good. You have an agenda to cover for Islam, anything which fits that agenda is used.



> My bullshit?  Lol that's cute, everything you say is bullshit.  I've said a thousand times that I think Islam is stupid and I wish it never existed,



You say all sorts of things.

Problem is, most of what you say is simply not true.



> to you that translates to me being a liar for Allah and pro-Islam.  I've stated another thousand times that most christians are good people and our government flaws have nothing to do with our leaders being christian, yet you keep repeating that I hate christians and am anti-christian despite my signature being nothing but the most hardcore type of Bible-thumping christians.
> 
> You're amazed that I'm willing to admit I made a mistake when I chose the wrong terminology, that amazes you because despite you being wrong on every post you make you still don't have the integrity to ever admit being wrong.  Even when your own quotes you provide links to prove you're wrong.



What I'm amazed at is your aggression in portraying Islam as a benign and peaceful movement. That level of dishonesty is simply amazing.


----------



## Zona (Aug 30, 2011)

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Lev. 20.13 

Ok..so Lesbians are ok?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't believe I misspoke fine, keep believing I meant almost all our mid level agents are christian since that's true also.
> ...



People in the middle east may have a threat from radical islam, here in the US?  Not so much.  We live in a country with open borders where people with machine guns could walk across and go wild in a mall, but it never happens.  We live in a country with wide open ports where an enormous bomb could be snuck in easily and detonated, but it never happens.  But you and your heros want me to live in round the clock fear the way you do, won't happen.

Sounds like you're waving the white flag on me supporting Islam, anyone with common sense knows when someone says they wish Islam never existed that they aren't voicing support for it.

My aggression in portraying Islam as a benign and peaceful movement?  Boy oh boy I'd love to see the tiniest shred of evidence of me ever doing anything remotely like that please.


----------



## mal (Aug 30, 2011)

Zona said:


> Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Lev. 20.13
> 
> Ok..so Lesbians are ok?



It pretty much doesn't cover Woman on Woman... True Story.

Covers Women Presenting themselves to Animals, as it calls Homosexuality an Abomination, but it never Specifies Woman on Woman.

I am sure it's Inferred and the Book was Written from a Decidedly Male Perspect quite some time ago. 



peace...


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 30, 2011)

LOL that binary thought process of the right.  If you do not support Christianity you must support Islam.

LMAO
I support no religion.  I support ones right to believe as they wish as long as it does not impact me or others.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> I read Romans 1 through 32, it's about unrighteous men in general, never a word about being gay.
> 
> Teaparty jumped to that conclusion on his own.


 
Oh please.  That was just stupid!

A)  The word "gay" wasn't adopted for homoexuality until 1969.


B)  The word homosexual wasn't used until 1892.


C)  You hypocrites have no doubt that verse in Leviticus covers homosexuality yet it never uses the word "gay" or "homosexual" either.  It simply says "to lie with mankind as with womankind."



> Leviticus 18  King James Version (KJV)
> 
> *22*Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.


 
You have no problem understanding THAT to mean homosexuality, so cut the BS.


D)  Romans 1 makes it just as clear:



> Romans 1  King James Version (KJV)
> 
> *26*For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
> 
> ...


 
It's pretty clear both Leviticus AND Romans are talking about the practice of homosexuality.   


E)  The ancient Greeks never used the word homosexual either, but they sure touted the practice in their literature.


Thus it is quite clear you don't need to use the words gay or homosexual to communicate a view about such practices.


So keep trying liberal liars. If you are going to make "expert" proclammations like that, you better have the evidence to back it up.  

Pathetic!


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 30, 2011)

mal said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Lev. 20.13
> ...


 
However Romans 1 DOES cover that.



> Romans 1 King James Version (KJV)
> 
> *26*For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
> 
> ...


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Matthew 15 King James Version
> 
> 11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
> 
> ...


 
Real Christians follow CHRIST, not hypocrites who want to make up stories about cat fish fries at Churches.  Which I have still not seen any evidence for.

New one on me.  A cat fish fry at a church!


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

teapartysamurai said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > I read Romans 1 through 32, it's about unrighteous men in general, never a word about being gay.
> ...



I'm 1,000 times more conservative than you, probably 1,000,000 times.  Your republican/tea party heros are way too liberal for me.

Again, you're wrong, you jumped to that conclusion with pre thought out assumptions you already had in your head.  In 50 years or so when the majority of christians take no moral issue with homosexuality (if we aren't there already), they'll feel very sorry for the bigots of the past like yourself.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 30, 2011)

teapartysamurai said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew 15 King James Version
> ...




Church plans fish fry Saturday
Comments 0 
September 25, 2010 6:56 AM

ALTON - The youth of Tabernacle Missionary Baptist Church, 2621 Amelia St., are having a fish fry, Saturday, Sept. 25, beginning at 11.

A catfish filet sandwich and drink is $6. Catfish filet dinner, includes spaghetti, cole slaw and dessert for $8.



http://www.thetelegraph.com/news/church-45298-catfish-filet.html

You might want to google "Church catfish fry".
I got 510,000 results on Alta Vista.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


 


In 1994, a couple of authors from England made the boast that if "Christianity survived another five years, it would much different than it was today."

I took a bet with them, and in the year 2000 I made sure to let them know they had both LOST the bet.  

They didn't lose with anymore grace than you have.  

They sputtered a tirade much the same as you are now.  

You remind me of Jim Jones (you know the one who killed all his followers at Guyana?).

During one sermon he angrily threw the Bible down in the Church and yelled that there were more people that followed the Bible than him.  Sounds like that's what you think should happen.

Well, I'm sorry to tell you that, although I will most likely not be around in 50 years, the Bible will be.

Which means the language in the Bible you can't refute will still be there as well.

So, that bet, YOU ALREADY LOST.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


 
Wonderful!

As I already made it clear, it's not a sin for Christians to eat catfish.  Nor pork, nor shrimp, or any of the other foods that are not "Kosher."

I already proved your entire premise is bogus, but I suppose I shall have to repeat myself.

That's what liberals do when they have a lie refuted.  They just repeat it over and over.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

teapartysamurai said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



Bigots like you have falsely used the Bible in the past to rationalize their bigotry, and have always been looked on by future generations as wrong.  

You can blind your eyes to it if it makes you feel better, but there's an enormous CHRISTIAN movement that says there's nothing immoral about homosexuality.  All these states wouldn't be allowing gay marriage if the majority of christians who make up most of the states took moral issue with it.

So if you're disgusted by society becoming more accepting of homosexuality, the first place you should try to "fix" is your own churches.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


 
Thank you for proving me right. 

You can't refute a thing I've stated from the Bible.

You're just going to be a sore loser and sputter.

Do you realize how intolerant you are?

You don't see me demanding YOU believe as I do or I will call you all kinds of names, and spew threats of how society will condemn me in the future, blah blah blah.

No, YOU are doing that. DEMANDING I believe as YOU do about homsexuality or ELSE! 

It is YOU that is the intolerant of other beliefs.

And that bit of hypocrisy, I bet, will never occur to you. It never does to those who are most intolerant of other beliefs.

Just remember, it wasn't Christians attacking homosxuals that started this thread. 

It was those pro-gay that started this thread attacking Christians.

You hypocrites are just outraged we Christians not only defended ourselves but we BEAT YOU at your own game.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

teapartysamurai said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



I've already refuted it, plus Jesus never spoke a word against it.  You're ignoring the question of "What would Jesus do?" just so you don't have to better yourself by ending your bigotry.

How intolerant I am lol, that's cute.  You're on here proudly boasting of your bigotry and you call me intolerant.  When did I ever say or else about anything?  You can be a bigot until the cows come in, it's your own flaw you have to deal with.  Doesn't affect me any.

I agree the premise of the thread was wrong, because christians in america are going through a revolutionary change of mindset and better understanding their religion by knowing that Jesus would never advocate for the hate of your brothers and sisters, the way you do.  

Christians deserve most of the credit for homosexuals being accepted in american society and not being looked down on, which I'm sure disgusts you.


----------



## peach174 (Aug 30, 2011)

It's human nature Dr. Drock, for people to assume things. We all do it. It doesn't make it right, but we all do it at sometime or another.
You just did it with me assuming that I am a man.
I don't know whether it's sad of funny that you think that a man would have a user name as peach.
Not even my gay male friends would use peach as their user name.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


 
You didn't refute ANYTHING.

All you did was claim you read the bible and never saw the word gay or homosexual.

Which is laughable considering the word homosexual was first used in 1892 and the word gay in 1969.

Nice try, but keep sputtering.

And you ARE intolerant. You are the one attacking me for MY beliefs and calling me a bigot because I won't believe as you do.

You don't see me doing that with you. 

It's pro-gay people like YOU that started this thread attacking Christians, NOT the other way around.

But, thank you for proving me right. The most intolerant people are usually the biggest hypocrites when it comes to the issue of tolerance.

Keep sputtering.

All you have so far is, I'm a "bigot" because I have evidence from the Bible to back up my beliefs and you have zip, zilch, nadda to refute it.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

peach174 said:


> It's human nature Dr. Drock, for people to assume things. We all do it. It doesn't make it right, but we all do it at sometime or another.
> You just did it with me assuming that I am a man.
> I don't know whether it's sad of funny that you think that a man would have a user name as peach.
> Not even my gay male friends would use peach as their user name.



Not sure why we're going on discussion about assumption but I apologize for calling you a man.


However I disagree that a man could use the name peach too, gay or straight.  I don't attach the word peach to feminine, I think of it as a fruit.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

teapartysamurai said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



There's no word in the Bible that translates to homosexual, which helps illustrate to me how ridiculous the anti-homosexual movement you're involved with is.

But I'm thankful you're in a slowly dying off minority of bigots, the young generation of christians mostly take no moral issue with homosexuality and they'll teach their kids that, and they'll teach their kids that, and you and people like you will just be a tiny asterisk to christianity when they look back at their history.


----------



## peach174 (Aug 30, 2011)

You will find that Christian's are recognizing that gays have as much rights as everyone else but marriage is still not widely accepted throughout the states.
Christian's recognize that gays have problems with things like, Child care, life insurance, health insurance, pensions, inheritance and visiting their loved ones in the hospital and also making arrangements for them. 
I think that you will find that these things will be addressed for them in the future.
But not marriage. So far, and that also includes almost all of the major religions in this world.
Islam is still dealing harshly with them. They are whipped, jailed, or even killed for being a homosexual.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 30, 2011)

teapartysamurai said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



New one on me. A cat fish fry at a church!

I proved you wrong so you had to repeat yourself?


----------



## mal (Aug 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...




USC... Jewish Cerimonial Law does not Pertain to Christians...

Are you continuing to Troll for your own Entertainment?...



peace...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

peach174 said:


> You will find that Christian's are recognizing that gays have as much rights as everyone else but marriage is still not widely accepted throughout the states.
> Christian's recognize that gays have problems with things like, Child care, life insurance, health insurance, pensions, inheritance and visiting their loved ones in the hospital and also making arrangements for them.
> I think that you will find that these things will be addressed for them in the future.
> But not marriage. So far, and that also includes almost all of the major religions in this world.
> Islam is still dealing harshly with them. They are whipped, jailed, or even killed for being a homosexual.



8 years ago there were zero states that allowed gay marriage.  Now there's 6 and Washington DC in such a short period of time, so christians are warming up to the idea of gay marriage at a rapid pace (and good for them).

I've seen past statistics trying to compare unmarried gay couples to married straight couples, and anyone with common sense knows you can't compare the success of a relationship between married people and unmarried people.


----------



## mal (Aug 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> 8 years ago there were zero states that allowed gay marriage.  Now there's 6 and Washington DC in such a short period of time, so christians are warming up to the idea of gay marriage at a rapid pace (and good for them).



Christians are doing no such thing, and your Conclusion that they are because Liberal Courts and Legislatures are Defying the People, as they did in LIBERAL California, is as Absurd as you are.



peace...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > 8 years ago there were zero states that allowed gay marriage.  Now there's 6 and Washington DC in such a short period of time, so christians are warming up to the idea of gay marriage at a rapid pace (and good for them).
> ...



You're being left in the dust by your more moral christian brothers and sisters.

Poll: Protestant Support for Gay Marriage Rises, Christian News

"According to the poll, white mainline Protestants are more likely to support gay marriage (49 percent) than oppose it (38 percent). In the past two years, 49 percent had expressed opposition. Among those who attend church at least once a week, 35 percent favor gays and lesbians marrying."


----------



## peach174 (Aug 30, 2011)

Many Churches have cat fish on Friday's especially in the south and it has not been a sin for the last 2,000 years or so.
Many resturants serve cat fish on friday's also.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

Americans' Acceptance of Gay Relations Crosses 50% Threshold

And another, this isn't only christians but most americans are christians.


----------



## mal (Aug 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Americans' Acceptance of Gay Relations Crosses 50% Threshold
> 
> And another, this isn't only christians but most americans are christians.



What did Liberal California just do in the Polling Place, you Dishonest Hack?...

American's don't think Homosexuality should be Criminalized...

That does NOT Equate to them Supporting Marriage for them that is "Equal" to what Creates us.

You don't have a Poll showing any such thing, you Chimp.



peace...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Americans' Acceptance of Gay Relations Crosses 50% Threshold
> ...



PRINCETON, NJ - Americans' support for the moral acceptability of gay and lesbian relations crossed the symbolic 50% threshold in 2010. At the same time, the percentage calling these relations "morally wrong" dropped to 43%, the lowest in Gallup's decade-long trend.



Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, conducted each May, documents a gradual increase in public acceptance of gay relations since about 2006. However, the change is seen almost exclusively among men, and particularly men younger than 50.



Check the chart, you're being left behind.  Don't attack the messenger, attack the christians in your church with morals superior to yours.


----------



## mal (Aug 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



the Christian Post?... did they Conduct that Survey?...

do they Follow the Bible?... 

Great "Source", Snapperhead.

The ACTUAL VOTE in Liberal California Defies you and that Hack of an Organiazation. 



peace...


----------



## mal (Aug 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Highlighed BOLD... That does NOT Equal "Marriage"...

Get it?

Fuck you are Stupid and or VERY Dishonest.



peace...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Being more accepting of gay relations obviously means being more accepting of homosexuality in general.


I'm sorry you're so disgusted with the direction your brothers and sisters are going, I couldn't be happier to see christians moving this way.


----------



## Toro (Aug 30, 2011)

What about scallops?

Can I eat scallops?


----------



## syrenn (Aug 30, 2011)

Toro said:


> What about scallops?
> 
> Can I eat scallops?




Walk on the wild side, flout everything and eat some catfish!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 30, 2011)

Toro said:


> What about scallops?
> 
> Can I eat scallops?



Only if the are wrapped in bacon and seared until barely translucent int the center.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Aug 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...










Actually here is the report.


>>>>


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Thanks for posting that, as people can see who follow the link across the board among every group of people the percentages increased in a manner that shows homophobia decreasing rapidly.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 30, 2011)

mal said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



My point is that it does pertain when they want it to, but not when they don't.
Many christians quote Leviticus about Homosex being a sin.
Per Leviticus so is eating catfish.


----------



## peach174 (Aug 30, 2011)

Many Christians point to 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10
It mentions sodomy.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 30, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Many Christians point to 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10
> It mentions sodomy.



all gays indulge in sodomy?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 30, 2011)

mal said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



uh, earth to mal.
I am a conservative.
Conservatives do not care about the sexual orientation of others.
Conservatives do not want government involved in the private lives of others.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Their preachers do not tell them that fact.
Accordingly, their marching orders can't digest it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> uh, earth to mal.
> I am a conservative.
> Conservatives do not care about the sexual orientation of others.
> Conservatives do not want government involved in the private lives of others.



Libertarians don't, anyway.

Libertarians also don't care about the religious faith of others.

I care not if my neighbors worships one god or twenty, it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket - Thomas Jefferson.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 30, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > uh, earth to mal.
> ...



Conservatives don't.
Before the religous right hijacked the party, the Republican party NEVER had a religous litmus test.
In fact, we looked down upon those that did. 
Probably far before your time.
Conservatism has nothing to do with religous beliefs.


----------



## Toro (Aug 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



At one of the Republican conventions - I can't remember if it was 2000 or 2004 - the number one self-identified group were evangelicals at 33%.


----------



## mal (Aug 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



You are Deliberately Ignoring Placement in Leviticus and Severity...

Murder and Lying are Sins...

It's Absurd to Equate them.

You would be just as Absurd to say that Beastiality and Eating Fish were Equal in Leviticus...

Fucking Absurd.

Fish is not Mentioned in 18, and 18 is not linked to 17 or any other Part of Leviticus... It's it's own Chapter Dealing with Moral Law.

End of Fucking List.

Don't like it, Subscribe to another Book. 



peace...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 30, 2011)

Toro said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



And they wonder why we lose to the likes of Obama.
Go back to the Georgia Republican state convention when Bush I defeated Pat Robertson here. The religous kook Robertson Christian Coalition/ Moral Majority refused to accept that Bush won the primary and thus the delegates. They attempted to stonewall the vote and we had to take 2 groups of delegates to NO for the national convention. 
We were the laughing stock of the convention. We then proved that that the religous kook Christian Coalition Robertson head delegate was a convicted felon and the others they had were not far off. Bob Barr led the day for us then as he would not back down from the lies and criminal activity of the Christian Coalition/Moral Majority Robertson delegates. 
They lie to get their way. All in the name of "Anything to get God fearing family values people in government."


----------



## mal (Aug 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I am a Conservative, and I don't want the Government involved in what People do in their own Bedrooms...

They are involved when the Possibility of Life and the Repsonsibility of Caring for it, is a Product of a Union of 2 People.

It's the System we have and have had.

Chosen Deviations from what Creates us as Nature Designed it, are NOT Equal to what Creates us...

They are all Equally unEqual to it.

We exist only because of it.

It is Homosexuals Demanding something that is Invalid that has this as a Public Debate...

Not because I or any other Person who doesn't Defy their Design wanted something Special for ourselves.

Homosexuals can Marry the Flesh... They are Designed to.

They Choose to Defy their Design.

Society doesn't need to Suffer that Burden.

Keep Perverted Sex in the Bedroom with all other Sex and Society will be just Fine.



peace...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 30, 2011)

mal said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Where did you study Hebrew and receive your doctorate in religion?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 30, 2011)

mal said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Damn mal, gay folks bother you that much?
Even us rednecks in Georgia do not give a shit about gays.
Non issue mal. We are in 2 shooting wars, gas is killing my 3 corporations, education is going down the tubes, health care costs are skyrocketing and you worried about gay folks?
Quoting 2500 year old Jewish law?
Chill.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Conservatives don't.



You're wrong.

I openly state that I am not a conservative, I am actually a liberal. As such, I don't care who others have sex with, I also don't care what god they worship, provided they aren't on a Jihad and flying planes into buildings.



> Before the religous right hijacked the party, the Republican party NEVER had a religous litmus test.



Complete nonsense. Before the Marxists hijacked the democratic party in the early 70's, BOTH parties held Christian cultural mores.

The democrats were taken over by the counter-culture and have adopted the bizarre moral standards Soviet Union, amoral yet authoritarian.  



> In fact, we looked down upon those that did.
> Probably far before your time.
> Conservatism has nothing to do with religous beliefs.



Utter nonsense. In 1960, there was a twitter that Kennedy was Catholic, and that was a disruption of Protestant values.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 30, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatives don't.
> ...



How old are you? How many state GOP party conventions have you attended? How many conservative Republican candidates have you supported with cash and neighborhood canvassing? 
1960? You claim Nixon was running with the support of the religous folk?
"a disruption of Protestant values"
You are funny!!! 
They did that because they said that he would be taking orders from the Pope as a Catholic.
That was in the day that Republicans wanted NO PART of religion in government.
But keep them coming! Them are some WHOPPERS!!!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> How old are you? How many state GOP party conventions have you attended? How many conservative Republican candidates have you supported with cash and neighborhood canvassing?
> 1960? You claim Nixon was running with the support of the religous folk?



Nixon was a Quaker. This was a big issue.

{A key factor that hurt John F. Kennedy in his campaign was the widespread prejudice against his Roman Catholic religion; some Protestants believed that, if he were elected President, Kennedy would have to take orders from the Pope in Rome. To address fears that his Roman Catholicism would impact his decision-making, Kennedy famously told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960, "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters &#8212; and the Church does not speak for me."[17}

United States presidential election, 1960 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nixon very much had the Protestant vote.



> "a disruption of Protestant values"
> You are funny!!!



I'm factual.



> They did that because they said that he would be taking orders from the Pope as a Catholic.



Exactly.



> That was in the day that Republicans wanted NO PART of religion in government.
> But keep them coming! Them are some WHOPPERS!!!



In fact, ALL were expected to be Christians and hold Christian values. Prior to McGovern and the radicalization of the DNC, both parties openly advocated Christian values.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Aren't you, you the one, spouting that the places the Lord condemns homosexual acts (immoral acts or lewdness or perversity) don't really "mean" that?  Don't preach to me unless you are speaking from the Bible, not some wacko preacher's opinion that he makes up to keep his coffers full.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Who is "their"?  Are you saying "truth" is disrespectful?  Where does it say that ALL religions will be "respected" in the Constitution?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



His physical body, not His spirit.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Eating catfish is not sinful.
> ...



Where did Yeshua teach the immoral sex, lewdness, perversity, or adultery were NOT sins?


----------



## percysunshine (Aug 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...



But, if the fish were homosexual fish, it would be ok.

It is not like anyone would notice the difference...especially after the wine....except that, over time, there would be fewer of them...


----------



## logical4u (Aug 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



The excuse for killing: this country usually uses the excuse of protecting freedoms, saving people from genocide, stopping the invasion of other nations (it is not a religion thing, though it is based off of Christian principals)...... that other religion: kills those that do not believe as they do, kills those that they wish to covet wealth, killls those that do not convert, kills those that are not intimidated, kills to intimidate, kills their own to stage the enemy "supposed" crimes, kills based on false witness, kills those that comitt adultery, kills those that are homosexual with wealth that can be coveted, kills children of any non-believer, kills animals they do not consider "clean" (where is PETA?).  Yes, apparently we kill for exactly the same reasons, NOT.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



When you have thousands screaming I am doing this murder for Allah, wouldn't you think it was for the religion? ..... Just sayin'


----------



## logical4u (Aug 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Jewish Moral Law as Opposed to Jewish Cerimonial Law?...
> ...



Nice dodge, once again, demonstrating Biblical word has little meaning to you.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Jewish Moral Law as Opposed to Jewish Cerimonial Law?...
> ...



The title of this thread implies the OT, Leviticus is the place where the laws were written and the bureaucracy following.  Yeshua did not repeal this law.  He acknowledged these actions were sinful.  Yeshua did teach that customs, and traditions without worship (meaning) to the Lord were worthless in the eyes of the Lord, and something that the elders made up to control the people.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
The religious right hasn't hijacked the party. The religious right has ALWAYS been the based. It's only recently that the non-religious extremists have started carping about the pretend "religious right" as if it's new (and not dwindling, as is the case). It hasn't increased or become more of an influence, it's just that it has recently been identified as EXTREMIST by the extremist LEFT who wishes it would go away, but have been unsuccessful in eliminating Christianity altogether. So they pretend Christians are "new", "extremist" and have "hijacked" various and assorted groups. They think that way they can lie their way into legalized persecution of Christians, AND render conservatives irrelevant.

It's not working.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Where did mal suggest "killing non-believers"?  This thread started with the OT.  When the passage that contains part of the thread is revealed, you want to slander the messenger?
Do you even understand that Yeshua was the New Covenant with the Lord?  That means that the Lord, Himself will be the Judge against sinful behavior.  In the OT, in was merciful to children to kill a sinful parent.  That parent's sins were passed to the children (compounded on top of their own sins).  There is no need for Christians to kill or judge sinful behavior.  We are called to point it out to the sinner.  Once the sinner is aware, they are responsible for their own actions.  The NT (as well as the OT) recommends staying away from sinners that show no inclination toward the Lord.  Homosexual activists will not accept (or even tolerate) disgust at their actions.  They want to legislate "acceptance" (immoral behavior).  Apparently, you think that legislating sinful behavior is an action that this country should show pride for doing.  We say it is okay to kill the unborn, it is okay for people to live immorally (have sex out of wedlock), euphanize the elderly or the mentally handicapped, shucks, it is even okay to take human eggs and experiment on them like they are animals, or even mix the DNA with animals.  At what point do you say, that is far enough into corruption?  At what point, do you recognize the evil that is being done?  When do you say, that is not what I want: my grandchild is part giraffe, or lion, or elephant, or cow being led to the slaughter?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 30, 2011)

Shogun said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Thank you for admitting homosexual acts are sinful.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> I read Romans 1 through 32, it's about unrighteous men in general, never a word about being gay.
> 
> Teaparty jumped to that conclusion on his own.



 pants on fire.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



It also says that a lot of followers will be deceived, and will follow the evil one.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



 Yeshua did teach against immoral sexual behavior, as well as lewdness and perversity.  You just want to deny the Lord.  He would have treated you as he did the religious leaders that tried to trip Him up with petty games.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 30, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Old Jewish law. 
Are you Jewish?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 30, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



"been the based" 
You mean been the base?
The religous right was never the base of the Republican party until maybe 20 years ago.
Get your facts straight.
But once again we have to give you a pass. Too young and naive to know any better.
I was a Republican before you were born.
I got news for you, there are just as many, or more, Democratic Christians as Republican Christians.
Turn Rush and Sean off.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Umm but right wingers, Tea Partiers and Republicans do.
They are also known as conservatives.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 30, 2011)

logical4u said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



ahh ok...


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Umm the republicans welcomed and courted the religious folks.  That is how they got into power a few decades ago.
Thanks to Reagan and Newt and such for that.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Many Christians point to 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10
> ...



No.  Hets are as into it as gays are.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You might be libitarian, you do not exhibit conservative view points.  Conservatives realize that freedom cannot be kept without morals.  If you "accept" immoral behavior in one place, you will soon accept immoral behavior in many places.  Imorallity is corruption.  Conservatives do not support corruption.  Homosexual activity is born out of deceit.  Its partners are coveted (seduced) from unwilling families.  The parents are dishonored.
I don't know about you, but I was taught that breaking the Commandments was seriously wrong.  Homosexual acts break at least 3 of those Commandments.  Why would you tell people that the acts that break those Commandments are not sinful and claim that you are conservative?  Is it because you bear false witness, and have no problem with breaking the Commandments?


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 30, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > I read Romans 1 through 32, it's about unrighteous men in general, never a word about being gay.
> ...


 
I have delt with people like this before. Most are homosexuals who claim to be "Christians." 

They claim that Jesus himself never mentioned homosexualty, thus it is not a sin.

Quite erroneous for several reasons. 

For one, Jesus didn't HAVE to mention homosexuality. 

Jesus preached to JEWS during his lifetime. His sermons, his debates, and the religious questioning from Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Lawyers (etc) were all from and for JEWS (the only exception may be the Herodians, since Herod himself was an Idumean)

Thus, the subject of homosexuality never came up, BECAUSE IT WAS A SETTLED MATTER. No one questioned Jesus on homosexuality, because no one had to. Everyone knew the answer to that issue.

Leviticus 18 made it very clear homosexuality was not only a sin, BUT an abomination. Jesus confirmed the validity of the law to his Jewish audience, which includes Leviticus 18.



> Matthew 5:18 King James Version
> 
> 
> *18*For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


 
Can you imagine Jesus up and telling Jews that he was for gay marriage? He would have been stoned to death on the spot! 

Get real people!  You know what I'm saying is true!

Thus, the question of homosexuality is NEVER broached until the first Chapter of Romans. 

Why you may ask! Why is homosexuality never mentioned (in the NT) until the first Chapter of Romans? The answer is to that is very easy to understand.

While Jesus' audience were Jews, who were debating points of the law, Paul (who wrote Romans) was bringing Christianity to PAGANS. 

Although, there was NO QUESTION that homosexuality was verboten in Jewish Law, homosexuality was quite common in many pagan socities like Greece and Rome. (Indeed, people engaged in these pagan practices in the OT were called the "sodomites.")

Thus, right off the bat, Paul makes it clear to new Christian converts from the pagan cultures (that comprised the Roman Empire) that these sexual practices were a sin.

Thus, the erroneous notion that, since Jesus didn't mention homosexuality, homosexuality isn't a sin, is just a another way the PC crowd tries to rationalize their way around the Bible.

It's not based on fact, it's based on ignorance and lies.

It's as simple as that.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Where do "morals" originate?


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 30, 2011)

teapartysamurai said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



so Paul spoke out against homosexuality but did Jesus?

or is Paul god too?


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 30, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



From a society, not necessarially a christian one.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Yeah, Mal, just accept evil!  It won't hurt you.  It won't corrupt society.  It will make things better.  It doesn't matter that there is absolutely no benefit to homosexuality (unless you think eliminating possible children is a "bad" thing).  When all these homosexuals get older and expect the younger generation to take care of them, they will cry discrimmination, because there will not be enough people to survive and take care of them, too.  If all those things are so important, why are so many people pushing for corruption over fixing the government?


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
The must explain these quotes from the Father of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln.



> * do not think I could myself, be brought to support a man for office, whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion.
> *--July 31, 1846


 


> *Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty.*
> --March 4, 1861 First Inaugural Address


 


> *Nevertheless, amid the greatest difficulties of my Administration, when I could not see any other resort, I would place my whole reliance on God, knowing that all would go well, and that He would decide for the right.*
> --October 24, 1863 Remarks to the Baltimore Presbyterian Synod


 


> *All the good the Saviour gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it.*
> --September 7, 1864 Reply to Loyal Colored People of Baltimore upon Presentation of a Bible


 
Quotes by Abraham Lincoln



> "Without God there could be no American form of government nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first the most basic expression of Americanism.""
> - Dwight D. Eisenhower


 
Just stupid!  Seiously, that was stupid.

Just because YOU feel prejudice toward "the religious right" don't project your feelings onto a revisionist history that exists ONLY in your own fantasies.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Did Yeshua say that He came to "replace" the law?  I believe He said that He came to "fullfill" the law.  He taught against 'going thru the motions' and understanding what you were doing.  With Him, each of us is responsible for our own action (like misleading others).  Am I Jewish?  I have no idea.  I cannot trace my roots back to when the Hebrews were scattered on the winds as slaves to many nations.  Do I believe that Yeshua was truthful?  I have not read one person's teachings that even come close.  Yes, I think that He was the greatest man that ever lived, and the fact that He was G*d, also, made Him even better.  He told us that we could be with Him, just by following His ways and believing in Him.  He never promised that it would be easy, but He did promise rewards for all eternity.  He gave us the choice.  Each of us gets to make our own decision.  Some of us, welcome others to join in this great reward.  Others mislead many towards the pit, and death.  Read it for yourself.  I know you have a hangup about the OT, but you might want to read proverbs, especially the parts about "wisdom".  It is more current than you can imagine.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 30, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


 


See this is what liberals do!  When their lies are exposed they pretend they haven't been exposed and just repeat them like nothing happened.

So either you didn't read my entire post, WHICH ANSWERS YOUR STUPID QUESTION, you are just that dishonest, you are just that stupid, or you are just both stupid and dishonest.

I think it's the latter myself.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 31, 2011)

teapartysamurai said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> ...



So.....you've never seen a church have a catfish fry?

Really?

Google is your friend.............

Catch the spirit at Westford church fish fry - Westford, MA - Westford Eagle

36th Annual Fish Fry

Local Church, VFDs Host Lenten Fish Fry Events « CBS Pittsburgh

West Kentucky Star - News

First Presbyterian Church Yazoo City :: Team Belize Catfish Fry

And that's just from the first page of Google.  

BTW.........Leviticus is actually a manual for the Levites (i.e. Jewish Priests).  So, if you're not Jewish nor a priest, why are you following their rules?  Would you hold High Catholic Mass inside a Christian church?


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


 
You libs really are dumb aren't you?

You ignored everything I wrote to concentrate on a false premise I already refuted.  

So you found some fish fries!  SO WHAT!  It isn't a sin!


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



Can I have a verse where Jesus advocated gay hating?  I can provide plenty of verses that state the exact opposite.

How about a verse where Jesus even addresses gays or the act of being gay?


----------



## chesswarsnow (Aug 31, 2011)

Sorry bout that,



1. You can't reason with gaybiker or uscitizen, both are secret homos, who live in a fantasy world.
2. Eating a food has no *sin value* as long as the person eating the food is thankful for it.
3. But being a homo is always a sin, and shall always be punished, there are no homos in heaven.
4. To try to tie these two things together is something only a *Homo Fuckchop* would do.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Jesus not Hating on things doesn't make them Suddenly OK...

He didn't Hate on Dog Fucking, did he?...

Must be OK then, Correct?...

Do you Think ANY Point you've Attempted to make was a good one so far?...



peace...


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is simply NO Question that 100% of the time that Homosexuality is Mentioned in the Bible, Old and New Testaments both, it is Sin and Abomination.

Comparing Jewish Cerimonial Law about Fish to the Moral Law of Chapter 18 in Leviticus is Absurd, and those doing it are Dishonest.

They now Know what 18 is in Context and can't Honestly continue Presenting at as an Argument FOR Homosexuality in the Bible.

If you are Engaging in Homosexual Acts and want to be a Chrisitian, you must Recognize that it is Sin and Sin no more.

Christianity Inherently can NOT Embrace Homosexuality as OK.

Find another Faith if you don't Like it. 



peace...


----------



## bodecea (Aug 31, 2011)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're confused about who the real "secret homos" are around here.   FYI


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



As long as we're in total agreement that Jesus never stated any issue or gave any inkling whatsoever that homosexuality was immoral on any level, than we're good.

Thank you


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...



The Talking Dumptruck is calling people "Faggots" again... 

Hey Mr. Gervais, you gonna Hide behind that attack for another Decade as you follow me around the Internet?... 

Or are you gonna start Debating in an Honest Fashion at some point?



peace...


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



He didn't say anything about Siblings Fucking... Parents Fucking their Children... Humans Fucking Goats...

You are a Fuckpuddle.

Go play in Traffic you Dishonest Shit. 



peace...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Damn, son. You are an idiot. 
Dog fucking? 
FYI, there were many homosexuals in the day of Jesus. He stated to love thy neighbor.
It is ok to be an atheist if you want to and have no religous or Christian beliefs. Not claiming all atheists hate gays or anything but Christians do not compare others to dog fuckers.
Love thy neighbor. Being Christlike is an action, not a feeling.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Well as long as you never use Jesus as an excuse for gay-hating, than all is well.  

While we're on the subject of Jesus, I can certainly tell you take his golden rule very seriously lol.


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

Awe... One of Bodecea's Minders Removed the Thread that was Documenting her Obsessive "Faggot" Drops...

You've always needed Assistance, haven't you, Dumptruck. 



peace...


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



You can go ahead and Link me using Jesus for Gay Hating...

Or shut your Ignorant Trollish Hole, you Stain. 



peace...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



I didn't say you did.

Continue on with abiding to his golden rule to the best of your ability lol.


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



I didn't Compare anyone to a Dog Fucker, you Chimp.

I was Illstrating that Jesus didn't run around being Against anything...

But the Old and New Testaments, 100% of the Time, Refer to Homosexuality as a Sin and Abomination...

Consistently and Clearly.

Don't Like it... Find another Book. 



peace...


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



You may be one of the most Dishonest Trolls on this Forum.

Have a Wonderful Day!



peace...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



"*Well as long as you never use Jesus as an excuse for gay-hating*"

That's not in the least bit implying that you use Jesus as an excuse for gay hating, I can't be held at fault for your lack of reading comprehension.

What parts of the day do you take Jesus's teachings seriously?  Is it only on this forum that you reject all of them?


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



You are Dishonest because you Willfully Ignore Points that are Made to you, and then you Infer Patently Dishonest things without even giving a Hint at Substance for your Assertions...

You are a Troll.

Be Proud of what you are.

It's this simple... Homosexuality is Sin and Abomination 100% of the time in the Bible...

Jesus didn't Hate on Pedophiles or Homosexuals.

You go ahead and Sleep Well using "Jesus didn't" as your Justification for saying Jesus Embraced Homosexuality and that it is somehow OK...

You and I will both Answer for how we Presented his Word. 

Good Day.



peace...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



My whole point was that we agree that Jesus said nothing against homosexuality, and me saying that caused your panties to get in a bunch.

I'm also getting the hint that we agree that you don't take Jesus's golden rule seriously, if you did you certainly wouldn't constantly stoop to talking to people the way you do.  (although I'm sure you'll have a very cute excuse for it in your next post)


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

Mal just negged, that's the best way of showing that I've done a good job posting rational and well thoguht out responses .



Please keep doing it.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

and here's what a poster just said to me (who I'll keep nameless for their sake) and I agree with this person;

"Mal goes thru these cycles of frantic posting about gays...I believe that's when he is trying hard to beat down his own gay urges."

Typically those who bash gays the most, are just gay themselves and they feel insecure about their urges and thus have to make up for it by bashing gays as a means of overcompensating.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> "been the based"
> You mean been the base?
> The religous right was never the base of the Republican party until maybe 20 years ago.
> Get your facts straight.
> ...



Of course there were Christian democrats - EVERYONE was Christian. Both parties were Christian based and heavily influenced by religion. You pretend that the GOP was "hijacked' by the Christians, which is silly bullshit.  The only thing that changed is that the democrats were hijacked by the Marxists and adopted the suppression of religion position.

Turn Keith and Rachel off.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> From a society, not necessarially a christian one.



You think morals originate from a society?

So a person alone on an island does not and cannot have a moral sense or code?

LOL

No wonder you're a leftist.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 31, 2011)

Damn, this is so easy it is unreal.
The Bible lists 667 sins and does not distinguish between them like you do mal. The penalty for lust is death in the Bible.
Homosexuality is listed as sin the same as the 7 "deadly sins": greed, envy, pride, wrath/anger, lust gluttony and sloth.
I am sure you treat the sin of gluttony the same as you do homosexuality mal. 
Of course it is the Old Testament that lists most of these sins. New Testament does not mention homosexuality at all. 
And most of these sins are Jewish law. We do not go by religous law in this country.
Something about the United States Constitution. 
You need to read Romans 14:4  10, Mark 9:42, Acts 21:28, Numbers 14:2-3, 16:3 mal. Get back to us when you have mastered that. 
Matthew said it best: It is a sin to think evil against any of God's children.
Luke got it right: It is a sin to despise your neighbor.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...



the only spokesman for Jesus has spoken folks.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> I didn't say you did.
> 
> Continue on with abiding to his golden rule to the best of your ability lol.




Got caught lying again, eh Drock?

You know why that keeps happening, don't you? It keeps happening because you keep lying.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > From a society, not necessarially a christian one.
> ...



Why would a person need morals if he lived with no one else?
Who would he learn them from?


----------



## bodecea (Aug 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Ok, I have to laugh at you for a second.   Did you really expect logic from Uncensored?    Really?


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



yeah a lapse there, just got out of bed and hit the view post button on that post...


----------



## Ravi (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Mal just negged, that's the best way of showing that I've done a good job posting rational and well thoguht out responses .
> 
> 
> 
> Please keep doing it.


Awwwww.....did you give mal a mini-meltdown?


----------



## peach174 (Aug 31, 2011)

Sodomy- is an "anal or other copulation-like act, especially between males or between male persons or between human being and animal," and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite.

1 Corinthians 6:9&#8211;10 as follows:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers&#8212;none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

No homosexuality is not exempt.

Sodomy is condemned.
It includes gays and straights who perform anal sex. It means any anal sex, be it man with man, women with women, men with women or men with any animals,or women with any animals.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 31, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Sodomy- is an "anal or other copulation-like act, especially between males or between male persons or between human being and animal," and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 6:9&#8211;10 as follows:
> 
> ...



Do all homosexuals engage in sodomy?

No?  So homosexuality is not a sin but sodomy is?

Darn I will have to retitle my thread to Eating catfish is just a sinful as sodomy?


----------



## bodecea (Aug 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sodomy- is an "anal or other copulation-like act, especially between males or between male persons or between human being and animal," and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite.
> ...



Oral sex is sodomy....in fact pretty much anything but missionary style sex is sodomy.   But, as we all know, complaining about sodomy being a sin is very selective.


----------



## bodecea (Aug 31, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Sodomy- is an "anal or other copulation-like act, especially between males or between male persons or between human being and animal," and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 6:910 as follows:
> 
> ...




Sodomy may be a sin to you....then don't do it.   But do NOT create CIVIL laws forcing your sin/no sin beliefs on other law-abiding, tax-paying adults.   If it does not hurt others or their rights....it's NONE of your business.


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



nope...

Nobody except you and yours are Demanding Special Sanction in Law for what is Inherently Sodomy and in Defiance of Nature's Design. 



peace...


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sodomy- is an "anal or other copulation-like act, especially between males or between male persons or between human being and animal," and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite.
> ...



You are going to make the Claim that there are Homosexuals who go their Entire Lives without Engaging in ANY Sex at all?...





peace...


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Mal just negged, that's the best way of showing that I've done a good job posting rational and well thoguht out responses .
> ...



Giving your Support to someone Whinning about Rep?... 

Damn, you've Sunk, Ravi... 



peace...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Why would a person need morals if he lived with no one else?



What exactly do you think morals and ethics are? As a democrat you reject and seek to purge yourself of ethics, but do you even know what the word or words mean?



> Who would he learn them from?



Many are innate. Humans are not natural sociopaths.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Ok, I have to laugh at you for a second.   Did you really expect logic from Uncensored?    Really?



Oh look, the feral baboon scampered out to throw feces...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say you did.
> ...



The more the likes of you and Mal accuse me of lying, the more I know how truthful and honest I am.

Please keep having a negative opinion of me, the day people like you have a high opinion of me is the day I'll REALLY start questioning myself.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Aug 31, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Sodomy- is an "anal or other copulation-like act, especially between males or between male persons or between human being and animal," and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite.




Actually the definition of Sodomy is:

Merriam-Webster
Definition of SODOMY
: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex;​

So actually any husband that has ever gotten a hummer from his wife is a sodomite.




>>>>>


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > chesswarsnow said:
> ...



I in no way shape or form Spoke for Jesus in that Post. 



peace...


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sodomy- is an "anal or other copulation-like act, especially between males or between male persons or between human being and animal," and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite.
> ...



Yep.

And?...



peace...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Sodomy may be a sin to you....then don't do it.   But do NOT create CIVIL laws forcing your sin/no sin beliefs on other law-abiding, tax-paying adults.



Oh looky there, the feral baboon created a strawman. The mindless creature imagines itself clever for being able to erect one..



> If it does not hurt others or their rights....it's NONE of your business.



Get thee to a baboonary.


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sodomy- is an "anal or other copulation-like act, especially between males or between male persons or between human being and animal," and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite.
> ...



The Law Reflects our Natural Design...

Man and Woman + Life.

Chosen Deviations from it do not.

YOU and yours are trying to Force your Choice on Society.

Unlike the Middle East, you won't be Killed by the State for being a Deviant here, Bodey...

But you can't Assume that Society will Embrace your Choice, and even if you get enough Court Rulings to Support you, you will NEVER have the Validation you Seek because those of us who do NOT Defy our Natural Design and Insist it be Embraced Publically, will NEVER Embrace you of Free Will...

Get it?



peace...


----------



## Ravi (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



I doubt she cares that a small minded twit such as yourself will never embrace her.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...





C'mon dude you gotta edit the bible passage in there for us....some of us aren't christians or very religious and dont want to google for ourselves 

ahhhh a few posts down you stated where it was...here is a link  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+11:9-12&version=KJV

sounds to me like no eating any water animals without scales, sorta like how muslims don't eat pork.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

Ravi said:


> I doubt she cares that a small minded twit such as yourself will never embrace her.



Wow, an cretin like you calling someone else "small minded."

IRONY ALERT!


----------



## peach174 (Aug 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sodomy- is an "anal or other copulation-like act, especially between males or between male persons or between human being and animal," and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite.
> ...




God says it's a sin not me. 
It's up to the individual to make that decision.
It is not right either that our children in our schools are being taught that it is OK to accept sodomites.
Homosexual beliefs should not be forced on our children.

Homosexual behavior does harm others,

Homosexual behavior not only seriously harms homosexuals individually, it harms society also. Let's start by looking at the health of people who engage in homosexual behavior:

People who practice homosexuality experience higher rates of many diseases, including:

Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
Hepatitis A, B and C
Gonorrhea
Syphilis
Gay Bowel syndrome
HIV/AIDS
Bacterial vaginosis

People who practice homosexuality have higher rates of:

Alcohol abuse
Drug abuse
Nicotine dependence
Depression
Suicide
Domestic violence (20 times more common than among heterosexuals)


----------



## WorldWatcher (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...




There would be many more Sodomite heterosexuals than there are Sodomite homosexuals based on shear numbers.



>>>>


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

Ravi said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



USMBot #27 says what?... 



peace...


----------



## bodecea (Aug 31, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sodomy- is an "anal or other copulation-like act, especially between males or between male persons or between human being and animal," and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite.
> ...



The Gomorrahites feel left out.  Those partiers from Sodom get all the credit.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 31, 2011)

peach174 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Where are you getting your statistics?  World Net 
Daily?


----------



## bodecea (Aug 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Sodomy may be a sin to you....then don't do it.   But do NOT create CIVIL laws forcing your sin/no sin beliefs on other law-abiding, tax-paying adults.
> ...



I certainly know I'm on the right track when you come in with nothing but personal insults.   Of course, it's a given that the day you actually present a legit, logical argument will probably be the day the world ends.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, I have to laugh at you for a second.   Did you really expect logic from Uncensored?    Really?
> ...



This post of yours, Uncensored, totally proves bodacea's point about you.


----------



## bodecea (Aug 31, 2011)

peach174 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



You don't like it?   You think it's a sin?   Don't do it.   Simple solution for you.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



So well over half of Christians will go to hell for oral sex?
Wow! So the connection of the sin of sodomy and eating catfish has to do with smell?


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



You call people who Disagree with your Agenda to Expose Children to Homosexuality in Schools "Faggots", so who are you to Judge someone for Personal Insults, you Tub of Shit?...

Bodecea's the only "Woman" I know who has Manboobs...

True Story. 



peace...


----------



## bodecea (Aug 31, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



And I didn't even break a sweat.   The best part of this is that people like Uncensored do all my work for me.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 31, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Sodomy- is an "anal or other copulation-like act, especially between males or between male persons or between human being and animal," and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 6:910 as follows:
> 
> ...



Go pick on the straight people who are having oral and anal sex then.  They do it in far larger numbers.


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Nope.

Sin can be Forgiven...

Asking God to Accept and Embrace Sin is Absurd...

Telling People that God or Jesus think Homosexuality is OK and not Sin, well...

Don't Add or Subtract from the Book...

It will only Add to your... 



peace...


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



How convenient.

Tell ya what.  If I ever personally meet God I will ask his/her forgiveness.
until then though....


----------



## peach174 (Aug 31, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sodomy- is an "anal or other copulation-like act, especially between males or between male persons or between human being and animal," and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite.
> ...



Never said that oral sex is a sin.
Nor does it say that in the bible.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

So a man getting head from a woman is sodomy?


No wonder so many of the gay-haters seem like insecure gays, if a dude told me he was disgusted by the idea of getting head from a woman I would just assume he were gay.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 31, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



It says sodomy and oral sex is sodomy.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> I certainly know I'm on the right track when you come in with nothing but personal insults.   Of course, it's a given that the day you actually present a legit, logical argument will probably be the day the world ends.



You're a fucking idiot - always.

No one has suggested civil or criminal penalties be applied to homosexual behavior - no one.

Your claim that this is what is being demanded is a typical strawman. You no doubt believe yourself clever for positing a logical fallacy that you can quickly defeat.

In fact though, you merely underscore what we all know already, you are a dolt, a cretin, an intellectual lightweight.

In short, a fucking idiot.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> This post of yours, Uncensored, totally proves bodacea's point about you.



Have a banana, sky.


----------



## bodecea (Aug 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly know I'm on the right track when you come in with nothing but personal insults.   Of course, it's a given that the day you actually present a legit, logical argument will probably be the day the world ends.
> ...



Didn't even have to lift a finger for that one.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Didn't even have to lift a finger for that one.



But we wish you would, and wipe the drool off your chin...


----------



## bodecea (Aug 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't even have to lift a finger for that one.
> ...



Oops....broke a nail.   No, not really.


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Bodecea... You are at least one thing... Consistent... ly a Fucking Internet Troll... 

If you had any Shame.



peace...


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Today's Dictionary Definitions are not Applicable to the Bible...

What does it say in the Bible about a Married Couple Engaging in Oral Sex?...



peace...


----------



## Liability (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



I'm not Biblical Expert (God knows), but the last time I read it (not all of it, so maybe I missed the blue material?), the bible said ZERO about oral sex between husband and wife.

In fact, if somebody were to claim anything to the contrary, many would find it hard to swallow.


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

Liability said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...







Excellent Contribution as always Counselor...



peace...


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

Liability said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



And I might add, this is a Perfect Example of why those Pushing to Redifine Marriage as something it Inherently is NOT, still don't get it...



peace...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Then you need to re-write the Bible if you think the current translators got it wrong.  The current translators think that the dictionary definition of the word sodomy is correct, hence why they use it.


So I'm sure from now on you'll tell future girlfriends or your wife that them giving you head is a sin against god and that you're disgusted by it.


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



You have done Zero to Document your Conclusion, but it is a Fact that Oral Sex between a Married Man and Wife was not Addressed in the Bible, but you go ahead and Assume what you want about what is NOT Written. 

As for what I may or may not do in the Privacy of the Bedroom, I don't Parade it or Demand Validation for it like the Activist Deviants you are currently in Bed with here @ USMB. 



peace...


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



It's Convenient that you have Concluded that any amount of Christians will go to Hell based on your own Assumptions about things the Bible doesn't Address Directly...

The Problem Lies with you, Friend. 



peace...


----------



## Liability (Aug 31, 2011)

I got curious.

So I hit good old Google.

Here's the closest we come to even the POSSIBILITY of an allusion to oral sex in the Bible.  Not surprisingly, it is from the Song of Songs (Song of Solomon).

    Son 2:3 As the apple tree among the trees of the wood,

so is my beloved among the sons.
I sat down under his shadow with great delight,
and his fruit was sweet to my taste.

    Son 4:16 	Awake, O north wind;

and come, thou south;
blow upon my garden,
that the spices thereof may flow out.
Let my beloved come into his garden,
and eat his pleasant fruits.


Apparently some Biblical scholars consider it a "stretch" to say that these verses refer to oral sex.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



No, it's not a fact.  You're the one saying the Bible is against sodomy.  What do you need?  More education on the Bible or the definition of sodomy (again)?

You're the one obsessed with what gays do in the bedroom, I couldn't care less.


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

Liability said:


> I got curious.
> 
> So I hit good old Google.
> 
> ...





Yoar takin' the Hell Express for that one, Counselor...



peace...


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> No, it's not a fact.  You're the one saying the Bible is against sodomy.



*Quote me.*

And save the Homosexuality as a Pejorative Attack to the Shitty Trolls like Bodecea... 



peace...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> Bodecea... You are at least one thing... Consistent... ly a Fucking Internet Troll...
> 
> If you had any Shame.
> 
> ...



Shame?

Hell, I'd be happy if it had any brains.....


----------



## Ravi (Aug 31, 2011)

Liability said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Therefore the only problem God must have with homosexuals is anal sex.

As long as homosexuals are married to each other and don't engage in anal sex they have God's blessing.


----------



## Liability (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > I got curious.
> ...



Nah:  A real Biblical Scholar wrote all about it and came to the conclusion that while masturbation IS referenced and forbidden (sinful spilling of seed) and that anal sex is specifically prohibited, the notion of oral sex between man and wife is not referenced as sinful.

So, my path away from hell is all good -- except maybe for that seed thing.


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



How in the FUCK would any Thinking Person Conclude such an Absurd thing?...

Good Jebus Loard almighty...

You are one Stupid Motherfucker, Ravi... 



peace...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Then you need to re-write the Bible if you think the current translators got it wrong.



Now see what you did there drock? When asked if red cars are attractive, you answered "ground beef" and thought yourself clever...



> The current translators think that the dictionary definition of the word sodomy is correct, hence why they use it.
> 
> 
> So I'm sure from now on you'll tell future girlfriends or your wife that them giving you head is a sin against god and that you're disgusted by it.



Except of course, what he said is there is nothing in the Bible speaking of oral sex between married couples.

See, "ground beef' was the wrong answer.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


It's quite easy. The passages from the bible that have been posted have God being against men having anal sex.

There is nothing in the bible about oral sex.

There is nothing in the bible about what married couples can do. 

In other words, anal sex is forbidden. Sex outside of marriage is forbidden.

The bible is pretty clear.

btw, homosexuality among Christians wasn't made illegal until 390 A.D.


----------



## Liability (Aug 31, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



That's one possible interpretation.  Divorced from the words of the argument and the Bible.

But I dunno.

I'm not only not a Biblical Expert or particularly religious, but as I understand it, the Bible refers to men "laying" with men.  

I guess I could Google it to refine the answer.  But ... nah.

Anybody could do that.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


 
Thank you for proving me right Drock.

See, what I told you?

They pull the "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality" bit.

WHICH I ALREADY ADDRESSED DROCK.

Typical of liberals, it doesn't matter how many times you refute the lies, they just repeat them over and over again.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 31, 2011)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure it is men laying with men as if one of them was a woman. That would also imply anal sex.


----------



## Liability (Aug 31, 2011)

What does the Bible say about homosexuality?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> How in the FUCK would any Thinking Person Conclude such an Absurd thing?...
> 
> Good Jebus Loard almighty...
> 
> ...



If you want to conclude things like that, you have to think like Ravi.

To think like Ravi, you need a cordless drill with a BIG chuck, and a 2" diameter bit. Home Despot can order them for you.

Set the bit in the chuck, and set the drill to lowest speed. Put the tip of the bit on your forehead and start drilling. Keep drilling until the bit pops out the back of your skull. When complete, you'll think just like Ravi does!


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


 
I ADDRESSED THIS, OH ONE WHO IS READING COMPREHENSION CHALLENGED!  

I have delt with people like this before. Most are homosexuals who claim to be "Christians." 

They claim that Jesus himself never mentioned homosexualty, thus it is not a sin.

Quite erroneous for several reasons. 

For one, Jesus didn't HAVE to mention homosexuality. 

Jesus preached to JEWS during his lifetime. His sermons, his debates, and the religious questioning from Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Lawyers (etc) were all from and for JEWS (the only exception may be the Herodians, since Herod himself was an Idumean)

Thus, the subject of homosexuality never came up, BECAUSE IT WAS A SETTLED MATTER. No one questioned Jesus on homosexuality, because no one had to. Everyone knew the answer to that issue.

Leviticus 18 made it very clear homosexuality was not only a sin, BUT an abomination. Jesus confirmed the validity of the law to his Jewish audience, which includes Leviticus 18.


*Quote:*
*Matthew 5:18 King James Version


18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.*


Can you imagine Jesus up and telling Jews that he was for gay marriage? He would have been stoned to death on the spot! 

Get real people! You know what I'm saying is true!

Thus, the question of homosexuality is NEVER broached until the first Chapter of Romans. 

Why you may ask! Why is homosexuality never mentioned (in the NT) until the first Chapter of Romans? The answer is to that is very easy to understand.

While Jesus' audience were Jews, who were debating points of the law, Paul (who wrote Romans) was bringing Christianity to PAGANS. 

Although, there was NO QUESTION that homosexuality was verboten in Jewish Law, homosexuality was quite common in many pagan socities like Greece and Rome. (Indeed, people engaged in these pagan practices in the OT were called the "sodomites.")

Thus, right off the bat, Paul makes it clear to new Christian converts from the pagan cultures (that comprised the Roman Empire) that these sexual practices were a sin.

Thus, the erroneous notion that, since Jesus didn't mention homosexuality, homosexuality isn't a sin, is just a another way the PC crowd tries to rationalize their way around the Bible.

It's not based on fact, it's based on ignorance and lies.

It's as simple as that.


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

Ravi said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



It's like this... The Bible doesn't Condone Homosexuality ANYWHERE in it... Front to Back...

It is Sin and Abomination in the Eyes of the Christian God.

Homosexuals can either see what they are doing as Sin, and stop and Repent...

Or find another Book.

Personally, I don't Care, but it's when these Activists are set on Changing a Religion to like what they Choose to do when it so Clearly goes Against it's Teachings...

Go to another fucking Church. 

But it's not about that... As with all of these Activists, it's about Forcing People to Embrace their Choice in the Hopes that it will be Validated.

End of List.



peace...


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...


 

Actually Jesus did in confirming that the Jewish Law was still in force:

*Quote:
Matthew 5:18 King James Version


18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.*


And the Jewish Law DID say a lot about incest and the rest.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Then you need to re-write the Bible if you think the current translators got it wrong.
> ...



Google "definition of sodomy" then read it, then come back and apologize to me.


----------



## bodecea (Aug 31, 2011)

One difference I've noticed....holding in that secret desire to eat catfish doesn't seem to be as destructive to the psyche as holding in that secret desire for members of the same gender.


----------



## Liability (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



So you insist on the fallacy of ascribing modern definitions as an overlay to the ancient words and meanings of the Bible?


----------



## bodecea (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...






Ah, Hope Springs Eternal.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


 
I guess I am going to have to repeat this over and over and over to every idiot who pushes this notion about Jesus approving of homosexuality.

BTW, loving thy neighbor was taught in the parable about the Good Samaritan.  The Good Samaritan, rescued a man who was beaten by theives, he didn't go to bed with him.  

How DISGUSTING to suggest otherwise!  

BBTW, There were gays living in Jesus time.  If they had been openly gay in Jerusalem, they would have been stoned to death.

I have delt with people like this before. Most are homosexuals who claim to be "Christians." 

They claim that Jesus himself never mentioned homosexualty, thus it is not a sin.

Quite erroneous for several reasons. 

For one, Jesus didn't HAVE to mention homosexuality. 

Jesus preached to JEWS during his lifetime. His sermons, his debates, and the religious questioning from Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Lawyers (etc) were all from and for JEWS (the only exception may be the Herodians, since Herod himself was an Idumean)

Thus, the subject of homosexuality never came up, BECAUSE IT WAS A SETTLED MATTER. No one questioned Jesus on homosexuality, because no one had to. Everyone knew the answer to that issue.

Leviticus 18 made it very clear homosexuality was not only a sin, BUT an abomination. Jesus confirmed the validity of the law to his Jewish audience, which includes Leviticus 18.


*Quote:*
*Matthew 5:18 King James Version


18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.*


Can you imagine Jesus up and telling Jews that he was for gay marriage? He would have been stoned to death on the spot! 

Get real people! You know what I'm saying is true!

Thus, the question of homosexuality is NEVER broached until the first Chapter of Romans. 

Why you may ask! Why is homosexuality never mentioned (in the NT) until the first Chapter of Romans? The answer is to that is very easy to understand.

While Jesus' audience were Jews, who were debating points of the law, Paul (who wrote Romans) was bringing Christianity to PAGANS. 

Although, there was NO QUESTION that homosexuality was verboten in Jewish Law, homosexuality was quite common in many pagan socities like Greece and Rome. (Indeed, people engaged in these pagan practices in the OT were called the "sodomites.")

Thus, right off the bat, Paul makes it clear to new Christian converts from the pagan cultures (that comprised the Roman Empire) that these sexual practices were a sin.

Thus, the erroneous notion that, since Jesus didn't mention homosexuality, homosexuality isn't a sin, is just a another way the PC crowd tries to rationalize their way around the Bible.

It's not based on fact, it's based on ignorance and lies.

It's as simple as that.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


 

Sigh, are you people trying to suggest gays have reading comprehension problems, or just are willing to try ANY laughable rationalization to justify their lifestyle?

Are we now going to be told it's bigotry not to see how laughable are these rationalizations?

 have delt with people like this before. Most are homosexuals who claim to be "Christians." 

They claim that Jesus himself never mentioned homosexualty, thus it is not a sin.

Quite erroneous for several reasons. 

For one, Jesus didn't HAVE to mention homosexuality. 

Jesus preached to JEWS during his lifetime. His sermons, his debates, and the religious questioning from Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Lawyers (etc) were all from and for JEWS (the only exception may be the Herodians, since Herod himself was an Idumean)

Thus, the subject of homosexuality never came up, BECAUSE IT WAS A SETTLED MATTER. No one questioned Jesus on homosexuality, because no one had to. Everyone knew the answer to that issue.

Leviticus 18 made it very clear homosexuality was not only a sin, BUT an abomination. Jesus confirmed the validity of the law to his Jewish audience, which includes Leviticus 18.


*Quote:*
*Matthew 5:18 King James Version


18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.*


Can you imagine Jesus up and telling Jews that he was for gay marriage? He would have been stoned to death on the spot! 

Get real people! You know what I'm saying is true!

Thus, the question of homosexuality is NEVER broached until the first Chapter of Romans. 

Why you may ask! Why is homosexuality never mentioned (in the NT) until the first Chapter of Romans? The answer is to that is very easy to understand.

While Jesus' audience were Jews, who were debating points of the law, Paul (who wrote Romans) was bringing Christianity to PAGANS. 

Although, there was NO QUESTION that homosexuality was verboten in Jewish Law, homosexuality was quite common in many pagan socities like Greece and Rome. (Indeed, people engaged in these pagan practices in the OT were called the "sodomites.")

Thus, right off the bat, Paul makes it clear to new Christian converts from the pagan cultures (that comprised the Roman Empire) that these sexual practices were a sin.

Thus, the erroneous notion that, since Jesus didn't mention homosexuality, homosexuality isn't a sin, is just a another way the PC crowd tries to rationalize their way around the Bible.

It's not based on fact, it's based on ignorance and lies.

It's as simple as that.


----------



## Liability (Aug 31, 2011)

Let's say that the Basshole had a secret yearning to fuck a male catfish of tender years up the fishie poop shoot before devouring the fishie.

Let's say the Basshole acted upon his secret desire.

Is the sin in the yearning?

Is it in the fact that it's pedophiliac in nature?

Is the sin that it's a scale-less fish?

Is the sin that the fishie is male?

Is the sin that the sexual expression is anal in nature?

Is the sin in the dining on a scale-less fishie?

Are some but not all of these things sinful?

Of those things that are sinful, is their a gradation in sinfulness?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Google "definition of sodomy" then read it, then come back and apologize to me.



So you're sticking with your answer of "ground beef," huh?

What was asserted was that there is nothing in the Bible speaking of, much less prohibiting oral sex between married couples.

Feel free to list verses showing otherwise.

"Ground beef" is the wrong answer, though.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > "been the based"
> ...


 


+1million!


----------



## Liability (Aug 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Google "definition of sodomy" then read it, then come back and apologize to me.
> ...



Steak tartare?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Google "definition of sodomy" then read it, then come back and apologize to me.
> ...



So you're sticking with the idea that the Bible doesn't speak against sodomy?  I'll happily prove you wrong, but I'll give you another chance to go back and admit you're wrong.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > From a society, not necessarially a christian one.
> ...


 
I have always made fools of idiots like that (moral relativists) by asking them about Nazi Germany.

If society decides morality, then explain Nazi Germany.  Were they evil?  Were they moral?  Who can decide?

It's hilarious watching them twist themselves into knots trying to get out of that one.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

Liability said:


> Steak tartare?



Ah, but that's made with tenderloin, and tenderloin changes EVERYTHING!


----------



## Liability (Aug 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Steak tartare?
> ...



Good point.

Shoulda thought of that.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 31, 2011)

Liability said:


> What does the Bible say about homosexuality?


Even there, all the quotes have to do with anal sex.

The quote from Jesus about sexual immorality more than likely is talking about sex outside of marriage.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> So you're sticking with the idea that the Bible doesn't speak against sodomy?



I'm sticking with - your straw man didn't work because the straw you used was rancid.



> I'll happily prove you wrong, but I'll give you another chance to go back and admit you're wrong.



Wrong about what? The assertion YOU just assigned to me, that I didn't make?


----------



## Ravi (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Anal sex is the abomination. Not homosexuality. You can keep stamping your feet and denying it, but it is very clear in the bible.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Damn, this is so easy it is unreal.
> The Bible lists 667 sins and does not distinguish between them like you do mal. The penalty for lust is death in the Bible.
> Homosexuality is listed as sin the same as the 7 "deadly sins": greed, envy, pride, wrath/anger, lust gluttony and sloth.
> I am sure you treat the sin of gluttony the same as you do homosexuality mal.
> ...


 
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOES MENTION HOMOSEXUALITY!!!!!!!

Why do you libs keep lying about this!



> *Romans 1  King James Version (KJV)*
> 
> *24*Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
> 
> ...


 
All of that refers to HOMOSEXUALITY.  I already addressed this over and over and YET you lying libs insist on repeating the same lies.

As for the wages of sin:



> *Romans 6:23 King James Version (KJV)*
> 
> 
> 
> *23*For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


 
The PENALTY FOR EVERY SIN IS DEATH.  That's why Jesus died for us.  Because God doesn't differentiate between sins.

You are confusing how God treats sin, and the laws he set up for a civil Hebrew Society through the Mosaic Law.  

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

You speak ONLY OF YOUR OWN IGNORANCE and prejudice regarding the Bible, NOT from any knowlege.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > chesswarsnow said:
> ...


 
Excuse the HELL OUT OF ME, but it is YOU that started this thread as a "spokesman" for God, ignorantly claiming that it was a sin to eat catfish of all things, without knowing what you were talking about.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


 
So, you answer to the question of morality is kill everyone else and live alone?

Because otherwise you WILL be dealing with people and THUS a need for morality.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Sodomy- is an "anal or other copulation-like act, especially between males or between male persons or between human being and animal," and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 6:910 as follows:
> 
> ...


 
First chapter of Romans also mentions homosexuality quite clearly.

The Gays are lying about this for their own agenda.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > So you're sticking with the idea that the Bible doesn't speak against sodomy?
> ...



The Bible speaks against sodomy, oral sex is sodomy.  

You need to take your gripe up with merriam webster, not me.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sodomy- is an "anal or other copulation-like act, especially between males or between male persons or between human being and animal," and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite.
> ...


 
USCitizen.

I hate to break it to you but "sodomy" is all sex except penis/vaginal penetration.  Anal Sex is sodomy, oral sex is sodomy.

So, unless homosexuals are completely celibate, they ARE engaging in Sodomy.



> *sod·omy*
> 
> _noun_ \&#712;sä-d&#601;-m&#275;\
> 
> ...


----------



## Liability (Aug 31, 2011)

teapartysamurai said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



That is the modern definition.

I wonder who can demonstrate that such was the understanding back in the days of the Bible?

On the other hand, I have to admit:  I don't really care all that much.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

teapartysamurai said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Thank you for illustrating my point tea party.



I assume from now on those who speak against homosexuality on this board will spend the same amount of time speaking out against straights performing oral sex.


Hell sure is gonna be crowded!!!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 31, 2011)

teapartysamurai said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Jesus spoke about murder, divorce, anger and adultery in Matthew and many other sins of the time.
In the Bible. 
By your way of thinking murder was not a "settled" sin.
Paul was speaking to the Jews, not the Romans, in Corinthians. 
Since Jesus spoke about many other sins why is it "erroneous" that he never mentioned homosexuality?
That opinion makes no sense. Jesus mentioned MANY sins.
But never homosexuality. Ever. 
Jesus preached blessings to those that THE JEWS LOOKED DOWN UPON.
In Matthew 5 Jesus commends, brings blessings and praises those that the Jews look down upon.
And you claim that homosexuals were not looked down upon by the Jews?
Jesus in Mark addresses the weaknesses and fallacies of the Jewish laws in the Judaistic system.
Early on in Jesus' ministry he began to butt heads with the Jewish rabbis over the religous law. One case in point is the Sabbath. The Pharrisses stated that Jesus was soft on the law. Why is it that Jesus worked on the Sabbath and disobeyed that law? How could that be? Pharrisses looked at Jesus as a law breaker. 
Jesus gave us the proper interpretaion of moral law. Homosexuality is not in it.
Where is it in the 10 commandments? 
Jesus laid out the law and labeled the Jewish law as "law in it's perversions". Imagine that. 

All through the Bible Jesus speaks about the law and his interpretation of it and the moral codes he sets down. Best example was Jesus was soft on adultery according to Jewish law. They demanded women be stoned to death. Jesus did not do that and he spoke about that sin and others.
No where did he mention homosexuality. Claims that he had a "done deal" with that are without any fact or foundation anywhere in the Bible as the Bible is full of Jesus speaking of what he believed was sin.


----------



## Liability (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Oh blow me.








(j/k)


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 31, 2011)

teapartysamurai said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Damn, this is so easy it is unreal.
> ...



I own 3 corporations and have voted Republican for 40 years.
I can always tell when you have ZERO confidence in your argument.
You call everyone a "lib" that disagrees with you.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sodomy- is an "anal or other copulation-like act, especially between males or between male persons or between human being and animal," and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite.
> ...


 
Okay that's stupid.

I also think fornication is a sin.  I'm not going to create laws against it.

OR adultery, etc.

We are NOT talking about laws.  We are talking about what is considered a sin in the Bible.

Next you will claim we are, because of "gay marriage" blah blah blah.

Sorry, but it is not Christians forcing a change to any laws, IT'S THE GAYS.

Gay marriage has never existed the HISTORY of the world.  Go back to Ancient cultures.  Look at Greece where homosexuality was touted and encouraged.  THERE WAS NEVER A THOUGHT OF MARRIAGE.

As a matter of fact the "normal" relationship in ancient Greece was pedophilia.  YES, that's true.  Look it up.  Pedophilia.  Guess where the word pederasty comes from.  Bingo!  Greece!  It means quite literally "love of boys."

That's how it worked most of the times in Greece (for example,  cultures like Sparta)  An older man, preying on a young boy, and we he got tired of him and wanted another young boy, er I mean decided the boy was ready to "move on," he would find a wife for the "youth."  THEN the boy would be married.  But it was always to a WOMAN, not another guy.

It's gays who are trying to FORCE LAWS on us, changing the concept of marriage to something that HAS NEVER EXISTED.  

Marriage is an institution for raising a family (and just because some couples can't have children doesn't change that.  There are always exceptions to the rule, that doesn't CHANGE the rule)

I don't care how you cut it, the ONLY institution were you create a child IS A MAN AND A WOMAN.  -- PERIOD!


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

Liability said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...




Lol well played


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sodomy- is an "anal or other copulation-like act, especially between males or between male persons or between human being and animal," and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite.
> ...


 
Except for one thing!



> *Hebrews 13:4 King James Version*
> 
> 
> 
> *4*Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.


 
In other words, just like Vegas, what happens between a married man and a married woman, stays between them.  Their bed is undefiled.

Sodomy applies to those outside marriage.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 31, 2011)

teapartysamurai said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


If same sex marriage didn't exist, why did the Christians feel the need to outlaw it and make it punishable by death around the year 300?

That sure sounds like Christians forcing laws to me.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

Ravi said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


 

Sigh, UNTRUE!

I have posted over and over and over, Romans 1 right off the bat, forbids homosexuality.



> *Romans 1 King James Version*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ravi (Aug 31, 2011)

teapartysamurai said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


So then why do you spend so much time denying gays the sacrament of marriage? If gays are married, sodomy laws and God's wrath would not apply to them.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


 
(whimper)

Romans 1, it's in Romans 1.



> Romans 1 King James Version
> 
> *24*Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
> 
> ...


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

Liability said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


 
That's not a modern definition.  The word sodomy, after all comes from SODDOM AND GOMMORAH!

Soddomites in the OT, is about homsexuals.


----------



## bodecea (Aug 31, 2011)

teapartysamurai said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...




I always appreciate people making my case for me.   Let's talk about Adultery.

It's one of the BIGGIES in the 10 Commandments....but Adulterers are allowed to marry...and marry...and marry.

People even got killed (ok, women got killed)for Adultery....but there is no DOMA for Adulterers.

There are most likely MORE adulterers in the country than there are gay people....but no religious effort to deprive Adulterers of the rights of marriage.

Adultery is, without a doubt, a CHOICE....but again, no state propositions to take away the right of Adulterers to marry or have children.

Adultery destroys the sanctity of marriage on a daily basis in ALL states...but no one is doing a damn thing to legally put curbs on it.


----------



## bodecea (Aug 31, 2011)

teapartysamurai said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...




Gomorrah must have been the Lesbians.....no sodomy there by some of your selective definitions.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


 

No sorry because Hebrews make it clear that the marriage bed is clean, undefiled.  In other words, what's between a MARRIED MAN AND WOMAN is "undefiled."

*



			Hebrews 13:4 King James Version
		
Click to expand...

*


> *4*Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.


 
Sodomy refers to practices OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDS OF A MARRIED MAN AND WOMAN.

Drock you guys might as well give up.  I know the Bible inside and out AND YOU GUYS OBVIOUSLY DON'T.

The ignorance I see here is appalling.  Don't ANY of you even READ the Bible before pretending you know about it?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

teapartysamurai said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



That's your interpretation, sounds wrong to me but hey it's your interpretation.

Fine I'll play by your rules, in your interpretation it's an immoral sin for unmarried straight people to engage in oral sex?

Again if you think that you've got a looooooooot of preaching to do to straight people as well about sex, not just gays.  There's a lot more straight oral sex happening in america now than gay sex.


----------



## Liability (Aug 31, 2011)

teapartysamurai said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



If Sodomites is about homosexuality, and the modern (quoted) definition includes heterosexual behavior, then you ARE overlaying the modern definition on to the Biblical passages.

(Unless Gommorah covers the whole non-penis/vagina sexual relations stuff.)

But that seems unlikely:  Stand to Reason: What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


 
You don't know what the hell you are talking about.  Paul made it his personal mission to convert "gentiles" to Christianity.  Of course he also preached to Jews, but his main goal was gentiles:



> *Acts 13:46 King James Version*
> 
> 
> 
> *46*Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.




Why do you guys pretend to know what you are talking about WHEN IT'S SO DAMN OBVIOUS, YOU DON'T!

Besides which the Gentiles comprised most of the membership of the Church at Rome in Paul's time.

This is really starting to get me mad.   You either are being lied to by someone, or you are just making BS up and hoping no one else realizes it's BS.  Which is it, because I'm getting tired of having to refute lie after STUPID LIE!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> The Bible speaks against sodomy, oral sex is sodomy.



The question posed to you was whether you could show the bible speaking of or condemning oral sex between married couples. 

Instead of admitting that you can't and conceding that you're wrong, you answer "ground beef.



> You need to take your gripe up with merriam webster, not me.



Webster has nothing to do with this.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible speaks against sodomy, oral sex is sodomy.
> ...



So do you want me to provide proof that the Bible speaks against sodomy in general?  That's all I asked, if you'd like me to I'd be happy to, that's a very easy thing to do.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
Oh give me a break!

You know you can tell when someone has COMPLETELY LOST THE ARGUMENT?

They stop discussing it, and make it either about themselves or you, AND YOU DID BOTH!

You just got defensive about yourself and then started attacking me, but you completely DROPPED even discussing the actual subject.

I agree you lost, and lost badly.  Maybe now you will stop pretending you even come close to knowing the Bible and will stop making up stupid lies about it.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

Ravi said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 
Oh when you have even a shred of evidence for that, let me know.

Five will get you 10 it was NOT about GAY MARRIAGE.  But I can't wait for you to produce your bogus "evidence." 

My guess is you will tell me to "google" it because you are talking out your butt.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

Ravi said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


 
I'm not denying Gays anything.  I'm against gays changing the definition of marriage to create something which has never existed, and is simply a political ploy.

If it were NOT simply a political ploy, gay marriage would have have because a political cudgel in the last 15 years.

It didn't even exist before that time, so there is no way to conclude otherwise.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

Liability said:


> If Sodomites is about homosexuality, and the modern (quoted) definition includes heterosexual behavior, then you ARE overlaying the modern definition on to the Biblical passages.



*	Sodomite 

Originally meaning a citizen of the inhospitable biblical city of Sodom, has been extended over the centuries to mean a homosexual. Such famous Sodomites include Oscar Wilde and Lot.

"I like being a Sodomite ...a Lot!"
"Oh, very witty, Wilde!"
*

Urban Dictionary: sodomite

Drock ain't known for his honesty.



> (Unless Gommorah covers the whole non-penis/vagina sexual relations stuff.)
> 
> But that seems unlikely:  Stand to Reason: What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > If Sodomites is about homosexuality, and the modern (quoted) definition includes heterosexual behavior, then you ARE overlaying the modern definition on to the Biblical passages.
> ...



Actually you're lying again big guy, I'm talking about sodomy, not sodomites.  I've never even typed the word sodomite until this post.

If you'd like me to provide merriam webster's defintion of sodomy so you can better understand english, I'd be happy to.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> So do you want me to provide proof that the Bible speaks against sodomy in general?



"Ground Beef," huh Drock?

Good answer....



> That's all I asked, if you'd like me to I'd be happy to, that's a very easy thing to do.


----------



## Liability (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



But the POINT remains:  the MODERN definition of "sodomy" may or may not encompass the same behavior(s) as the OLD understanding of that term.

So, without resorting to the MODERN dictionary definitions, can you utilize the Bible ITSELF as evidence supporting your contention?


----------



## Liability (Aug 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > So do you want me to provide proof that the Bible speaks against sodomy in general?
> ...



Some people put a raw egg on their tartare!

True story!


----------



## hortysir (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> There's a lot more straight oral sex happening in america now than gay sex.






And I am thankful





(unsubscribe....this shit's getting old)


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

Liability said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



That's why I brought up 2 options originally. Either those who print out the current version of the Bible are wrong when they put the word sodomy in the texts and need to pick new words to put in place to be more accurate, or you guys have an issue with how merriam webster defines the word.

I can't twist the meaning of the words in the Bible, I go by what the Bible says when talking about the Bible.


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Jesus spoke about murder, divorce, anger and adultery in Matthew and many other sins of the time.
> In the Bible.



Quotes and Context, Please.



peace...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

Liability said:


> Some people put a raw egg on their tartare!
> 
> True story!



I've even heard of anchovies in it - though that sounded a little fishy.


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...bodecea-others-did-jesus-define-marriage.html

^Feel free to come on over...



peace...


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Don't use Dishonest Liberal Tactics when Forwarding a Liberal Agenda then... 



peace...


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



So if it is not in the bible it is not a sin?

Does the bible speak of pornography?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 31, 2011)

teapartysamurai said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



I took religion in military school in the 60s. 
You are the one that has no clue what you are talking about. You do not even know Bible history. 
I quoted The Bible and gave you books where it is.
You quote nothing, zilch, not a damn thing.
All you have is opinion.
You do not even know that The First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians was for the Jews and Gentiles. CHRISTIAN gentiles. You see, Paul enumerated numerous so called immoral tendencies of the Christian Corinthians. They were not pagans. Corinth was a very prosperous trading port and the Jews lead the way as merchants there. Most all of the early Christians were Jewish dude and Paul mandated circumcission for all Christians also. Paul uses as an example in his teaching of the ancient Isrealites who were punished for their sins. Where did Jesus use this and throw out the old Jewish laws? In fact, Jesus never did such a thing and did the opposite with the adulterous women. 
Corinthians 1 gives us a clear history of the early church, a church with NO clear single supreme authority. The missionaries and preachers who spread the Gospel in the decades after Jesus were by NO means homogenous in their approaches to Christian doctrine and practice. I suggest you go read Corinthians and tell me where I am wrong. Paul speaks himself of divisions in the church.
Instances of vast disagreements in doctrine and practice amongst early Christian leaders and disciples are in all The New Testament. In Acts we see that. 
No wonder you are mad. You have no argument and nothing to back up anything you post.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 31, 2011)

The New Testament states what happens to those who refuse to acknowledge God:

"Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, . . . 

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions.  For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.  Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; " (Romans 1:24, 26-28)

What does the Bible teach about SODOMY?

the natural use of a woman is not oral sex.
There ya go Mal.


----------



## Liability (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



"You guys?"

I am an outlying statistic, bubba.

But even so, your claim is not well grounded.

*You have not* *YET* (as far as I have seen) gone by what the Bible says.

Tell me (*without* using a MODERN dictionary definition) how does the BIBLE itself "define" sodomy?


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 31, 2011)

A. First, let's look at the world's definition of sodomy from Webster&#8217;s New Collegiate Dictionary: 

1.Copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal.

2.Non-coital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the same sex. 

Now let's look at what the Bible says about sodomy. We will look at the Old Testament, then the New Testament, and let the word of God speak for itself: 

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.  It is an abomination.  Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it.  Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it.  It is perversion." (Leviticus 18:22-23, NKJV throughout) 
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.  They shall surely be put to death.  Their blood shall be upon them. " (Leviticus 20:13) 

The New Testament states what happens to those who refuse to acknowledge God:

"Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, . . . 

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions.  For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.  Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; " (Romans 1:24, 26-28)

These Bible verses tell us that the sexual activity known as sodomy in not approved by God
What does the Bible teach about SODOMY?

everything except the "natural" use of a woman apparently.


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> A. First, let's look at the world's definition of sodomy from Websters New Collegiate Dictionary:
> 
> 1.Copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal.
> 
> ...



You can only Conclude about what WAS said.

Try again.



peace...


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I did 3 years Lutheran, 5 years Catholic and 4 years in a Baptist Academy...

Memorized 16 verses a week there... And even more in New Testament Survey and Bible Study, not to mention EVERY Subject was Peppered with the Book...

Don't talk to me about the Study of it... Been there... Memorized that. 



peace...


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > A. First, let's look at the world's definition of sodomy from Websters New Collegiate Dictionary:
> ...



You are ignoring the word of God?


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



In no way Shape or Form... Next time give Substance and Context to your Trolling...

Opps, you wouldn't be Trolling if you did that, my Bad. 



peace....


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Ahh a troll projector you are.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 31, 2011)

mal said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



Then tell me where I am wrong in Corinthians?
Or ANY of the other books I posted.


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You will have to be Specific in your Assertion, and then Source in Context, your Claim using the Book.

I am not Reading Large chunks of the Book today to Entertain you.

Make your Point and show your References Specifically, then I will Discuss them.



peace...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 31, 2011)

Liability said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I'm talking about you guys on this thread, nothing about any affiliation or religion.

The Bible as it's been edited and translated uses the word sodomy and I'm going by the definition of sodomy.

I don't know any other way to say it.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 31, 2011)

Mal is one of those who are never wrong.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 31, 2011)

> sodomy Look up sodomy at Dictionary.com
> c.1300, from O.Fr. sodomie, from L.L. peccatum Sodomiticum "anal sex," lit. "sin of Sodom," from L. Sodoma (see Sodom).


Literally "sin of Sodom"

There were a boatload of sins going on in Sodom. It sounds as if the word sodomy was just a colloquial term for sin in general.

It is really difficult to define meanings of terms in Biblical literature.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Mal is one of those who are never wrong.



He thinks that.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 
Now you are trying to make an artificial argument about "fair." 

It's not fair that one sinner can marry and someone else, can't blah blah blah.

But "fair" doesn't come into it.  It's not fair I have to gain weight, get stretch marks, and get surgery scars (two C-sections) to have my children, while my husband's part of the equation is a night of fun.

There's no such thing as fair.  

Fair has nothing to do with it.  NOR is it only about two people wanting to fuck.  That's what is so self centered about those focused ONLY on sex when it comes to marriage.

Marriage is about RAISING FAMILIES, AKA FOR THE BENEFIT OF CHILDREN.

The country knows that.  That's why most states (like Ohio) where they have put the pay marriage on the ballot, it goes down to defeat.  (In Ohio it was a 70% NO to gay marriage.  In California, liberal California, If I remember correctly it was 90% NO)

As imperfect and "unfair" as life is, adulterers can make children, a gay man with a gay man cannot.  A gay woman, with a gay woman cannot.

Most people in this country are NOT willing to change the BASIC FUNDAMENTAL PROTECTION that children have which is MARRIAGE.

I mean look at the flash mobs going on right now being committed by gangs.  What do most gang members have in common?  NO FATHERS--SINGLE MOTHERS.

You look at gangs in this country and it becomes obvious how necessary FAMILIES are to a stable community, and how hell breaks loose when that isn't true.

Remember, Rome fell from within first, before it fell from invasions.  

The last thing we need is ANOTHER ATTACK on the only thing that protects children in a increasingly dangerous (to children) world.

Most people understand this, and consider that far more important than the gay political agenda.

Because, when you get right down to it, most people understand the ONLY reason gays wanted marriage (something they never asked for since the dawn of history, before the 1990s) is to attack hetrosexual marriage because of their own selfish resentments against hetrosexual marriage.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


 
Okay that was just stupid.

When people are losing they try to get snarky and "clever" but that didn't even come close.

Sodomy comes from the name Sodom.  

But when you get right down to it, Hebrew was conjugated toward the male.

Which means if it says in the Mosaic Law:



> Shemot - Exodus Chapter 21 (Tanakh)
> 
> 16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.


 
It doesn't mean it's okay for a woman to kidnap someone or if she gets caught she won't be put to death.

The language is simply conjugated to speak of the male, even though it covers both sexes.  Which is why we can speak of the tribe of MAN, and that doesn't mean ONLY men.

Thus, even though Leviticus 18 only speaks of male homosexuality, it's quite obvious it covers both sexes.

And that also ignores that Romans 1 DOES cover both male and female homosexuality and calls it a sin.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


 
Helloooooooooooooooooooooooooo, what the hell do you think fornication means????????

I mean you cannot be that ignorant of the Bible.  This is NEWS to you that sex outside of marriage is a sin?????????  

Good Grief!!!!!!!!!! 

Why am *I* required to preach on something that is so damn OBVIOUS to anyone who simply opens up the Bible?

I didn't start a thread claiming people who eat catfish are no different than people who screw around!  

Are you now admitting you haven't read the Bible instead of making up more BS?  You really should.  It's kind of obvious!

WHAT IS the marriage sacrement for if sex outside of marriage is okay?  I mean DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 31, 2011)

Ravi said:


> > sodomy Look up sodomy at Dictionary.com
> > c.1300, from O.Fr. sodomie, from L.L. peccatum Sodomiticum "anal sex," lit. "sin of Sodom," from L. Sodoma (see Sodom).
> 
> 
> ...



From a religious scholar site called Sacred Texts Archive.......



> The sin of the city of Sodom was the originally considered to be the violation of the rights of Lot's guests. Defining the 'sin of Sodom' to be male homosexuality was a later interpretation, which was made by medieval Jewish and Christian writers, as a reaction to Pagan acceptance of homosexuality. Near Eastern hospitality, to this day, implies a responsibility to protect guests under one's roof. The fact that Lot was ready to make a huge sacrifice by offering up his virgin daughters to the mob instead of his guests underlines this.
> 
> There is abundant Haggadah, ancient Jewish folklore, which tells of the cruelty of Sodom to strangers, and their mistreatment of the poor and homeless. Among other stories, travelers are given gold but not food; when they starve to death, everything is stolen including the gold and the clothes off their backs, and their bodies are left to rot. One of Lot's unfortunate daughters is burned to death for the crime of giving a starving man food. Another woman who assists a poor man is smeared with honey and left to be stung to death by bees. Some of these stories are suffused with dark comedic twists. A poor man is assaulted and robbed. Eliezar, a servant of Abraham, is hit on the head when he intervenes. A judge rules that he must pay his assailant for medical treatment! (Bleeding was considered a surgical procedure). Eliezar then hits the judge on the head, drawing blood, and tells the judge to pay his fine. See Ginzburg's Legends of the Jews and Polano's The Talmud: Selections, for many more stories along the same lines. After reading these, I guarantee you'll be rooting for the Lord to rain down the brimstone on the cities of the plain...
> 
> ...



Internet Sacred Text Archive Home


----------



## bodecea (Aug 31, 2011)

teapartysamurai said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...




And here I thought we wanted to get married because we love each other and want to make a life together til death do us part.   

Sheesh....do you really believe that shit  you're peddling?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 31, 2011)

Teabagger With the Sumo Thighs is only interested in right wing social engineering.


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> And here I thought we wanted to get married because we love each other and want to make a life together til death do us part.
> 
> Sheesh....do you really believe that shit  you're peddling?



There is nothing Stopping you from doing that...

Acting as if you can Reflect what Creates isn't Required for you to do just what you said.

_You are looking for one of two things..._

*1.) Validation that you Know doesn't Exist.

2.) The Destruction of what you can't be a Part of Honestly.*



peace...


----------



## mal (Aug 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Pornography would Reflect a number of things in 18...

Minus the Technology.

Stop being Absurd... You aren't Entertaining when you try to do it.



peace...


----------



## logical4u (Aug 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



What makes a society?


----------



## bodecea (Aug 31, 2011)

logical4u said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 31, 2011)

logical4u said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



People.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Yeshua addressed imoral sex, lewdness and perversity.

Mark 7:17-27  17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.'21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

Romans 1:27 NIV

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Ephesians 5:5 NIV

For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person--such a man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Hebrews 13:4 NIV

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Revelation 21:8 NIV

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

I am not advocating 'gay hating'.  I am simply saying the behavior is sinful.  I would say that pre-marital sex is sinful.  I would say that allowing yourself to become addicted to drugs, alcohol, stealing, or sex is also sinful.  The behaviors harm the soul, as well as the body.  I have not claimed to be 'without sin', if anything it is just the opposite.  I welcome fellow sinners to improve themselves with the grace of the Lord given by the Holy Spirit for those that genuinely ask for the Lord's help to overcome temptation.  Only the Savior can do that, not me, not you, not any government law.  

You accusing others of hatred is simply a cover, a deceit because there is no righteousness in your actions.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 31, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Yes, male prostitutes were referred to as 'temple DOGS'.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 31, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > > sodomy Look up sodomy at Dictionary.com
> ...


Very interesting. Apparently the revisionist historians have always been with us.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 31, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> and here's what a poster just said to me (who I'll keep nameless for their sake) and I agree with this person;
> 
> "Mal goes thru these cycles of frantic posting about gays...I believe that's when he is trying hard to beat down his own gay urges."
> 
> Typically those who bash gays the most, are just gay themselves and they feel insecure about their urges and thus have to make up for it by bashing gays as a means of overcompensating.



So, you know that you are wrong about the Savior, you know that you are wrong about homosexual acts being sinful, so you want to 'bear false witness' against those that would proclaim the truth?  What a sad, little, tiny person you are.


----------



## bodecea (Aug 31, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > and here's what a poster just said to me (who I'll keep nameless for their sake) and I agree with this person;
> ...



You can proclaim your truth all you want.   Just don't be pushing it as secular law on the rest of us.   That's what the Muslims do.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 31, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Damn, this is so easy it is unreal.
> The Bible lists 667 sins and does not distinguish between them like you do mal. The penalty for lust is death in the Bible.
> Homosexuality is listed as sin the same as the 7 "deadly sins": greed, envy, pride, wrath/anger, lust gluttony and sloth.
> I am sure you treat the sin of gluttony the same as you do homosexuality mal.
> ...



Looks like this has more to do with eating catfish.....

Romans 14
The Weak and the Strong
1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.11 It is written: " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.' "12 So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.16 Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. 

Mark 9:42-47  
Causing to Sin
42"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.43If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.45And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.47And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell,

Acts 21:27-33
Paul Arrested
27 When the seven days were nearly over, some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him,28 shouting, "Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place."29 (They had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with Paul and assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple area.) 30 The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple, and immediately the gates were shut. 31 While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar. 32 He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran down to the crowd. When the rioters saw the commander and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul.33 The commander came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains. Then he asked who he was and what he had done. 

Numbers 14:2-3, 16:3


14:11-21 
11 The LORD said to Moses, "How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the miraculous signs I have performed among them? 12 I will strike them down with a plague and destroy them, but I will make you into a nation greater and stronger than they."13 Moses said to the LORD, "Then the Egyptians will hear about it! By your power you brought these people up from among them.14 And they will tell the inhabitants of this land about it. They have already heard that you, O LORD, are with these people and that you, O LORD, have been seen face to face, that your cloud stays over them, and that you go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night.15 If you put these people to death all at one time, the nations who have heard this report about you will say, 16 'The LORD was not able to bring these people into the land he promised them on oath; so he slaughtered them in the desert.'17 "Now may the Lord's strength be displayed, just as you have declared: 18 'The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.'19 In accordance with your great love, forgive the sin of these people, just as you have pardoned them from the time they left Egypt until now."20 The LORD replied, "I have forgiven them, as you asked. 21 Nevertheless, as surely as I live and as surely as the glory of the LORD fills the whole earth,

Numbers 16:1-33
Korah, Dathan and Abiram
1 Korah son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and certain Reubenites--Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth--became insolent2 and rose up against Moses. With them were 250 Israelite men, well-known community leaders who had been appointed members of the council.3 They came as a group to oppose Moses and Aaron and said to them, "You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the LORD's assembly?"4 When Moses heard this, he fell facedown.5 Then he said to Korah and all his followers: "In the morning the LORD will show who belongs to him and who is holy, and he will have that person come near him. The man he chooses he will cause to come near him. 6 You, Korah, and all your followers are to do this: Take censers7 and tomorrow put fire and incense in them before the LORD. The man the LORD chooses will be the one who is holy. You Levites have gone too far!" 8 Moses also said to Korah, "Now listen, you Levites! 9 Isn't it enough for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the rest of the Israelite community and brought you near himself to do the work at the LORD's tabernacle and to stand before the community and minister to them?10 He has brought you and all your fellow Levites near himself, but now you are trying to get the priesthood too.11 It is against the LORD that you and all your followers have banded together. Who is Aaron that you should grumble against him?" 12 Then Moses summoned Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab. But they said, "We will not come!13 Isn't it enough that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the desert? And now you also want to lord it over us?14 Moreover, you haven't brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey or given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards. Will you gouge out the eyes of these men? No, we will not come!" 15 Then Moses became very angry and said to the LORD, "Do not accept their offering. I have not taken so much as a donkey from them, nor have I wronged any of them." 16 Moses said to Korah, "You and all your followers are to appear before the LORD tomorrow--you and they and Aaron.17 Each man is to take his censer and put incense in it--250 censers in all--and present it before the LORD. You and Aaron are to present your censers also." 18 So each man took his censer, put fire and incense in it, and stood with Moses and Aaron at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 19 When Korah had gathered all his followers in opposition to them at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, the glory of the LORD appeared to the entire assembly. 20 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 21 "Separate yourselves from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once."22 But Moses and Aaron fell facedown and cried out, "O God, God of the spirits of all mankind, will you be angry with the entire assembly when only one man sins?"23 Then the LORD said to Moses, 24 "Say to the assembly, 'Move away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram.' " 25 Moses got up and went to Dathan and Abiram, and the elders of Israel followed him. 26 He warned the assembly, "Move back from the tents of these wicked men! Do not touch anything belonging to them, or you will be swept away because of all their sins." 27 So they moved away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. Dathan and Abiram had come out and were standing with their wives, children and little ones at the entrances to their tents.28 Then Moses said, "This is how you will know that the LORD has sent me to do all these things and that it was not my idea: 29 If these men die a natural death and experience only what usually happens to men, then the LORD has not sent me.30 But if the LORD brings about something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them, with everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the grave, then you will know that these men have treated the LORD with contempt." 31 As soon as he finished saying all this, the ground under them split apart32 and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, with their households and all Korah's men and all their possessions. 33 They went down alive into the grave, with everything they owned; the earth closed over them, and they perished and were gone from the community. 

Well, I read those passages you suggested.  There is nothing supporting homosexuality there.  There is warning for being deliberately sinful towards the Lord, not my warning, but from the Lord.  It appears you are saying that homosexual acts are sinful and will be punished by the Lord with these passages.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



That is the question that is being asked of you (we already know).


----------



## logical4u (Aug 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sodomy- is an "anal or other copulation-like act, especially between males or between male persons or between human being and animal," and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite.
> ...



Do Not create CIVIL laws forcing your sinful beliefs on other law-abiding, tax-paying adults.  Wow, that is a thought!


----------



## logical4u (Aug 31, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I think that it implies that one or both of them are being "false"/fraud/faux/fake.  The Lord has no use for deceivers, and mentions it more than once.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 31, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
> ...



And are homosexuals married when they start doing homosexual acts????????

Would not that, make homosexual acts.......SINFUL?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 31, 2011)

Ravi said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



By all means give us chapter and verse of where the Bible states that homosexuality is NOT an abomination in the Bible.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 31, 2011)

It's very clear in the...what the heck bible is Ravi reading? Because I've never seen it.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 31, 2011)

Ravi said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Please give links and evidence where 'Christians' outlawed same sex marriages in the year 300 AD.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 31, 2011)

Ravi said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



It is a false/faux/fake/fraud relationship.  It is deception from the father of lies.  It is not special; it is a con.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Please list the adulterers that are saying their actions are correct (not a sin).


----------



## logical4u (Aug 31, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Teabagger With the Sumo Thighs is only interested in right wing social engineering.



Isn't that what the homosexual activists are trying to force onto society: "social engineering"?  You want to take an act that most people know in their heart is wrong, and legally force them to acknowledge it and accept it.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 31, 2011)

logical4u said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



I have been told by several including 2 preachers that I have better morals than most church attendees.  I hesitate to use the definition of christian for many of them.

I am an atheist but provide 80% of the support for the local church food bank.
I have never stolen, no DUI, never cheated on a spouse, never cheated on taxes, etc.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 31, 2011)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Teabagger With the Sumo Thighs is only interested in right wing social engineering.
> ...



Every group tries to force their form of social engineering into our society and government.
especially the religious ones.  It is a bible driven imperitive with them.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



There were and are places where there are people and there is no society: anarchy, tribal law, no society.  What makes a society?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Where did I EVER say that homosexual acts should be outlawed????????   Great dodge BTW.  Instead of admitting that homosexual acts are sinful, you want to accuse others of trying to persecute you, you are bearing false witness (not a surprise, since you have chosen that lifestyle of which deceit is an important part).


----------



## logical4u (Aug 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Okay, you have demonstrated that you have some morals (or are at least willing to appease your guilt thru good acts).  Where do your morals, originate?  What drives you not to 'cheat', to be generous?????


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 1, 2011)

teapartysamurai said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



Good we agree, the Bible says sex outside of marriage is a sin.

So if all sex outside of marriage is a sin, and remarrying breaks one of the Ten Commandments making it the worst kind of sin, why do homophobic bigots ONLY spend their time babbling about the sin of homosexuality?

Why aren't they bashing about 99% of straight people who mess around before marriage or the enormous number of married people who previously divorced?

Why aren't you bigotted against straight people who mess around without a ring?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 1, 2011)

Being in the world I have lived in for the past 35 years, comparing the homosexuals that I have known and continue to know to dog fuckers, 2nd class citizens and immoral humans would be totally wrong.
I remember playing a lot of quarters for many years and crossed those white lines and then coached many a year. Years later I have learned through the fact that many humans now live who they are. Every one of the folks from that background that I know now are gay are outstanding individuals. They never quit, always were there and worked hard at what they did. They still do. 
As a licensed private investigator for 32 years I have worked with attorneys, prosecutors, homicide detectives, police officers, forensic examiners, doctors, nurses, EMTs, other PIs and many others from various professions that are gay. I have seen how they are no different than me or anyone else other than who they fall in love with. When you have worked as many cases for trial as I have you know that it takes a team effort. You do not get very far in life when another team member you work with believes there are folks in the team that actively state that they are immoral, 2nd class citizens and are condemned to hell for being who they are. I vividly remember the APD homicide cop that years ago worked 85 hour weeks solving gthe stalking of a woman at the old Riverside Apartment complex in Atlanta. They believed this case was tied to another murder and his work proved it wasn't but he found the suspect and had the evidence to convict him on the stalking.The cop was gay. Would not meet a finer person ever. And those of us that work in such stress know that you never insult the others that are on the team with nonsense as I see here. 
I come from a very large extended family. My wife has 7 brothers and sisters and I have 4. There are over 100 of us with kids and grand kids, neices and nephews, etc. There are a few gays and lesbians. And they are all very well educated and some are professionals and/or have masters degrees. 
None of them are immoral, 2nd class people. So when I hear others state that all of the professionals I have known and now work with professionally and others that are family are the same as dog fuckers and label them as 2nd class citizens going to burn in hell as perverts I do not stand by and just listen to it. I fight it at every turn as I know how these people are no different than any other citizen in what really counts.
Again, my world was a competitive one for many years. You stand by and fight for those that have been there with you and paid the price. 
Gays and lesbians are good and honest people. They have their bad apples just as the straight population does. America is the land of the free, not the land of religous mandates. Either you stand up and speak for everyone and their rights or you pick and choose who should get what rights, when and how and use The Bible, instead of the law, to make those choices.
True patriots of freedom seek to protect the rights ofeveryone, even those they may despise the most. The weak sit on the sidelines on the frigging bench and point fingers at those they believe to be gay/lesbian and judge them by labeling them as less than human. 
To those that flee comes neither power nor glory.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 1, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Lol those are your examples?  Wow

Like I said, bigots will find and twist any rationalization for continuing their bigotry.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 1, 2011)

logical4u said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



So you don't have a problem with legalized civil marriage for gay couples.   Fine.   Never mind then.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 1, 2011)

?


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 1, 2011)

It's apparently random association time.

So, you like the color magenta! That's great!


----------



## mal (Sep 1, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Not just People... Men and Women Marrying the Flesh...

It's why this Debate is Happening, and it is 100% Impossible with Same Sex Coupling, 100% of the Time.

Enjoy that Reality...



peace...


----------



## bodecea (Sep 1, 2011)

logical4u said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Tribal law is part of a society.   It's not anarchy.   And I'd like you to show us a place where there are people and NO society.   Examples plz.


----------



## Liability (Sep 1, 2011)

Ya know....

Who amongst us hasn't said to himself (or herself, as the case may be), from time to time, 

"What this Board really really needs is another thread on homosexuality!"


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 1, 2011)

I say that every day. There can never be too many discussions about people's sexual practices going on. Lord knows, I certainly care.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 1, 2011)

Especially when homosex is compared to the sinfulness of eating catfish.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 1, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


 
What's your point? Yes, you're great and wonderful.

No, you won't go to heaven.

So?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 1, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Yes, all sex outside is sinful.  (Are there any people trying to pass legislation saying it isn't so?)

If a person is re-married and they are not the same person as the one that divorced (they repented, and grew spiritually), then it is not a sin.  They are entering that marriage as a "new" person in the eyes of the Lord.

Straight people that mess around, just "do it", they don't try to force legislation saying they are "the same" as a married couple.

Homosexual activists are trying to force immorality to be LEGISLATED, not "freely" accepted.  It would be like legislating that every time you noticed someone in an adulterous affair, you would have to praise them, publicly.  Most of us know right from wrong, and will not interfere with another person's choices if they don't seem to harm anyone.  Then again there are a lot of places in this country where people will stop you, if they see you trying to hurt another.  Personally, I hope that never changes.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 1, 2011)

If a person is re-married and they are not the same person as the one that divorced (they repented, and grew spiritually), then it is not a sin. They are entering that marriage as a "new" person in the eyes of the Lord.

Now that is some heavy duty rationalization.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 1, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Being in the world I have lived in for the past 35 years, comparing the homosexuals that I have known and continue to know to dog fuckers, 2nd class citizens and immoral humans would be totally wrong.
> I remember playing a lot of quarters for many years and crossed those white lines and then coached many a year. Years later I have learned through the fact that many humans now live who they are. Every one of the folks from that background that I know now are gay are outstanding individuals. They never quit, always were there and worked hard at what they did. They still do.
> As a licensed private investigator for 32 years I have worked with attorneys, prosecutors, homicide detectives, police officers, forensic examiners, doctors, nurses, EMTs, other PIs and many others from various professions that are gay. I have seen how they are no different than me or anyone else other than who they fall in love with. When you have worked as many cases for trial as I have you know that it takes a team effort. You do not get very far in life when another team member you work with believes there are folks in the team that actively state that they are immoral, 2nd class citizens and are condemned to hell for being who they are. I vividly remember the APD homicide cop that years ago worked 85 hour weeks solving gthe stalking of a woman at the old Riverside Apartment complex in Atlanta. They believed this case was tied to another murder and his work proved it wasn't but he found the suspect and had the evidence to convict him on the stalking.The cop was gay. Would not meet a finer person ever. And those of us that work in such stress know that you never insult the others that are on the team with nonsense as I see here.
> I come from a very large extended family. My wife has 7 brothers and sisters and I have 4. There are over 100 of us with kids and grand kids, neices and nephews, etc. There are a few gays and lesbians. And they are all very well educated and some are professionals and/or have masters degrees.
> ...



I never said that they were second class citizens.  You asked where in the Bible homosexuality was mentioned and saw the scripture where immoral sexual behavior, lewdness, and perversity (any of which would cover homosexual acts).  Now you want to lecture us.  What a great gimmic you have, you tell us you want evidence, and then you try to make us feel guilty for demonstrating that it is in the Bible.

You want to point out these "great" people that you know, and have known.  Oh, how nice.  I work with people every day that seem to be upstanding and professional.  Truth is, I don't want to learn about their personal lives.  Some of what I have discovered, I wish I had not.  They smoke dope.  They drink too much.  They sleep around.  One of the homosexuals posted suggestive pictures of themselves and their partner on the internet where others that I work with could see (oh, the crap I heard over that: my response, don't go there).

The point is: homosexual behavior is immoral.  Just like when I commit a sin, it is immoral.  It is not righteous, it is not just, it is immoral.  Difference: I don't cry that nobody loves me and everybody is picking on me when they found out that I did something immoral.  It is a "choice" that I made, and I have to live with that decision.  I don't tell other people to "quit judging me", I don't tell people "you need to accept me as I am".  I apologize.  Or I just live with it, and take the shit that "I" earned.  If you want to "coddle" sin, go on, suck it up, live with it.  Do not ask the rest of us to follow you to the dark side.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 1, 2011)

One of the homosexuals posted suggestive pictures of themselves and their partner on the internet where others that I work with could see (oh, the crap I heard over that: my response, don't go there).

Who was the politician that recently posted his private parts on the web?
A homo no doubt?

Homosexuals are jsut like republicans not all of them have their heads up their asses.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 1, 2011)

I don't think it works that way us. But if you want to believe it, you go right ahead.

If you are saved, you'll look back on your sinful life, take responsibility for it, and live henceforth according to the Word. And of course nobody on the face of the earth can do that completely or without sin.

But I've never had a preacher tell me that once you're saved you can *start over* in regard to relationships as if you'd never had any in the past...just disregard those unfortunate previous marriages and children and such. It doesn't work that way.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 1, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Again with the names?    Yawn.

Bigotry implies that you know a better way to live.  Please explain to us all a better way to live than to work towards being a good Christian.  Demonstrate another way of life that is as beneficial to all that live in that society.  Otherwise, get your nose out of the air, it is raining and you are starting to drown.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 1, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Jt_g10Jug]Armageddon!!... the gerbil - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## logical4u (Sep 1, 2011)

bodecea said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Correction: I said that LEGISLATING immorality is wrong.  

Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, though.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 1, 2011)

Now I know why many right wingers keep yelling "Armageddon!"


----------



## logical4u (Sep 1, 2011)

bodecea said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Most of the Continent of Africa.  What society butchers its neighbors, and anyone perceived to have wealth?


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 1, 2011)

logical4u said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Umm lots of groups in the ME?
And in major US urban areas too.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 1, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> If a person is re-married and they are not the same person as the one that divorced (they repented, and grew spiritually), then it is not a sin. They are entering that marriage as a "new" person in the eyes of the Lord.
> 
> Now that is some heavy duty rationalization.



That is what the person that is getting re-married should have done before considering going into marriage again.  They should acknowledge their flaws and try to improve (with the grace of the Lord).


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 1, 2011)

You are trying to use one part ogf the bible to overrule a part you do not like/agree with.
Hence rationalization.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 1, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> You are trying to use one part ogf the bible to overrule a part you do not like/agree with.
> Hence rationalization.



If you are "forgiven".  You are given the Lord's grace to overcome.  You are not the same person that made the same mistakes.  In many cases, people marry without inviting the Lord into their relationship.  Once that marriage fails, they embrace the Lord and His ways; they are no longer the same person.

I did not say that is how it always works.  You asked how someone that was divorced could be re-married.  I explained how it could work in Christianity.  In the NT, the disciples were given the power to forgive sins.  A person that is cleansed of their sins, is not the same person that has given themselves over to temptation and ignores the ways of the Lord.  They are still responsible for the decisions/choices they made in the past, but in the eyes of the Lord, they are "clean from sin", and can start, fresh.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 1, 2011)

So just keep being forgiven and sinnin?


----------



## mal (Sep 1, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> So just keep being forgiven and sinnin?



Homosexuals can be Christian...

They just have to Acknowlege that in Christianity that the Defiance of God's Natural Design is an Abomination and stop doing it.

Otherwise, find a Faith that Embraces the Deliberate Deviation from what Creates us. 



peace...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 2, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Being in the world I have lived in for the past 35 years, comparing the homosexuals that I have known and continue to know to dog fuckers, 2nd class citizens and immoral humans would be totally wrong.
> ...



You are wrong as usual. I am not headed to the dark side.
Unlike you, I lead and shine the light.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 2, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



Only YOUR religous beliefs state it is immoral.
You have NO other justification in your claims.
Take that away and homosexuals are not "forcing immorality to be legislated".
And there are millions of religous Chrisians just like me that do not believe homosexuals are immoral in wanting to marry those they love.
Jesus never said a thing about it. ONLY MAN has condemned it and only a few times as old Jewish law and once by Paul.
BTW, calling someone immoral for who they are is a pretty bad thing.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 2, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
Yeah you do. You're a veritable little ray of sunshine.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 2, 2011)

mal said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > So just keep being forgiven and sinnin?
> ...



Well now they would not be homosexuals if they did that then would they?
So your post is non sequiter.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 2, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Yeah, you are right, not much of a ray of sunshine at all anymore. 
I am no longer that maniac defensive end so I try my best to defend the rights of others no matter who they are. 
Bad knee, ankle, really bad shoulder so I carry that torch now.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 2, 2011)

mal said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > So just keep being forgiven and sinnin?
> ...



Nope, homosexuals CAN NOT be Christian, unless they agree to forsake their loved ones and remain celibate.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 2, 2011)

logical4u said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > You are trying to use one part ogf the bible to overrule a part you do not like/agree with.
> ...



Bullshit.  Your religion rejects and discriminates against gays.  You say a gay can be Christian if he or she is celibate and leaves their spouse or partner.

YOUR code of "sexual ethics" is skewed in favor of heterosexuals.

Loving someone faithfully for 26 years is not a sin.  It's beautiful.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 2, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> mel said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



There are many Christian sects that accept gays as full fledged Christians, Sky.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 2, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



His religous beliefs, which I adamantly disagree with but support his right to have them, but not his religion.
We have 110 churches in Georgia from almost all Chritsian denominations that do not believe homosexuality is a sin. 
And growing.


----------



## mal (Sep 2, 2011)

Talking Dumptruck regularly mistaken for Ricky Gervais said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > mel said:
> ...



They aren't Christian... Either the Sects or the Homosexuals... Unless they are Calling Homosexuality a Sin and Trying to not be Active in the Sin and Abomination, as the Christian Bible calls it 100% of the time God References it. 



peace...


----------



## mal (Sep 2, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



They they are Misrepresenting God's Word and View that Homosexuality is Sin and Abomination.

_and if any man shall take away from the words of the book..._

Careful with that...



peace...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 2, 2011)

mal said:


> Talking Dumptruck regularly mistaken for Ricky Gervais said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Now we have someone telling us who is a Christian and who isn't.
So the 300 members of my church are not Christians.
And the 110 churches in Georgia that accept homosexuals as not sinful be they Methodist, Episcopal, Catholic, Baptist and others are not Christian.
Thanks GOD a/k/a mal. 
We didn't know that and appreciate your insight. We thought following Christ and being Christlike in our journey was Christian. Great to know.
You are THE Ayatollah of ROCK AND ROLLA.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 2, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Question for you...........if God is love like you Christians want us to believe, why would He require us to forsake another human being?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 2, 2011)

mal said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Maybe you should have warned the Niecine council before they came up with the KJV of the Bible about taking away stuff.

I mean shit.........MOST of the current Bible is heavily edited.

And then, there's the new translations that keep coming out from supposedly "good" Christians.


----------



## mal (Sep 2, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Why did God refer to Homosexuality as an Abomination and Sin 100% of the time in the Bible?...

Why did his Son Define Marriage VERY Specifically as a Man and Woman becoming One Flesh?...

Why is Every Homosexual Capable of Reflecting that Natural Design, yet they Choose not to?...

The Problem isn't with God and his Design, or Nature and it's Design, if you are not about God...

The Problem is with those who Choose to Defy and then go that extra Step to Demand Validation for thier Choice.

It's one thing to be Left alone in a Society, it's another to try to Change Laws to the Absurd, or to Demand that a Church Ingore it's own Teachings and Embrace something it simply can't Honestly Embrace.



peace...


----------



## mal (Sep 2, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Homosexuality is Sin and Abomination 100% of the time it's Reference in EVERY Version...

Find another Faith, ABS. 



peace...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 2, 2011)

mal said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...





> * Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
> * The Qur'an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
> * Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
> * The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
> ...



Internet Sacred Text Archive Home


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 2, 2011)

mal said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



I don't need to find another faith.  I'm not a bigoted brainwashed Christian.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 2, 2011)

If God commands us not to eat pork how is that a "ceremonial" law?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 2, 2011)

remember, you're supposed to love and accept everyone.  except the people you don't like.

similarly, you're supposed to follow all the teachings of the bible.  except the ones you don't like. 

pork?  no that doesn't count anymore because jesus died.  homosexuality?  no that still counts even though it is also in the old testament. why? because "those people" frighten good christian men. 

this is how selective "reasoning" works.  because it's selective.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > mel said:
> ...


 
Episcopalians!
And Methodists!


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 2, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> remember, you're supposed to love and accept everyone. except the people you don't like.
> 
> similarly, you're supposed to follow all the teachings of the bible. except the ones you don't like.
> 
> ...


 
Do you have any inkling how ignorant, bigoted, hateful and crazy you sound?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 2, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > remember, you're supposed to love and accept everyone. except the people you don't like.
> ...



you don't read too often......   do you?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 2, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> remember, you're supposed to love and accept everyone.  except the people you don't like.
> 
> similarly, you're supposed to follow all the teachings of the bible.  except the ones you don't like.
> 
> ...



I'd rep you twice if I could.  Maybe someone else that do that for me.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 3, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...


 
You're a disgusting bigot. If I said even a fraction of the crap you anti-Christian haters say only substituted *black* or *Muslim* for *christian* I'd be arrested for hate speech and racism.


----------



## Toro (Sep 3, 2011)

I have no doubt that some Christians are genuine in their beliefs that homosexuality is a sin, that gay people can be converted, and it is their duty as Christians to convert them.  I think the intent and motives of some Christians are as pure as a new snowfall.

But I think many people use religion - and its certainly not just Christians - as a way to rationalize their own squeemishness towards gay sex.  Most people aren't gay.  And many, if not most heterosexuals find gay sex to be - let's be honest - repulsive.  But most people are decent enough to know that prejudicism towards gay people just for being gay is not right.  So they rationalize their own repulsion of gay sex in more acceptable manners.  And one way they do that is through religion.

However, like in the past when religion was used to reinforce other social strictures - slavery and segregation was rationalized by the churches as Jesus being white, blacks not having souls, etc. - this will eventually crumble, at least to the point whereby homosexuals are no longer denied full civil rights in society, because the march of society is towards the self-actualization of the individual.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 3, 2011)

Toro said:


> I have no doubt that some Christians are genuine in their beliefs that homosexuality is a sin, that gay people can be converted, and it is their duty as Christians to convert them.  I think the intent and motives of some Christians are as pure as a new snowfall.
> 
> But I think many people use religion - and its certainly not just Christians - as a way to rationalize their own squeemishness towards gay sex.  Most people aren't gay.  And many, if not most heterosexuals find gay sex to be - let's be honest - repulsive.  But most people are decent enough to know that prejudicism towards gay people just for being gay is not right.  So they rationalize their own repulsion of gay sex in more acceptable manners.  And one way they do that is through religion.
> 
> However, like in the past when religion was used to reinforce other social strictures - slavery and segregation was rationalized by the churches as Jesus being white, blacks not having souls, etc. - this will eventually crumble, at least to the point whereby homosexuals are no longer denied full civil rights in society, because the march of society is towards the self-actualization of the individual.




If I may add to that...

I think that you will find that rationalization also results in a heavy investment in the paradigm that homosexuality is a "choice".  They scream "choice" from the roof tops and will deny that homosexuality has any foundation at all in biology (whether genetic, developmental, or environmental).  They claim that there is no correlation in arguments  between race & gender and homosexuality because one is biological and homosexuality is a "choice" (even though the structure of the arguments used to justify other forms of discrimination are very similar).

If "they" were to ever admit that there may be a biological foundation for homosexuality then supporting unequal treatment under the law equates much closer to racial discrimination.


Personally is "it" a choice or biological?  I don't think it matters.


>>>>


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 3, 2011)

It is of course a choice, almost all behavior is. I don't know why the left clings to the backward notion that it isn't, when it has been proven it is. Over and over.

It's a personal choice, however, and as such nobody's business. 


It's the LEFT who wants to make it everybody's business, by legislating to change terminology, attempting to force the rest of the world to embrace the behavior as the same thing as *marriage*. Homsexual pairing isn't any more *marriage* than adulterous affairs are *marriages* or whacking off to porn is *marriage* or screwing your dog is *marriage* or rooming with your best friend is *marriage*. Those are things you are welcome to do, but they are not *marriage*.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 3, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > I have no doubt that some Christians are genuine in their beliefs that homosexuality is a sin, that gay people can be converted, and it is their duty as Christians to convert them.  I think the intent and motives of some Christians are as pure as a new snowfall.
> ...



Homosexuality and heterosexuality are a "choice" for bi-sexuals, only.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 3, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> You're a disgusting bigot. If I said even a fraction of the crap you anti-Christian haters say only substituted *black* or *Muslim* for *christian* I'd be arrested for hate speech and racism.


Yes, I am bigot against bigots!  I hate on those who hate on others for no reason!  Woe is you!  You are perhaps one of my favorite drama queens on this forum.  Arrested for hate speech?  What country do you live in?  Clearly it's not America. 



koshergrl said:


> It's the LEFT who wants to make it everybody's business, by legislating to change terminology, attempting to force the rest of the world to embrace the behavior as the same thing as *marriage*. Homsexual pairing isn't any more *marriage* than adulterous affairs are *marriages* or whacking off to porn is *marriage* or screwing your dog is *marriage* or rooming with your best friend is *marriage*. Those are things you are welcome to do, but they are not *marriage*.


Hold on I heard that comparison before.  Let's take a look:
DOMA Sweet DOMA - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/17/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

and Tip/Wag - Evangelical Scientists & Rick Santorum - The Colbert Report - 2011-17-08 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
fast forward to 2:45. 

I love this slippery slope argument.  The only people who liken marriage to porn, beastiablity, pediphilia, or sex with non consenting aliens are the nutjobs.  

You amuse me, little drama queen.  Please continue.


----------



## Toro (Sep 3, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> It is of course a choice, almost all behavior is. I don't know why the left clings to the backward notion that it isn't, when it has been proven it is. Over and over.
> 
> It's a personal choice, however, and as such nobody's business.
> 
> ...



Sexuality is hardwired. It is not a choice. Acting on impulses is a choice but the impulses themselves are not.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 3, 2011)

I ate BBQ hog sammiches last night. Washed them down with 5 brewskis. I am headed to the Georgia Dome in a little while to watch my BullDogs kick some Boise State ass tonight at 8 pm. We be picnicking on the lot across from the Dome, west side Northside Dr. Jeff is frying cat fish (for real), I am doing yard bird and there will be other items along with more cold brew. One of the bunch married a black woman.
So I guess we is all going to HAYELL. After we beat the heyell out of Boise State. 
Rumor is the Boise kicker is gay. OH NO. But who cares. No one likes kickers and I hate all QBs.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 3, 2011)

I love the "choice" argument.  The bigot usually starts by saying homosexuality is a choice, despite not being able to identify when they themselves choose to be heterosexual.  When pressed, they will avoid or ignore all questions asking if they could choose to become homosexual, as if they could just flip a switch in their head and make them have romantic feelings for members of the same gender. The smart bigot will usually cut their losses at that point and leave, but the dumb ones press on, stating that the FEELING doesn't matter but the ACT of sex is what is the real choice in the issue. Someone like me then comes along to rub their nose in the stupidity of separating the emotions of love and romantic attraction with sexual interactions, as it is invariably the bigot's claim that the latter should be reserved only for the former, so long as the gender setup is the same as their own.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 3, 2011)

Toro said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > It is of course a choice, almost all behavior is. I don't know why the left clings to the backward notion that it isn't, when it has been proven it is. Over and over.
> ...



Don't you love it when this clown compares committed relationships gays have to "affairs, porn, dog fucking" and such?
"homosexual pairing".
Gay marriage is a NON ISSUE to sane Americans. 
Gay marriage affects NO ONE in America. 
Those that are involved to stop it have nothing better to do with their lives. They are the busy bodys and trouble makers of the neighborhood.


----------



## jillian (Sep 3, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...



the people who keep relying on leviticus like to pick and choose.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 3, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> I love the "choice" argument.  The bigot usually starts by saying homosexuality is a choice, despite not being able to identify when they themselves choose to be heterosexual.  When pressed, they will avoid or ignore all questions asking if they could choose to become homosexual, as if they could just flip a switch in their head and make them have romantic feelings for members of the same gender. The smart bigot will usually cut their losses at that point and leave, but the dumb ones press on, stating that the FEELING doesn't matter but the ACT of sex is what is the real choice in the issue. Someone like me then comes along to rub their nose in the stupidity of separating the emotions of love and romantic attraction with sexual interactions, as it is invariably the bigot's claim that the latter should be reserved only for the former, so long as the gender setup is the same as their own.



Uhhhh, .......yeah. 
Makes 100% sense to this dumb country boy done very good. 
But wait a damn minute there Jethro! You are stating fact, reason and common sense without allowing your religous ideology to fake differentiating between the $hit and shinola.
What they offer is all $hit.
There has never been any evidence of sexuality being a choice but that is what the preachers tell them they have to say to force a square peg into a round hole.
As hard and hard as they try, they CAN NOT polish a turd.
But it sure is funny hearing their "arguments".


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 4, 2011)

You know.......I've told this story before, and yes.....it's true.

Several years back I had a friend who stated she was a lesbian.  She also was wondering if it was a choice or not, as she'd never been with a man.

She asked me (because we were good friends), if I would be willing to have sex with her so that she could be sure, as she'd had doubts about her choice.

Needless to say, it didn't quite go the way she'd thought.  She didn't like having sex in the hetero way.  We tried it twice, just so she could make sure.

No..........it's not a "choice".


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 4, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


 
Liar.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 4, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know.......I've told this story before, and yes.....it's true.
> 
> Several years back I had a friend who stated she was a lesbian. She also was wondering if it was a choice or not, as she'd never been with a man.
> 
> ...


 
Oh, well that COMPLETELY DEBUNKS everything that science has to say about it.

Idiot. Perhaps she just didn't like having sex with you. That would be a shocker.

Lots and lots of people don't like sex, or only like certain types of sex. It DOESN'T PROVE THEY'RE BORN GAY. 

Usually it has to do with abuse, and many of them will never admit it, don't remember it, or perhaps didn't even recognize it as abuse because it had to do with the atmosphere in which they were raised, and the idiocy of their parents, and not overt abuse.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 4, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know.......I've told this story before, and yes.....it's true.
> 
> Several years back I had a friend who stated she was a lesbian.  She also was wondering if it was a choice or not, as she'd never been with a man.
> 
> ...



OMFG!  You promised you would never tell that story about you and I!


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 4, 2011)

In fact, one of the most devout Christians I know is a homosexual man. A powerful, wealthy, politically active and incredibly successful homosexual man, I might add. He is extremely involved in the church, works very hard with youth (and no, nobody needs to worry about his motivation, he's absolutely not a sex abuser or even wired that way). 

I grew up with him, and as a very, very bright boy who was also musical he was targeted from a young age by other students, and identified as *gay*. He wasn't born gay, this I know. He had the same hetero sexual urges as any other boy, in fact his were probably stronger from a younger age.

But I think the fact that the entire community labeled him as gay sent him down that road.

He doesn't promote homosexuality in any way, shape or form. He's a wonderful man who identifies himself as homosexual and Christian, and has carved out a niche for himself as such. He has no hatred towards Christians nor any towards the community in which he was raised, as he IS a true Christian and he walks the walk to the best of his ability, as do we all.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 4, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You know.......I've told this story before, and yes.....it's true.
> ...



So tell us what science offers to back up your absurd claims.
Science does not support your claims. In fact science proves all of your claims FALSE.
Abuse cause homosexuality?
You are about as dumb as they come koshergirl. Good luck to you in the real world.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 4, 2011)

Toro said:


> Sexuality is hardwired. It is not a choice. Acting on impulses is a choice but the impulses themselves are not.



I've yet to hear from one fundy who has watched this video and said it's wrong - and why.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVwjCppq82c]Are we born straight or gay? - Making of Me: John Barrowman - BBC - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 4, 2011)

OH!!! And!!

I am sick unto death of people making it all about the sex. Really?? is that all there is to you and your significant other? Getting laid? Once you were married, did you continue at the mad rate you did before? 

My sister and her partner got together - I wanna say going on 20 years ago now. My marriage just passed the 16 year mark, and they're a couple of years ahead. My sister is 54, her partner is 48. They're affectionate. Lots of hugs. Not much happening beyond that, but they love each other madly and cannot imagine life without the other. But they should be denied their right to marriage ... why, again?

What about the two gentlemen in this article? Been together 60 years, I assume they're married by now. 

After 60 Years, a Deep Desire to Make It &#039;Legal&#039; - NYTimes.com

91 and 83. But their love is BAD! and WRONG! So despite they fact they probably are also on the "seldom if ever" board, they should not be allowed to wed.

Well too bad, sofuckingsad, because New York said 'yes'.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 4, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> OH!!! And!!
> 
> I am sick unto death of people making it all about the sex. Really?? is that all there is to you and your significant other? Getting laid? Once you were married, did you continue at the mad rate you did before?
> 
> ...



Boop, that is what changed my mind 20 years ago. 
Gay folk fall in love with someone of the opposite sex.
The love I have for my wife is not a damn choice. I can not choose to not have it.
Same with gay folk. Anyone that suggests otherwise is spreading rumor and lies.
Shame on them.


----------



## Liability (Sep 4, 2011)

I have wondered from time to time:

what possible difference does it make to me and any part of my life who some other guy falls in love with?

If a gay guy seeks companionship and love from another male, is one gram of anything of value either added to or subtracted from my life?

If a lesbian finds another woman to share some time together with in terms of meaningful conversation, shared experience, tender moments or sexual relationship, am I or are any of my family or friends hurt in any way?

I cannot imagine that any rational person gives a damn that heterosexual men prefer women for intimacy.

I cannot imagine that any rational person gives a damn that heterosexual women prefer men for intimacy.

Yet some folks seem to believe that we heterosexuals "ought" to care about the attraction of homosexuals.  Why?


----------



## bodecea (Sep 4, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You know.......I've told this story before, and yes.....it's true.
> ...





Where is YOUR evidence to back that claim up?


----------



## bodecea (Sep 4, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> In fact, one of the most devout Christians I know is a homosexual man. A powerful, wealthy, politically active and incredibly successful homosexual man, I might add. He is extremely involved in the church, works very hard with youth (and no, nobody needs to worry about his motivation, he's absolutely not a sex abuser or even wired that way).
> 
> I grew up with him, and as a very, very bright boy who was also musical he was targeted from a young age by other students, and identified as *gay*. He wasn't born gay, this I know. He had the same hetero sexual urges as any other boy, in fact his were probably stronger from a younger age.
> 
> ...



By identifying himself as gay, he has (or some would claim).   And furthermore, there are many here that would claim that he cannot be a Christian if he is gay.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 4, 2011)

Liability said:


> I have wondered from time to time:
> 
> what possible difference does it make to me and any part of my life who some other guy falls in love with?
> 
> ...



Thank you.


----------



## Toro (Sep 4, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> In fact, one of the most devout Christians I know is a homosexual man. A powerful, wealthy, politically active and incredibly successful homosexual man, I might add. He is extremely involved in the church, works very hard with youth (and no, nobody needs to worry about his motivation, he's absolutely not a sex abuser or even wired that way).
> 
> I grew up with him, and as a very, very bright boy who was also musical he was targeted from a young age by other students, and identified as *gay*. He wasn't born gay, this I know. He had the same hetero sexual urges as any other boy, in fact his were probably stronger from a younger age.
> 
> *But I think the fact that the entire community labeled him as gay sent him down that road.*




lol


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Oh, ffs. So - the fact that my sister and I were molested and abused by the same man, to the same degree, over the same period of time - she's a lesbian and I'm straight.

Try again?


----------



## bodecea (Sep 4, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Or that I and my brothers and sister were raised in a loving home with no abuse, we're all happily grown and married and our parents are still loving and together....that's what made them all straight and me gay..........


----------



## logical4u (Sep 4, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Like the prostitute in OT's Proverbs?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 4, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



So, I have demonstrated where Yeshua said that sexual immorality, lewdness, perversiveness are sinful, and you still continue to screech at me?
Take away that murder is unlawful (immoral), and everyone could do that, too (Duhhhhh).
If you make legislative rules prohibiting anyone from disagreeing with the homosexual lifestyle (similar to what muslims do), aren't you legislating immorality?
Millions of Christians (Christians were never supposed to join the "legion") that are ignoring the Lord's Word, and teaching the exact opposite of that Word, are WRONG.

BTW, how many times does the Lord have to state a thing is wrong, before, you take Him at His Word?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 4, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



The religion does not discrimminate against homosexuals.  I know of no church that has a sign on the door saying homosexuals are not welcome (homosexuals should be respectful of the congregation, and not flaunt their sins in the church or at church events).  The Bible relates that homosexual acts are sinful.  Choosing to live in a state of sin, is your choice.  Going to the Lord for redemption without trying to correct sinful behavior, is arrogance, plain and simple.  You "chose" to live in SIN for 26 years.  The Lord left you alone to sin at your leisure.  If you want the Lord to come into your life, you must try to meet Him on middle ground.  You must try to stop sinning (that being said, no Christian would expect you to correct years of behavior, overnight).  The Lord works with each person, differently.  If you truly want Him, in your life, talk to HIM, not us.  If He believes that you truly want Him in your life, He will make a way.  He answers sincere prayers (not necessarily how we want them answered, but how we need them answered).  

I understand, from your point of view, that it looks impossible.  It is not.  With Him, miracles do happen.  People that are weak (mind, body, spirit), can overcome great obstacles.  People, will let you down, every time; they are not all-powerful.  The Lord is the only One that is always informed on your life, knows where you are and knows where your heart is.


----------



## FactFinder (Sep 4, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...



Sin is sin is sin. Very surprised this thread went on so long. I am heartened to see that you recognize it.  There is hope for the future.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 4, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



If that human being will take you or keep you in a sinful life, He would want you to forsake them.  When Simon Peter told Yeshua how He could avoid the judgement and the death that was to come from it, what did Yeshua say to Peter?  Was it, yeah, let's go hang, forget what my Dad wanted me to do, or was it, get thee behind me, Satan?  Life is about choices, and eternal life, is even more so, where your decisions determine your eternal fate.  There were very frank statements made by Yeshua about the burden of being one of His followers.  There were prophesies on some of the ways Christians would be tortured and killed for not turning from Yeshua.  Satan works on us all.  For homosexuals, it is a very hard path, were few explain why you should resist, and many more simply tell you, that you as a person, are unacceptable, while, others are telling you to make the pleasure of the body, the only priority in life.  I am sorry that you suffer so.  I know, for me, the only way, I fought  and continue to fight my temptations was through prayer.  I am still tempted (my own weaknesses), and it is a daily fight to beat temptation.  Along with asking the Lord to "lead me not into temptation" to help when I feel overwhelmed.  Also, focusing on His will, instead of my selfish needs, also helps.


----------



## FactFinder (Sep 4, 2011)

240.2 Corinthians 6:15 (Whole Chapter) 
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 4, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Who mistreated the strangers in Sodom?  Was it heterosexuals that were banging at Lot's gate, demanding the beautiful male visitors, or was it the perverse, the lewd, and the sexually immoral?
Question, when you posted the Jonathan and David passages, and I posted them in context, why didn't you support your claims.  Saul gave David his clothes too, you never answered if that meant Saul had an affair with David too (because after that it was pretty clear, it was not as it was implied by the homosexuals).
When the Lord references marriage, it is between one man and one woman.  The Lord did not created a harem for Adam, He created Eve (that would be one woman).
How many times does the Lord have to tell you something is wrong, before you believe?
Other far eastern cultures still practice slavery, killing infant daughters, and child labor, as well as selective murder, are you suggesting this country follow those practices, as well?
Homosexuality in animals is a pure dominance ritual.  Animals eat their young as well as other species babies, are you suggesting that we follow those practices, too?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 4, 2011)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



This thread continues.....Weeks of dissing gay people.  Don't you Christians have any other sins to worry about?


----------



## FactFinder (Sep 4, 2011)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



I don't think he is suggesting any of those things. I do think you are doing disservice to love & mercy to be that judgemental.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 4, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



You are being dishonest.  How many homosexuals were married with (children, OHH!, how did that happen), before "coming out of the closet".  Men, can have sex with a woman if they are homosexual.  Women, can be impregnated by a man if she is homosexual.  It is a choice.

I say that having coffee every morning is not a choice, but a necessity.  It is not so, there have been one or two days in my adult life that I have gone without coffee (and survived to tell about it).  It is a choice.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 4, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > I love the "choice" argument.  The bigot usually starts by saying homosexuality is a choice, despite not being able to identify when they themselves choose to be heterosexual.  When pressed, they will avoid or ignore all questions asking if they could choose to become homosexual, as if they could just flip a switch in their head and make them have romantic feelings for members of the same gender. The smart bigot will usually cut their losses at that point and leave, but the dumb ones press on, stating that the FEELING doesn't matter but the ACT of sex is what is the real choice in the issue. Someone like me then comes along to rub their nose in the stupidity of separating the emotions of love and romantic attraction with sexual interactions, as it is invariably the bigot's claim that the latter should be reserved only for the former, so long as the gender setup is the same as their own.
> ...



This "religios ideology" was started with this thread.  It is obvious that you cannot show anywhere in the Bible where the Lord stated that homosexuality was a good thing, and have to resort to the "team" act, of a group against others throwing insults with no facts.  Yawn.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 4, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know.......I've told this story before, and yes.....it's true.
> 
> Several years back I had a friend who stated she was a lesbian.  She also was wondering if it was a choice or not, as she'd never been with a man.
> 
> ...



Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, the temptation that just begs to be called.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 4, 2011)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You know.......I've told this story before, and yes.....it's true.
> ...



LOL.  That reminds me of my experience with my only male lover.   We tried and tried but it's not nearly as much fun as being with a woman.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 4, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



I guess your logical answers were in your other shirt.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 4, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Seriously, if you are really worried about sin, stop murder and war.  Leave gay people alone.


----------



## FactFinder (Sep 4, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Sounds like you had a cheap experience with the wrong man. Did you choose that?


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 4, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> OH!!! And!!
> 
> I am sick unto death of people making it all about the sex. Really?? is that all there is to you and your significant other? Getting laid? Once you were married, did you continue at the mad rate you did before?
> 
> ...



but can you imagine all the damage it will do to people to see those 2 old guys hugging and kissing on each other?
Impressionable children might even get the idea it is ok for people to act that way!  GASP!


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 4, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > OH!!! And!!
> ...



God forbid we have two loving people completely devoted to each other for 60 years actually show it in public.  I'm sure this is just the kind of couple that Immanuel wouldn't want to see married in his church.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 4, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



That will completely undermine our system of marriage!
The moral fabric of America will completely unravel.
Everyone knows that only opposite sexes are supposed to love each other!


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 4, 2011)

FactFinder said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



WTF is a "cheap experience with the wrong man"?


----------



## FactFinder (Sep 4, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> FactFinder said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Apparently what you had. Not that you may have been sabotaging it or anything, heh?


----------



## bodecea (Sep 4, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> FactFinder said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



You know...they have a hard time imagining we don't need the penis thing.


----------



## FactFinder (Sep 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > FactFinder said:
> ...



So cheap. The sex only imagination.


----------



## percysunshine (Sep 4, 2011)

I am still waiting for someone to explain why there are no gay fish.

I can't possibly be the first person in the entire universe to ask the question.


----------



## Toro (Sep 5, 2011)

You know what is the worst?

Gay catfish!

Think about it...


----------



## logical4u (Sep 5, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



The larger sins (in our opinions), spring from the smaller sins.  That is like telling kids, it okay if you kill animals for fun, it won't hurt anything.

People would love to leave "gay" people alone.  "Gay" people won't leave the heterosexuals alone.  They want to preach to them that their faith in the Lord is WRONG.  They have no spiritual authority.  They have no knowledge of how the world was formed.  They have no control over the weather.  Yet, they want to declare themselves as the Lord and say what is right and wrong.  Tell the "gay" people to quit attacking everyone that disagrees with their lifestyle.  They would discover that once people tell them they are leading a sinful life (a sincere attempt at showing the "gay" people, salvation), they will be left alone.  

Seriously, it would be different if you could hold up a "gay" role model.  The ones seen in the public eye are some of the most miserable people in spirit and personality.  They are arrogant, selfish, tyrantical, and downright childish.  Sorry, when it comes to people that I would most like to be like when I grow up, it is the Christian, heterosexual couple that have been together for fifty years, built a familiy and a life, together.  Their faith held them together, and keeps them strong. 

 What is a homosexuals faith?  That the Bible is wrong?  That the Lord didn't reallly mean it when He said if you committed homosexual acts that your life was forfeit?  That Yeshua didn't mean lewd, perverse, or immoral sex was sinful?  Read Jonah, about the spoiled brat that thinks he knows better than the Lord.  Read what the Lord says to Jonah, when Jonah is throwing a tantrum, about how Jonah doesn't like how things are going.  The Lord is not here to "serve" us.  We are here to praise Him and all that He has done, not the other way around.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 5, 2011)

> Oh, well that COMPLETELY DEBUNKS everything that science has to say about it.
> 
> Idiot. Perhaps she just didn't like having sex with you. That would be a shocker.
> 
> ...



Its remarkable the ignorance and hate of the right, as if the notion that if one elects to be gay  that its not naturally occurring  this somehow justifies discriminating against gays, or withholding from them their civil rights. 

Its as if conservatives are saying: If you dont want to be discriminated against, stop being gay! Simple!

Many conservatives are apparently ignorant of the fact that the law makes no distinction between choice and nature, just as one is free to choose and practice a religion free from discrimination. 

It would seem, then, that conservatives represent a significant portion of the population that needs to hate. Where does this hate come from? Usually it has to do with abuse, and many of them will never admit it, don't remember it, or perhaps didn't even recognize it as abuse because it had to do with the atmosphere in which they were raised, and the idiocy of their parents, and not overt abuse.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 5, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Oh, well that COMPLETELY DEBUNKS everything that science has to say about it.
> >
> > Idiot. Perhaps she just didn't like having sex with you. That would be a shocker.
> >
> ...



I have not seen much hate in the last few pages of this thread, just disagreement in the choice of lifestyle.  Typical, when you can give no logical reason to support your belief, you accuse the people with real reasons that are listed, of "hate".  No hate, dude, just logic.  If you can give evidence that homosexual lifestyle "improves" society by example, by statistics, not some propoganda machine, chant, quotes, I will be glad to listen.  Otherwise, you just look small, without relevance, and unable to piece together any articulate thought.


----------



## Toro (Sep 5, 2011)

The opposition to homosexuality is an archaic anachronism.  In the future, we will look at the opposition to gay rights today in the same way we look at the opposition to segregation 50 years ago.  We will think "WTF was wrong with you people?"  History is not on your side.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 5, 2011)

Toro said:


> The opposition to homosexuality is an archaic anachronism.  In the future, we will look at the opposition to gay rights today in the same way we look at the opposition to segregation 50 years ago.  We will think "WTF was wrong with you people?"  History is not on your side.



This thread was about the Biblical references to "sin".

Because society moves one way or another does not mean that it is following the Lord.  If the country continues to move towards "sin", I doubt it will be here in 50 years, as it is.  It may be a corrupt shell of what it once was, but not, as it was in the past, or even as it is now.  With sin, comes the covet war (known as class warfare), and the tolerance for all things evil.  Homosexual acceptance is just the beginning of corruption.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 5, 2011)

Toro said:


> You know what is the worst?
> 
> Gay catfish!
> 
> Think about it...



You know I did a search about gay catfish and almost nothing is known about their sexual orientations.
they may all be gay??

We need a govt grant to study that.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 5, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > The opposition to homosexuality is an archaic anachronism.  In the future, we will look at the opposition to gay rights today in the same way we look at the opposition to segregation 50 years ago.  We will think "WTF was wrong with you people?"  History is not on your side.
> ...



Ahh so the haves supporters already are being programmed with a projection/deflection name of "the covet war"?  Interesting that the other side might call it "the greed war", and both pretty much mean the same thing.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 5, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Oh, well that COMPLETELY DEBUNKS everything that science has to say about it.
> >
> > Idiot. Perhaps she just didn't like having sex with you. That would be a shocker.
> >
> ...



Most all of the conservatives I know do not state that.
Only the right wing religous conservatives.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 5, 2011)

All this talk of discrimination..I have yet to see any evidence of it.

Not providing state certificates of marriage to gays is not discrimination, as marriage in most states is defined as a union between man and woman. 

I think we need special gay union certificates. Different, but equal.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 5, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> All this talk of discrimination..I have yet to see any evidence of it.
> 
> Not providing state certificates of marriage to gays is not discrimination, as marriage in most states is defined as a union between man and woman.
> 
> I think we need special gay union certificates. Different, but equal.



No, it was between a white man and white woman for hundreds of years here and then they added any man and woman of the same race.
And that was ruled unconstitutional.
I suggest you educate yourself in the theory of equal protection under the LAW.
Now I believe gay marriage is strange but it affects NO ONE to allow it.
Doesn't affect any marriage anywhere. The only reason folks oppose it is because of religion.
And religion has no part IN THE LAW. 
Forcing your religous beliefs on others is always bad.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 5, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> All this talk of discrimination..I have yet to see any evidence of it.
> 
> Not providing state certificates of marriage to gays is not discrimination, as marriage in most states is defined as a union between man and woman.
> 
> I think we need special gay union certificates. Different, but equal.




I agree.

All this talk of discrimination..in the good ol' days I never saw any evidence of it.

Not providing state certificates of marriage to mixed race couples was not discrimination, as marriage in most states at the time was defined as a union between members of the same race. 

I think we needed interracial union certificates. Different, but equal.


>>>>


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 5, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > All this talk of discrimination..I have yet to see any evidence of it.
> ...




Yeah, we had different but equal here for a very long time. No one complained except the colored folk. 
 I LOVE IT!!!!


----------



## bodecea (Sep 5, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> All this talk of discrimination..I have yet to see any evidence of it.
> 
> Not providing state certificates of marriage to gays is not discrimination, as marriage in most states is defined as a union between man and woman.
> 
> I think we need special gay union certificates. *Different, but equal*.



Thank you _Plessy v. Ferguson._


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 5, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You know.......I've told this story before, and yes.....it's true.
> ...



Here's something recently reported by the BBC.



> The brains of gay men and women look like those found in heterosexual people of the opposite sex, research suggests.
> 
> The Swedish study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, compared the size of the brain's halves in 90 adults.
> 
> ...



BBC NEWS | Health | Scans see 'gay brain differences'

As far as abuse being a contributing factor towards becoming gay?  From age 5 until 10, I was physically, mentally and sexually abused.  I was also orphaned at 8 and lived in foster care.

I'm also very heterosexual and the thought of having gay sex really turns me off.  

Guess that blows your abuse theory outta the water, eh?  BTW.......my 1/2 sister is straight, and she went through some of the same crap as I did.

As far as NOT remembering the abuse done to me?  Wrong yet again.  However, the fact that I lived through it, is one of the things that made me such an effective counselor in the Navy.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 6, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> In fact, one of the most devout Christians I know is a homosexual man. A powerful, wealthy, politically active and incredibly successful homosexual man, I might add. He is extremely involved in the church, works very hard with youth (and no, nobody needs to worry about his motivation, he's absolutely not a sex abuser or even wired that way).
> 
> I grew up with him, and as a very, very bright boy who was also musical he was targeted from a young age by other students, and identified as *gay*. He wasn't born gay, this I know. He had the same hetero sexual urges as any other boy, in fact his were probably stronger from a younger age.
> 
> ...


How is it that you personally are aware that his heterosexual urges were stronger when he was a boy? 

I find it hilarious that your vast experience knowing ONE gay man grants you such insight into believing that people making fun of him for being smart and being musical made him gay. Clearly, by your "logic" everyone who is called gay becomes gay?  

Here's another idea: smart kids are made fun of. Bullies call people gay.  Guys who seek out musical theater and high fashion and say "fabulous" may actually be gay, regardless of what people call them as a result.  Or they may not be.  

But the idea that you can MAKE someone gay by calling them it is ridiculous. Or do you think you'd turn gay if everyone here referred to you as such?



logical4u said:


> The larger sins (in our opinions), spring from the smaller sins.


Just like the large slippery slope arguments spring from the smaller slippery slope arguments!


----------



## logical4u (Sep 6, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



You are right.  The political machines are in motion.  Class warfare is being promoted because telling someone to get off their @$$ is just too hard for politicians to say.  Take a look at history, where did it ever work.  This country was designed for those that followed the Word of the Lord, worked hard and lived by morals (that isn't to say that it wasn't used by those that did not want to live morally).  It is the only country in the world were massive amounts of people can start with little more than the will to succeed, and can!  Other countries, people are born into specific "classes" with no hope, no chance for the future using their own gifts.  It is this country that promotes that.  It is this country that holds the ambitious in esteem for what they can build.

The "greed" war, would imply that there is no way for those that start with the basics in this country, must stay there.  That is simply not so.  There are LEGAL immigrants that come to this country and build business(es), and lives, that most Americans would envy.  The difference: many Americans would rather have someone "give" it to them, than to earn it.  They want to be slaves of the gov't so the gov't will make all the hard decisions for them, can experiment on them, and will provide basic necessities, and look the other way as they sink into corruption.  The covet war is taking what you have not earned (by theft, legal or not), and destroying it, just so someone else can't have it.  Sound familiar?

Where do our tax dollars go that support the "poor"?  Are the projects well maintained, or are they destroyed as quickly as possible, so the gov't will put more resources to waste?  Do food stamps go to provide nutritious meals for those that can least afford them, or is it blown on name brand luxuries and the best cuts of meat?  If those "tax dollars" (coveted) are not being invested, they are being destroyed.  That makes the standard of living harder to maintain for all of us.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 6, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > All this talk of discrimination..I have yet to see any evidence of it.
> ...


 
Fiddlesticks, oh pompous gasbag. People of different colors got married quite routinely, I promise you. And the definition has always been one man, one woman,

And they have equal protection under the law. Gay people cannot be disciminated against because they're gay. however, they can't be married because MARRIAGE means ... you got it, one of each.

They're perfectly welcome to write wills and such naming one another as beneficiaries, and set up accounts together, and raise children together, and enter into contracts together, and get insurance together, etc. and so forth. There is no right they are being denied...except the right to pretend they meet the definition of married couples.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 6, 2011)

Marriage equality.  Yes.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 6, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, one of the most devout Christians I know is a homosexual man. A powerful, wealthy, politically active and incredibly successful homosexual man, I might add. He is extremely involved in the church, works very hard with youth (and no, nobody needs to worry about his motivation, he's absolutely not a sex abuser or even wired that way).
> ...


 
he's not the only gay I know, but he's the one I was closest to as a child, and we were very close, over the principal years of our youths (5-15).

Scientific evidence shows us that there is no genetic propensity towards gayness, just as there's no genetic propensity towards heterosexuality. And my personal experience leads me to believe that, by golly, the science is RIGHT.

You folks are so dismissive of the science when it comes to disproving your biased beliefs...what a shame you aren't so flexible when it comes to topics like religion, god and abortion. With THOSE topics, the science is NEVER WRONG.


----------



## Shogun (Sep 6, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



so, by extension, you could learn to be gay, eh?  Tell me, how does the thought of warm clitoris on your tongue sound?  Gooey snatch lapped up like a dog at the water bowl?  

You could learn to LOVE IT, right?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 6, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > All this talk of discrimination..I have yet to see any evidence of it.
> ...



Sorry, religion is a big part of the "law".  Cultures/societies are people with similar beliefs living together.  If their beliefs are not similar, then they form different societies/countries.  Religion (beliefs) are a huge part of every person.  The laws of the country/society are based off what the predominant religion considers "right" (it does not matter if it is mentioned in the law or not, it is understood that is where the law originates).  Many of the ten Commandments are written into our laws.  Our Bill of Rights are listed as "unalienable" (those rights are not given by man, but by the Creator).  Because, the leftists of the day, have toned down the relationship between the law and religion, does not remove it.  It is still very clear to those that actually consider where the laws originated.  Before the Hebrew Lord made Himself known, people would make laws for "classes" or relations of the leaders.  The laws were not equal.  The severity, too, depended on your social rank.  Only with the Lord, did equality under the Law come into play.  Starting with the 10 Commandments, society after society built upon "justice under the law".  It improved the world.  The people that lived two thousand years ago were just as intelligent, as those that live today.  Why did technology advance like it has: people were relatively safe to pursue "happiness" (their dreams).  That is not possible in an immoral and guarded society.

Now, we have a "new" religion, the one of the left, that says that man, not the Lord gives men their rights.  That belief system, the one from the left, has no morals, no equality, just their beliefs.  Quit forcing your beliefs onto a successful society.  There is no evidence that those leftist beliefs work, anywhere.  There is over three centuries of evidence, where people, left to pretend they are the Lord, instead of listening to the Lord ends with hundred, thousands, tens of thousands and even millions of human deaths trying to make a false religion (belief system) work.  Quit trying to force your corrupt beliefs onto us.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 6, 2011)

I was jut thinking and came to the conclusion that Koshergirl is a sinful concept.
"Eating" a female is sodomy and quite sinful.


----------



## Liability (Sep 6, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> I was jut thinking and came to the conclusion that Koshergirl is a sinful concept.
> "Eating" a female is sodomy and quite sinful.



^ an obvious lie.

uscitizen doesn't think.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 6, 2011)

Liability said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > I was jut thinking and came to the conclusion that Koshergirl is a sinful concept.
> ...



yes "think" is a weak description of my awsome thought process.


----------



## Shogun (Sep 6, 2011)




----------



## Liability (Sep 6, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



There's a difference between awesome (note the correct spelling) and awful.


----------



## Liability (Sep 6, 2011)

Shogun said:


>



The CORRECT caption for that gif OUGHT to be:

"Oh no you di'nt!"


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 6, 2011)

A knew you would never understand.

little people never do.


----------



## Liability (Sep 6, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> A knew you would never understand.
> 
> little people never do.



I understand your delusions of adequacy quite well.  

You are a classic case.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 6, 2011)

Liability said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > A knew you would never understand.
> ...



I am anything but classic.


----------



## Liability (Sep 6, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



No no.  Wrong again.  You are a classic case.

Like a case of beer.

Billy Beer.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 6, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



It was against the law for people of different colors to get married here if one of them was white for 200 years.
Your problem is you have no clue about the facts involved with the history of this country.
You live a sheltered life in LAH LAH land.
If they can do all the things you claim then why not allow them to also get married?
How does that affect you? Are you married? Why do you care?
What is the big deal? It is a NON ISSUE. 
Pave the roads, police the streets and 1001 other things COME FIRST.
Figure them out and then we can talk about gay marriage. Until then, who gives a shit? Let them marry. No brainer. Doesn't affect anyone other than the busy body old maids that have nothing else to gossip about.
Sounds like you fit that bill.


----------



## mal (Sep 7, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Race and who or what you Choose to have Sex with are NOT Analagous.

A Black Man and a White Woman CAN Marry the Flesh.

Two of the Same Sex can NOT.



peace...


----------



## mal (Sep 7, 2011)

Hisboller said:


> Anyone who has a prob with gay marriage is a homophobe and a bigot.
> 
> Fact is, God made gays.



God made Everything, including those who Fuck the Animals...

He Addresses those in Leviticus 18, at the same time he Addresses Homosexuals. 



peace..


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 7, 2011)

mal said:


> Hisboller said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who has a prob with gay marriage is a homophobe and a bigot.
> ...



Tell us about your efforts, passion and support of a ban on marriage for those that fuck animals mal. 
When was that introduced as a constitutional amendment?


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 7, 2011)

Shogun said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...


 
Irrelevant, and retarded as well.  Any and all sexual references put forth by you are going to be disgusting, that's a given. It has nothing to do with orietation.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 7, 2011)

Hisboller said:


> Anyone who has a prob with gay marriage is a homophobe and a bigot.
> 
> Fact is, God made gays.


 
another idiotic and irrelevant argument.

God made murderers, too. Shall we legalize murder as well?

Oh, wait..abortion, euthanasia....I forgot. You guys are all for that as well. What was I thinking?


----------



## bodecea (Sep 7, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Hisboller said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who has a prob with gay marriage is a homophobe and a bigot.
> ...



Murder takes the right to life from another citizen.....tell us what rights of another do gays and gay marriage take away?


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 7, 2011)

Tell me what right they are being denied?

They are choosing not to marry a person of the opposite sex, they have that choice.

It isn't like somebody is saying, "You can't be married!"

They can be married, if they marry somebody of the opposite sex. And they can be married in any church that will marry them as homosexual couples. But they don't have the *right* to force the rest of the world to call their living arrangement "marriage" when it doesn't meet the definition of the word.

Pretty simple, really.


----------



## mal (Sep 7, 2011)

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Hisboller said:
> ...



So does Abortion... True Story.

You have a Right to Marry... You don't have a Right to Expect Society to call your Defiance of your Natural Design "Marriage"...

You Choose not to Couple as Nature has Designed and that's not Society's Burden... 

Got Legal, Estate, Death Issues?... Have a Contract or a Civil Union and Smile.



peace...


----------



## mal (Sep 7, 2011)

Hisboller said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Hisboller said:
> ...



You Speak of God as "Fact"...

And God made EVERYTHING... Including those who Fuck Animals... True Story.

Because it Exists doesn't make it Right nor Equal.



peace...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 7, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Hisboller said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who has a prob with gay marriage is a homophobe and a bigot.
> ...



Where is there a ban on murderers getting married?
You are the one that picks and chooses who to discriminate against.
You support giving murderers more rights than gay folk.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 7, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Tell me what right they are being denied?
> 
> They are choosing not to marry a person of the opposite sex, they have that choice.
> 
> ...



Full marriage rights in all states as would any straight couple.   But I see that you support discrimination based on gender.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 7, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Hisboller said:
> ...



She sure walked into that one, didn't she?


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 7, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
Lol...I'm quite well versed in history. You said marriage was only for white people, and you were wrong.

Nor do I live a sheltered life. I know an ignoramus when I see one, and you fit the bill. We are not talking about race, which is a completely different ball of wax. Men and women were denied the right to marry (as other men and women do) based upon their color, and that was wrong. They were actually being denied the right based upon their skin. 

Gays aren't being denied the right. They have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, which is, by definition, what marriage is. If they want some other sort of union, say, a union with a person of the same sex, they are welcome to have that. What they DON'T have a right to do is force people to call their alternate union a "marriage" since it isn't a marriage. 

They could just call it something else, but it's all about them forcing their sexual lifestyle into the spotlight.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 7, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


 
I feel like I've fallen into an argument with mentally retarded children. I sort of feel bad.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 8, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...




Question:  Why don't gays get the same tax cuts and legal rights?


----------



## bodecea (Sep 8, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



So...where IS that ban on murderers getting married?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



There's nothing wrong with a pedophile and murderer being given a chance to bond together for the rest of their lives if they're opposite sex, but boy oh boy if 2 law abiding tax paying gay citizens wanna get married my morals won't stand for it!!!!!!


----------



## mal (Sep 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me what right they are being denied?
> ...



There is no Discrimination Based on Gender in Marriage Law as it Stands Nationally now.

You can get Married, Bodey...

You just can't Redefine Marriage to Suit your Choice.

Reflect what Nature gave you, or get a Contract. 



peace...


----------



## mal (Sep 8, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



That has to be most Retarded Comparison in the History of this Debate... 



peace...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 8, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



It's a perfect comparison to a legal marriage and an illegal one.

If someone is a pedophile or a murderer and they want a straight marriage, yay, hooray let's make it happen asap.

If a law-abiding, tax paying gay person wants to get married, certain people with crooked moral compasses have a fit.


----------



## mal (Sep 8, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



You Defy your Natural Design and the other 95% of Society that doesn't want to call it something it's Naturally NOT, have the Crooked Moral Compass?...

Nice.



peace...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 8, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



I'm straight as an arrow, I can assure you that it's quite obvious you've thought about gay sex about 21871638172517587 times more than I have.

95% of society is straight?  What's that matter?  95% of people being straight CERTAINLY doesn't mean 95% of people have a problem with gay marriage or homosexuality, nothing anywhere close to that.

In fact, now a majority of americans favor gay marriage being valid.


----------



## Political Junky (Sep 8, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Leviticus 11:9-12


Leviticus 11:9-12
King James Version (KJV)
 9These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

 10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

 11They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

 12Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.


----------



## mal (Sep 8, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Leviticus 11:9-12
> ...



Leviticus 11 is about Food...

Leviticus 18 is about Unlawful Sexual Relations...

Jewish Cerimonial Law in 11... Moral Law in 18.

And here's what God said about some things in 18:

21  And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: Lev. 20.1-5 I am the LORD.

22  *Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.* Lev. 20.13 

23  *Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. *Ex. 22.19 · Lev. 20.15, 16 · Deut. 27.21 

24  ¶ Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:

Seems God saw Beastiality as "Confusion", but Homosexuality as an "Abomination"...

Stop Comparing Rules about Food to Moral Law...

They have nothing to do with each other and are not even in the same Chapter.

They are 7 Chapters Seperated. 



peace...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 8, 2011)

mal said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



So you care about Jewish Moral Law but not Jewish Ceremonial Law?




That makes perfect sense............................


----------



## mal (Sep 8, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



They aren't Analagous...

They aren't in the same Chapter, and Christs Blood changed MANY things...

But one thing is Consistent from Old to New...

Homosexuality is an Abomination and Sin 100% of the time it's Talked about. 

It's this Easy... If you are a Proud Homosexual, you have no place in the Christian Church.

Find another Faith.



peace...


----------



## Ravi (Sep 8, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...


Um, homosexuality wasn't mentioned. Anal sex was.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 8, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



So if you don't follow Jewish Moral Law you have no place in a Christian Church.


Thanks, that clears up everything, proceed on.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 8, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Christians eat ham sandwiches and have pig roasts (also prohibited under Judaic law).

My question is........why are Christians beating gays over the head with Judaic law?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 8, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Actually, they stated mixed marriages were illegal, and they were until 1967.



> United StatesMain article: Interracial marriage in the United States
> 
> Overturned on 12 June 1967Interracial marriage in the United States has been fully legal in all U.S. states since the 1967 Supreme Court decision that deemed anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, with many states choosing to legalize interracial marriage at much earlier dates. The United States has many ethnic and racial groups and interracial marriage is fairly common among most of them. Multiracial Americans numbered 6.8 million in 2000, or 2.4% of the population. Now statistics show that they number 6.1 million or 2% in July 2006[12]



Interracial marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as saying they have the "right" to marry someone of the opposite gender, yet they DON'T have the right to marry who they actually love.

Sounds more like you're forcing YOUR sexual orientation on the gays.


----------



## mal (Sep 8, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Homosexuality is an Abomination Against God EVERY time it's Mentioned in the New and Old Testament... NEVER Embraced... Condoned... Or OK'd...

At no Time did God change his Mind on Fucking your Sister, your Dog or the Same Sex.

Fact. 

So pick another Book.



peace...


----------



## mal (Sep 8, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> As far as saying they have the "right" to marry someone of the opposite gender, yet they DON'T have the right to marry who they actually love.
> 
> Sounds more like you're forcing YOUR sexual orientation on the gays.



50 year old Same Sex Siblings can't Marry no matter how much they Love each other. 

Irrelevant.

As for Forcing anything...

It is the Homosexual Community that wants to say that they aren't the way Nature Designed them and that Society must Embrace that Defiance as Equal.



peace...


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 8, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
NO, since marriage is the specific contract between a MAN and a WOMAN, love has nothing whatever to do with whether or not a union is defined as "marriage".

Marriage does not equal "two people love each other". That's just love.

Marriage equals "man and woman are joined together by contract".

If the term meant "love" then I'd be with you, anyone can love anyone.

But it doesn't. It is a specific term for a specific sort of contract, and it is defined by the fact that the participants are of the opposite sex.

End of story. Quit trying to force everybody to accept a new definition. The majority rejects it.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 8, 2011)

mal said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...





> * Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
> * The Qur'an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
> * Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
> * The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
> ...



Internet Sacred Text Archive Home


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 8, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



So, you can get married if you're gay, you just can't marry the person that you'd actually WANT to marry?  Sounds like a real joy there.

Incidentally, I have known of couples who DID marry who were gay while I was stationed in the Navy.  Wanna know why they did it?  So they could live off base.

I still think that gays in LTR's should have the same legal rights as other people who marry.  Why?  Because a marriage contract comes with some specific legal rights (like access to a person while in the hospital if they're hurt or sick), as well as tax benefits.


----------



## mal (Sep 8, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Jesus doesn't Condemn Beastiality or Incest either...

But he did Define Marriage. 

Man and Woman. Bet.

And Homosexuality is only Condemned in the New and Old Testaments.

Never otherwise.



peace...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 8, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> NO, since marriage is the specific contract between a MAN and a WOMAN, love has nothing whatever to do with whether or not a union is defined as "marriage".



Not true for a couple of reasons.  There are mulitple countries in the world and mulitple religions that define "marriage" (whether civil or religious) as a man and MORE THAN ONE woman.

In this country in 9 legal entities that recognize Civil Marriage as between non-related consenting adults.  "A MAN and A WOMAN" is not universal.




koshergrl said:


> Marriage does not equal "two people love each other". That's just love.



True enough.  Civil Marriage establishes as a government public act (i.e. contract) a family relationship where non existed before.  Love is not required.

You can enter into a Civil Marriage with no religious component and not have it recognized by a religious organization.  You can also enter into a Religious Marriage with no civil recognition.

Under the context of secular law, there is Civil Marriage which exists with the execution of the "contract" under the law.




koshergrl said:


> Marriage equals "man and woman are joined together by contract".



Depends on where you live.  In some places that is true.  In other places it is two non-related consenting adults.  In other places it is multiple (i.e. more than two) adults.



koshergrl said:


> But it doesn't. It is a specific term for a specific sort of contract, and it is defined by the fact that the participants are of the opposite sex.



No it's not, that's an opinion.  It's defined by the law (when addressing Civil Marriage) and the definition changes depending on location.




koshergrl said:


> End of story.



Hardly.  Attitudes are changing.

2000 number of entities recognizing Same-sex Civil Marriage = 0

2000 percentage supporting Same-sex Civil Marriage ~ 35%

2011 number of entities recognizing Same-sex Civil Marriage = 9

2011 percentage supporting Same-sex Civil Marriage ~ 53%




koshergrl said:


> Quit trying to force everybody to accept a new definition. The majority rejects it.











>>>>


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 8, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...




My Lutheran church accepts proud homosexuals.
We don't listen or take orders from you. 
No Christian I have ever met in my 57 years has told another Christian "you have no place in the Christian church, find another faith".
What denomination are you? You are not Christlike. If anyone needs to find another faith it is you. The Muslims will take you as they hate homosexuals almost as much as you do.


----------



## mal (Sep 8, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



It's what the book says... Take it up with the Inspired Author if you ever meet Him. 

Ignore it at your own Risk.



peace...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 8, 2011)

mal said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



God is going to be pissed at you mal for the way you have treated homosexuals.
You are the one at risk my brother. Good luck mal. Love thy neighbor is what Christ brought.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 8, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Our laws allow discrimination against gay men and lesbians because they are not allowed to marry a man or woman respectively. If straight men can marry women, and lesbian women cannot, they are being discriminated against.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 8, 2011)

You ignored me mal. What denomination are you?


----------



## Ravi (Sep 8, 2011)

mal said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...


Where does it say in the bible that gays have no place in the Christian church and should find another faith?

I sure hope you aren't Catholic because if you are you're going straight to hell for lying.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 8, 2011)

I'm assuming the denomination that knows;

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

By the same measure with which you judge, you will be judged.

He that is without sin, cast the first stone.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 8, 2011)

Not to mention;

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 8, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
I haven't seen any evidence that Mal doesn't love his brother. Loving your brother doesn't mean you justify his sin or enable it.

It just means you love him.

And I always laugh when people presume to tell people what God thinks or what he will do, if that behavior is outside what the bible tells us. Please show me the passage where God says he'll be pissed at people who tell people what the bible says?


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 8, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> I'm assuming the denomination that knows;
> 
> Judge not, lest ye be judged.
> 
> ...


 
Sounds to me like people are judging right now, while claiming not to judge.

And Paul was talking about believers passing judgement on believers. So when believers say things like "God's gonna be mad at you!" and "you're not a good Christian!" that is exactly the behavior that comment was targeting.

It wasn't about sharing the gospel. Sharing the gospel is not the same as judgement. It's just sharing the gospel. You don't like it, as Mal said, take it up with God.


----------



## mal (Sep 8, 2011)

Ravi said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Careful with that Axe, Tubby... 



peace...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 8, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



LOL!!!
girl, hate to bust your bubble there sugar lips but there are many versions of the Bible and many books were left out.
I suggest you go study religion somewhere doctrine is not allowed.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 8, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > I'm assuming the denomination that knows;
> ...



If Mal is going to comport himself as God's representative, and claim he knows who is or isn't going to hell, damn straight I'll take it up with Mal.


----------



## mal (Sep 8, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> You ignored me mal. What denomination are you?



I Ignored nothing... I don't Belong to a Brand of Church.

I am Christian, if that is a Lable you Need.

I am not Catholic, although I spent 5 years in a Catholic School.

3 years in Lutheran...

4 years in a Baptist Academy.



peace...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 8, 2011)

Old mal is one proud Christian. 
He spreads the Gospel so loud and clear and witnesses to Christ.
Problem is where do the folks that he witnesses go as mal hides where he attends church?


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 8, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


 
He didn't do those things.

That's just your bigot hat talking to you.


----------



## mal (Sep 8, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Yeah, God didn't have an Rules...*

Fuck a Cat... Fuck little kids... Rape, Murder... Go ahead.*

God Embraces it all.*

The Bible is Irrelevant and Meaningless.*

Say it says whatever.*

It's your Soul, not Mine. 

_(*Clearly Sarcasm)_


peace...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 8, 2011)

mal said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > You ignored me mal. What denomination are you?
> ...



mal, I would take you in my church. 25 years ago there was someone I remember real well that had exactly the same beliefs as you. Similar background also. 
The real world and following Christ changed me. 
Good money that one day you will see how foolish you were. You have a good heart I am sure. Be Christlike and let it go. One day you will. I guarantee it.
Seen it hundreds of times. How old are you mal, under 30?


----------



## mal (Sep 8, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I'm Foolish?...  You are Attempting to tell me NOT to "Judge" based on the Book and the Consistent Message, yet you Judge me as "Foolish"?...

As for my Age... 40... Recently.

I have Gay Friends and Family and they Know how I feel about what they do, no Different than the People I know who Swing and do Drugs...

I don't Care, as long as it's not trying to Change a Church or make Society Embrace it, do as you Please in the Privacy of your own Home.



peace...


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 8, 2011)

mal said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Your "peace" is anything but.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 8, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
Oh lordy, you're one of THOSE nuts.

Of course you are.


----------



## mal (Sep 8, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Your Inability to Counter my Points with Substance is Illustrative of your Continuing Pile of Fail. 



peace...


----------



## mal (Sep 8, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You mean the Books where God was like, "Oh, forget about what I said about Incest, Homosexuals and Dog Fuckers, go ahead and do whatever the hell you want!"...





peace...


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 8, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



In mal's case, "peace", is about as meaningful as "have a nice day!"


----------



## boedicca (Sep 8, 2011)

Eating catfish isn't sinful - it's just gross.

Bottom feeders eat garbage.  Bleah.


----------



## Toro (Sep 8, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Eating catfish isn't sinful - it's just gross.
> 
> Bottom feeders eat garbage.  Bleah.



When I first moved to the South, my colleagues took me out to a catfish restaurant.  I ordered my catfish broiled.  They laughed after I took my first bite!


----------



## Political Junky (Sep 8, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Eating catfish isn't sinful - it's just gross.
> 
> Bottom feeders eat garbage.  Bleah.


So do pigs.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 8, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...


Oh, mal loves his brother all right. Don't let him fool you.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 8, 2011)

btw, someone is putting a LOT of thought into the search tags.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 8, 2011)

Ravi said:


> btw, someone is putting a LOT of thought into the search tags.


 
LOL!
You're right!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 8, 2011)

mal said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



This dude compares gays to dog fuckers claiming he is a Christian. 
He must be related to some of my kin in Alabama. 
We are cousins mal! Welcome to the family.


----------



## mal (Sep 8, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



God put Homosexuals and Dog Fuckers next to each other in Moral Law in Leviticus 18...

Have someone Read the Book to you, Inbred. 



peace...


----------



## Liability (Sep 8, 2011)

mal said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...




I hadda look it up.  (I am admittedly pretty ignorant of those kind of Biblical references):

In the NIV version, I discoverd, at Leviticus 18:  



> 22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
> 
> 23 Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.



It looks like mal nailed that one.


----------



## Political Junky (Sep 8, 2011)

The Old Testament taught that man could have multiple wives and slaves. Maybe cons would like to go back to those values.


----------



## Liability (Sep 8, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> The Old Testament taught that man could have multiple wives and slaves. Maybe cons would like to go back to those values.



The Old Testament merely reflected the society in which the people of those days lived.

Perhaps you libs would prefer to REJECT all the things that the Old and New Testaments "teach?"


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 8, 2011)

Oh the old argument "the bible refers to slaves so we must throw out the bible! It's no good I tell ya!"

SLAVES in the bible were essentially indentured servants, and freed every 7 years.


----------



## mal (Sep 8, 2011)

Liability said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I appreciate the acknowledgement Brother ...

Now enter del, Ravi or the Talking Dumptruck when "her" lights come back on to call me a Faggot" in response... 



peace...


----------



## Liability (Sep 8, 2011)

mal said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...




Whatever.  As long as you don't fuck the doggies, man.


----------



## mal (Sep 8, 2011)

Liability said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I have animal allergies...



peace...


----------



## Liability (Sep 8, 2011)

mal said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



But otherwise ...  ?


----------



## mal (Sep 8, 2011)

Liability said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...







peace...


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 9, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Eating catfish isn't sinful - it's just gross.
> 
> Bottom feeders eat garbage. Bleah.


 
Which is probably why God suggested we avoid it. They don't just eat garbage..they eat SEWAGE. It's disgusting.


----------



## Political Junky (Sep 9, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Oh the old argument "the bible refers to slaves so we must throw out the bible! It's no good I tell ya!"
> 
> SLAVES in the bible were essentially indentured servants, and freed every 7 years.


Link?


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 9, 2011)

"
*Sabbath Years*

When God spoke to Moses, and told him to establish the government, tabernacle and laws of the people, God told Moses that the calendar was to have special years. 6 years were to be common, the 7th was to be a Sabbath.3 Like the Sabbath day of the week, the Sabbath year was to be a year of rest.4 No crops were to be planted, food stored from previous years would suffice, provided the country had obeyed God.
Contracts involving slaves were to expire on the Sabbath year and slaves where then to go free.5 "
Bible Time - Definitions of Biblical Years

"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing." Exodust 21:2


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 9, 2011)

Liability said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > The Old Testament taught that man could have multiple wives and slaves. Maybe cons would like to go back to those values.
> ...



Most of the Old Testament is rejected by christians, thankfully.

If it weren't I'd be dead (non-believer), the few remaining people allowed to live on this Earth would abide by some crazy rules too.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 9, 2011)

mal said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Thanx fer da edvice CUZ!.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 9, 2011)

Liability said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Looks like I have another cousin.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 9, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



You are dead wrong Doc.
The so called Christians, and my new found cousins here, on this board reject all of the old Testament EXCEPT comparing gays to dog fuckers.
They eat their BBQ hog sammiches, shrimp and cat fish galore. God stated it was abominable to do so but God had just put down his Redbook magazine and was only giving ceremonial advice.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 9, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Yeah sadly history and modern day has shown that a certain group of bigots within christianity will use and abuse parts of the Old Testament to rationalize and promote their hate.

Even though Jesus rejected the entire concept of hate, even for your enemies as my sig shows.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 9, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




If I remember correctly does not Leviticus call for death for someone the curses their parents.

I also believe there is a call that women are not to speak, teach or have authority over men - I wonder how that jives with Bachmann possibly being the Commander-in-Chief.


For those that claim to follow all laws laid out in the Bible I wonder how those work.


>>>>


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 9, 2011)

The same old crap, no matter where you go. There are always a few Christian bashers who flit from thread to thread, spouting the same tired rhetoric.

"Christians aren't really Christians because they don't live by the OT! They're HYPOCRITES! They don't REALLY understand the bible, only WE understand the bible, they're so stupid!" 

It's the same everywhere. It's so standard it's completely predictable and always follows the same course. God has a plan...and obviously so does the devil. 

Sometimes I wish the devil was more creative, because hearing the same lame crap over and over is sooo boring.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 9, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> The same old crap, no matter where you go. There are always a few Christian bashers who flit from thread to thread, spouting the same tired rhetoric.
> 
> "Christians aren't really Christians because they don't live by the OT! They're HYPOCRITES! They don't REALLY understand the bible, only WE understand the bible, they're so stupid!"
> 
> ...



You're hearing what you want to hear because you want to be a victim.

I didn't say anything remotely like that.  I said christians mostly ignore the Old Testament and that that was a GOOD thing, nothing about them not being christian for doing so.  There's a lot of unChristlike stuff in the Old Testament.

So you can climb out from under your bed, I don't have a little red guy on my shoulder telling me what to post.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 9, 2011)

Yeah, whatever you say.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 9, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Yeah, whatever you say.



Thank you, please go by what I say, not what you wish I said.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 9, 2011)

Please don't assume you are the only person I was referring to.

And I'm capable of reading English, thank you. I don't need an interpreter.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 9, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Please don't assume you are the only person I was referring to.
> 
> And I'm capable of reading English, thank you. I don't need an interpreter.



Often times it does appear you need an interpreter on here.


Also World Watcher said nothing like what you said, so that takes both he and myself out of the equation.



In my opinion the more christians ignore the many immoral parts of the Old Testament the better christian they are.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 9, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> So do pigs.



That's what changed the nature of pork, they USED to eat garbage - now they get a very controlled diet, resulting in a lean and tender meat.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 9, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Oh the old argument "the bible refers to slaves so we must throw out the bible! It's no good I tell ya!"
> ...



Judaism and slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, that doesn't explain the standoff between Moses and the Pharaoh, and Exodus. I mean really! Just move up the free date. Why lose all the first born over his stubbornness?


----------



## mal (Sep 9, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Where was Homosexuality Embraced anywhere in the Old or New?...

And what did Christ say about Marriage?...

Find another Book... Seriously, it's not the only one out there. 



peace...


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 9, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Like the Barbie stewardess on Toy Story.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkEHBs7MF5Y]Toy Story 2 - Barbie Bloopers Fandub - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## mal (Sep 9, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Don't forget to Distract with Complaints about my "Random" Capitalization also!... 



peace...


----------



## Ravi (Sep 9, 2011)

Day 22,945 of mal obsessing about teh gay.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 9, 2011)

mal said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



He's pointing out that you blindly pick and choose which parts of the Old Testament to take with 100% seriousness and which parts you completely reject, anyone with common sense can see that you're picking and choosing in order to justify your hate.

What did Christ say about homosexuality?  

What did he say about treating people the way you wanted to be treated and loving your fellow person?  These are the parts of the New Testament that you sadly reject as well.

Find another prophet, Jesus isn't the only one out there.


----------



## mal (Sep 9, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Day 22,945 of mal obsessing about teh gay.



Ah... One of the 4 Broken Records showed...

Shup ya Tubby thing! 



peace...


----------



## mal (Sep 9, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You (l)ogic would have Christ being OK with Dog Fucking and Incest...

Seriously, give it some Thought...

If that Fails you, go ask someone who Disagrees with you in Real Life, and ask them to Explain it to you in Crayon. 



peace...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 9, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Where anywhere in the New Testament do you get any slight inclination that Jesus has any shred of moral issue with homosexuality?

I can tell you more or less ignore or flat out reject all of Jesus's teachings, at least with how you conduct yourself on this board.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 9, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Day 22,945 of mal obsessing about teh gay.



Low balling.    (oh, I made a pun)


----------



## bodecea (Sep 9, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mel said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Sermon on the Mount......Jesus was just joking.


----------



## mal (Sep 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Day 22,945 of mal obsessing about teh gay.
> ...



Power back on?... How's being a Vulture workin' out these days, Dumptruck?...

You are old enough to have Created it, aren't you... and then some. 



peace...


----------



## mal (Sep 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mel said:
> ...



Clearly he wanted everyone to Ignore that his Father saw Beastiality as Confusion and Homosexuality as an Abomination and Sin...

The Sermon on the Mount was about Embracing ALL of the Deviancy in Leviticus 18...

Verse 6 had a great Impact on you in your Life, didn't it, Bodey. 



peace...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 9, 2011)

Of the few times that homosexuality is referred to in the Bible, it's considered an abomination, not a sin.

The only sins that I'm currently aware of are the ones in the 10 Commandments.

You puritanical assholes need to slow yer fucking roll.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 9, 2011)

> What if someone asked you, "Is there a chance you could be wrong about the way you've interpreted the biblical texts sometimes used to condemn homosexual orientation?" How would you respond? What does it say about you if you answer, "No, I could NOT be wrong"? I am asking you to re-examine these texts -- carefully and prayerfully. Lives hang in the balance.
> 
> There are far too many tragic stories of what happens when we fail to study these texts. Mark B. was a young man who accepted his sexual orientation "until he became a Christian" and was told on the basis of these texts that he couldn't be both a Christian and a gay man. Mark committed suicide and wrote this suicide note to God: "I just don't know how else to fix this." Mary Lou Wallner, one of our most faithful Soulforce volunteers, was led by these texts to condemn her lesbian daughter, Anna, who hanged herself. Mary Lou now says, "If I can steer just one person away from the pain and anguish I've been living, then maybe Anna's death will have meaning."



What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality


----------



## mal (Sep 9, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Of the few times that homosexuality is referred to in the Bible, it's considered an abomination, not a sin.
> 
> The only sins that I'm currently aware of are the ones in the 10 Commandments.
> 
> You puritanical assholes need to slow yer fucking roll.



It's Spoken Worse of than Beastiality in Levitical Moral Law in 18...

True Story.

It's also NEVER Embraced, along with the Incest, Beastiality and other things that were Listed in 18...

EVER.

You Fuckers need to find another Book that doesn't call what you do an "Abomination".

Idiocy.



peace...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 9, 2011)

mal said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Of the few times that homosexuality is referred to in the Bible, it's considered an abomination, not a sin.
> ...



You DO realize that Levitical law is for those who are Jewish priests, right? 

When did you convert?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 9, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Of the few times that homosexuality is referred to in the Bible, it's considered an abomination, not a sin.
> 
> The only sins that I'm currently aware of are the ones in the 10 Commandments.
> 
> You puritanical assholes need to slow yer fucking roll.



Wishing you had your neighbor's new stereo is a far worse sin than anything involving sodomy or being gay according to the Bible.


But bigots like Mal pick and choose what parts of the OLD Testament to live by and the overwhelming majority of the NEW testament and Jesus' teachings he pisses on.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 9, 2011)

I just had an interesting thought. How many people would drop the gay issue if they knew that they could keep up the good work, once everybody sees a video of their sins thus far.

Gays are born sinners just like every other baby on the planet (saying this from my fundy upbringing). They aren't born sinners because they're gay, they are born sinners because they are human.

I still haven't seen anybody say that they chose to be straight, or that a choice ever was even given to them. So how can they POSSIBLY believe that gays made a decision?


----------



## mal (Sep 9, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Yeah, you're Right... God Embraces Homosexuality and Beastiality. 



peace...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 9, 2011)

mal said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Never said anything about God embracing any of that stuff.  I just told you that Levitical moral law was for the Levites, who were the priests of Israel.

And.......if you're gonna follow Levitical law, you must have converted.


----------



## mal (Sep 9, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...




Either God Embraces Homosexuality and Beastiality or he doesn't...

Which is it, ABS?...



peace...


----------



## Ravi (Sep 9, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


Imagine mal's relief. He is not a Levite priest.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 9, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



I think you've opened his eyes at least a little to how ridiculous his excuse for gay hating is, since he's afraid to respond to what you're saying.

Will that change anything?  Probably not.


----------



## mal (Sep 9, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



I have Responded to every Post he's Directed at me... 

Is it Ignorance or Dishonesty with you?...



peace...


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 9, 2011)

mal said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Of the few times that homosexuality is referred to in the Bible, it's considered an abomination, not a sin.
> ...


 
There is no such book. All religions, including Buddhism, condemn homosexuality.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 9, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...


 
How does relating what the bible says about gays equal gay hating?


----------



## mal (Sep 9, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...




No they don't... They ALL Embrace Homosexuality.

Because some Insecure Deviants who can't just Enjoy Free Will in Private, Instead DEMAND Validation for their Choices, insist that it's so. 



peace...


----------



## mal (Sep 9, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



You must Embrace their Defiance... There is no other Option.

They are like Agent Smith in the Matrix... They don't stop coming back to Insist.

Disagree with their Agenda?... You're a Faggot.

It's all in the Playbook.



peace...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 9, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Really?  My you are really quite the empty headed bimbo that you appear to be.

Incidentally, there are SEVERAL books in Judaic theology that discuss SPECIFIC LAWS FOR PRIESTS ONLY.  Apparently you're not as "kosher" as you'd hoped.

Additionally..........



> Hinduism
> In contemporary India LGBT people face discrimination and marginalization. This results from cultural attitudes imposed by the British during their long occupation of India. There is no condemnation of homosexuality in the ancient Hindu texts, and no bias against LGBT people is evident up to the 19th century. In a few Hindu lawbooks, same-gender sexuality is described as producing a state of impurity, but it can be expunged by a ritual bath.
> 
> The ancient Hindu attitude was that sexuality should be fully integrated into the fabric of life, and nothing to be ashamed of. For instance, in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, IV:4, there is a passage about sex magic which was so explicit that Max Müller felt compelled to translate it into Latin.
> ...



Internet Sacred Text Archive Home


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 9, 2011)

Oh, I'm sorry. One of the MANY Hindu sects endorses homosexuality.

Some of them also endorse sex wth animals.

India is certainly an advanced country, don't you think? Look how well they've done in the world...


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 9, 2011)

I don't think I've ever seen footage of a gay Hindu marriage. Could you provide that for me? So we can model ourselves after them and all?

What a joke.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 9, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Oh, I'm sorry. One of the MANY Hindu sects endorses homosexuality.
> 
> Some of them also endorse sex wth animals.
> 
> India is certainly an advanced country, don't you think? Look how well they've done in the world...



Yeah......look how well........they're advertising vacations in their country on US television, they have a space program, and oh yeah.........they also have a lot of jobs that used to be here.

How bad ARE they doing?

You're just pissed that you got called on your bullshit.


----------



## GWV5903 (Sep 9, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I'm sorry. One of the MANY Hindu sects endorses homosexuality.
> ...



You're just pissed that you're a faggot...


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 9, 2011)

I don't know why I give the slightest credence to anything the nutballs say. 

"This 'offensive' Sleaze Ball theme, they worry, "erroneously gives the impression that Hinduism promotes and accepts homosexuality and promiscuity&#8230;This is absolutely false and misleading." 

An anti-gay activist in Australia fumed: 

"It's outrageous and totally hypocritical that homosexual activists are bludgeoning a minority religion with such offensive, sacrilegious materials. Here in NSW, they've lobbied government to pass an anti-vilification law that protects themselves, homosexuals, yet they think it's perfectly OK to vilify and blaspheme people of religious faiths. Today it's Hindus, tomorrow it'll be Christians, Buddhists, or Muslims. If there's going to be an anti-vilification law, then it should include people of all religions." 

Radha-Krishnadas, from the Australian School of Meditation (ASM) said: 

"It deeply saddens me that homosexual activists are engaging in such obvious hate-mongering. This kind of religion bashing is anti-Hindu, anti-family, anti-Australian and anti-humanity. Government and businesses should be ashamed for sponsoring this hateful agenda." 

A growing number of religious, civil and political organizations worldwide, such as AHAD (American Hindus Against Defamation), Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America and Rev. Fred Nile of the Christian Democrats have condemned the "Sleaze Ball" event as bigoted, anti-religious and anti-multicultural. 

Letters and offending materials from the "Sleaze Ball" have been sent to the sponsors and Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Committee. Some gay activists say they worry that fundamentalist Hinduism is positioning itself in such a way as to emulate the Rev. Jerry Falwell or Scotland's Cardinal Winning in the Christian fold. 

 "What we are demanding," say the Hindus, "is that the sponsors issue a public apology to the Hindu community and that they also promise to withdraw all future funding to any anti-religious and anti-multicultural event." 

Gay Today: Top Story

Doesn't sound to me like Hinduism is all that open to gayness.

So I stand by my original statement..there is no religion in the world that endorses homosexuality.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 9, 2011)

" Hindu views of homosexuality are varying and diverse, in part because the accepted Hindu religious texts do not explicitly mention homosexuality. 
Homosexuality is also a complex matter in Hinduism because of the many types of religious life. In general, "twice-born" Hindus are prohibited from homosexual acts (_maithunam pumsi_), such as in _Manusmrti_ 11:174, which mentions both men and women. "

Homosexuality and Hinduism - ReligionFacts


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 10, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> There is no such book. All religions, including Buddhism, condemn homosexuality.





koshergrl said:


> So I stand by my original statement..there is no religion in the world that endorses homosexuality.





koshergrl said:


> *" Hindu views of homosexuality are varying and diverse, in part because the accepted Hindu religious texts do not explicitly mention homosexuality.*




Your original statement and the second statement are quite different as there is a HUGE difference between saying all religions condemn homosexuality and saying that a religion endorses homosexuality.  For a religion to "condemn" homosexuality it would have to have in it's sacred text statements against homosexuality, being silent on homosexuality neither condemns nor endorses it.

Your third quote above disproves your first statement.  As you post the Hindu religion (which isn't the religion you mention in the first post) is silent on homosexuality in it's sacred text.  Now people who follow the Hindu faith may condemn homosexuality, not surprising since they condemnation will be based on social norms, but that does not mean that it is in their texts.  Same with Buddhism, Buddhist text to not condemn homosexuality, Buddhist people apply their social norms and condemn it, but that is a social construct not a religious one.


Homosexuality and Buddhism - ReligionFacts


>>>>


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 10, 2011)

Oh please.

I said there was no book that condones or endorses homosexuality, and I was right.

And all religions do condemn it. No, they do not have to have something written to make that statement true, that's your qualification, not mine. But it doesn't matter, as far as I can see, they all do have condemnation of the practice in their books...I provided the Hindu condemnation, we have all seen the biblical condemnation, we know the Koran condemns it.....

YOu can kibbitz all you like about what qualifies as "condemnation" but you're just moving the goal posts. What I said is true.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 10, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > There is no such book. All religions, including Buddhism, condemn homosexuality.
> ...


 
Yes, I know there's a difference between condemnation and endorsement. I said initially that all religions condemn homosexuality, which they do.

Then a poster claimed that the Hindu religion ENDORSES homosexuality. So I addressed that.

And the buddhist religion, while it doesn't necessarily come right out and condemn homosexuality, certainly discourages it, and never endorses it.

"
The Dalai Lama, the leader of Tibetan Buddhism has campaigned against prejudice toward homosexuals, but at the same time has adopted a religious view against non-procreative sex: 
"Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact."; wrong and against Buddhist ethics."; "Its part of what we Buddhists call _bad sexual conduct_. Sexual organs were created for reproduction between the male element and the female element  and everything that deviates from that is not acceptable from a Buddhist point of view."

Buddhism / list of buddhist topics / buddhist views of homosexuality​


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 10, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Oh please.
> 
> I said there was no book that condones or endorses homosexuality, and I was right.




That's not what you said which has been quoted.  So no, you were not right.




koshergrl said:


> And all religions do condemn it. No, they do not have to have something written to make that statement true, that's your qualification, not mine.




Of course they would need to have it in their sacred text, otherwise it becomes opinion of the individuals.

Just like it's your opinion that all religions condemn homosexuality when you have provided the link showing that Hindu texts do not condemn homosexuality.




koshergrl said:


> But it doesn't matter, as far as I can see, they all do have condemnation of the practice in their books...I provided the Hindu condemnation,




No you didn't, you provided a citation that said that homosexuality is not mentioned in Hindu text, not mentioning it is not a condemnation in those texts.




koshergrl said:


> YOu can kibbitz all you like about what qualifies as "condemnation" but you're just moving the goal posts.




Actually it's you that has moved the goal posts, as previously quoted you cite Buddhism as an example, then post about Hindu religion - they are not the same.

Then you post a citation showing that homosexuality is not condemned in Hindu texts



koshergrl said:


> What I said is true.



No it's not, as has been shown with your own links.

There is a huge difference between the text of a religion condemning something (i.e. the basis of a religion) and the people of a religion doing something.  One is the foundation of a religion, the other is an example of individual people being influenced by tradition and social/cultural norms not necessarily based in a religious foundation.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 10, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



In a 1993 talk given in Seattle, the Dalai Lama said:

nature arranged male and female organs "in such a manner that is very suitable... Same-sex organs cannot manage well." But he stopped short of condemning homosexual relationships altogether, saying if two people agree to enter a relationship that is not sexually abusive, "then I don't know. It's difficult to say." [5]​
The Dalai Lama was more specific in a meeting with Buddhist leaders and human rights activists in San Francisco in 1997, where he commented that all forms of sex other than penile-vaginal sex are prohibited for Buddhists, whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals. At a press conference the day before the meeting, he said, "From a Buddhist point of view, [gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct." *But he did note that this rule is for Buddhists, and from society's viewpoint, homosexual relationships can be "of mutual benefit, enjoyable, and harmless."* [6]

The Dalai Lama is well known for his activism for human rights, and this specifically includes equal rights for gays. According to an Office of Tibet spokeman, *"His Holiness opposes violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation. He urges respect, tolerance, compassion, and the full recognition of human rights for all."*​
Homosexuality and Buddhism - ReligionFacts


In his individual opinion, one not supported in the text of the religion, the Dalai Lama is welcome to his opinion shaped by the social/cultural norms he was raised in.  He does not "condemn" homosexuals and has supported equal treatment and full recognition of homosexuals.


>>>>


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 10, 2011)

So? The fact remains, he was pretty specific about homosexuality. I'm sure homosexual relations can be wonderful...so long as they don't involve productive organs, lol. You figure that one out. I don't have a pony in this race. You want to justify homosexuality via religion, knock yourself out. You know and I know that you're grasping at straws.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 10, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> So? The fact remains, he was pretty specific about homosexuality. I'm sure homosexual relations can be wonderful...so long as they don't involve productive organs, lol. You figure that one out. I don't have a pony in this race. You want to justify homosexuality via religion, knock yourself out.



I'm also not confused about the fact the two religions mentioned do not condemn homosexuality as you previously stated, their sacred text are silent on the issue (as your link supports) although individual who practice that religion can have their own opinions.

Not trying to justify homosexuality via religion.  The interaction of the individual and religious view are a personal responsibility with thousands of different religions (with sub-sects and denominations) you have been proven wrong on your statement that "all religions condemn homosexuality".




koshergrl said:


> You know and I know that you're grasping at straws.



Not in the least and thank you again for the citation that shows that the Hindu religious sacred texts are silent on the issue of homosexuality.  Gotta love it when a posters own cite shows they are wrong.  k



Time to do yard work, so I'll be the gentleman and give the lady the last word.  You have a nice day.


>>>>


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 10, 2011)

I provided the text where the Hindu religion condemned homosexuality. Again, if you want to redefine the word condemn to make it fit, you're going to, I can't do much about that.

This is akin to saying the Bible condones abortion based upon the fact that it doesn't use the word "abortion". It's not true, but if you want to justify the behavior, you will find a way to do it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 10, 2011)

Funny thing is that Leviticus was an ever changing Hebrew document that was edited many times with additions and deletions in it. The book was credited to be written by Moses.
Where is the sin of homosexuality in the ten Commandments. 
Leviticus is old Jewish law. 
I am a Christian, not a Jew.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 10, 2011)

You're not really anything at all that I can see. Christians who follow Christ don't smear the bible or discount the OT.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 10, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> You're not really anything at all that I can see. Christians who follow Christ don't smear the bible or discount the OT.



Christians do not judge others is what I was taught. 
Christ never said a word about homosexuals and homosexuality.
You smear the message of Christ, LOVE thy neighbor.
You believe God wrote the Bible. Man wrote Leviticus and most of it was edited, deleted, added to and manipulated according to the Jewish mores of the time. Over thousands of years. DUH. 
We are talking about 2500 years ago. Educate yourself. You just might learn something.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 10, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> You're not really anything at all that I can see. Christians who follow Christ don't smear the bible or discount the OT.



Leviticus demands you be put to death if you curse your parents.
........on ....................and....................on..........................
Educate yourself. Read and learn the facts. 
Adulterers should be put to death.
And you claim this is the law we should go by.
You are not very swift there girl. 
Leviticus states that if you are caught with your uncle's wife naked you shal die childless.
on..............on and on..................on.
Only a DAMN FOOL goes by Leviticus.
And you are Exhibit A.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 10, 2011)

Educate yourself, you loon. And show me where I said we should live by Leviticus? Not only are you brain dead, apparently you're a liar as well.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 11, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Funny thing is that Leviticus was an ever changing Hebrew document that was edited many times with additions and deletions in it. The book was credited to be written by Moses.
> Where is the sin of homosexuality in the ten Commandments.
> Leviticus is old Jewish law.
> I am a Christian, not a Jew.



Sad to say, even tho "Thou shalt not bear false witness" occurs in the ten commandments, we sure see a lot of so-called christians lying.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me what right they are being denied?
> ...



NO, it is not discrimination to uphold a "definition".  It is mockery to pretend that a definition that has been in place for eons, can be changed to fit a tiny percentage of people that reject marriage for "sexual pleasure" (choice) of their own minds.  It is a corruption of society, and will only encourage more corruption if allowed to twist the definition of marriage.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Traditionally, the gov't encouraged "traditional marriage".  That was the original purpose of giving child credits on income taxes (it used to be that you had to be married to claim the child credit).  That was done because the gov't recognized that "stable families" built stable communities, thus a stable country.  The gov't also needed more people to settle the land, that meant having children in a time when test tubes were not available for children (the old fashioned way, the green way); heterosexual marriage was the "best" way to have law abiding citizens.
Immoral sex, traditionally, was DISCOURAGED, by the gov't: no tax breaks for shacking up, no child credits for being unmarried with children.
Because it is the "gov't", once a program is started, it pretty much stays in place forever.  The homosexual activists will probably get those "benefits", eventually.  At this point, it will be extremely hard for congress or the administration to justify more rewards for more immoral sex (the gov't welfare programs to "assist" the unmarried hasn't worked out so well).  It will probably have to wait until the country is prosperous again, and with this administration, that might be decades.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Theoretically, you are wrong.  If a "convicted" murderer or pedophile wants to get married and they are in prison, they cannot get married.  If they have served their sentence (thus paid for their crime and are right in the eyes of the law), they can get married; albeit reformed murderer and pedophile.  So you see, your comparison is hardly accurate.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

ravi said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > dr.drock said:
> ...



duhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Because, it doesn't matter how many times Christians point out where homosexual acts are sinful, homosexual activists want to declare themselves more powerful than the Lord by proclaiming an act that the Lord, THE LORD, and His Son, Yeshua, declared sinful, not so.  Homosexual activists with no authority over eternity are bearing false witness and leading people into the pit by declaring the Lord's declaration, void.

If homosexuals wanted "to just be left alone", they could go to the depraved parts of town, and not bring their "lifestyle" into daylight.  The homosexuals have chosen not to do that.  The homosexuals want to flaunt their lifestyle and lie about it.  When they are called on the lies, they play the victim, like people are trying to persecute them, instead of just stating the truth.  Obviously, homosexuals cannot handle the truth.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 11, 2011)

And the anti-gay drone goes on and on and on and on and on........


----------



## percysunshine (Sep 11, 2011)

Where are all the gay catfish?

Some biologist must have found at least one of them.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...




Actually, you are wrong.

In the 1987 case of TURNER v. SAFLEY, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that a prisoners right to enter into Civil Marriage could not be usurped simply because they are incarcerated.

"In support of the marriage regulation, petitioners first suggest that the rule does not deprive prisoners of a constitutionally  protected right. They concede that the decision to marry is a fundamental right under Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), and Loving v. Virginia (1967), but they imply that a different rule should obtain "in . . . a prison forum." Petitioners then argue that even if the regulation burdens inmates' constitutional rights, the restriction should be tested under a reasonableness standard. They urge that the restriction is reasonably related to legitimate security and rehabilitation concerns.

We disagree with petitioners that Zablocki does not apply to prison inmates. It is settled that a prison inmate "retains those [constitutional] rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system." The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. Many important attributes of marriage remain, however, after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life. First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship. In addition, many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. Third, most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated. Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e. g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e. g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e. g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock). These incidents of marriage, like the religious and personal aspects of the marriage commitment, are unaffected by the fact of confinement or the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals.

Taken together, we conclude that these remaining elements are sufficient to form a constitutionally protected marital relationship in the prison context.... "​

So at the end of the day "If a "convicted" murderer or pedophile wants to get married and they are in prison, they cannot get married." is incorrect, they can get married in prison.  So it is correct to say that in some States murderers and phedophiles have more of a right to marriage then law abiding, US Citizen, consenting adult same-sex couples when it comes to Civil Marriage.


The thread is now returned to it's normally scheduled posting.

>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...




Just so we are clear...

..............................Which definition are we using?


......................................One man and one woman?


.........................................One man and multiple women?


...............................................One man and one woman (or more women) as long as they are of the same race?




>>>>


----------



## Political Junky (Sep 11, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Traditionally, the gov't encouraged "traditional marriage".  That was the original purpose of giving child credits on income taxes (it used to be that you had to be married to claim the child credit).




I'm sure you can provide some support for this claim, being 51 years old and filing taxes over that period I've never seen any requirement that only Civilly Married couples could claim a child as a Dependent (or the Child Tax Credit instituted in 1998).  



>>>>


----------



## bodecea (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> ravi said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Anal sex does not always equal homosexual sex.

Homosexual sex does not always equal anal sex.

Glad to have been of help there.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 11, 2011)

Being married does not always equal sex either


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 11, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Being married does not always equal sex either



We have equal sex in my marriage.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Why must you make me repeat myself???????????????????????????????????????????????????


Quote: Originally Posted by ABikerSailor  
Quote: Originally Posted by logical4u  
Quote: Originally Posted by ABikerSailor  

Want to talk about the fact that King David and Jonathan hand a formally recognized same sex union in the eyes of the state of Israel?
Yes, please give chapter and verse where it says that David and Jonathan had any relationship besides a close friendship (more like Jonathan idolized David).

They spoke of supporting each other's children (that would mean legitimate marriage, and all that goes with it). 

By what authority do you declare homosexuality NOT sinful? The Lord did say that a man sleeping with another man as a woman was wrong. In Leviticus, it says that the man that does that "forfeits" his life (I do not know what that means, but it is the only place, the only sin that I remember having this stigma). In the NT, Yeshua spoke against lewd and perverse behavior. When Yeshua stopped the men from stoning the adulterous woman, what did he tell her? I will give you a hint: STOP THAT (sinful behavior). The Holy Spirit can give us the "grace" to overcome our sinful behavior, and only through the Lord can we go beyond our physical world and walk towards His light.

Today, those that want to practice Christanity, condemn homosexual behavior (notice they do not condemn the homosexual). Every person has sinful behaviors. Christians acknowledge those sins, and work to become better people. It is only homosexual activists that not only want this sin to be "tolerated", but they want this sinful behavior elevated to acceptable and even "preferred" behavior. 

For someone that reads the Bible, it should be noted there are numerous places where deceit is strongly condemned. There are also mentions of those that lead the children astray from the Lord; it does not please the Lord. There are also places that mention "twisting" or changing the Bible for our own purposes; it does not please the Lord. Homosexual activists that claim to "love" the Lord should consider how their "love" will be regarded. Yeshua narrowed the Commandments to two. Our job as Christians is even more simple: give thanks and praise to the Lord (notice there is no telling the Lord that He is wrong).

I wish you peace. I hope you can find that passage about David and Jonathan, so you can gain a better understanding of the Lord.
Not a problem......here ya go........

Bible verses are also provided.......


Quote:
David and Jonathan
There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.

Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.

Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible. 

This narrative far outweighs the two trivial aspersions against same-sex love in Leviticus. The bigots who use the Bible to assault gays are apparently blind to it. 

Internet Sacred Text Archive Home
1 Samuel 18

Sauls Growing Fear of David
1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt. 
5 Whatever mission Saul sent him on, David was so successful that Saul gave him a high rank in the army. This pleased all the troops, and Sauls officers as well.

Are you ignoring this: 
1 Samuel 17:37-40

New International Version (NIV)


37 The LORD who rescued me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will rescue me from the hand of this Philistine. 

Saul said to David, Go, and the LORD be with you. 

38 Then Saul dressed David in his own tunic. He put a coat of armor on him and a bronze helmet on his head. 39 David fastened on his sword over the tunic and tried walking around, because he was not used to them. 

I cannot go in these, he said to Saul, because I am not used to them. So he took them off. 40 Then he took his staff in his hand, chose five smooth stones from the stream, put them in the pouch of his shepherds bag and, with his sling in his hand, approached the Philistine. 

Do you now want to claim that Saul had a relationship with David because he "gave" him his clothes too?

1 Samuel 19:1-7

New International Version (NIV)



1 Samuel 19

Saul Tries to Kill David
1 Saul told his son Jonathan and all the attendants to kill David. But Jonathan had taken a great liking to David 2 and warned him, My father Saul is looking for a chance to kill you. Be on your guard tomorrow morning; go into hiding and stay there. 3 I will go out and stand with my father in the field where you are. Ill speak to him about you and will tell you what I find out. 
4 Jonathan spoke well of David to Saul his father and said to him, Let not the king do wrong to his servant David; he has not wronged you, and what he has done has benefited you greatly. 5 He took his life in his hands when he killed the Philistine. The LORD won a great victory for all Israel, and you saw it and were glad. Why then would you do wrong to an innocent man like David by killing him for no reason? 

6 Saul listened to Jonathan and took this oath: As surely as the LORD lives, David will not be put to death. 

7 So Jonathan called David and told him the whole conversation. He brought him to Saul, and David was with Saul as before. 


1 Samuel 20:30-42

New International Version (NIV)

No mention of a homosexual union there.

30 Sauls anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Dont I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you? 31 As long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Now send someone to bring him to me, for he must die! 

32 Why should he be put to death? What has he done? Jonathan asked his father. 33 But Saul hurled his spear at him to kill him. Then Jonathan knew that his father intended to kill David. 

34 Jonathan got up from the table in fierce anger; on that second day of the feast he did not eat, because he was grieved at his fathers shameful treatment of David. 

35 In the morning Jonathan went out to the field for his meeting with David. He had a small boy with him, 36 and he said to the boy, Run and find the arrows I shoot. As the boy ran, he shot an arrow beyond him. 37 When the boy came to the place where Jonathans arrow had fallen, Jonathan called out after him, Isnt the arrow beyond you? 38 Then he shouted, Hurry! Go quickly! Dont stop! The boy picked up the arrow and returned to his master. 39 (The boy knew nothing about all this; only Jonathan and David knew.) 40 Then Jonathan gave his weapons to the boy and said, Go, carry them back to town. 

41 After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept togetherbut David wept the most. 

42 Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, for we have sworn friendship with each other in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD is witness between you and me, and between your descendants and my descendants forever. Then David left, and Jonathan went back to the town.[a] 

Friendship is not a homosexual union. This sounds more like a political treaty between tribes than a "homosexual" union.

2 Samuel 1:25-26

New International Version (NIV)



25 How the mighty have fallen in battle! 
Jonathan lies slain on your heights. 
26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; 
you were very dear to me. 
Your love for me was wonderful, 
more wonderful than that of women. 

Did he ever speak of him after Bathsheba?

1 Samuel 20:41

New International Version (NIV)



41 After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept togetherbut David wept the most. 

Sounds like the common custom of that area when a great sacrifice has been made for another (Johathan gave up his ability to inherit due to his disobedience to his father)

2 Samuel 1:18-27

New International Version (NIV)


18 and he ordered that the people of Judah be taught this lament of the bow (it is written in the Book of Jashar): 

19 A gazelle[a] lies slain on your heights, Israel. 
How the mighty have fallen! 

20 Tell it not in Gath, 
proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon, 
lest the daughters of the Philistines be glad, 
lest the daughters of the uncircumcised rejoice. 

21 Mountains of Gilboa, 
may you have neither dew nor rain, 
may no showers fall on your terraced fields.* 
For there the shield of the mighty was despised, 
the shield of Saulno longer rubbed with oil. 

22 From the blood of the slain, 
from the flesh of the mighty, 
the bow of Jonathan did not turn back, 
the sword of Saul did not return unsatisfied. 
23 Saul and Jonathan 
in life they were loved and admired, 
and in death they were not parted. 
They were swifter than eagles, 
they were stronger than lions. 

24 Daughters of Israel, 
weep for Saul, 
who clothed you in scarlet and finery, 
who adorned your garments with ornaments of gold. 

25 How the mighty have fallen in battle! 
Jonathan lies slain on your heights. 
26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; 
you were very dear to me. 
Your love for me was wonderful, 
more wonderful than that of women. 

27 How the mighty have fallen! 
The weapons of war have perished! 

2 Samuel 9:7-12

New International Version (NIV)



7 Dont be afraid, David said to him, for I will surely show you kindness for the sake of your father Jonathan. I will restore to you all the land that belonged to your grandfather Saul, and you will always eat at my table. 

8 Mephibosheth bowed down and said, What is your servant, that you should notice a dead dog like me? 

9 Then the king summoned Ziba, Sauls steward, and said to him, I have given your masters grandson everything that belonged to Saul and his family. 10 You and your sons and your servants are to farm the land for him and bring in the crops, so that your masters grandson may be provided for. And Mephibosheth, grandson of your master, will always eat at my table. (Now Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants.) 

11 Then Ziba said to the king, Your servant will do whatever my lord the king commands his servant to do. So Mephibosheth ate at Davids[a] table like one of the kings sons. 

12 Mephibosheth had a young son named Mika, and all the members of Zibas household were servants of Mephibosheth. 


Funny how quiet you get when the actual text is posted.

Again there is no mention of a homosexual union. There is respect and honor.

Point: if David was homosexual, why didn't he use his power as king to have male lovers? Why did he take wives?*


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



What is next?  Will it be discrimination to stop a man from using a woman's restroom?  If a woman can, .....?  Will women have to undergo prostate exams because they are being discriminated against, by not having something done that men have done?  Will women sue men, because they are physically unable to bear children?  

Marriage is between one man and one woman in this country (legally).  If you are the same sex, you don't fit the "definition".  You cannot change your physical sex.  You can pretend, and you can make yourself "more" like the opposite sex, but you cannot change your assigned chromosones.  Basically, that is what this is about: people want to deny their true sex and pretend they are something different.  When Christians are attacked for "disagreeing" with that lifestyle, and the homosexual activists want to "pretend" they have the "authority of the Lord" to declare something not sinful, after the Lord has declared it sinful, they want to cry "discrimination".  News flash, if a murderer declared that murder was not sinful, there would be many Christians standing in line to tell them that they, too, were wrong.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Wow!  Haven't heard that old chestnut since the ERA days.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> I'm assuming the denomination that knows;
> 
> Judge not, lest ye be judged.
> 
> ...



If you are aware that someone is committing a sin, and you do not notify them of their wrongdoing, then you, will be held accountable for that sin, the same as if you had committed the sin, yourself.

Telling someone they are making the "wrong" choices is not judging.  That is trying to show them the error of their ways, the same as you would for an addict, or a clepto.  Only the homosexual activists want to declare their particular sin, "clean".  They do not have the authority of the Lord.  

If you can show me where the Lord says "homosexual acts are not sinful", then we could actually have something substantial from the homosexual activists.  Otherwise, you are just blowing hot air, bearing false witness, against the Lord, and leading others into temptation (I believe those last two are worse than homosexual acts).


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 11, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> And the anti-gay drone goes on and on and on and on and on........



Good lord, tell me about it.

Being gay cannot be unnatural. Were it unnatural, it would not occur in nature. Hello.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> Not to mention;
> 
> "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."



Replace Pharisees with homosexual activists and you will understand why Christians are against legitimizing homosexual acts.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> The Old Testament taught that man could have multiple wives and slaves. Maybe cons would like to go back to those values.



Great dodge!  Christians (followers of Christ) believed Him when he said that a man will leave his parents house and take a wife and the two shall become one.  Homosexuals stay, two of a kind.  

There are many lessons in the OT, too bad, you didn't pay closer attention, especially to the parts that demonstrate the wisdom and justice of the Lord.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



I disagree, most Christians that I know consider the OT as a great learning tool.  Not only does it demonstrate the patience and sincerity of the Lord, it demonstrates how His enemies (those that sin against Him) were defeated.  Yeshua told us that He came to "fullfill" the law, not relplace it.  He also told us about laws that were made for rituals, that were hypocritical, and not worshipping the Lord.  Ignore the OT at your own peril.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Informing someone that they are making a mistake is not "hate".


Letting someone continue to make a mistake that will cost them dearly is not "love".


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



How many times must the Lord declare something sinful, before you believe Him?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



How would the most powerful men in the world know the power of the Lord, if He just made a puff of smoke and His will was done?  Read about Exodus, to understand the power of the Lord.  If you check out Numbers, you will see where the Hebrews could not deal with the Lord in their midst, and requested Moses to petition the Lord, not to travel with them or appear among them.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 11, 2011)

> What is next? Will it be discrimination to stop a man from using a woman's restroom? If a woman can, .....? Will women have to undergo prostate exams because they are being discriminated against, by not having something done that men have done? Will women sue men, because they are physically unable to bear children?


Of course not, thats just idiotic. 



> Marriage is between one man and one woman in this country (legally).



Incorrect. There are states which have reformed their marriage laws to conform to the Constitution. 



> If you are the same sex, you don't fit the "definition". You cannot change your physical sex. You can pretend, and you can make yourself "more" like the opposite sex, but you cannot change your assigned chromosones. Basically, that is what this is about: people want to deny their true sex and pretend they are something different.



Nonsense, it has only to do with two individuals wishing equal access to their states marriage laws in accordance with the 14th Amendment. 



> Christians are attacked for "disagreeing" with that lifestyle, and the homosexual activists want to "pretend" they have the "authority of the Lord" to declare something not sinful, after the Lord has declared it sinful, they want to cry "discrimination". News flash, if a murderer declared that murder was not sinful, there would be many Christians standing in line to tell them that they, too, were wrong.



This seems a common misconception among many conservatives, that to defend minorities from attacks by Christians predicated on Christian dogma constitutes an attack. 

Christians are entitled to disagree with whatever they want, and no ones compelling them to do anything which conflicts with their religious dogma. Christians may not, however, attempt to codify that dogma into secular law in an attempt to discriminate against a given minority. And prohibiting Christians from doing just that is not an attack on Christians nor does it discriminate against them.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mel said:
> ...



You mock the Lord and want to tell us (US population) to take "you" seriously over your rights?  Get back to us when you can quiet the seas, calm the storm, and walk on water, sooner.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Of the few times that homosexuality is referred to in the Bible, it's considered an abomination, not a sin.
> 
> The only sins that I'm currently aware of are the ones in the 10 Commandments.
> 
> You puritanical assholes need to slow yer fucking roll.



Yes, and homosexual acts break at least three of the 10 Commandments.  You were saying.....


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Of the few times that homosexuality is referred to in the Bible, it's considered an abomination, not a sin.
> ...




So you agree that homosexual acts are sinful, now you want to argue over the severity of the sin?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> I just had an interesting thought. How many people would drop the gay issue if they knew that they could keep up the good work, once everybody sees a video of their sins thus far.
> 
> Gays are born sinners just like every other baby on the planet (saying this from my fundy upbringing). They aren't born sinners because they're gay, they are born sinners because they are human.
> 
> I still haven't seen anybody say that they chose to be straight, or that a choice ever was even given to them. So how can they POSSIBLY believe that gays made a decision?



Do you choose with who you have sex?  Or do you walk down the street waiting for someone to force you, and that's how you know if you are straight or not?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



So, you agree that homosexual acts are sinful?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Apparently, common sense doesn't exist in prison system, either.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



I am not the one who belittles the Sermon on the Mount.  IMO, the finest thing about Jesus' teachings....and daily trashed by the Right wing.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Of the few times that homosexuality is referred to in the Bible, it's considered an abomination, not a sin.
> ...



Really.

Name the three.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Seconded.  Here, let me help.

Ten Commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > And the anti-gay drone goes on and on and on and on and on........
> ...



Hello, in nature, some mothers eat their young.  Are you suggesting we adopt that because it is "natural"?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Bearing false witness (pretend to be a "friend", when you intend to have a sexual relationship) to the family of the intended
Honor thy father and mother (what parent declares they can't wait for their child to be a homosexual)
Covet thy neighbors, child (adult or otherwise): you are taking something (possible child joining of two families that would strengthen the families) that had you been open about your intentions, the family would have discouraged the relationship from the beginning.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



And that is hurting another...we have people who do that too...and that is hurting another and IS A CRIME.

Why do you want to compare what animals do in nature that are hurtful to others with those things found in nature that do not hurt others?   Why be so deceitful?


----------



## bodecea (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Fail



> Honor thy father and mother (what parent declares they can't wait for their child to be a homosexual)



Fail



> Covet thy neighbors, child (adult or otherwise): you are taking something (possible child joining of two families that would strengthen the families) that had you been open about your intentions, the family would have discouraged the relationship from the beginning.



Fail


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Because he can't admit that being gay is natural, or there goes the whole ballgame.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Triple fail, and out.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



"Hurtful"?????   Have you ever watched an animal "homosexual union"?  It is about dominance.  There is nothing "loving" about it.  When the one that has been dominated grows larger or the dominant one, gets old, the roles are reversed or the one that was dominated is seriously wounded or even killed.  Please.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



So you are telling me that homosexuals introduce themselves to their "intended's" family as a possible future partner?

You are telling me that parents hope and wish their children will grow up to be homosexuals?

You are telling me that homosexuals are not hurting the family of their "intended", by seducing their child (no matter the age)?


----------



## bodecea (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Why not?   And if not....it's not a sin.



> You are telling me that parents hope and wish their children will grow up to be homosexuals?



Parents hope their children grow up to be happy.   And if they are gay...you want the parents to reject them?   How christian.

[qutoe]You are telling me that homosexuals are not hurting the family of their "intended", by seducing their child (no matter the age)?[/QUOTE]

Seducing?   Oh please.   Who seduces who?   What about "fall in love"?   Or don't you believe gay people can do that?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



I NEVER said that being homosexual was not natural.  This thread was about Biblical sin.  Homosexual acts are a sinful temptation, just like many other temptations.  It is, we, as individuals, that must decide if we cave to temptation or fight it.  
Homosexual activists have chosen to surrender to temptation.  Then they want everyone else to tell them how great they are for surrendering.  I disagree.  I have demonstrated how homosexual acts are against the Lord, and that those acts are sinful.

I am still waiting for those that mock Christians to show book, chapter and verse where the Lord rescinded homosexual acts as sinful.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



evidence?

You are not the Lord.  A statement of "fail" with no evidence to the contrary, does not make it so.  No "let it be written, let it be done" for you.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Yes, gay people introduce their intended partners or spouses to their families.

Loving parents hope and wish their children will be healthy loving adults, whether they turn out to be gay or straight.

Gays are not hurting the families of their intended, by loving their partners.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Actually, I'm not into watching that....so I'll have to take your watchful word for it.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



And last time I checked....neither are you.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Seducing?   Oh please.   Who seduces who?   What about "fall in love"?   Or don't you believe gay people can do that?[/QUOTE]

IT IS  A SIN.

Honoring parents is not "Parents hope their children grow up to be happy." (that is the parents action).  Honoring parents means doing things that make your parents "proud" (how many parents brag about their children being homosexual, and how many will not speak of it to strangers?)

How do you fall in love?  Could it be ..... seduction?  You are being dishonest.  You are in denial that homosexual acts are sinful, even when it is clearly stated in the OT and in the NT.

I am not surprised that you would also, deny, doing these sins.  I wish you well.  I hope someday you will come to understand the Lord.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



IT IS  A SIN.

Honoring parents is not "Parents hope their children grow up to be happy." (that is the parents action).  Honoring parents means doing things that make your parents "proud" (how many parents brag about their children being homosexual, and how many will not speak of it to strangers?)

How do you fall in love?  Could it be ..... seduction?  You are being dishonest.  You are in denial that homosexual acts are sinful, even when it is clearly stated in the OT and in the NT.

I am not surprised that you would also, deny, doing these sins.  I wish you well.  I hope someday you will come to understand the Lord.[/QUOTE]

*You've got a real religious hard on for gay people.  WTF don't you leave us in peace?*


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 11, 2011)

Teach Ministries: To Educate Against the Consequences of Homophobia



> Speaking at churches and other gatherings across the country, she seeks to persuade Christians to stop considering homosexuals as sinners.
> 
> She has no illusions that her role will sway wide swaths of public opinion. And she doesn't want to get into debates with those who disagree--not when they send her hate mail, not when they confront her, not when a pastor cuts her off during a speech at a church.
> 
> ...



I first saw this woman's story in "For the Bible Tells Me So" - an amazing documentary for "he who has an ear, let him hear." If you're willfully deaf, then skip it.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Is that after they are already involved and the family has no choice but to accept the intended's decision?

Honoring thy mother and father is way different from honoring thy children.

How do you know if they are not hurting the families?  All you can see is people presenting a face, that is trying to be supportive, not offending.  How many parents do you hear "bragging" that their child is homosexual (say compared to a great athelete, or a songwriter, or a doctor, or a scientist, or a church leader, or a community volunteer)?

Hope the Lord sends some more of the Holy Spirit's gifts your way.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



So, you are admitting that you don't know what you are talking about?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Why don't you mind your own fucking business and stay away from gays and lesbians.  Take that phoney Christian drivel and shove it.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...




Sin is between me and God, sin is between homosexuals and God, sin is between the prideful and God, sin is between the glutton and God.

"Sin" is not a function of the government.


>>>>


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I don't believe that I have "declared" anything on my own.  I have given specific examples of where the Bible says that homosexual acts/lewdness/perversity/immoral sex are sinful.

You are the one saying the Lord is wrong.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 11, 2011)

More information;

Teach Ministries: To Educate Against the Consequences of Homophobia


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



You are one of the most hateful, anti-gay bigots I've seen in a long time.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Love. Joy. Peace. Longsuffering. Gentleness. Goodness. Meekness. Temperance. Faith.

You're not batting so well there, slugger.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



*You've got a real religious hard on for gay people.  WTF don't you leave us in peace?*[/QUOTE]

Are you saying that homosexual acts are sinful?  Otherwise, you are misrepresenting the Word of the Lord.  I have a problem with people that think they know more than the Lord.  You are participating in this thread, the same as I.  Why don't you leave those of us that disagree with your lifestyle "alone"?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Are you saying that homosexual acts are sinful?  Otherwise, you are misrepresenting the Word of the Lord.  I have a problem with people that think they know more than the Lord.  You are participating in this thread, the same as I.  Why don't you leave those of us that disagree with your lifestyle "alone"?[/QUOTE]

That's exactly what I'm saying.  There is nothing sinful in being gay.  Stay the fuck away from gay people, bigot.

Turn your judgmentalness on yourself and your bigotry.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> Teach Ministries: To Educate Against the Consequences of Homophobia
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Threads are for presenting opinions/facts/evidence/links.  
Why is it, when you cannot beat Christians over the head with: you are Christian, you should act like ...., that you then try to silence us?  

Please, show us where the Lord rescinded His judgement where homosexual acts/lewdness/perversity/immoral sex as sins.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Teach Ministries: To Educate Against the Consequences of Homophobia
> ...



Leave gay people alone.  If you think we're so "sinful" don't hang out with us or invite to your narrow minded church.  Don't you have any other hobbies than gay bashing?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Please, show me the "hate".  While you are at it, show me a better way to live (since I am a bigot: superstitious or backward beliefs).


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



1.  You could stop focusing on the "sins" of others and work on your own, judmentalness and aversion to gay people.

2.   If you think being gay is a sin, don't be gay.

3.   Leave us in peace.  That is what it means to be a Christian, a peacemaker.

4.  Your hate shows up in your obsession with condeming gay people continuously.  How many of your posts go into attacking gay people?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



That's exactly what I'm saying.  There is nothing sinful in being gay.  Stay the fuck away from gay people, bigot.

Turn your judgmentalness on yourself and your bigotry.[/QUOTE]

I still like you, Sky.  I do try to stay away from gay people (or people in general).  Where have I judged you?  I have told you what is in the Bible.  That is not my judgement.  It is from the Lord.  I have also told you that the Lord is merciful, and that I wish you the best.  Because you, choose not to accept the Lord's Word, is not my fault.  I can only tell you what is there.  The Lord made homosexual acts a sin.  His son, expanded that to lewdness/perversity/immoral sex as well.  Why do you "hate" the messenger?  I saw something out of Sirach about the sinner hanging onto anger.  Jonah, did that too.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



I still like you, Sky.  I do try to stay away from gay people (or people in general).  Where have I judged you?  I have told you what is in the Bible.  That is not my judgement.  It is from the Lord.  I have also told you that the Lord is merciful, and that I wish you the best.  Because you, choose not to accept the Lord's Word, is not my fault.  I can only tell you what is there.  The Lord made homosexual acts a sin.  His son, expanded that to lewdness/perversity/immoral sex as well.  Why do you "hate" the messenger?  I saw something out of Sirach about the sinner hanging onto anger.  Jonah, did that too.[/QUOTE]

What is this bullshit lately with people telling me they like me when they don't like anything about me or what's important to me?

Seems phoney.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Now, I am "gay bashing"?  I don't know you well enough to "bash" you.  This thread was on Biblical truths (nothing to do with church).  Why don't the "gay people" leave the rest of us alone?  Don't you have any other hobbies besides gay promotion?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



You phoney.  This thread is about how ridiculous it is to use outdated old testament bs to discriminate against gay people.

I'm not "promoting homosexuality", I am in support of marriage equality.  That is CIVIL marriage equality, so that gay people don't have to live as second class citizens.

I could give a shit whether you think I'm a sinner or not.  I'm not even a fucking Christian, bozo.

You go on and on and on with this BS focusing on the sins of being gay, as if there were no other sins on earth.

Why don't you clean up your own act and leave us alone.

I don't think you like me at all.  I think that is a phoney statment.  You cannot say one positive thing about me.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



When people erroneously state that homosexual acts are not a sin against the Lord, I can show them where they are wrong.  That is focusing on a false statement, that is intended to lead others away from the Lord.  I have judged no one.  I have wished them understanding of the Lord, and the best.  I have spoken, openly of being a sinner, also.  No hatred there.

Okay, I choose not to be gay.

There are many different types of Christians.  As a person that has attacked Christianity, on several different threads, I do not feel you have any authority to declare what it "means" to be Christian.

What gay person have I attacked?


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 11, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> You phoney.  This thread is about how ridiculous it is to use outdate old testament bs to discriminate against gay people.
> 
> I'm not "promoting homosexuality", I am in support of marriage equality.  That is CIVIL marriage equality, so that gay people don't have to live as second class citizens.
> 
> ...



Ever wonder what they'd obsess about if they didn't have your sex life to kick around anymore?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 11, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



What is this bullshit lately with people telling me they like me when they don't like anything about me or what's important to me?

Seems phoney.[/QUOTE]

I am sorry, Sky.  It is a Johnboy and Billy thing (southern rock morning program).  It is a fun way to tell someone that you like to mess with them.  You are fun, even if I disagree with a lot that you say.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Your spinning of the 10 commandments is hardly "specific examples".


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 11, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > You phoney.  This thread is about how ridiculous it is to use outdate old testament bs to discriminate against gay people.
> ...



Fuck yes.  Believe me I don't give THEIR sex lives a second thought, nor their stupid commandments.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 11, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



I am sorry, Sky.  It is a Johnboy and Billy thing (southern rock morning program).  It is a fun way to tell someone that you like to mess with them.  You are fun, even if I disagree with a lot that you say.[/QUOTE]

I don't know shit about "Johnboy and Billy".  So you're saying it's FUN to be an asshole to others.

Don't give me that "we're friends" bullshit.  We're not friends.

Is drinking drano fun?


----------



## Political Junky (Sep 12, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


Well, you have that in common with Muslims.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 12, 2011)

He 'chooses' not to be gay? I want to know when he tried it. How often. How does he know it wasn't just a bad experience.

He should probably try again.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVwjCppq82c]Are we born straight or gay? - Making of Me: John Barrowman - BBC - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 12, 2011)

It's safe to say a bi-sexual can choose to be gay or straight.  A heterosexual cannot "choose to be gay", nor can a homosexual "choose to be straight".


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 12, 2011)

Neuroscience researchers found that the brains of homosexual men and heterosexual women were more symmetrical than the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual women. A similar difference emerged when the researchers looked in particular at the amygdala, a brain region associated with emotional reactions. Heterosexual women and homosexual men had more connections between their right and left amygdala and more connections with other brain regions than did homosexual women and heterosexual men.

Scientists have spent decades looking for brain differences between homosexual and heterosexual people and since the early 1990s have been finding anatomical distinctions in regions associated with sexual behavior. The new study suggests broader brain differences between homosexual and heterosexual men and women, even in regions not linked to sexual attraction.

The Gay Brain? Neuroscientists find evidence that homosexuality is hard-wired « playthink


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 12, 2011)

Is homosexuality hard wired into the brain?

http://journals.cambridge.org/downl...19a.pdf&code=92a768cf808f6ad7559d97c60a9e146d


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 12, 2011)

Published in the October edition of the journal Molecular Brain Research, the UCLA discovery suggests that sexual identity is hard-wired into the brain before birth and may offer physicians a tool for gender assignment of babies born with ambiguous genitalia. 

University of California - UC Newsroom | Brain May &#039;Hard-Wire&#039; Sexuality Before Birth


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 12, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


 
How odd, I could swear you start threads about Christianity on a regular basis.

And if you don't want people to consider your sex life, try not making it central to all discussions, or the basis by which you identify yourselves. We're constantly bombarded with homosexual propaganda. You think it's pleasant to constantly have to consider what people are doing in their bedrooms?


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 12, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Published in the October edition of the journal Molecular Brain Research, the UCLA discovery suggests that sexual identity is hard-wired into the brain before birth and may offer physicians a tool for gender assignment of babies born with ambiguous genitalia.
> 
> University of California - UC Newsroom | Brain May 'Hard-Wire' Sexuality Before Birth


 
2003.

"May" 

Lol...

Though honestly, I don't think the argument has EVER been about babies with ambiguous genitalia (I know, there are so many of those). That's a medical condition. Homosexuality is not a medical condition.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 12, 2011)

"

Unfortunately, much of the research in areas such as homosexuality has been misrepresented; not only in the media, but also by the scientists themselves through a tendency to overestimate the quantitative contribution of their findings. 
"Regarding the contributions of genetics to areas such as homosexuality, Dr. Collins concluded, "Yes, we have all been dealt a particular set of cards, and the cards will eventually be revealed. *But how we play the hand is up to us*."

"Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 12, 2011)

"

Unfortunately, much of the research in areas such as homosexuality has been misrepresented; not only in the media, but also by the scientists themselves through a tendency to overestimate the quantitative contribution of their findings. 
"Regarding the contributions of genetics to areas such as homosexuality, Dr. Collins concluded, "Yes, we have all been dealt a particular set of cards, and the cards will eventually be revealed. *But how we play the hand is up to us*."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1801869/posts


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 12, 2011)

Two links of the same scientist?  That's hysterical.  Francis Collins was appointed by the Vatican.  What do you expect his views will be?  Collins is polluting his science with his religion.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 12, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Published in the October edition of the journal Molecular Brain Research, the UCLA discovery suggests that sexual identity is hard-wired into the brain before birth and may offer physicians a tool for gender assignment of babies born with ambiguous genitalia.
> ...



2003 - and? SO??! Because yeah, things change every day, and there may have been a new study just last week!

Provide citations, or shut your mouth.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 12, 2011)

I don't know what's hysterical about it, it's a double post. Big deal.

The scientist is the head of the human genome project, the #1 genetic authority in the world, and it post dates your pathetic link by 4 years.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 12, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


 
I did, you idiot. Shut your own yap.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 12, 2011)

Collins is a Christian before he's scientist.  All his "scientific" conclusions are religious.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 12, 2011)

He's the #1 geneticist in the WORLD.

And he so far hasn't found anything that discounts the existence of God. Go figure.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 12, 2011)

Oh, that's right. You're the one who thinks Christians should be excluded from certain professions.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 12, 2011)

He's the scientist slugging for your team.  He always comes up with a religious conclusion.  Religion has no business in science.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 12, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



No it's perfectly accurate, and your illustration showed it.

A murderer doesn't become a non-murderer if he or she gets out of prison, they're still a murderer, same for pedophiles.

So anyone without a life sentence is convicted of those crimes and gets out, they can get married, but law abiding tax paying gays cannot. 

Thankfully, american society, full of mostly religious people, is realizing how ridiculous that mindset is and are making the necessary corrections.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 12, 2011)

Here is how Collins, as a scientist and educator, currently summarizes his understanding of the universe for the general public (what follows are a series of slides, presented in order, from a lecture that Collins gave at the University of California, Berkeley in 2008):

Slide 1
Almighty God, who is not limited in space or time, created a universe 13.7 billion years ago with its parameters precisely tuned to allow the development of complexity over long periods of time.

Slide 2
God&#8217;s plan included the mechanism of evolution to create the marvelous diversity of living things on our planet. Most especially, that creative plan included human beings.

Slide 3
After evolution had prepared a sufficiently advanced &#8220;house&#8221; (the human brain), God gifted humanity with the knowledge of good and evil (the Moral Law), with free will, and with an immortal soul.

Slide 4
We humans use our free will to break the moral law, leading to our estrangement from God. For Christians, Jesus is the solution to that estrangement.

Slide 5
If the Moral Law is just a side effect of evolution, then there is no such thing as good or evil. It&#8217;s all an illusion. We&#8217;ve been hoodwinked. Are any of us, especially the strong atheists, really prepared to live our lives within that worldview?

Is it really so difficult to perceive a conflict between Collins&#8217; science and his religion?   And you think I'm crazy for being concerned about Dominionism.


The Strange Case of Francis Collins | Project Reason


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 12, 2011)

The problem with Collins is not that he&#8217;s religious. The problem is that Collins doesn&#8217;t just want to be a scientist who believes in God; he wants to give faith a scientific imprimatur. He says he wants to separate faith and science, to prove that belief in one need not entail disbelief in the other. But in fact he brings the two together, and conflates them.

Better to have as head of NIH, someone who believes in science, believes in religion, and believes in the difference between the two.


----------



## Luissa (Sep 12, 2011)

I dont need science, or some crack pot.. Having talked to many of my friends, I believe you are born gay. Most of my friends knew something was different in grade school, and had figured out they were gay by junior high.


----------



## Luissa (Sep 12, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Actually they can get married. My friend's friend is marrying a convicted murderer in a few weeks who is Walla Walla State Prison.Do I think she is an idiot? Yes, but murderers can still get married.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 12, 2011)

I wonder if all these people who use the Old Testament to rationalize gay hating would also abide by the Old Testament rule that rape victims have to marry their rapist.

For the men in the room bashing homosexuality and citing the Old Testament, would you use the Old Testament as a guide if your daughter were raped?


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 12, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> He's the scientist slugging for your team. He always comes up with a religious conclusion. Religion has no business in science.


 
His science isn't tainted by religion. That's why he's the #1 GENETECIST IN THE WORLD. He's recognized by the scientific community as being the top scientist in his field. I'm sure it goes down with some difficulty for many of them.

Unfortunately, there are lots of ignorant bigots like yourself who would like to see them shut down. They are known as "fascists".


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 12, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > He's the scientist slugging for your team. He always comes up with a religious conclusion. Religion has no business in science.
> ...




Dr. Collins responds to the idea that his comments indicate there is no genetic component to homosexuality...

"It troubles me greatly to learn that anything I have written would cause anguish for you or others who are seeking answers to the basis of homosexuality. The words quoted by NARTH all come from the Appendix to my book &#8220;The Language of God&#8221; (pp. 260-263), *but have been juxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion that I intended.* I would urge anyone who is concerned about the meaning to refer back to the original text.

    The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality &#8212; the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn&#8217;t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.

    Your note indicated that your real interest is in the truth. *And this is about all that we really know. No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about a gene on the X chromosome from the 1990s have not held up), but it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years.*"​

Dr. Francis Collins


>>>>


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 12, 2011)

Oh he says that genetics play a role in everything, including behavior, which includes sexuality.

But ultimately, he says, you make a choice what to do with your genetic wiring. There's nothing genetic that forces people to be gay. They may have a propensity to be gay, but they aren't HARDWIRED to be so.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 12, 2011)

Well, then; they must be hardwired masochists. Who else would sign up for this shit?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 12, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Oh he says that genetics play a role in everything, including behavior, which includes sexuality.
> 
> But ultimately, he says, you make a choice what to do with your genetic wiring. There's nothing genetic that forces people to be gay. They may have a propensity to be gay, but they aren't HARDWIRED to be so.





If there is a genetic component (i.e. biological) then that is hardwired, that's what genetics is is the hardwired coding of our biological development.

The fact remains that you lauded Dr. Collins as the #1 Geneticist in the world in multiple posts - until, it appears that what he actually said isn't what you thought he said.  


>>>>


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 12, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Oh he says that genetics play a role in everything, including behavior, which includes sexuality.
> 
> But ultimately, he says, you make a choice what to do with your genetic wiring. There's nothing genetic that forces people to be gay. They may have a propensity to be gay, but they aren't HARDWIRED to be so.



Could say the same thing about you being straight.

You could be gay if you wanted to, maybe you wouldn't enjoy it, but you're not forced to be straight.

Is that what you guys mean when you say being gay is a choice?  That even if you wouldn't enjoy the other lifestyle it's not forced on you?  Kinda like how last night I chose to eat chicken wings instead of eating what my dog left in the yard?


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 12, 2011)

I have no idea what you're saying, it doesn't make sense.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 12, 2011)

But people have genetic propensities for everything, including violence. You still choose what to act on and what not to act upon.

There is a movement that says that gays can't "help" being gay. Well yes, they can. They choose to be gay, just as other people choose to be hetero. They may experience more homosexual urges than others, but almost any behavior can be modified, and pleasure absolutely can be a learned behavior.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 12, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Could say the same thing about you being straight.
> 
> You could be gay if you wanted to, maybe you wouldn't enjoy it, but you're not forced to be straight.



Ever hear of prison?

I've heard that somewhere around 99% of the inmates end up being homosexual...

BUT that's hardwired....




> Is that what you guys mean when you say being gay is a choice?  That even if you wouldn't enjoy the other lifestyle it's not forced on you?  Kinda like how last night I chose to eat chicken wings instead of eating what my dog left in the yard?



Dr.hack strikes (out) again....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 12, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> I have no idea what you're saying, it doesn't make sense.



That's okay, drdrock has no idea what he's saying either, so it's achieved equilibrium...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I have no idea what you're saying, it doesn't make sense.
> ...



Not surprised such a simple post went a mile over your head, I'll give a kosher a break since I haven't seen so many of her posts proving she's stupid as I have with you.


When a girl is attracted to a girl or a guy attracted to a guy it isn't a choice, it's just how their brain naturally reacts to what's in front of them.  I guess the sexual act itself is a choice, as it is with everyone, but I've never made the choice between getting it on with a dude or woman.  It's been a choice between a woman or nobody.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 12, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Not surprised such a simple post went a mile over your head, I'll give a kosher a break since I haven't seen so many of her posts proving she's stupid as I have with you.
> 
> 
> When a girl is attracted to a girl or a guy attracted to a guy it isn't a choice, it's just how their brain naturally reacts to what's in front of them.  I guess the sexual act itself is a choice, as it is with everyone, but I've never made the choice between getting it on with a dude or woman.  It's been a choice between a woman or nobody.



Well yeah, 143,000 inmates in California prisons prove that.

They were all born gay.....


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Not surprised such a simple post went a mile over your head, I'll give a kosher a break since I haven't seen so many of her posts proving she's stupid as I have with you.
> ...



There's straight, gay, and bi-sexual.

If you're a man willing to do stuff sexually with another dude's shlong, then you aren't straight, you're at minimum bi.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 12, 2011)

Find the study that proves that. I'm sure you can, you're so certain it's true.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 12, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> There's straight, gay, and bi-sexual.
> 
> If you're a man willing to do stuff sexually with another dude's shlong, then you aren't straight, you're at minimum bi.



Funny how all these men can go 20 or 30 years only interested in pussy, get locked in the joint and suddenly discover that they were born gay - until they get out, that is.....


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 12, 2011)

Hmmm...makes one wonder...

Are gayness and criminality linked?

*GASP*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 12, 2011)

Regardless how interesting this debate may be as to the nature of homosexuality, it is nonetheless rhetorical and legally irrelevant. 

However one becomes homosexual, by nature or choice, states and local jurisdictions are enjoined from enacting discriminatory measures against gays or restricting their equal access to the laws: 



> Respect for [equal protection of the law] explains why laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships are rare. A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense. "The guaranty of `equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.'" _Skinner v. Oklahoma_
> 
> _Romer v. Evans_ (1996)



So feel free to carry on the debate, however legally moot.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 12, 2011)

How are they being singled out?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 12, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I don't know shit about "Johnboy and Billy".  So you're saying it's FUN to be an asshole to others.

Don't give me that "we're friends" bullshit.  We're not friends.

Is drinking drano fun?[/QUOTE]

Where did I say we are friends?  Speaking of being a _____ to others, have you ever read your rants against Christians?

The Bible says what it says.  You declare something different that it is labeled in the Bible.  You have no authority in what the Lord holds as sin.  Yet, you try to blur the Bible to those that do not know it.

Grew up with a large extended family, and messing with each other was part of life.  Don't hang with them much, they are similar to you: they want to tell you how you should be (even when they can tell my life is happier than theirs), but don't want to hear about where they have shortcomings.  Funny, now that I think about it, most of them are angry, miserable people, too.  I have not threatened you in any way.  I have told you that I hope you are welcomed into heaven.  I also told you that He is a just Lord, and that both of us will be punished for our sins.  You disagree.  Why does that upset you so?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 12, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I believe I can demonstrate that many muslims "attack", "rape", "mutilate", and "murder" homosexuals.  I do not have that in common with muslims, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 12, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Neuroscience researchers found that the brains of homosexual men and heterosexual women were more symmetrical than the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual women. A similar difference emerged when the researchers looked in particular at the amygdala, a brain region associated with emotional reactions. Heterosexual women and homosexual men had more connections between their right and left amygdala and more connections with other brain regions than did homosexual women and heterosexual men.
> 
> Scientists have spent decades looking for brain differences between homosexual and heterosexual people and since the early 1990s have been finding anatomical distinctions in regions associated with sexual behavior. The new study suggests broader brain differences between homosexual and heterosexual men and women, even in regions not linked to sexual attraction.
> 
> The Gay Brain? Neuroscientists find evidence that homosexuality is hard-wired « playthink



Did they say if that was from years of "pretending" to think like the opposite sex?  Or did they leave that out of their studies?  Behavior modification, environment, genetics can all affect how someone developes.  Were these considered, or was it an agenda driven study.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 12, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Where was all your proof that the Lord declared homosexual acts not sinful?  Just sayin' .....


----------



## logical4u (Sep 12, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> He's the scientist slugging for your team.  He always comes up with a religious conclusion.  Religion has no business in science.



The Lord wrote the laws of science.  When He told us how He made the earth, it was from first hand knowledge.  There are many scientific tidbits through out the Bible.  Now you want to declare the Lord doesn't know science?  The Creator that put life together and created us in His image?  Such anger Sky, don't you like your life?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 12, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Here is how Collins, as a scientist and educator, currently summarizes his understanding of the universe for the general public (what follows are a series of slides, presented in order, from a lecture that Collins gave at the University of California, Berkeley in 2008):
> 
> Slide 1
> Almighty God, who is not limited in space or time, created a universe 13.7 billion years ago with its parameters precisely tuned to allow the development of complexity over long periods of time.
> ...



So a man speaks and you believe?  When the Lord speaks, you doubt?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 12, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> I wonder if all these people who use the Old Testament to rationalize gay hating would also abide by the Old Testament rule that rape victims have to marry their rapist.
> 
> For the men in the room bashing homosexuality and citing the Old Testament, would you use the Old Testament as a guide if your daughter were raped?



First off, please list anywhere that I showed hatred against homosexuals.
Second off, I prefer the Book of Jubilees version of how Dinah's brothers dealt with a rapist.
Third off, was it a sin to rape in the OT?  Imagine, it still is.  Why do you declare the Lord's declaration void?  By what authority do "you" over rule the Lord's plan?


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 12, 2011)

You "hate" homosexuals if you don't agree, against all science, that they can't help themselves when it comes to their gayness.

You "hate" homosexuals if you don't agree that the definition of marriage should be altered to mean something completely different from what it does mean, so that they can partake of all the benefits, without actually fitting the description of the word as it stands now.

You "hate" homosexuals if you don't swallow their agenda hook, line and sinker.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 12, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> Well, then; they must be hardwired masochists. Who else would sign up for this shit?



That could be a possibility, how many "homosexuals" are "seduced"/victimized as children or young teens, only to be told that it was "their fault"?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 12, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Attraction, is not action.  So you "chose" a woman or nobody?  You actually used reason to make a decision over with who you would have sex?  Do you think homosexuals are void of this "reason" because you keep telling  us that "they cannot choose".  

Ask anyone that has ever been in love for decades if they had to work at staying in "love".  If they are honest they will tell you, YES.  Ask them if they have ever been "attracted to anyone else.  If they are honest, they will tell you YES.  They made a conscious decision to stay with their partner.  Homosexuals do have a choice, and the ones that are sexually active, chose to be that way.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 12, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Regardless how interesting this debate may be as to the nature of homosexuality, it is nonetheless rhetorical and legally irrelevant.
> 
> However one becomes homosexual, by nature or choice, states and local jurisdictions are enjoined from enacting discriminatory measures against gays or restricting their equal access to the laws:
> 
> ...




So please walk down the street and point out all the gay people.  Since they are their own "class", they should be readily identifiable.  You know, particular religions are found in their house of worship.  Gender can be determined "scientifically".  Race, can be recognized to the three main groups: negroid, caucazoid, and mongoloid.  So tell us how we seperate the homosexuals and recognizes them, so that we do not discrimminate.  If you cannot do that, it is a SCAM.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 12, 2011)

The more Christians sound off, the further away I am pushed.


----------



## Liability (Sep 12, 2011)

Is fucking catfish more or less sinful than eating catfish?

Inquiring perverts want to know.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 12, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> You "hate" homosexuals if you don't agree, against all science, that they can't help themselves when it comes to their gayness.




All science?


The #1 Geneticist in the world, leader of the Human Genome Project, someone just a few pages ago you were singing the praises of, speaks quite differently about "all science"...

"It troubles me greatly to learn that anything I have written would cause anguish for you or others who are seeking answers to the basis of homosexuality. The words quoted by NARTH all come from the Appendix to my book The Language of God (pp. 260-263), *but have been juxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion that I intended.* I would urge anyone who is concerned about the meaning to refer back to the original text.

    The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality  the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesnt imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.

    Your note indicated that your real interest is in the truth. *And this is about all that we really know. No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about a gene on the X chromosome from the 1990s have not held up), but it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years.*"​

Dr. Francis Collins


>>>>


----------



## logical4u (Sep 12, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > You "hate" homosexuals if you don't agree, against all science, that they can't help themselves when it comes to their gayness.
> ...



So, they still haven't found the "gene"?  

Is this from the same people that declare the Lord doesn't appear on demand so there must not be a Lord?  The same people that are investing laboratory resources to locate a mythical "gene"; why don't you just say, it hasn't been discovered, therefore, it is, not?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 12, 2011)

logical4u said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...





You should read back in the thread, some were extolling the virtues of the Christian Scientist Dr. Collins saying he'd declared their was no biological basis for homosexuality, only to be shown he said the exact opposite.  BTW Dr. Collins is supposedly well known and authored as a Evangelical Christian.



>>>>


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 12, 2011)

Actually, no.

What he said is that genetics account for pretty much all our propensities, but we still make choices about what we do with what we're dealt. There is no gene that forces us to make a particular choice...


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 12, 2011)

Liability said:


> Is fucking catfish more or less sinful than eating catfish?
> 
> Inquiring perverts want to know.



Those babies had better be well and truly filleted, or the fucking you're getting won't be worth the fucking you're getting.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 12, 2011)

logical4u said:


> So, they still haven't found the "gene"?
> 
> Is this from the same people that declare the Lord doesn't appear on demand so there must not be a Lord?  The same people that are investing laboratory resources to locate a mythical "gene"; why don't you just say, it hasn't been discovered, therefore, it is, not?



No. Just like they haven't found the one that separates the left-handed from the right-handed.

Maybe it's a 'choice'.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 12, 2011)

So...how can people choose to be hetero for half their lives, then change and discover they were born gay?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 13, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Actually, no.
> 
> What he said is that genetics account for pretty much all our propensities, but we still make choices about what we do with what we're dealt. There is no gene that forces us to make a particular choice...




Correct, there is a biological predisposition to having sex, they are called hormones.  Being a homosexual is a predisposition toward attraction to someone of the same gender.  That is homosexuality, not to be confused with a specific sex act.

For example I'm biologically wired to find members of the opposite sex (females), that it heterosexuality.  Not to be confused with performing a sex act with someone of the opposite gender.

Homosexuality is an attraction, not an act.  We of course make choices about the acts we perform.



>>>>


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Sep 13, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > So, they still haven't found the "gene"?
> ...



Or maybe it's a learned behavior.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 13, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Right. Because three month-olds who reach for things with their left hand learned that from - who? One of their right-handed parents? That can't be.


----------



## mal (Sep 13, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



The "Gene" is going to be Bad Wiring... It's a Flaw in Nature's Design that is most likely Environmental during Pregnancy that Causes a Human to Defy it's Natural Design and Equipment as an Adult...

Or a Cycle of Abuse.

And then there's that "Free Will" thing...

And what if they find a Gene that causes People like mani to Obsess on their Neighbor's Kids?...

Or People who Fancy Animals like Dante?

Should that be Valid because it's what it is and can be Proven to be "Natural" or "Genetic"

Either way, EVENTUALLY Proving this won't make the Defiance any more Valid or anywhere near Equal to the Natural Design.

Shouldn't be Criminalized, but it also shouldn't be Dishonestly Mandated in Law as Equal to something is so Obviously is NOT.

Have a Civil Union, a Smile, and stop Parading what happens in the Bedroom on the Public Streets where there are not Restrictions on Minors being Present to be Exposed to the Exhibition of Deviancy. 

Oh yeah, and leave Churches alone that don't Embrace you and Focus MORE on the Religions like Islam that Kill you.  



peace...


----------



## mal (Sep 13, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Right or Left-handedness doesn't not End a Species...

Get it?

Now why don't you Compare Race to Chosen Sexual Deviations, since that's probably next on the List of Revolving Responses. 



peace...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 13, 2011)

mal said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



So your stance is that a minority number of individuals in a species doing homosexual things will end a species?

Are you sticking to that scientific stance?


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 13, 2011)

Ah..you bounce from promoting illegal drug use, to promoting infanticide, to promoting deviant sexual practices....

I'm getting a picture here...


----------



## mal (Sep 13, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Nope... I was simply Observing the Obvious.

Homosexuality can't Sustain a Species and comparing it to Left or Right-handedness is Absurd.

But please, Continue! 



peace...


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 13, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


 
Ah..you bounce from promoting illegal drug use, to promoting infanticide, to promoting deviant sexual practices....

I'm getting a picture here...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 13, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Lol you're a true delight.  

No I don't care what straight or gay people do in the privacy of their own homes with consenting adults, I let insecure loons worry about that stuff.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 13, 2011)

It would be great if they left it in the bedroom. Wish they would.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 13, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> It would be great if they left it in the bedroom. Wish they would.



99.9999999999% of gay people only have sex in the privacy of their own homes, same with straight people.



If you're talking about the "horrors" of having to see 2 gay people holding hands in public, then you're even more insecure than I already thought and I have nothing but pity for you.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 13, 2011)

Actually I wasn't talking about that. I don't care if people hold hands. Keep fishing.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 13, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Actually I wasn't talking about that. I don't care if people hold hands. Keep fishing.



Then please expand on that.

It's already been addressed in this thread though, people pretend they're homophobes cuz they hate that gays are sometimes overly open about their bodies in their parades.  However never a peep about Mardi Gras, people flashing at all sorts of straight parties/parades/get togethers/etc.



In other words every excuse homophobes give to rationalize their bigotry, are very easy to pick apart.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 13, 2011)

Expand on what? People holding hands?

Why? I've never said I care if people hold hands. Why don't you expand on why you think I'm against it. That should be more interesting, since it has no basis in fact.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 13, 2011)

Likewise please point out any bigotry I've shown against homosexuals. That should also be interesting.

Do you always just pull random things out of the air and pretend someone has argued those points? If so, I imagine you didn't make the debate team in junior high. I'd say high school, but I know you didn't even make the try outs in high school, given the showing you've made here...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 13, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Likewise please point out any bigotry I've shown against homosexuals. That should also be interesting.
> 
> Do you always just pull random things out of the air and pretend someone has argued those points? If so, I imagine you didn't make the debate team in junior high. I'd say high school, but I know you didn't even make the try outs in high school, given the showing you've made here...



Being anti-gay marriage is bigotry in my book, I've heard no reason other than bigotry as to why it shouldn't be legal.


----------



## mal (Sep 13, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Likewise please point out any bigotry I've shown against homosexuals. That should also be interesting.
> ...




And you aren't going to hear the Reasons...

You are simply not Honest enough on this Issue to be Objective, so you call those you Disagee with Bigots.

The Easy Path...



peace...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 13, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



No, i call people who say homosexuals are deviants what they are, bigots.

Go ahead and give me your non-bigotted reason for being against gay marriage.


----------



## mal (Sep 13, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > It would be great if they left it in the bedroom. Wish they would.
> ...



So George Michael must be the only Gay Person to ever Troll the Parks, eh?...

Heterosexuals don't have a Straight Pride Parade in every major City where they Publically Exhibit their Sexuality to everyone...

Mardi Gras and Carnival are not those things...

And Homosexuals take part in those also. 

They simply don't keep their Sexuality in the Bedroom, and holding hands is NOT what ANYONE I have read here is Concerned about.

NEXT!



peace...


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 13, 2011)

It's always about what words mean with the left. They want them to mean whatever happens to be going on in their heads at the time.

The definition of marriage is one man/one woman. It isn't bigotry to note that two men or two women don't fit under that definition, any more than it's bigotry to note that white people aren't eligible for educational grants for blacks. They don't qualify, they're white. 

Gays don't qualify for marriage, they aren't one of each.

Pretty simple, no bigotry involved.

Now if marriage had included gay couples all along and suddenly people were asking that they be excluded, you might have a case for bigotry.

But not in this case. It means what it means, and gays don't fit under the description. They'll have to find some other way to force their lifestyle into the mainstream consciousness.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 13, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> It's always about what words mean with the left. They want them to mean whatever happens to be going on in their heads at the time.
> 
> The definition of marriage is one man/one woman. It isn't bigotry to note that two men or two women don't fit under that definition, any more than it's bigotry to note that white people aren't eligible for educational grants for blacks. They don't qualify, they're white.
> 
> ...



A liberal is somone who wants government to define which consenting adults can and can't get married, rather than staying out of it.  That's what you want, more government in marriage.  

I dunno why you guys get defensive, you bash everything about being gay using any excuse you can think of, then you get all insecure when people call you out your bigotry, what gives?


----------



## mal (Sep 13, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



I am not Ignoring the Meaning of Words when Accurate...

They Deviate from their Natural Design and Equipment...

Sexually they are Deviants.

Marriage is a Reflection of what Creates us and is only Possible with Man and Woman...

Civil Unions will Deal with all other Deviations regarding Legal, Medical and Inheritance.

The Two Couplings are NOT Equal as a Matter of Biology...

Never have been and NEVER will be.

They shouldn't be stopped from Coupling, but they also should NOT be Dictating to Society that what they do is Equal to that which Creates us.

This is NOT a Religious thing... It's a Natural thing.

They are Equipped to Couple with the Opposite Sex and I simply don't Care why they don't...

They are Free to, but Society doesn't have to Burden that Devation. 



peace...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 13, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



I see you're sticking with the the word "natural."

I'll ask again, so nothing homosexual goes on in nature, that's your stance correct?


----------



## mal (Sep 13, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Nope... And the sooner you Stop Assuming Stupid Shit, the better off this Discourse will be... 

Homosexuality and the Flaw that it is happens in Nature...

As does Interspecies Sex and Cannibalism.

So what?

What Animals do is not a Baseline for our Natural Design and Equipment, nor should it be part of the Rationale for Expanding Special Rights to only some who Deviate.



peace...


----------



## mal (Sep 13, 2011)

Hey Drock... Humans Fuck the Dead... 

Have since the Beginning of Time...

Since it Happens it must be Natural, Correct?...

Probably a Gene that makes them Attracked to Dead Flesh?...



peace...


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 13, 2011)

I think people who stick their cock in someone else's poo hole and then unload their seed inside the browness need to simplify their sex lives.


----------



## mal (Sep 13, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> I think people who stick their cock in someone else's poo hole and then unload their seed inside the browness need to simplify their sex lives.



^A Pro-Gay Activist trying to be what they see anyone who Disagrees with their Agenda as...

Go back to the DU!



peace...


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 13, 2011)

What's the DU?


----------



## mal (Sep 13, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> What's the DU?



DemocRATic Underground...

Don't be so Fucking Retarded...

You don't Represent Rational People who Disagree with Gay Marriage and I don't care to be Associated with you on this Issue... You are Low Lying Fruit for people like ravi and bodey...

Probably a Sock of Bodey's anyway. 

Go play in Traffic. 



peace...


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 13, 2011)

mal, are you gay?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 13, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



You're the one who keeps using the word nature and natural, except homosexual stuff happens in nature all the time, everyday, so you just need to learn english.

So maybe a return trip to 3rd grade grammar and vocabulary glass would be good for you, then we can have a better discussion.

You're deviating from how the english language should be spoken.


----------



## mal (Sep 13, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> mal, are you gay?



No.

But According to Kurt Cobain, everyone is.

And According to Homosexual Activists, anyone who Disagrees with their Agenda is also Gay.



peace...


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 13, 2011)

mal said:


> HotDogg said:
> 
> 
> > mal, are you gay?
> ...



Ok, so you're not gay, fine. So why the fuck do you care so much about what gays do? Seems like it's none of your beeswax.


----------



## mal (Sep 13, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



And I Clearly Acknowledged that Homosexuality and MANY other things happen in Nature...

Did you not read my Post, Dingleberry?...

I made it big and bold for your Retarded ass... 



peace...


----------



## mal (Sep 13, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > HotDogg said:
> ...



Weren't you just Attacking Gays?...

Fucking Sock.

I Care about Marriage and what Society sets as a Baseline and Standard...

Also about Religious Freedoms...

And protecting Children from Sexual Agendas.



peace...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 13, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



So you're admitting the hundreds if not thousands of times before that, in which you called homosexuality unnatural one way or another, that you were wrong every time you said that?


----------



## mal (Sep 13, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> Ok, so you're not gay, fine. So why the fuck do you care so much about what gays do? Seems like it's none of your beeswax.





HotDogg said:


> I think people who stick their cock in someone else's poo hole and then unload their seed inside the browness need to simplify their sex lives.



Socky, Sock, Sock...



peace...


----------



## mal (Sep 13, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Nope... It's a Flaw...

As is Fucking the Dead and Animals. 

Both Happen in Nature, Genius... 

*What Animals do is not where we as Humans Set Societal Standards.*



peace...


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 13, 2011)

mal said:


> HotDogg said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...


What does gay marriage have to do with protecting children?

So you're not just against gay marriage, but gay love too? gays people shouldn't be allowed to love and have a relationship?


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 13, 2011)

Cannibalism occurs in nature, as well as animals eating their own shit.

Should we pass laws to force acceptance of those behaviors as well?

I had a dog eat her own newborn puppy once...I think we need a law to allow humans to eat their own children.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 13, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Cannibalism occurs in nature, as well as animals eating their own shit.
> 
> Should we pass laws to force acceptance of those behaviors as well?
> 
> I had a dog eat her own newborn puppy once...I think we need a law to allow humans to eat their own children.



He's the one using terms like nature and natural, then in the next post he says things that happen in nature are unnatural.  I'd have never introduced the words nature and natural into the discussion, that was your teammate.


It's very entertaining to read you 2.


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 13, 2011)

My neighbor's dog would get off his leash and come to my house and eat my cat's shit. Is that as sinful as homosexuality?

And what about gays religious freedom rights to marry?


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 13, 2011)

My neighbor's dog would get off his leash and come to my house and eat my cat's shit. Is that as sinful as homosexuality?

And what about gays religious freedom rights to marry?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> No. Just like they haven't found the one that separates the left-handed from the right-handed.
> 
> Maybe it's a 'choice'.



Do right handed people suddenly become left handed when locked in prison?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 13, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > No. Just like they haven't found the one that separates the left-handed from the right-handed.
> ...



No, but up until just the last century, if you were left handed, they forced you to become right handed.


----------



## mal (Sep 13, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > HotDogg said:
> ...



Shup, you Fuckin' Troll... 



peace...


----------



## mal (Sep 13, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Not Analagous to Marriage...

Try again.



peace...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Hmmm...makes one wonder...
> 
> Are gayness and criminality linked?
> 
> *GASP*



No, they in reality are not.

The truth is that men have sexual drives that are overwhelming. They do choose sexual behavior - this is demonstrable fact. Generally the choices are the path of least resistance. Someone may have a preference for Chocolate Ice Cream, but when the Chocolate is gone, they dig right into the vanilla. 

Men will (and do) fuck moss covered knot holes.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> The more Christians sound off, the further away I am pushed.



Funny, the more that fascists like you sound off, the more I'm pushed away....


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 13, 2011)

mal said:


> HotDogg said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



 Can't answer a simple question? What does being gay have to do with molesting children? Most child molesters are hetero, did you know?

So it's the act of gay sex you want outlawed?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> So your stance is that a minority number of individuals in a species doing homosexual things will end a species?
> 
> Are you sticking to that scientific stance?



Yeah, you're right. Might just be evolution weeding out undesirable genetic traits. Evolution does cause bad genes not to reproduce...

Homosexuality, evolutions way of saying "you're not needed or wanted in this species!"


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 13, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > So your stance is that a minority number of individuals in a species doing homosexual things will end a species?
> ...



Plenty of gays have children. My ex-wife's father was gay.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 13, 2011)

mal said:


> HotDogg said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Matthew 7:12 NIV - So in everything, do to others what you - Bible Gateway

12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. 

Romans 12:10 NIV - Be devoted to one another in love. - Bible Gateway

10 Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. 

Ephesians 4:31-32 NIV - Get rid of all bitterness, rage and - Bible Gateway

31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. 

1 Peter 3:8-12 NIV - Suffering for Doing Good Finally, all - Bible Gateway

 8 Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. 9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. 10 For, 
   Whoever would love life 
   and see good days 
must keep their tongue from evil 
   and their lips from deceitful speech. 
11 They must turn from evil and do good; 
   they must seek peace and pursue it. 
12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous 
   and his ears are attentive to their prayer, 
but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.[a] 

*My advice is you should take the above passages seriously in life, rather than doing the opposite and shitting on them everytime you get on the board.*


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 13, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > So your stance is that a minority number of individuals in a species doing homosexual things will end a species?
> ...



Thanks for reminding me how much you hate gays.

Gays/muslims/atheists

Must lead to a sad and pathetic existence to hate so many billions of people you've never met.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 13, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



It's the usual bully malarkey. "Hey, I may be a horrible, useless waste of a human. But AT LEAST I'M NOT GAY!!"


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Thanks for reminding me how much you hate gays.



So, agreeing with you is "hating gays," huh?

I'll let you in on a little secret, I don't control evolution. It's natural selection. Whatever the reason that people are evicted from the gene pool has nothing to do with me. I just observe and report.



> Gays/muslims/atheists
> 
> Must lead to a sad and pathetic existence to hate so many billions of people you've never met.



I think you're sad and pathetic. 

Me? I enjoy life.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> It's the usual bully malarkey. "Hey, I may be a horrible, useless waste of a human. But AT LEAST I'M NOT GAY!!"



So, you don't believe in evolution?


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 13, 2011)

Being anti-gay marriage makes you a communist, they also like to tell people what to do and how to live.


----------



## mal (Sep 13, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > HotDogg said:
> ...



Drock's making the Baby Jesus Cry...

Go Play in Traffic, Troll. 



peace...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> Being anti-gay marriage makes you a communist, they also like to tell people what to do and how to live.



It also means you pull the wings off of kittens for fun.


----------



## percysunshine (Sep 13, 2011)

For the third time,

Where are all the gay catfish?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> For the third time,
> 
> Where are all the gay catfish?



They were an evolutionary dead end...

(Which according to Dr. Drock means I hate gays...)


----------



## percysunshine (Sep 13, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > For the third time,
> ...



I suspect someone is secretly hoarding them. They would be like gold coins.


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 14, 2011)

People who worry about what gay people do are homophobic or closetted. Pretty simple really.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > For the third time,
> ...



Turn on your common sense switch.


With how long our species has been around, would it be biologically possible to have gays now in 2011 if your crazy, deranged little scientific theory were accurate?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

mal said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



Well at least you're open and honest about how much you hate Jesus' teachings, just seems weird that you try so hard to pretend to be a christian on this message board.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 14, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Turn on your common sense switch.
> 
> 
> With how long our species has been around, would it be biologically possible to have gays now in 2011 if your crazy, deranged little scientific theory were accurate?




You've never taken even an introductory biology course, have you? 

Until recently, medical science viewed the appendix as a vestigial organ, a holdover with no purpose that was evolving out of the human body. So how could the organ be around now in 2011?

The truth is Dr.Hack, you painted yourself into a corner. Natural selection occurs by deleterious traits being removed from the gene pool. The method of removal is by the members of the species with the unwanted traits not reproducing. Homosexuality retards the drive to reproduce, culling the genetic code from the gene pool. It is evolution in action.

You'll deny this because you are a hack. But from a rational and scientific perspective, it cannot be denied.

People with cancer often die. This doesn't mean I hate cancer patients. Lying and saying that cancer is just as healthy as remission doesn't show support for cancer patients.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Turn on your common sense switch.
> ...



I see, you ignored where I said to turn on your common sense.

Straight parents have offspring that will be gay later in life, happens everyday.


You're welcome for today's education.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 14, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> I see, you ignored where I said to turn on your common sense.



I see that you're a complete hack.



> Straight parents have offspring that will be gay later in life, happens everyday.



And the genetic code of the children, whatever combination became a dead end, will be removed from the gene pool for ever.




> You're welcome for today's education.



Oh sorry, I'm not studying to become an ignorant hack. Thanks for the effort, though.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > I see, you ignored where I said to turn on your common sense.
> ...



and we're right back to your crazed mini scientific theory, with how long man has been around and species we're similar to that we evolved from, gays would either have evolved out of the population or you'd see an enormous decline.  

Do you see a big decline in gays in the population?

Oops, forgot to tell you this time to turn on your common sense.  Or have it installed, most homophobes actually need that.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 14, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> and we're right back to your crazed mini scientific theory,



Evolution is my crazed mini-scientific theory, hack?

ROFL

This is what happens when you pick a position and then filter reality though it.

You like to suck wienies, we get it. But I don't give a fuck - reality doesn't change just because you want to justify your lifestyle.



> with how long man has been around and species we're similar to that we evolved from, gays would either have evolved out of the population or you'd see an enormous decline.



Just like the appendix, huh hack?





> Do you see a big decline in gays in the population?
> 
> Oops, forgot to tell you this time to turn on your common sense.  Or have it installed, most homophobes actually need that.



Reality isn't altered just because you want to justify your lifestyle.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > and we're right back to your crazed mini scientific theory,
> ...



Sorry I didn't mean to get your hopes up, I'm straight as an arrow.

However I'm not insecure about my sexuality, those who are are the type who go on these constant homophobic rants, like yourself.  These sort of issues are brought about by either unsatisfied wives causing shame in the man, or by the homophobe actually being gay himself and being ashamed so he overcompensates.

Having gays in our population and an appendix in our torsos has had zero impact on our ability to survive as a species. 

The Purpose of the Appendix: New Research « Cosmic Fingerprints

"On average, 300 to 400 Americans die of appendicitis each year."

300-400 in a country of 300,000,000 isn't exactly something that is necessary for us to evolve out of having in order to survive.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 14, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Sorry I didn't mean to get your hopes up, I'm straight as an arrow.



Sure you are.

And I'm an Obama supporting Marxist.



> However I'm not insecure about my sexuality, those who are are the type who go on these constant homophobic rants, like yourself.  These sort of issues are brought about by either unsatisfied wives causing shame in the man, or by the homophobe actually being gay himself and being ashamed so he overcompensates.
> 
> Having gays in our population and an appendix in our torsos has had zero impact on our ability to survive as a species.



It has nothing to do with survival of the species stupid, it has to do with culling out genetic codes. Homosexuality ensures that the genetic code of the homosexual is not passed on to further generations, it prunes the genetic tree and cuts out those genes.




> The Purpose of the Appendix: New Research « Cosmic Fingerprints
> 
> "On average, 300 to 400 Americans die of appendicitis each year."
> 
> 300-400 in a country of 300,000,000 isn't exactly something that is necessary for us to evolve out of having in order to survive.



You're an ignorant ideologue.

Fact.


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 14, 2011)

Plenty of gays and lesbians have children, my ex-wife's father is gay... And she has 4 kids, so she's perpetuating the homo-sapiens!!!!


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> Plenty of gays and lesbians have children, my ex-wife's father is gay... And she has 4 kids, so she's perpetuating the homo-sapiens!!!!



We're doomed!


DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Fear not, as Uncensored illustrated with facts, charts and graphs, evolution is weeding out gays.  Just look all over america, you can tell gays are dwindling to almost zero................


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 14, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> We're doomed!
> 
> 
> DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...



No stupid, homosexuality is the means of eliminating genetic traits. It is the tool evolution uses to stop the propagation of dead end genetics.

Sorry that facts bother you so much - but then, that IS why you're a hack, after all...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > We're doomed!
> ...



I'm bowing to your intellectual superiority, anyone with a lick of common sense can tell here in America gays are vanishing, they're being weeded out, you never hear a peep about homosexuals or homosexuality the way you used to.

Thank you for th education, I'm truly enlightened with the genius behind the reason for your ever-growing list of bigotries.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 14, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> I'm bowing to your intellectual superiority, anyone with a lick of common sense can tell here in America gays are vanishing,



Well there you go - opposite of what I said.



> they're being weeded out, you never hear a peep about homosexuals or homosexuality the way you used to.
> 
> Thank you for th education, I'm truly enlightened with the genius behind the reason for your ever-growing list of bigotries.



Fucking hack moron.


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 14, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > We're doomed!
> ...



Fact is, plenty of gays and lesbians have children. Now you know.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 14, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> Fact is, plenty of gays and lesbians have children. Now you know.



The offspring of gay men must be real little shits....


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 14, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> HotDogg said:
> 
> 
> > Fact is, plenty of gays and lesbians have children. Now you know.
> ...



No, just normal people, my ex-wife's father is gay, and she had 4 kids with her 2nd husband. So that's makes a gay grandfather!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 14, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > We're doomed!
> ...



If that was true, then why has the gay population of the human race remained at around 10 percent over the past couple thousand years?


----------



## deregulateTHIS (Sep 14, 2011)

I am not understanding the original topic.  Does the Bible verse say that eating a catfish is on the same level as a man having sex with another man or woman with a woman?

It looks like people really like arguing about homosexuality and Christianity.  But how many actually homosexual people call themselves born again Christians?


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 14, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > I see, you ignored where I said to turn on your common sense.
> ...


 
They'll be removed...unless they decide to have get married, have sex with a female, and have kids.

In which case they have chosen to set aside that allegedly undeniable compulsion to be homosexual and not be capable of sex with females because of a gene somewhere...that doesn't exist.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 14, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



It's not just 1 gene.  It's several.

And then, there's the differences in brains, as well as hormones that helps as well.

Didn't study much science in school did ya?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Magic of course, that's phase 2 of Uncensored's own personal scientific law.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 14, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


 
I did study genetics, and anthropology.

There are no gay genes. It's a myth. YOu won't see any scientists claiming they exist. It's all retarded laymen like yourself...


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 14, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


But isn't your party line that just because it hasn't been proven doesn't mean it doesn't exist? Or does that only apply to religion?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 14, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



I said SEVERAL genes, not just one, and yeah, genes DO affect how the body develops.  There was a runner from Africa who had to give her medals back because she tested out at 60 percent male (too much testosterone).  Scientists have also proven that the brains of straight men are structured just like gay females, and gay males are structured just like straight males.

Wanna try again?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

deregulateTHIS said:


> I am not understanding the original topic.  Does the Bible verse say that eating a catfish is on the same level as a man having sex with another man or woman with a woman?
> 
> It looks like people really like arguing about homosexuality and Christianity.  But how many actually homosexual people call themselves born again Christians?



About 60-65% of american gays call themselves christians


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 14, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> If that was true, then why has the gay population of the human race remained at around 10 percent over the past couple thousand years?



Well there you go.

If hammers are the tool used to drive nails, then we would have used all the hammers up building the house.

...............


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 14, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > HotDogg said:
> ...



I'm so glad you grasped the joke.

I was concerned that those on the left would lack the wits to get it....


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > If that was true, then why has the gay population of the human race remained at around 10 percent over the past couple thousand years?
> ...



You're the clown who said evolution would do away with gays, and here you're agreeing that it makes sense that the number has stayed the same over thousands of years.

I'd be delighted to see a shred of evidence showing the gay population decreasing, as it would be the first time you've ever provided proof for any of your loony assertions.


That's why I'm delighted you're here Uncensored to entertain us all


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 14, 2011)

deregulateTHIS said:


> I am not understanding the original topic.  Does the Bible verse say that eating a catfish is on the same level as a man having sex with another man or woman with a woman?
> 
> It looks like people really like arguing about homosexuality and Christianity.  But how many actually homosexual people call themselves born again Christians?



Lots of actually homosexual people call themselves born again Christians. Strange, isn't it?

I find it ironic that sex outside of marriage is Bad and Wrong - but we won't let gays marry.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 14, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> You're the clown who said evolution would do away with gays,



No stupid, that is not what I said.



> and here you're agreeing that it makes sense that the number has stayed the same over thousands of years.



Really huh? So you have the counts of homosexuals going back thousands of years?

ROFL

The shit you make up is astounding. No wonder no one believes a word you post.



> I'd be delighted to see a shred of evidence showing the gay population decreasing, as it would be the first time you've ever provided proof for any of your loony assertions.
> 
> 
> That's why I'm delighted you're here Uncensored to entertain us all



I'd love to see the census of homosexuals you have going back "thousands of years," Dr.Hack


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 14, 2011)

Does he think homosexuality is a brand new phenomenon?


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 14, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> HotDogg said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Gay men have reproductionarily-usable sperm, now you know.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 14, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> Gay men have reproductionarily-usable sperm, now you know.



In a gay couple, which one has the ovaries?


-------------------

Like thinking, biology is something lefties just don't do.....


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 14, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> HotDogg said:
> 
> 
> > Gay men have reproductionarily-usable sperm, now you know.
> ...



Sometimes both!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 14, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> Sometimes both!



Other times, neither - no times, one.

Unterstant, sleebo?


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 14, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> HotDogg said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes both!
> ...



You ever heard of a sperm bank (or even just a friend), or a surrogate?

Now you know.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 14, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> You ever heard of a sperm bank (or even just a friend), or a surrogate?
> 
> Now you know.



So you agree that homosexuals cannot reproduce without artificial means? That from a biological standpoint, being homosexual ends the genetic code?


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 15, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> HotDogg said:
> 
> 
> > You ever heard of a sperm bank (or even just a friend), or a surrogate?
> ...



My ex-wifes father is gay and he's a granpa 4 times at least.

Buddy, about the artificial stuff, that to me is given a value of 0, pretty much everything you eat, wear, drive, live-in... is artificial, or did you plant a seed and grow your own car? What about all the big macs you eat? Think that's all natural? lol
Live and let live, like, who cares if they use a surrogate? Married people do that as well? And in vitro fertilization...? Is that not ok for hetero married people?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 15, 2011)

Are we still idiotically pretending straight couples can't have gay kids?


How do people breath at the correct rate, let alone type full sentences with this little brain capacity?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 15, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> My ex-wifes father is gay and he's a granpa 4 times at least.



You have a misconception on how the whole reproduction thing works

The stork doesn't bring babies, sparky.



> Buddy, about the artificial stuff, that to me is given a value of 0, pretty much everything you eat, wear, drive, live-in... is artificial, or did you plant a seed and grow your own car? What about all the big macs you eat? Think that's all natural? lol
> Live and let live, like, who cares if they use a surrogate? Married people do that as well? And in vitro fertilization...? Is that not ok for hetero married people?



So you think Big Mac's evolved then?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 15, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Are we still idiotically pretending straight couples can't have gay kids?



If not for straw man arguments, you'd never be able to construct an argument at all, Dr.Hack.



> How do people breath at the correct rate, let alone type full sentences with this little brain capacity?



I don't know, how do you?


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 15, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> HotDogg said:
> 
> 
> > My ex-wifes father is gay and he's a granpa 4 times at least.
> ...



I think you eat a lot of big macs. So, you don't think that hetero couples should use a surrigate or sperm bank... if one is infertile?

And btw, the gay granpa's 2 daughters are both 100% straight.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 15, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Are we still idiotically pretending straight couples can't have gay kids?
> ...



"evolution weeding out undesirable genetic traits"

Do you forget what you say?  Those are your words son, I'm arguing against your "points."

Don't worry, I don't expect rational reasons for why you're bigotted against all these billions of people, the lunacy you provide makes far more sense for your hate.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 15, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> I think you eat a lot of big macs.



You don't appear to have the requisite faculties to think.



> So, you don't think that hetero couples should use a surrigate or sperm bank... if one is infertile?



You are an idiot driven by emotion. Because you lack the ability to formulate a rational thought, you simply emote.

What I think of surrogates is utterly irrelevant to the biological process of evolution and the innate drive to reproduce being present or not in persons as evidence of an evolutionary weeding out of genetic traits.

Infertility may also be a means of the evolutionary culling of certain genetic traits.



> And btw, the gay granpa's 2 daughters are both 100% straight.



How nice for you...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 15, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> "evolution weeding out undesirable genetic traits"
> 
> Do you forget what you say?



I did not forget that you are an imbecile incapable of grasping even simple concepts.

No need to remind me again, hack.



> Those are your words son, I'm arguing against your "points."
> 
> Don't worry, I don't expect rational reasons for why you're bigotted against all these billions of people, the lunacy you provide makes far more sense for your hate.



Of course cretin, biology is "bigoted." 

What a fucking moron you are.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 15, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > "evolution weeding out undesirable genetic traits"
> ...




Calling gay an "undesireable genetic trait" isn't the least bit bigotted, my most sincere apologies kind sir.

If you can provide any proof whatsoever of the gay population decreasing,  I'd be very interested to see that information and would take back every notion of you being a homophobe.

and just saying "evolution does it because it's evolution" isn't valid.


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 15, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> HotDogg said:
> 
> 
> > I think you eat a lot of big macs.
> ...



Don't worry, I've been called an idiot by smarter people than you. But isn't advanced birthing medicine an "evolution" of earlier times? Or does man's ability to make tools and use them not exist in your evolutionary chart?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 15, 2011)

You know..........it's a proven fact that heterosexual couples have gay children.  Need proof?  Look no farther than Dick Cheney's daughter.

Is Dick Cheney's daughter "genetically inferior"?

And, if being gay means you get weeded out of the species, wanna explain why gays have made up around 10 percent of the population world wide for thousands of years?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 15, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> Don't worry, I've been called an idiot by smarter people than you.



No doubt you've been called an idiot by virtually everyone who has met you.



> But isn't advanced birthing medicine an "evolution" of earlier times?



Could you repeat that in English?



> Or does man's ability to make tools and use them not exist in your evolutionary chart?



Do you think medical practices in regard to the odd homosexual reproduction alters the trend?

Sorry sleebo, regardless of exceptions, homosexuals don't reproduce as a group. This fact may well be the manifestation of an evolutionary imperative not to reproduce.

Tell me sparky, have you ever heard of "natural selection?" How do you feel about it? How do you feel it might work?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 15, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Calling gay an "undesireable genetic trait"



What a fucking moron you are, monkey boi.

Either you're just too fucking thick to comprehend even a simple concept, or your a fucking liar.

Either way, your a complete moron.



> isn't the least bit bigotted, my most sincere apologies kind sir.
> 
> If you can provide any proof whatsoever of the gay population decreasing,



If you can provide any proof whatsoever that cats fly fighter jets..

ROFL

Goddamn but you're a fucking moron.



> I'd be very interested to see that information and would take back every notion of you being a homophobe.
> 
> and just saying "evolution does it because it's evolution" isn't valid.



There must be pre-GED coursework you could sign up for? I urge you to try and catch up to at least 7th grade educational levels.

Honestly, it'll change your life for the better!


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 15, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Calling gay an "undesireable genetic trait"
> ...



"Your a complete moron."-Now that's classic Uncensored .

But anyways, no proof?  That wasn't a very ceremonial way at conceding defeat, but duly noted.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 15, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> "Your a complete moron."-Now that's classic Uncensored .



A typo?

Yo stupid fuck, care to show where I said homosexuality was an undesirable trait?

No? You prefer to keep lying because straw man bullshit is all you can come up with..

You're a piece of shit drock. That's giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're just a fucking liar and not as stupid as you present yourself.



> But anyways, no proof?



You made the claim, you prove it.



> That wasn't a very ceremonial way at conceding defeat, but duly noted.



You're a fucking moron, a truly stupid troll.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 15, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > "Your a complete moron."-Now that's classic Uncensored .
> ...



Lol really got under your skin on that one, settle down kiddo, it's just a message board.  We're still good pals.


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 15, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> HotDogg said:
> 
> 
> > Don't worry, I've been called an idiot by smarter people than you.
> ...



You're too witty for me, I give up!

Actually, I have to abandon any debate with you because you make no sense. As a group, gays and lesbians have plenty of babies.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 15, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know..........it's a proven fact that heterosexual couples have gay children.  Need proof?  Look no farther than Dick Cheney's daughter.
> 
> Is Dick Cheney's daughter "genetically inferior"?
> 
> And, if being gay means you get weeded out of the species, wanna explain why gays have made up around 10 percent of the population world wide for thousands of years?



They know that but are afraid to admit it in public.
They would rather act ignorant and be accepted in church.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 15, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Lol really got under your skin on that one, settle down kiddo, it's just a message board.  We're still good pals.



Would you like to post proof of your claim that molesting children is healthy? 

I think molesting children is despicable and can't understand why you would support it?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 15, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> They know that but are afraid to admit it in public.
> They would rather act ignorant and be accepted in church.



Does your church spend a great deal of time discussing the nuance of the mechanism of natural selection?


----------



## Dionysis (Sep 15, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> HotDogg said:
> 
> 
> > Gay men have reproductionarily-usable sperm, now you know.
> ...



Sometimes both, sometimes neither, sometimes one, it depends.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 15, 2011)

mal said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



I don't usually say this, but..... that is just STUPID.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 15, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > It would be great if they left it in the bedroom. Wish they would.
> ...



Link, evidence?

Or just numbers pulled from the same place the left gets their ideas that a corrupt society is a "good" society?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 15, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I wasn't talking about that. I don't care if people hold hands. Keep fishing.
> ...



For the thousandth time .... when "straights" do stuff like that, they are not proclaiming the the laws be changed so that "every citizen" must support their "display".  It is wrong, but none of them are bribing politicians to pass laws supporting that behavior.  Mardi Gras, please, it was corrupted from its original intent long ago.  It is like I hear the straights discuss going to Key West: you should go see it, it is bizzare (like it is something they can watch, but it won't affect them).  Ask them if they would take their children and they will start to say yyyyy, NO.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 15, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Likewise please point out any bigotry I've shown against homosexuals. That should also be interesting.
> ...



That is because you will not acknowledge, facts.  If it is bigotry, please explain a "better way" to live, since bigotry implies a backward or superstititious belief.
Please explain how welcoming corruption in society improves it.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 15, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



You do know which thread this is, don't you?  You wanted the "religious" to demonstrate how the Bible continued to state homosexual acts were a sin, and wanted to hold up Leviticus to demonstrate against ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... a type of food.

Again, if Christians are "bigots", please show where there is a better system for society.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 15, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > HotDogg said:
> ...



Go read the first 90 pages of this thread, so you can keep up.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 15, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Cannibalism occurs in nature, as well as animals eating their own shit.
> ...



For idiots: Natural: the way things work in harmony: rivers in their riverbed, animals mate for offspring, mothers care for their young.

There are times when something different occurs: floods, animals force domination onto another animal (of their species or another species), mothers kill their young.  All of those different situations occur in nature, but are not considered "natural".  They are exceptions or deviations.  Get it???????


----------



## logical4u (Sep 15, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > HotDogg said:
> ...



You are pretty good at telling Christians how to behave with the Bible, and then, for some reason, you throw a hissy fit when Christians can demonstrate with the Bible where you are wrong.

Where in the Bible does it say to "embrace" corruption?  Where does it say to embrace perversity, lewdness, or immoral sex?  
When you want to show those passages, we might think you are sincere.  Until then, you just look like a manipulator: do as I say, not as I do.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 15, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> Being anti-gay marriage makes you a communist, they also like to tell people what to do and how to live.



That's funny, so do homosexual activists want to tell people how to live.  By your logic, that makes ALL homosexual activists, communists.  Just sayin' ......


----------



## logical4u (Sep 15, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> deregulateTHIS said:
> 
> 
> > I am not understanding the original topic.  Does the Bible verse say that eating a catfish is on the same level as a man having sex with another man or woman with a woman?
> ...



....."I find it ironic that sex outside of marriage is Bad and Wrong - but we won't let gays marry"  Perversity, lewdness, and immorals sex are also wrong.  If people get married in the eyes of the Lord (not some false preacher's authority), they can be forgiven, repent, and with the Lord's help, turn towards the Lord.  If homosexuals pretend to be married in the eyes of the Lord, they sin against Him, they mock Him with their relationship, and they corrupt society.  Still, there are not many adulturers or even singles that are living together declaring that they know better than the Lord and what they are doing is not sinful.  Only the homosexual activists do that.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 15, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> HotDogg said:
> 
> 
> > Gay men have reproductionarily-usable sperm, now you know.
> ...



Forget it, he is too thick to have an appreciation for humor.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 15, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



A better system for society?  How's about Hindu?  How's about Tao?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 15, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > They know that but are afraid to admit it in public.
> ...



We don't have to as we are all educated.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 15, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



That is what it all boils down to right wing Christians.
Another Christian disagrees with you and you claim we are calling all Christians bigots.
Victim mentality when there is no victim.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 15, 2011)

So, if you disagree with the Christian mentality of the Westboro Baptist Church, you're bigoted against all Christians?


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 16, 2011)

logical4u said:


> HotDogg said:
> 
> 
> > Being anti-gay marriage makes you a communist, they also like to tell people what to do and how to live.
> ...



Homos aren't trying to tell YOU how to live, you can marry... They just want you to leave them alone and not be so homophobic. Like why do you even care what gays call their unions? Just ignore them. It's that simple.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 16, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Lol really got under your skin on that one, settle down kiddo, it's just a message board.  We're still good pals.
> ...



You claimed evolution would weed out gays because it's an "undeniable trait."

I like the fact that even your own bigotry disgusts you and causes you to try and backtrack on your words, at least you aren't proud of it.  


Maybe there is still hope for you.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 16, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



No I don't categorically tell all christians how to behave with the Bible.  I tell one pretend christian like Mal that he isn't doing a very good job at pretending to take Jesus' teachings seriously.  Hence why I provided a list of Jesus' teachings, and he again took a dump on them in the very next post.

It's you calling it immoral sex, not Jesus.  And as the OP showed if you're going to use Leviticus as your excuse for being a homophobe, then you need to to use it as your excuse to also be a catfish-eater-a-phobe.  Spread the hate equally between gays and catfish eaters.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 16, 2011)

And for the homophobic bigots here's a few factoids for you to remember;

1.) Most gays are christian
2.) Most americans are christian
3.) Most americans favor gay marriage being valid


If anyone would like, I'll happily provide links and proof of all 3.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 16, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...




You want a "caste" system?
If Tao is so great, why don't other societies use it?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 16, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



So, you are the interpreter?

I was called a bigot.  That is not victim mentality.  I have asked for clarification.  I received none.  Your statement is as vague as their statement was: I will call you names in hope that you will be silent.

You choose to disregard the direction of the Lord (in that lewdness, perversity and immoral sex are sinful).  Don't call other people names because they can show you are wrong.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 16, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > HotDogg said:
> ...



Your example implies that homosexual activity can do no harm to society.  You are wrong.  Homosexual activity is corruption: deceit, blackmail, coveting, stealing, and violence, all are found where there is a lot of homosexual activity.  Your statement is like telling someone, ignore the little children with 22 rifles, it is really hard to do any "real" damage with a 22.


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 16, 2011)

logical4u said:


> HotDogg said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



So all that "corruption: deceit, blackmail, coveting, stealing, and violence" we have in society is because gays are rampaging? And no straight people do those things? It's like saying only gays have guns and straight people don't. 
Please try again soon.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 16, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> We don't have to as we are all educated.



I never considered you Scientologists as all that well educated...


----------



## signelect (Sep 16, 2011)

Why is this still on the board, it's time has come.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 16, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> You claimed evolution would weed out gays because it's an "undeniable trait."



Nope, I never made that claim.

That is merely your straw man argument. Since you cannot speak to what I actually said, you falsely attribute to me what you want to argue against.



> I like the fact that even your own bigotry disgusts you and causes you to try and backtrack on your words, at least you aren't proud of it.
> 
> 
> Maybe there is still hope for you.



So why do you claim that molesting children is healthy?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 16, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



It has been demonstrated where the Savior declared that nothing bad can enter thru your mouth: therefore food is no longed classified as unclean.  Paul too, had an experience in Acts, where the Lord let him know that "animals" had been purified, therefore, no longer unclean.  (This was done because the Hebrew leaders were concentrating on rituals, over the worship of the Lord)
With homosexual acts, that is not the case.  Yeshua re-stated that those behaviors were sinful.

I have no authority to declare something sinful or not sinful.  I can tell you according to what I know the Bible says.  Like I have told other homosexuals on this board: I pray for homosexuals.  I wish them the best.  When they are judged as sinners in front of the Lord, I will be at their side as a fellow sinner.  The Lord is just and we will be punished for our sins.  Those that encourage or deceive others about sinful behavior will be held accountable for those sins done by those that they have deceived, as well as their own.  Not only do you deceive others by encouraging sinful behavior, you persecute those that would tell them the truth.  I feel sorry for you.  In many other areas, your logic is sound, but in this, you seem to be really twisted.


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 16, 2011)

logical4u said:


> *It has been demonstrated where the Savior* declared that nothing bad can enter thru your mouth: therefore food is no longed classified as unclean.  Paul too, had an experience in Acts, where the Lord let him know that "animals" had been purified, therefore, no longer unclean.  (This was done because the Hebrew leaders were concentrating on rituals, over the worship of the Lord)
> With homosexual acts, that is not the case.  Yeshua re-stated that those behaviors were sinful.
> 
> I have no authority to declare something sinful or not sinful.  I can tell you according to what I know the Bible says.  Like I have told other homosexuals on this board: I pray for homosexuals.  I wish them the best.  When they are judged as sinners in front of the Lord, I will be at their side as a fellow sinner.  The Lord is just and we will be punished for our sins.  Those that encourage or deceive others about sinful behavior will be held accountable for those sins done by those that they have deceived, as well as their own.  Not only do you deceive others by encouraging sinful behavior, you persecute those that would tell them the truth.  I feel sorry for you.  In many other areas, your logic is sound, but in this, you seem to be really twisted.



No such thing has been demonstrated, it might be in a book of fiction called the bible, but writing something in a book doesn't necessarily make it so. Just ask Dr Seuss.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 16, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> And for the homophobic bigots here's a few factoids for you to remember;
> 
> 1.) Most gays are christian
> 2.) Most americans are christian
> ...



You, sir, are a coward.  I have asked you to explain why someone that believes the Bible is a bigot.  I have asked you to demonstrate a better way to live, than in accordance with the Bible.  All you do is throw out childish name-calling, and then change the subject when someone calls you on it.

Christians are tempted by sin, it is no surprise that many homosexuals are Christian.  (If they do not try to overcome that sin, they are turning their back on the Lord)

If most Americans are Christians, why do lefties throw such a fit, when parents want "morals" enforced in schools?

If "most" Americans favor gay marriage, then why do elections with secret ballots reject gay marriage, by a majority? (I know the homosexual activists propoganda machine has not infiltrated every social gathering or educational system)

You deceive and you embrace corruption.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 16, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > *It has been demonstrated where the Savior* declared that nothing bad can enter thru your mouth: therefore food is no longed classified as unclean.  Paul too, had an experience in Acts, where the Lord let him know that "animals" had been purified, therefore, no longer unclean.  (This was done because the Hebrew leaders were concentrating on rituals, over the worship of the Lord)
> ...



Silly boy, this thread is about the Bible's reference to sins.  Please, keep up.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 16, 2011)

logical4u said:


> HotDogg said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



oh yes, the heterosexuals never have any of these qualities in their societies


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 16, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > And for the homophobic bigots here's a few factoids for you to remember;
> ...



You keep speaking in false categories.  Most americans think gay marriage should be valid, if they think that they probably don't view being gay as a sin.  Most americans are christian.  Not everyone shares your "being gay is a sin view", in fact I'll bet you're in the minority as more and more christian churches are happily opening their doors for gays and not tearing down their lifestyle.  It's a great thing they're doing, sad you're being stuck in the past on this issue.

I have no idea where you're going with lefties wanting morals enforced in school, if you want your kids to learn their morals from government (public schools) that seems pretty liberal to me.

53% say government should legally recognize gay marriage

53% favor gay marriage being  valid, 44% oppose.

Although the conspiracy theory that gays have somehow hijacked this survey is an interesting one to say the least.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 16, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > And for the homophobic bigots here's a few factoids for you to remember;
> ...


 
I'd love to see the supporting evidence.

If most Americans were for gay marriage, then it would be legal in most states.


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 16, 2011)

Christians are homophobic and haters. Which is surprising, considering that Jesus was most likely gay.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 16, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> Christians are homophobic and haters. Which is surprising, considering that Jesus was most likely gay.



More than likely, Jesus didn't exist at all.  He's a myth.


----------



## percysunshine (Sep 16, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> HotDogg said:
> 
> 
> > Christians are homophobic and haters. Which is surprising, considering that Jesus was most likely gay.
> ...



Jurrasic paleontology proves it.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 16, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> If most Americans were for gay marriage, then it would be legal in most states.





Don't worry, it will be.



>>>>


----------



## Dragon (Sep 16, 2011)

Regarding majority support for gay marriage, that comes from a Gallup poll taken in May of this year. As fast as the issue is moving, this probably understates the support by now.

Here's the link to the poll: For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage

By the way, CG has presented a false argument on two points. First, that we have a nationwide majority in support of gay marriage doesn't necessarily mean that a statewide majority supports it in every state and I'm sure that's not true; for example I doubt there is a majority of support yet in Alabama or Utah. Secondly, it takes time for laws to be passed.

I predict that most states will recognize same-sex marriage within the next ten years. The holdouts will be required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states shortly thereafter when the Supreme Court strikes down the DOMA, which it will as that law clearly violates the Full Faith and Credit clause. Eventually, same-sex marriage will be recognized in every state, but I'm not confident that will happen in my lifetime. Probably in my daughters' lifetimes.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 16, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > HotDogg said:
> ...



Did I say that?  No, I did not.

Don't let the truth get in your way, though.  Corruption, no matter how insignificant it seems, never stays as small as it starts.  I would prefer to call it as it is, not wait for a huge rotten spot, to say: we should have said something when we first saw that stain starting to spread.  But you, seem to want to give rot its lead and worry about the consequences later.  Are you on gov't handouts?  Do you believe in personal responsibility?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 16, 2011)

Moonglow said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > HotDogg said:
> ...



Where there is sinful behavior, there it is.
Why do we want to "encourage" corruption?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 16, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



You did not answer the questions.

Because the "legion" is doing it, doesn't make it right.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 16, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> HotDogg said:
> 
> 
> > Christians are homophobic and haters. Which is surprising, considering that Jesus was most likely gay.
> ...



Why is He in Roman documents from the time, if He is a myth?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 16, 2011)

logical4u said:


> HotDogg said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Corruption?  How is being gay "corruption"?

And by the way...........a gay's thought of having sex with someone of the opposite gender pretty much stimulates the same kind of revulsion that straights have when presented with gay sex.

As far as a "stain starting to spread" "and giving rot it's lead", you may wish to consider a scientific fact..........

Gay population on the earth has remained at a pretty much constant 10 percent of the population at large since mankind started walking upright.

So tell me genius, how is that going to "spread"?

And............fwiw...............those that think that they can "become gay" under the influence of some lewd degenerate?  Most generally, they are closeted gays, because any suggestion that someone could "turn" you just by being around you generally means (according to shrinks), that you secretly are.

Me?  I'm a very secure heterosexual, and yeah........I have gay friends.  Matter of fact, lived with 2 lesbians for a couple of years in Va. Beach.


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 16, 2011)

log, you're a homo-hater, so you must hate jesus, since he never married, never had a girlfriend, never had kids, only hung around with guys, wore a dress, rode a donkey... and only fucked a girl once to see if he'd like it, and apparently, he didn't, lol.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 16, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > HotDogg said:
> ...



I am not speaking, specifically of homosexuality increasing, but those sins that go along with it: deceit, covetness, blackmail, violence.  Once sin/corruption has begun, very rarely does it stop on its own.  It might be the homosexuals that are being sinned against in forms of blackmail, protection money, bribes to look the other way.  Corruption has a way of causing more corruption (not necessarily the same type).


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 16, 2011)

I keep hearing the moral argument.
Who do you folks want to be in charge of what is moral?
Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, 'Lil Wayne, Snoop Doggy Dog, the posters here, THE GOVERNMENT?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 16, 2011)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



So "those sins that go along with it (homosexuality)" cause obesity, epidemic diabetes 2 which is 100% preventable, prescription drug abuse, smoking which kills 450,000 a year in USA, alcoholism, wife beating and masturbation?
Can I do it up and until I just need glasses?


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 17, 2011)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



So are you saying that there aren't any gays who are good law-abiding citizens and who are a positive force in our society?


----------



## Poli_Sigh (Sep 17, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Read it in the bible and weep folks.
> 
> Eating fish without scales is a sin.
> 
> ...



Do Texans know this?  ROFLOL


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 17, 2011)

Which only proves that the bible is a hatemongering book.


----------



## domonkoz (Sep 17, 2011)

So what, the Bible is filled with idiotic notions.   All life was created 6000 years ago, yet we find scientific proof that this is not true on a daily basis.  If one thing and one thing only proves Christianity to be a complete farce, its carbon dating.


----------



## percysunshine (Sep 17, 2011)

domonkoz said:


> So what, the Bible is filled with idiotic notions.   All life was created 6000 years ago, yet we find scientific proof that this is not true on a daily basis.  If one thing and one thing only proves Christianity to be a complete farce, its carbon dating.



Environmentalists say that carbon atoms are evil. Who would want to date evil?


----------



## HotDogg (Sep 17, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> domonkoz said:
> 
> 
> > So what, the Bible is filled with idiotic notions.   All life was created 6000 years ago, yet we find scientific proof that this is not true on a daily basis.  If one thing and one thing only proves Christianity to be a complete farce, its carbon dating.
> ...


I dated evil once, she was good in the sack.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Sep 17, 2011)

*Eating catfish is just as sinful as homosexuality *

I'd rather eat catfish.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 17, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> I keep hearing the moral argument.
> Who do you folks want to be in charge of what is moral?
> Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, 'Lil Wayne, Snoop Doggy Dog, the posters here, THE GOVERNMENT?



The Bible is a book of growth.  It tells us how NOT to sin.  It also identifies sin, with deceit being the forerunner to other types of sin.  Without morals there is no "society".  The Bible encourages each person to take responsibility of their own morals, to improve on their own.  It also teaches when you see someone sinning that you should point it out to them.  If they continue to sin that is up to them.

The sins/corruption have been identified.  Why do you want to "legislate" immorality (encouraging homosexuals to practice homosexual acts)?  Why do you embrace sin and pretend that it is not as identified in the Bible.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 17, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



You are using the distraction technique.  No one has claimed that those are NOT problems.  Homosexual acts have been identified as sinful in the Bible.  Instead of you acknowledging that, you are turning against the Lord to declare a sinful act (without authority), not sinful.  Why would you want to "encourage" sinful acts?  Please stay on topic.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 17, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



I am saying that deceit walks hand in hand with homosexual acts.  Can the homosexuals be law-abiding citizens?  The answer would be: yes.  As for being a positive force in our society, please name some.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 17, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> Which only proves that the bible is a hatemongering book.



Spoken by someone that does not comprehend the Bible.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 17, 2011)

domonkoz said:


> So what, the Bible is filled with idiotic notions.   All life was created 6000 years ago, yet we find scientific proof that this is not true on a daily basis.  If one thing and one thing only proves Christianity to be a complete farce, its carbon dating.



No where in the Bible does it give the "date" of creation.  But don't let the truth get in the way of a good tale.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 17, 2011)

> The Bible is a book of growth. It tells us how NOT to sin. It also identifies sin, with deceit being the forerunner to other types of sin. Without morals there is no "society". The Bible encourages each person to take responsibility of their own morals, to improve on their own. It also teaches when you see someone sinning that you should point it out to them. If they continue to sin that is up to them.
> 
> The sins/corruption have been identified. Why do you want to "legislate" immorality (encouraging homosexuals to practice homosexual acts)? Why do you embrace sin and pretend that it is not as identified in the Bible.
> 
> Homosexual acts have been identified as sinful in the Bible. Instead of you acknowledging that, you are turning against the Lord to declare a sinful act (without authority), not sinful. Why would you want to "encourage" sinful acts?



Without law there is no society as well  and although many laws are predicated on morality, the law is wise enough to place limits on religious dogma, disallowing its secular codification. The law protects each individuals right to determine a moral context for himself: if your faith teaches you homosexuality is wrong, then dont engage in homosexual acts. 

That some consider homosexuality a sin or corrupt is legally irrelevant. And protecting the equal protection rights of homosexuals does not encourage homosexuals to do anything, just as laws criminalizing homosexual acts also had no effect.  

Since weve established that subjective religious dogma is legally irrelevant, we know that discriminating against homosexuals because of who they are or what they do is a violation of the 14th Amendment. 

As the Court concluded in_ Romer v. Evans_ (1996): 



> [Amendment 2, restricting homosexuals access to anti-discrimination laws, in] its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.
> 
> We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 17, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > The Bible is a book of growth. It tells us how NOT to sin. It also identifies sin, with deceit being the forerunner to other types of sin. Without morals there is no "society". The Bible encourages each person to take responsibility of their own morals, to improve on their own. It also teaches when you see someone sinning that you should point it out to them. If they continue to sin that is up to them.
> >
> > The sins/corruption have been identified. Why do you want to "legislate" immorality (encouraging homosexuals to practice homosexual acts)? Why do you embrace sin and pretend that it is not as identified in the Bible.
> >
> ...



This thread is not about the "law".  Your post is irrelevant for "this" thread.  If you can show where in the Bible the Lord said homosexual acts are sins, no more, that would be relevant.  The fourteenth amendment was a bad amendement, it has been used for every excuse to push foreign agendas into this country, since shortly after it was used to "clarify" the Constitution (there is no mention of slavery in the Constitution).  It does not mention homosexuals in the fourteenth amendment (and according to the homosexual thought process, that means they are not counted).


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 17, 2011)

logical4u said:


> The fourteenth amendment was a bad amendement, it has been used for every excuse to push foreign agendas into this country, since shortly after it was used to "clarify" the Constitution *(there is no mention of slavery in the Constitution)*...




Actually slavery is mentioned in the Constitution.

#1
Under Article 2 Section 2, the Constitution enumerates the method of appropriating the number of representatives and taxes:

Free Persons are counted 1:1,
Indentured Servants (those committed to a fixed number of years of service) are also counted as 1:1,
Untax Indians are not counted because Indian Tribes were considered sovereign nations, 
That leaves not free persons, or in the language of the Constitution all other persons are counted at the rate of 3:5.

If a person was not a "Free Person", "Indentured Servant", or "Untaxed Indian" - what type of person was then counted at the rate of 3/5th's?


*******************************

#2
Contrary to the belief of some, Amendments to the Constitutions are additions to it and as such become part of the Constitution.  Therefore slavery is mentioned in the Constitution because it was abolished via the 13th Amendment by name.  In addition the 14th Amendment voided any debt incurred as a result of insurrection or rebellion as a part of emancipating slaves.  Slaves of course being those counted at the 3/5th's rate under Article 2 Section 2.



>>>>


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 18, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I keep hearing the moral argument.
> ...



You may believe it is okay to encourage heterosexuals to practice heterosexual acts but I mind my own business.
I do not encourage ANYONE to practice any sexual acts so quit posting lies and bull shit that I never, ever stated. I never stated I embrace sin. Another lie of yours.
Govern yourself accordingly as you claim to be a Christian. Christians do not spread lies like you do.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 18, 2011)

WorldWatcher said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > The fourteenth amendment was a bad amendement, it has been used for every excuse to push foreign agendas into this country, since shortly after it was used to "clarify" the Constitution *(there is no mention of slavery in the Constitution)*...
> ...



I stand, corrected.  Thank you.  Still, the fourteenth amendment is not clear and open to all sorts of agenda driven causes, against freedom and against liberty.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 18, 2011)

logical4u said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > The Bible is a book of growth. It tells us how NOT to sin. It also identifies sin, with deceit being the forerunner to other types of sin. Without morals there is no "society". The Bible encourages each person to take responsibility of their own morals, to improve on their own. It also teaches when you see someone sinning that you should point it out to them. If they continue to sin that is up to them.
> ...



"14th Amendment was a bad amendment"
"it has been used for every excuse to push foreign agendas"


----------



## logical4u (Sep 18, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Didn't you say in this thread that there was nothing wrong with homosexuals being together?  Didn't you say in this thread that churches should support homosexual couples, even to the point of marrying them?  Sounds like you are supporting sinful acts to me.  Didn't you lecture those of us, that acknowledged what was in the Bible, as misguided, and mistaken?  You turned your back on the Lord's declaration of sin, and embrace homosexual acts (the love of a homosexual couple).  Sounds like you embrace sin to me.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 18, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Where did I state I encourage ANY sex acts?
Where did I state all churches should support anything?
Where did I state all churches should marry anyone?
Someone never washed your mouth out as a youth for telling lies.
You continue to lie. 
For the uninformed and ignorant and I count you as one of their leaders:
I encourage NO sex acts as a conservative I mind my own business.
I do not support telling any church what to do as I am a conservative and mind my own business.
You are the one dictating the requirements of what a "Christian" is and isn't.
Shame on you.


----------



## Amadoos (Sep 18, 2011)

I'm against any kind of gay sex, that goes against god, but my wife wants to know if it's ok for me to fuck her in the ass.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 18, 2011)

Amadoos said:


> I'm against any kind of gay sex, that goes against god, but my wife wants to know if it's ok for me to fuck her in the ass.



Actually, the definition of sodomy itself means anal/penile sex, no matter what gender the anus is attached to.

No, you shouldn't do that.


----------



## Baron (Sep 18, 2011)

Homosexuality is more sinful.

The Bible Speaks Against Homosexuality


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 18, 2011)

Baron said:


> Homosexuality is more sinful.
> 
> The Bible Speaks Against Homosexuality



How come you left out that sons and daughters shall be executed if they curseth their parents?
That is also in Leviticus. 
The killing of homosexuals is also there.
Cheating spouses must be executed.
Psychics should be executed.
If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother he shall be burned to death.
If anyone suggest worshipping another God in your house you have to kill them.
Deuteronomy: Kill others in other religions.
If you find out a city worships another God then kill all the inhabitants.
Anyone that dreams or says anything about another God must be executed.

The Old Testament is filled with such junk Bible babble. 
No one but hard core whacked out psychos believe in any of that. 
As illustrated here.


----------



## Amadoos (Sep 19, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Amadoos said:
> 
> 
> > I'm against any kind of gay sex, that goes against god, but my wife wants to know if it's ok for me to fuck her in the ass.
> ...



What if I go to confession afterwards? You think the priest's heard anyone repent for assfucking before?


----------



## Amadoos (Sep 19, 2011)

Baron, as for your avatar with Sarah Palin in it: I'll bet money she's been assfucked.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 19, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Amadoos said:
> 
> 
> > I'm against any kind of gay sex, that goes against god, but my wife wants to know if it's ok for me to fuck her in the ass.
> ...



Oral sex is also sodomy.



So if any of the homophobes in here have wifes or girlfriends, they better remember the next time they're about to get head that it's a sin and to make sure they don't go through with it.

Then after that, they need to tell everyone how their wife/girlfriend is an immoral sinner who's going to hell, isn't a good christian, and we need discriminatory laws passed.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 19, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Amadoos said:
> ...



They couldn't do that. They would not have gays to pick on from now on.
Homosexuals are the modern day *******.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 19, 2011)

Only an enlightened fascist would use those terms interchangeably and be proud of it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 19, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Why is He in Roman documents from the time, if He is a myth?



He isn't in Roman documents - none. Paul is, extensively, but Jesus isn't. The insertion of passages in the writings of Pleny the Younger and Josephus are admitted by the Vatican to be frauds. In 891, Photius in his Bibliotheca, which devoted three "Codices" to the works of Josephus, shows no awareness of the passage whatsoever even though he reviews the sections of the _Antiquities_ in which one would expect the disputed passage to be found. Clearly, the testimonial was absent from his copy of _Antiquities of the Jews._


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 19, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Only an enlightened fascist would use those terms interchangeably and be proud of it.



Just remember kosher, according to homophobe logic, if a woman has ever had a guy go down on her or put it in the 2 hole (even her husband), she's just as big of a "sinner" as a gay man.



However, straight homophobes always "coincidentally" forget parts of the definition of sodomy.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 19, 2011)

HotDogg said:


> Which only proves that the bible is a hatemongering book.



You are a hate monger, not sure about the Bible, though.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 19, 2011)

Amadoos said:


> I'm against any kind of gay sex, that goes against god, but my wife wants to know if it's ok for me to fuck her in the ass.



You don't listen very well. She wants to use a strap-on and fuck you in the ass.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 19, 2011)

Amadoos said:


> Baron, as for your avatar with Sarah Palin in it: I'll bet money she's been assfucked.



As many times as you have?


----------



## Amadoos (Sep 19, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Amadoos said:
> 
> 
> > Baron, as for your avatar with Sarah Palin in it: I'll bet money she's been assfucked.
> ...



As I have assfucked her?

Now let's all pray.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 19, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Performing "holy matrimony" is encouraging "sex acts" (unless you think that homosexuals will not have sex together because you have declared their sins "acceptable")
I did not say "all" churches.
I referenced the Biblical statements, and once again, you can't handle what is in the Bible and want to attack the messenger.  Your life, your choices, if you want to be held responsible for others' sins, do it with full knowledge.  Don't pretend you are unaware.  The Lord will see your heart, and "know".  I will not be sitting beside Him.  I will not be with his "prophets".  I will be in line to be judged, just the same as you (I will be the quiet one, because I will know that I will receive punishment for my sins that "I" earned).


----------



## Amadoos (Sep 19, 2011)

log, the Bible is total hearsay and fiction, with a couple of historical references thrown in for good measure.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 19, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> > Homosexuality is more sinful.
> ...



Ohhhhh, selective studier of the "Word", in the "NEW COVENANT", the Lord will be written onto men's hearts.  No longer will they be responsible for the sins of the generations prior to theirs, but will be accountable for what they do in "their" life time.

Therefore, killing people to protect the future generations from massive quantities of sinning, is no longer necessary.  ONE DEATH, fixed that.  The Savior said that He was not here to replace the Law, but to fullfill it.  If the Savior told us again that immoral sex/lewdness/perversity were sins (along with what "we" would consider more serious sins), don't you think that those acts are "still" sinful?  What about that don't you get?  Did you go to UGA, or do you just like their sports, come on, man, use your ability to reason.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 19, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Why is He in Roman documents from the time, if He is a myth?
> ...



Wasn't he in one of Pontius Pilot's documents about trials?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 19, 2011)

Amadoos said:


> log, the Bible is total hearsay and fiction, with a couple of historical references thrown in for good measure.



So when you are in over your head in a serious discussion, you choose to be a "potty mouth"?  You and Obama have something in common: NO CLASS.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 19, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



I am not a preacher and do not conduct weddings. 
I can reference the Bible where you should be executed for cursing your parents.
You are going to hell if you do not do that to your kids.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 19, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Why is He in Roman documents from the time, if He is a myth?
> ...


 Links please. I've certainly never heard any reputable source call Josephus a fraud.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 19, 2011)

Amadoos said:


> log, the Bible is total hearsay and fiction, with a couple of historical references thrown in for good measure.


 
Yes, we all know how popular it is for people to die hideous deaths down through the ages based upon their belief on hearsay and fiction.

Explain why nobody, not one person, who was living at the time of Christ, ever came forward to dispute the teachings of the apostles...who were teaching at the time that people who knew and heard Jesus were still alive?

Pretty off considering it was all fiction and heresay. Thousands of people gathered, many who had heard Jesus speak...and yet none came forward to cry "fraud".

Honest. You don't have to lie to make friends.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 19, 2011)

I have yet to see any disparagement of Josephus that carries any weight. But knock yourself out:

Josephus.org - The Flavius Josephus Home Page


----------



## logical4u (Sep 19, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Do you tithe to a church that conducts homosexual (pretend) marriages?  If you do, you ARE supporting sin.
I don't curse my parents.  They are awesome, and did the best they could with what they had.
Do what to my children?


----------



## Amadoos (Sep 20, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Amadoos said:
> 
> 
> > log, the Bible is total hearsay and fiction, with a couple of historical references thrown in for good measure.
> ...



You have ANY proof that jesus actually existed? No? That's what I thought.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 20, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Do you tithe to a church that does not execute children for cursing their parents? If you do YOU are supporting sin. 
See how absurd all of your arguments on this subject are? YOU are the one promoting and actively living selective interpretation of the Bible.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 20, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Is someone supporting sin if they conduct a heterosexual marriage where sodomy takes place?  Sodomy being oral and anal sex.  Also any heterosexual marriage that's done after someone is divorced (any marriage besides someone's first) is adultery, adultery being one of the worst sins since it's in the 10 commandments and even Jesus himself referenced this (and we all know he didn't reference homosexuality in any marginal way).


So that would mean what?  90-99% of marriages performed are done so while supporting sin?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 20, 2011)

Amadoos said:


> As I have assfucked her?



Zero?

No, as many times as you've been assfucked by big black men. (If you can count that high!)



> Now let's all pray.



Is that what you do to prepare for your assfucking? Get down like you're praying to Allah?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 20, 2011)

Amadoos said:


> log, the Bible is total hearsay and fiction, with a couple of historical references thrown in for good measure.



So, you were born mentally retarded, then?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 20, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Wasn't he in one of Pontius Pilot's documents about trials?



No, he wasn't.

One of the major problems is that Pontius Pilatus was a Prefect, he wasn't governor of anything, much less Judea. Alexander Jannæus was the Curator of Asyria, including Judea (which was too small to be considered in it's own right.) and Pilat was one of many Prefects in Damascus. There is no evidence that Pilat ever set foot in Israel. Further, Pilat died in 79 BC, about 50 years before the alleged birth of Jesus. Not only is there nothing in Pilat's documents, there are no documents of the alleged trial at all, which Pilat could not have been at unless HE had risen from the dead.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 20, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Links please. I've certainly never heard any reputable source call Josephus a fraud.



Josephus isn't a fraud, the passage alleging Jesus is a fraud put into Antiquities AFTER then 9th century AD.

The passage in question translates to;

{About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. }

{Why is this Jesus testimony considered a later insertion?

1. Josephus was a Pharisee. Only a Christian would call Jesus the Christ. Josephus would have had to renounce his pharisaical beliefs to say Jesus was the Christ. Josephus died a pharisee.

2. Josephus habitually writes chapter upon chapter about the most insignificant people and events. The Jesus testimony consists of three sentences. Why would Josephus Christ be given only three brief sentences? ?

3. The paragraphs before and after the Jesus testimony describe Romans killing Jews. The paragraph following the Jesus testimony begins "About the same time another sad calamity put the Jews in disorder". Would the "sad calamity" refer to the appearing of the "doer of wonderful works" or Romans killing Jews? The Jesus Testimony is clearly out of context having every appearance of a later insertion.

4. Finally, and most convincing had Josephus actually written the Jesus testimony, church fathers in the following 200 years would surely refer to it in fending off critics of Jesus being just another myth. But, not once does Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, or Origen ever refer to Josephus Jesus testimony. We know Origen read Josephus because Origens writings criticize Josephus for attributing the destruction of Jerusalem to the killing of James rather then Jesus. The church fathers made no reference to Josephus Jesus testimony because Josephus never wrote it.}

ExChristian.Net - Articles: HISTORY&#8217;S TROUBLING SILENCE ABOUT JESUS


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 20, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> I have yet to see any disparagement of Josephus that carries any weight. But knock yourself out:
> 
> Josephus.org - The Flavius Josephus Home Page



Josephus was a Pharisee, do you agree? 

Would a Pharisee call Jesus "the Messiah?" The passage was written by the Catholic church and inserted into the historical record many years after the fact.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 20, 2011)

Amadoos said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Amadoos said:
> ...




Here ya go...........



> The Coin of Jesus is a rare coin discovered in Tiberias, at a site on the shore of the Sea of Galilee in Israel in 2004, under the direction of archeologist Prof. Yizhar Hirschfeld of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Brown University, in association with the City of Tiberias and the Israel Antiquities Authority.
> 
> The coin bears the image of Jesus Christ on one side, and the engraving "Jesus the Messiah King of Kings" in Greek language on the other. This is the first time this coin has been discovered at an Israeli archeological site, and is believed to have been brought from Tiberias to Constantinople where it was minted by a Christian pilgrim around the 11th century.[1]
> 
> The site in Tiberias and others around the Sea of Galilee has been the destination of Christian pilgrims for more than 2,000 years. The town is named in honor of Roman Emperor Tiberias, and was built during a time when Jesus was still a teenager. The site is close to the city where Mary Magdalene was believed to be born and the site where Jesus is supposed to have fed a crowd of thousands with just a couple fish and loaves of bread.[2]




Coin of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They only put the likenesses and names of people on coins who actually existed.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 20, 2011)

Amadoos said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Amadoos said:
> ...


 
Yes.
The testimony of the apostles, all the people who gathered to hear him, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, the Koran.

Study up and then get back to me, moron.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 20, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I have yet to see any disparagement of Josephus that carries any weight. But knock yourself out:
> ...


 
And you know this how?
Josephus wasn't a pharisee. He wrote about pharisees and was interested in them, but he was not one himeself. I don't know where you're getting your information, but you need to quit assuming that every lie you hear that validates what you have already formed an opinion about is true. That's what true scholarship is about.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 20, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Links please. I've certainly never heard any reputable source call Josephus a fraud.
> ...


 
Exchristian net. Explains so much.

Josephus was not a pharisee, nor was he a Christian (as if he could be both). He was a dedicated historian who wrote of historical events, and he wrote of Christ.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 20, 2011)

"

Again, professional and academic scholars of the period -- Christian, Jewish, Secular -- accept the New Testament as an adequate witness, both for historical 'existence' and for many pieces of historical detail _about_ Jesus. 
I should also mention at the outset that, in spite of the sporadic complaints on the Internet about the matter(!), the manuscript evidence in support of the iron-clad, "pre-accretions" reference to Jesus in Jospehus is strong, stable, and accepted by the mass of professional historians. Between the NT and Jospheus, there is *no serious reason whatsover to doubt the historical 'existence' of the Jesus of Nazareth behind those references.* 
The internet debate about this subject (generally NOT participated in by the more historically-informed skeptics and Christians) is a _very_ peculiar phenomenon. Graham Stanton is a New Testament scholar of a 'moderate' position. In the most recent edition of his excellent "The Gospels and Jesus" (Oxford:2002), Professor Stanton includes this section commenting on the debate [GAJ2, 143-145]: "*Many readers will be surprised to learn that the very existence of Jesus has been challenged*. From time to time since the eighteenth century a number of writers have claimed that our gospels were written C. AD 100 (or later) and that only then did the early Christians 'invent' Jesus as a historical person. During the communist era Soviet encyclopaedias and reference books consistently made that claim. In recent years the existence of Jesus has been debated heatedly on the Internet. "

http://christianthinktank.com/jesusref.html

We could do this all day.​


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 20, 2011)

Yeah i don't really see much point in questioning whether Jesus existed or not, the question should be whether or not he was really able to perform miracles if he did exist. 

Proving Jesus existed wouldn't matter, it'd be proving if whether or not he was as special as the NT says that matters.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 20, 2011)

"

"We have a good deal of information about the polemical and often bitter arguments Christians, Jews, and pagans had with one another in the early centuries. *But the early Christians' opponents all accepted that Jesus existed, taught, had disciples, worked miracles, and was put to death on a Roman cross.* *As in our own day, debate and disagreement centred largely not on the story but on the significance of Jesus.* "*Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence* which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that with the possible exception of Paul, *we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second-century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."*

http://christianthinktank.com/jesusref.html

You can argue his divinity, and for that, there is no evidence that will satisfy those who are committed to denying it.

But people who argue his existence are just being idiots.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 20, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> "
> 
> "We have a good deal of information about the polemical and often bitter arguments Christians, Jews, and pagans had with one another in the early centuries. *But the early Christians' opponents all accepted that Jesus existed, taught, had disciples, worked miracles, and was put to death on a Roman cross.* *As in our own day, debate and disagreement centred largely not on the story but on the significance of Jesus.* "*Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence* which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that with the possible exception of Paul, *we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second-century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."*
> 
> ...



I see, so you can point out the bias of a site with ex-christian in it, but see no pro christian bias in a site called christianthinktank?

Okie dokie


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 20, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> "
> 
> Again, professional and academic scholars of the period -- Christian, Jewish, Secular -- accept the New Testament as an adequate witness, both for historical 'existence' and for many pieces of historical detail _about_ Jesus.
> I should also mention at the outset that, in spite of the sporadic complaints on the Internet about the matter(!), the manuscript evidence in support of the iron-clad, "pre-accretions" reference to Jesus in Jospehus is strong, stable, and accepted by the mass of professional historians. Between the NT and Jospheus, there is *no serious reason whatsover to doubt the historical 'existence' of the Jesus of Nazareth behind those references.*
> ...



Considering how many times the Bible has been edited and rewritten, it's really hard to consider the book as "fact".  Why?  Too many people down through the ages have written and re-written the book, changing things.

Me?  I'd rather accept the archaeological proof they foud in Israel, it is a coin with Yeshua's name on one side and His likeness on another.  Money that was minted during that time would only have carried the likeness and name of someone who DID exist and who was also influential in the world.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 20, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > "
> ...


 
Sure, why not? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. As I said....we can do this all day. You want to provide biased garbage, I'll put out my own biased material. Fair's fair.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 20, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > "
> ...


 
this is the ultimate of ignorance.

The bible has been interpreted down through the ages, starting with men who were very close in time to the events that actually happened, and who were carefully selected for their faith, integrity, and devotion to accurate representation and translation of the old texts.

They believed they were doing God's work, and they were devoted to seeking guidance from God. They also believed in the inerrancy of the bible, and had no inclination to change it to accomodate whatever political leanings they happened to have at the time.

You really need to do a little research into what you're talking about, if you are going to argue this topic. And if you are going to make outrageous claims, you need to back them up with evidence.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 20, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> And you know this how?
> Josephus wasn't a pharisee. He wrote about pharisees and was interested in them, but he was not one himeself.



I like you and don't want to strain a relationship with you, so if this moves that way I will exit this debate.

There were three branches of Jewish priesthood. Essenes, Saducees and Pharisees. Essenes were the mystics, Saducees the legalistics and Pharisees, the scholars. The fact that Josephus wrote the histories he did reveals him to be a Pharisee, beyond that, it is what he claimed in the volum "Life." 



> I don't know where you're getting your information, but you need to quit assuming that every lie you hear that validates what you have already formed an opinion about is true. That's what true scholarship is about.



Here is one source;

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Flavius-Josephus-Pharisees-Composition-Critical-Study/dp/0391041541]Amazon.com: Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study (9780391041547): Steve Mason: Books[/ame]


----------



## logical4u (Sep 20, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Rule # 3: When you are totally wrong, and have no way of making them see things your way, change the subject.
I would not support a church that encouraged children to "curse" their parents (unlike the religion of the liberals, that teaches, first, you must reject your parents and everything they represent).  Can you demonstrate where a church says that cursing your parents is "acceptable behavior" and "not sinful"?  See how ridiculus you subject change is?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 20, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Day after day, week after week, year after year, obsession with gays.  WTF?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 20, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Is the heterosexual couple declaring their intent as married people is to have immoral sex?
Is the divorced person, the same person, spiritually as the one that decides they have made mistakes, repented, and want to live closer to the Lord?

Since you want to throw the 10 Commandments up for discussion: where are the adulterers claiming that what they are doing is not "sinful"?  Where are their groupies chanting "it is not a sin, it is not a sin"?
BTW, homosexuals break 3 of the 10 Commandments by engaging in homosexual acts.  Are you saying that homosexuals are worse sinners than adulterers (by your reasoning)?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 20, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Clarification: it is obsession with battling deceit.  I understand that you want everyone to embrace your lifestyle.  The Bible says to reject it.  If you want to go and sin privately, I cannot interfer.  If you want to twist children and teach them that homosexual acts/immoral sex/lewdness/perversity are not sins, I will speak against you.  I think you are interesting and must have a whole lot more to you than your sexual preferences, but that seems to be where you want to stay.  I hope you will discover that there is a lot more to your person, than that.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 20, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



I wish the heck you would leave this issue alone.  Who cares if you hate gays or think we're the devil incarnate?

Homosexuality is not a sin to me and to plenty of other folks who don't follow your narrow fundamentalism.

As long as you are going to call gay people, "twisters of children", I will fight you to the last breath.

I hope there is more to your personhood than homophobia and shoving your morality down everyone's throat.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 20, 2011)

> I would not support a church that encouraged children to "curse" their parents (unlike the religion of the liberals, that teaches, first, you must reject your parents and everything they represent).



What on earth is the religion of the liberals? This makes no sense as liberals practice the same religions everyone else does. Otherwise, cite a source in support of the above teaching. 



> I wish the heck you would leave this issue alone. Who cares if you hate gays or think we're the devil incarnate?



He is entitled to his hate and ignorance  he may not attempt to codify either, however.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 20, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



The Bible says it and you run from it like a monkey on fire.


----------



## percysunshine (Sep 20, 2011)

Twelve thousand views and fifteen hundred posts?

How many gay homophobic catfish are there in the world?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 20, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> twelve thousand views and fifteen hundred posts?
> 
> How many gay homophobic catfish are there in the world?




42


>>>>


----------



## logical4u (Sep 20, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



This thread is about the Biblical references of homosexuality and catfish.  I played the thread, the same as you.    I used the Bible to demonstrate that the Lord, never rescinded homosexual acts as sin.  And you, like others want to attack the messenger (there are a lot of stories about that in the OT), instead of deal with the Lord's message.

Are you teaching children that the Lord does not find homosexual acts as sinful?  If you are not, you are leading them to a path of sin (twisting them to focus on immoral acts).

Isn't "shoving your immorality" down everyone's throats what the homosexual activists are doing with homosexual (pretend) marriage?  Why is it okay for you to encourage corruption, and wrong for me to point out what you are doing?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 20, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > I would not support a church that encouraged children to "curse" their parents (unlike the religion of the liberals, that teaches, first, you must reject your parents and everything they represent).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The religion where the liberals worship the government and immorality before they worship the Lord.  It became prevelant in the 60s: reject hard work, capitalism, religion, authority, morals, responsibility.  Live "free" (take what other people have), "free" love (don't worry about acting as a responsible adult, you can always murder your baby), do drugs (they won't hurt you), get wasted every day, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## barry1960 (Sep 20, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



What's with the homophobia rant. The guy has read the Bible and is declaring it as sin. He also stated that what you do is fine, but he does not want homosexuality taught to children, thus shoving your lifestyle down someone else's throat.

No one said you were the devil incarnate. Why must you persist in attacking the messenger? Is he not entitled to religious beliefs?

As far as eating catfish being the same as homosexuality, that displays ignorance of the Bible.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 20, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > And you know this how?
> ...


 
There's no evidence that Josephus was a pharisee. You can theorize on it all you like, it doesn't verify it or prove it to be true.


----------



## NightRyder (Sep 21, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Are you teaching children *that the Lord does not find homosexual acts as sinful*?  If you are not, you are leading them to a path of sin (twisting them to focus on immoral acts).
> 
> Isn't "shoving your immorality" down everyone's throats what the homosexual activists are doing with homosexual (pretend) marriage?  Why is it okay for you to encourage corruption, and wrong for me to point out what you are doing?



You cannot know what a god might want, if you could even prove that one exists.


----------



## NightRyder (Sep 21, 2011)

NightRyder said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Are you teaching children that the Lord does not find homosexual acts as sinful?  If you are not, you are leading them to a path of sin (twisting them to focus on immoral acts).
> ...



You're assuming that you're the arbiter of morals. News Flash: you're not. To me, what you're doing by gay-bashing is immoral.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 21, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



If you live by picked out Old Testament laws than yes I'm sure the overwhelming majority of heterosexual couples have the intent of having "immoral" sex.  Immoral being oral or anal, hell the Old Testament even says men aren't allowed to masturbate, so any man who does that straight or gay is sinning (aka 99% of men).  

So if the divorced person "spiritually decides they made mistakes" then gets remarried anyways (adultery), why is that ok but a gay person getting married after he/she has "spiritually decided they made mistakes" the worst thing in the world?  BLATANT hypocrisy, a consistent theme in homophobes.  You have different rules, punishments and standards for gays than you have straights.

And no, you're loony theory about gays breaking 3 commandments by simply being gay has already been shattered to pieces earlier in this thread, so that silliness will be ignored.

I'm not a christian, I don't judge people as sinners, we're an imperfect species.  But according to the New Testament, there's zero doubt that straight adulterers are more sinful than gays who aren't adulterers.  I don't even know how someone could argue against that.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 21, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> For fish to be considered clean to eat they must have fins and scales.  It is in Leviticus.  I can't quote chapter and verse though.
> the same book that says hosexuality is a sin as well.
> And a sin is a sin.



Leviticus is definatly one of the more......'entertaining' parts of the bible.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 21, 2011)

Now that DADT has been repealed we all know that God no longer blesses the United States and our troops. 
He may not care if it is more important to shoot straight than be straight but winning wars requires the former.


----------



## Liability (Sep 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Now that DADT has been repealed we all know that God no longer blesses the United States and our troops.
> He may not care if it is more important to shoot straight than be straight but winning wars requires the former.



It is an eternal mystery:

if God hates gays so much, why did He create gays?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 21, 2011)

Liability said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Now that DADT has been repealed we all know that God no longer blesses the United States and our troops.
> ...



He loves them so much he's going to send them to hell, just ask any homophone, that's what they'll tell you.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 21, 2011)

I've never heard that a gay person will go to hell for being gay.

What i have heard is that we all sin, an dif you are Christian and do not make the attempt to repent of your sins, and laugh in the face of God by denying that what he states are sins ARE sins, then you have a good chance of going to hell by way of mocking the Holy Spirit.

But keep spreading the fear and hate. I'm sure it really helps the cause.


----------



## Liability (Sep 21, 2011)

Let's ay that Flaylo fucked a young male catfish up the ass ....


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 21, 2011)

So long as he repents and doesn't try to convince children that God smiles upon such behavior....


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 21, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> I've never heard that a gay person will go to hell for being gay.
> 
> What i have heard is that we all sin, an dif you are Christian and do not make the attempt to repent of your sins, and laugh in the face of God by denying that what he states are sins ARE sins, then you have a good chance of going to hell by way of mocking the Holy Spirit.
> 
> But keep spreading the fear and hate. I'm sure it really helps the cause.



Lol yeah I'm one spreading fear and hate, even though right here you're again reiterating that gays are going to hell for being gay.  You just use cute wording to talk around it and try to spin your way out of it.


I'm glad the majority of americans, who are mostly christian, are quickly moving away from gay hating and have agree that gay marriages should be valid.  It's too bad you're being left behind.


Jesus speaks against adultery, not gays, morally everyone should be against adultery so to me that's what we should spend more time on.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 21, 2011)

NightRyder said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Are you teaching children *that the Lord does not find homosexual acts as sinful*?  If you are not, you are leading them to a path of sin (twisting them to focus on immoral acts).
> ...



This thread is about Biblical references.  It is not about what "I want" or how "I feel".  And yes, the Lord was pretty clear about what He expected from people, both in the OT and the NT.  In the OT, there is story after story about what happens when people disregard the Lord.  

How He will judge each of us, is where I have no knowledge.  He is a "just" Lord, which means that we will be punished for our sins (all of us, not just particular groups).  Whether claiming His Son as our Savior will provide us with Salvation is known only by the Lord.

If you don't believe the Lord exists, why even participate in a thread that is about the Bible?


----------



## NightRyder (Sep 21, 2011)

logical4u said:


> NightRyder said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Because you're bigoted over a book of fiction, which is retarded. 
And you believe that the bible is true, so prove it.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 21, 2011)

NightRyder said:


> NightRyder said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



You are bashing the messenger.  I am just pointing out what is in the Bible.  If you have issues, take it up with the Lord.  I have posted no hatred towards homosexuals.  I have claimed them as siblings in sin.  I wish that the peace of the Lord will be granted to them and they will recognize their sinful ways. (I am not the one launching a legislative campaign to socially absolve me from the sins that I have done).  What is immoral about what I have said?  Where is there evidence in the Bible that the Lord proclaimed that homosexual acts/immoral sex/perversity/lewdness/deceit/murder were no longer sinful?  There are places in the OT and the NT where the Lord declares them sinful.  Again, I do not have the AUTHORITY or the POWER to onerturn the Lord.  What makes you think, that you do?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 21, 2011)

NightRyder said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > NightRyder said:
> ...



Can you prove that it IS a book of fiction?


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 21, 2011)

That doesn't even make any sense..."bigoted over a work of fiction".

Please return to school and take remedial English. Then, when you have a nominal grasp of the language, you get to prove that there is bigotry involved, exactly what form it takes (specifics....it isn't "bigoted" to say "gay people are not genetically formed as homosexuals". Sorry. Look up the words if you don't understand them.) and then point out specifically how that so called bigotry is connected to any falsehood in the bible.

What you will find is that the bigotry you attribute to believers isn't bigotry at all. It's a difference of opinion. Though I doubt you have the ability to get that far in your analysis of the situation, given your limited command of the language.


----------



## NightRyder (Sep 22, 2011)

logical4u said:


> NightRyder said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



You can't prove:
A talking snake made a rib-woman eat magic fruit
A dysfunctional family gathered 2 of EVERY animal on earth to put on a boat
The parting of the sea.
Person turning to salt.
The world being made in 6 days.
Heaven
Hell
All of Jesus' miracles
The resurrection.
The burnibg bush
The actual 10 commandments.
...

That enough to make it a work of fiction??


----------



## NightRyder (Sep 22, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> That doesn't even make any sense..."bigoted over a work of fiction".
> 
> Please return to school and take remedial English. Then, when you have a nominal grasp of the language, you get to prove that there is bigotry involved, exactly what form it takes (specifics....it isn't "bigoted" to say "gay people are not genetically formed as homosexuals". Sorry. Look up the words if you don't understand them.) *and then point out specifically how that so called bigotry is connected to any falsehood in the bible.*
> 
> What you will find is that the bigotry you attribute to believers isn't bigotry at all. It's a difference of opinion. Though I doubt you have the ability to get that far in your analysis of the situation, given your limited command of the language.



The bible says that homosexuality is a sin against god. Since God is unprovable and unknowable (as of today), the claim of it being a sin against God is false. You cannot know what a God might want since you don't know if one exists at all.


----------



## Caroljo (Sep 22, 2011)

NightRyder said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > NightRyder said:
> ...



And you can't prove it didn't happen....
We'll all know the truth one day.  You should prepare your excuses to God for not believing.  Although, He already knows the truth about you......


----------



## NightRyder (Sep 22, 2011)

Caroljo said:


> NightRyder said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Sorry, that's not the way it works. If you want something to be true, YOU have to prove it. 
I can't disprove that there are beings living in the middle of the sun who control us, doesn't mean there are any.
You should be worried about believing your whole life in something that you know can't be proven.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 22, 2011)

The "you can't prove" argument goes both ways concerning religion which is a belief.
No on can prove that the Jewish religion is wrong with their beliefs.
No one can prove that the Christian religion is wrong with their beliefs.
No one can prove the Spaghetti monster in the sky religion is wrong with their beliefs.
Why? Because religion is based on BELIEFS, not proof.
Folks are killing each other the world now because of "my religion is the only way to heaven" belief.
Christians have pretty much quit doing that many years ago but our beliefs need NO proof.
I need no proof to be a Christian. Those that do and require a book that cites old JEWISH laws as their commands do not have much faith in their relationship with CHRIST, a man that NEVER said a word about homosexuals.
Christianity is to be CHRISTLIKE. Folks can believe what they want as the Christian religion has many denominations.
But until I find something, anything, anyplace, somewhere where Jesus condemned homosexuals as sinners it does not exist. I follow Christ, NOT old Jewish laws.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 22, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> The "you can't prove" argument goes both ways concerning religion which is a belief.
> No on can prove that the Jewish religion is wrong with their beliefs.
> No one can prove that the Christian religion is wrong with their beliefs.
> No one can prove the Spaghetti monster in the sky religion is wrong with their beliefs.
> ...



And thankfully you're part of a growing majority of christians.  

The ones on here condemning them to hell, as if somehow the sins of a gay person are worse than the sins of a straight person, are the part of a dying minority.

As time goes on, they'll be weeded out.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 22, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The "you can't prove" argument goes both ways concerning religion which is a belief.
> ...



Our church has doubled in the last 4 years. Not saying we are any better than the others and not saying they are wrong. They are the ones pointing fingers and telling us WE are wrong as they watch their members leave the door by the masses headed to another church. 
One of my football coaches told me years ago "you can not fool the kids" as he ran my tail off for not knowing my play book after a few practices. That stuck and that is what is going on. Our youth see that their gay and lesbian neighbors are just as good and equal as them and they do not believe Jesus condemned them.
They are following Christ. Not old Jewish law.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 22, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I'm glad your church is growing, the majority of gays are christian.  Gay christians for the most part are doing the same thing straight christians are, trying to be as christ-like as they can and follow his teachings.

And as we've said, none of those teachings even hint at the idea of having any marginal issue with being gay.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 22, 2011)

NightRyder said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > NightRyder said:
> ...



Can you prove that it did not happen?  After all, science concurs with the "order" of creation.  
I can believe that the earth was created in six days (length according to the Lord).  His time is not the same as our time.
It was a serpent, that could apparently walk "upright" for its curse was to crawl on its belly, afterwards.  And there are "myths" from almost every culture of a time that animals could speak.

You are thinking in terms of man.  These feats were done by the Lord.  If men were empowered by Him to do these things, it was as an example to the arrogant, proud, and selfish rulers of sinful nations.]
What culture came up with anything close to the ten Commandments?  Before this, when laws were written, the laws were different for different classes of people and for different tribes/races. It was a totally new concept, that the same laws apply to every person, including the rulers.

Because something is "hard" to believe, does not make it fiction: take Calculus.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 22, 2011)

NightRyder said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > That doesn't even make any sense..."bigoted over a work of fiction".
> ...




This thread is about what "is" in the Bible.  If you want to start a thread about how you, in all your wisdom, choose to believe (that is faith) the Bible is fiction, please do so.  Otherwise, show where it says in the Bible that homosexual acts are not sinful.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 22, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> The "you can't prove" argument goes both ways concerning religion which is a belief.
> No on can prove that the Jewish religion is wrong with their beliefs.
> No one can prove that the Christian religion is wrong with their beliefs.
> No one can prove the Spaghetti monster in the sky religion is wrong with their beliefs.
> ...


So when Yeshua said that perversity/lewdness/immoral sex (along with other sins) were sins, you with your "godly" authority say that Yeshua was not talking about homosexuality, even thought homosexual acts would clearly be included in those sinful acts?  There you go again, trying to "speak" for the Lord.  Why not tell people to read the gospels for themselves to see what Yeshua thought?  Why do you continue to encourage people to sin, by deceiving them into thinking particular sinful behaviors are not mentioned?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 22, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The "you can't prove" argument goes both ways concerning religion which is a belief.
> ...



THANK YOU FOR ADMITTING "GAY" PEOPLE SIN!!!!!!

WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT OUR SINS ARE LESS THAN HOMOSEXUALS' SINS.  WE ARE SAYING: DO NOT DECLARE SINS AS NON-SINS.  YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY!  We will be in the line of sinners to be judged with homosexuals.  We will not get to "skip" our punishment.  We will not be held up as great examples.  We will be fellow sinners, and will have to answer to the Lord, as the rest of the sinners, will.

BTW: the Lord is a "just" Lord.  Punishment for sins, does not necessarily mean that you are going to hell.  From my tiny, little, understanding of what is in the book of Revelations, hell, will be reserved for those that side with the great deceiver, Satan, or those that curse the Lord.  They will kneel before the Lord and be given a chance to speak for themselves, but instead of asking for mercy, they will curse the Lord for their lives and their existence.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 22, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Tell then to read Proverbs.  The deceit is exposed.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 22, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



You cannot be "Christ-like" if you choose to live a lifestyle of perversity/lewdness/immoral sex.  Either you are being deceived or you are deceiving.


----------



## Obamerican (Sep 22, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


God said don't judge. Shut up, bitch.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 22, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Hey stupid..........this is from a web site ran by theological scholars, who I'm pretty sure understand what's in the Bible better than you.........



> * Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
> * The Qur'an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
> * Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
> * The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
> ...



Internet Sacred Text Archive Home

Try again you bigoted asshole.


----------



## NightRyder (Sep 23, 2011)

Plus, every picture of jesus makes him look gay. Mebbe that's because he only hung around with guys, never had a girlfriend, only fucked a woman once to see if he'd like it (he didn't), dressed like a girl and rode a donkey (a known gay ride).


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 23, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Christ never mentions homosexuality, so your idea of christ-like has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. 

If we're going by Old Testament rules for what immoral sex is, than anyone who has oral sex, and any man who has sex with his hand, is having immoral sex and is not "Christ-like" in your view if your views are consistent.

But of course your views aren't consistent, in your view gays have to live by crazy Old Testament laws, and straights don't.


----------



## LilOlLady (Sep 23, 2011)

GOD never sentence anyone to death for eating shellfish but he did say "men who lie with men are deserving of death." He did not even sentence Cain to death for murdering his brother. He did sentence Annaias to death for LYING.
And I he said do not judge those by what they eat. 

Col 2;16

New International Version (©1984)
Therefore do not let anyone *judge you *by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or *a Sabbath day.*
New Living Translation (©2007)
So don't let anyone *condemn you *for what you eat or drink, or *for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths*.


----------



## LilOlLady (Sep 23, 2011)

New International Version (©1984)
But now that you know God--or rather are known by God--how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?
New Living Translation (©2007)
So now that you know God (or should I say, now that God knows you), why do you want to go back again and become slaves once more to the weak and useless spiritual principles of this world?

 Laws regarding eating was given ONLY to the Israel, ancient Isreael and do not even apply today to Jews. When Jesus came and the old covenant are replaced with the new covenant and Jews made the choice not to accept Christ and thus not accepting the new covenant. Resulting in their being rejected by GOD.

Land of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 23, 2011)

LilOlLady said:


> New International Version (©1984)
> But now that you know God--or rather are known by God--how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?
> New Living Translation (©2007)
> So now that you know God (or should I say, now that God knows you), why do you want to go back again and become slaves once more to the weak and useless spiritual principles of this world?
> ...



You know about as much about the Judaic religion as you do about everything else......

Which is to say you know nothing Big Ol Bitch.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 23, 2011)

logical4u said:


> You cannot be "Christ-like" if you choose to live a lifestyle of perversity/lewdness/immoral sex.



Well, now, wait a minute. Remember this is the guy who hung out with prostitutes, and famously stopped an adultress from being punished. Sure, he told her "go and sin no more," but it's clear he had a soft spot for those whose only transgressions involved carnal pleasures. He reserved the big guns for self-righteous religious hypocrites and greedy money-changers.

And then there's the fact that in the Gospel of John, the author is continually referred to as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Hmm. Remember that it was written in Greek. And we know about those ancient Greeks. So when the text singles out some young guy as the disciple Jesus "loved," the implication of a homosexual relationship would be clearly understood.

Seems to me that in order to be Christlike in every way, one would almost HAVE to live a lifestyle of immoral sex.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 23, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Who determines what is "perverse", "lewd", or immoral when it comes to sex?  Are you talking the puritanical values of the Christian right, or are you talking about the values that Hindus share in the Karma Sutra?

Or would you prefer Puritan values?  

Yeshua (Jesus to you Christians) was asked once what was the greatest Commandment?  Know what His reply was?  "Love God above all else, and love one another like you love God". 

Incidentally, gender wasn't specified.

Additionally, there is NO WHERE AT ALL in the NT where it specifically quotes Yeshua as condemning homosexuals.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 29, 2011)

Obamerican said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



I have no power to judge.  I am telling you what the Bible says (the subject of this thread).  I can tell you searched the Bible for your response.  Thank you for being so rational.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 29, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Ummm, ..... didn't we go thru this before?  You chose not to respond when I asked you if it meant that Saul was having an affair with David when he gave David his (Saul's) clothes (befor the fight with Goliath).  I posted the entire passage once, and the parts surrounding your Chapter and verses, another time, yet you had no response.  So now, do you think I have forgotten how easy it was to point out this man's info is WRONG?

Yeshua states that "immoral sex, lewdness, and perversity are sins, along with murder and other sins.  I know, "he didn't say 'homosexuality'", just the same, it is covered there whether you choose to deny it or not.

Again, if you want to call me bigoted, please provide a better way to live.  If you want to go with far eastern religions, please list the country where the majority live in "freedom and liberty" under that religion.

As for calling me an asshole, I guess that means you are down to repeating yourself like a grade school kid, because you have no rational thoughts to state.  It is a shame, because some times, I think you have the Holy Spirit with you.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 29, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Excuse me??????   Are you saying that our Savior chose to live a life of immoral sex, lewdness, and perversity???????  Grow up, the Savior lived as an absolute model of the Lord's love, not a depraved, sinful "man".  Since the Savior didn't speak English, there are a LOT of things that He never said ...... (read DIPSHIT here).
Since you are perfectly comfortable listing immoral sexual techniques, it is obvious that it is clear to you that homosexual sex IS immoral sex.

Please, try to keep up, I am really tired of repeating this: homosexual acts are sinful.  

NOTICE: I did not condemn homosexuals, not even those that practice homosexual acts.  I did not state that adultery was not a sin.  I did not state that living together (having immoral sex) was not a sin.  I did not say that casual sex (having immoral sex) was not a sin.

I simply pointed out that homosexual acts are sinful.  Just as I have my faults and commit sins, if a person does homosexual acts, they also, commit sin.

I am not saying their sin is any worse than the sins I commit.  I am not saying that I am any better than a person that commits homosexual acts.  I am just saying that they are sinning.

The Lord gave them the ability to reason.  If they choose to reason that the Lord will forgive them for their acts, that is up to them.  I have no problem with that.

I have a problem with people bearing false witness against what the Lord has declared sinful, with no authority.  They are deliberately leading people astray, where they will be vulnerable to other evils.  They know it and they are doing it on purpose.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 29, 2011)

Dragon said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > You cannot be "Christ-like" if you choose to live a lifestyle of perversity/lewdness/immoral sex.
> ...



Yeshua ate with the "unholy".  When He was questioned, He explained that those sinners needed Him more than those that believed in the Lord.  He did not "do" sinful things with them.  He forgave them and encouraged them to turn from their evil ways.  He also went to see the "unclean" those with leporsy, according to your logic, He was "unclean" too (though if that was true, He would not have been welcomed into Jerusalem).  The Lord knew that those that desired "carnal pleasures" were really searching for the Lord's love and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.  He showed them how to reach the Lord (the Lord's prayer), and how to overcome worldy temptations (that pretty much implies that He was not involved in worldly temptations for He had been in the presence of His Father, and desired nothing more than to join His Father again).  

The Greeks were pretty clear about homosexual relationships.  No where in the Bible does it say there was a homosexual relationship with Yeshua.  Bearing false witness to lead others astray?????


----------



## mskafka (Sep 29, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Stash said:
> 
> 
> > Well yeah the same is true of pork, but that rule has been repealed, the rule against homosexuality has not been repealed. How do we know? Well those are the rules.
> ...



Yah, it's in there.  It's in one of the first five books.  But sorry...I kind of like ribs.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 29, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Your heart must be hardened, along with your rationale.  Are homosexual acts covered under "lewdness, perversity, or immoral sex"?  

The Lord did not condemn people in His time on earth.  That will come the Day of Judgement.  He told us what was sinful.  He told us to avoid sinning.  He told us to pray for grace to overcome sin.  If you are telling people what they are doing is not sinful, then you are encouraging them to sin, and possibly making them vulnerable to other evils.
Homosexual acts are sinful.  It is possible to be forgiven for your sins.  It is possible to stop sinning.  There is no condemnation there, only what has been taught in the Bible.

Teaching falsehoods helps no one, except Satan.  Why would you want your fellow man to sin, without even knowing that he should be asking for forgiveness (not from man, but from the Lord)?


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 29, 2011)

My guess would be because he's not a Christian, and it is his fondest wish to see Christians suffer and be punished for being Christian.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 30, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Right but you're not equating sins, you're saying sins of ppl different than you means they can't be christ-like.  I haven't seen you say your sins lead you to incapable of being christ-like.

Again, diff standards for those with diff lifestyles.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 30, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> My guess would be because he's not a Christian, and it is his fondest wish to see Christians suffer and be punished for being Christian.



Why though?

I'm not a Christian, yet I have no desire to see Christians suffer or be punished. Most of my friends (such as my wife) ARE Christians, and while I don't share their faith, I find them to be good people.

The fact that so many Atheists seek to destroy Christianity demonstrates that Atheism is just another religion, a very INTOLERANT one, at that.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 30, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > My guess would be because he's not a Christian, and it is his fondest wish to see Christians suffer and be punished for being Christian.
> ...



It'd be nice if you didn't judge atheists all based on a what a couple lawyers do, but it sounds like you're at an age where new information won't lead to change.

What can ya do


----------



## Dragon (Sep 30, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Excuse me??????   Are you saying that our Savior chose to live a life of immoral sex, lewdness, and perversity???????



Why yes, there's every sign that he did. Why else would he hang out with prostitutes and loose women? Why else was he unmarried (if he was in fact) -- most unusual for a Jewish man in his 30s at that time. And then there was the apparent homosexual affair with the Apostle John, don't forget that.

Why did he wax wrathful and condemn things that most people didn't even find sinful at all, such as the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of the Pharisees (I shall leave it to others to point out who, in modern society, the Pharisees most closely resemble) and the lawful business activity of the money-changers in the Temple, while making excuses and essentially invalidating the whole law in the case of the woman being stoned for adultery? (Note: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," if universally applied, would make all law unenforceable.)

Jesus was, it would seem, quite the hot dude with a soft spot for the babes and a disciple whom he "loved." The evidence that he, himself, lived a lewd and lascivious lifestyle is admittedly circumstantial, but what is plain enough is that he did not share the anti-sexual killjoy attitudes expressed by some of his followers on this thread.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 2, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



If "I" am openly sinning, and then saying to those that point out my sins: those are not sins, because I am enjoying doing them, then I have nothing in common with Christ.  If I acknowledge my sins, and repent, I can be forgiven, as anyone can (INCLUDING HOMOSEXUALS).  If I scoff at the Lord, and declare my own salvation without His authority, I am acting like one of the fallen angels, not Christ.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 2, 2011)

Dragon said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Excuse me??????   Are you saying that our Savior chose to live a life of immoral sex, lewdness, and perversity???????
> ...



Spoken like someone that has never read the Gospels.  Yeshua spoke of the special relationship between one man and one woman in matrimony, hardly "anti-sexual".
Hypocrisy and self-righteousness are both against the Commandment of NOT bearing false witness (lying, deceiving for you).  They are characteristics that will harm the person committing them and the community.  They are "gateway" sins.
The whole point of the adulterous woman was that those that have similar sins are condemning others for doing similar acts.  A very new (unheard of in that day) part of this lesson, was that Yeshua charged the woman with her own behavior (made her equal in the eyes of heaven for her own actions).  In fact: if people would obey the Lord's laws, there would be no need for "man's laws"; there would finally be "world peace".
This was also in reference to the "New Covenant": men would no longer pass their sins onto the following generations, but could be forgiven their sins in their lifetime.

Yeshua was married.  He mentions His spouse, frequently.  His "love" is the "church" the human congregation, and any that have a possibility of joining Him.
There is nothing, nothing that remotely indicates the Savior lived less than a "perfectly behaved" life.  If you want to site chapter and verse, bring it.  Your insults to the Lord are an example that you, like our "lecturer" President, still have no class.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 2, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> My guess would be because he's not a Christian, and it is his fondest wish to see Christians suffer and be punished for being Christian.



wow, you're a paranoid nutjob!

but i knew that already.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 3, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



You also understand the many diff interpretations of the Bible, correct?

I'll bet most christians who are ABOUT to remarry don't think they're about to commit a sin, but Jesus clearly said it was, but it happens anyways.

I'll bet most christians who have are about to have sex before marriage don't think they're sinning, despite what the Bible says, and it happens anyways.

I'll bet most christians who have oral sex, married couples included, don't view it as sinning despite what the Bible says, and they do it anyways.

I'm not sure why knowing what a part of the Bible says or not determines how bad of a sin it is to you.  Or are you saying that playing the ignorance card makes it ok since they're not "knowingly openly" sinning?


----------



## Dragon (Oct 3, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Spoken like someone that has never read the Gospels.



LOL no, spoken like someone who HAS read them, without having the words of someone else with a preconceived idea of what they say ringing in my ears and drowning out all thought.



> Yeshua spoke of the special relationship between one man and one woman in matrimony, hardly "anti-sexual".



I'm not saying he was anti-sexual, I'm saying you are. And that he was not.



> Hypocrisy and self-righteousness are both against the Commandment of NOT bearing false witness (lying, deceiving for you).



Nonsense. That's a ridiculous stretch of logic. "False witness" specifically applies to courts. And the fact remains that the Pharisees were highly honored men in Jewish society of the time; Jesus' condemnation of them was right out of left field.

I'll add that a whole lot of Jesus' followers today resemble the Pharisees strongly, being out of tune with what Jesus really valued, emphasizing a lot of killjoy arbitrary rules instead of the love of God and of one another, washing the outside of the cup carefully and leaving the inside filthy.

You are a Pharisee.



> The whole point of the adulterous woman was that those that have similar sins are condemning others for doing similar acts.



No, that's not what he said. He said, "whoever is without sin, throw the first stone." Not, "whoever is not guilty of adultery" -- odds are there were quite a few of those people who had never committed adultery, and would have thrown the first stone, giving the tale a different outcome.

The point here is that Jesus, who was so forgiving and non-judgmental when it came to sexual sins like adultery, was completely hard-nosed when it came to greed, hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and religious corruption. Those who _are_ self-righteous, and from that are quick to condemn sexual transgressions, are the antithesis of what Jesus stood for.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 3, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Please do keep up!  Lewdness, perversity and immoral sex were included among other sins that Yeshua mentioned.  If any of the above can be included in that, then they are sins.  Please focus!  Homosexual acts are "sinful", it does not matter that "other" people are sinning.  It does not matter that those sins are comparable.  What matters is: those other people are not declaring "their sins" as NOT SINFUL; they do not have the authority to do so.  Just as homosexual activists have no spiritual authority to declare the sins they are committing NOT SINFUL.  
If you want to find the Lord, you must accept that you are a sinner, and that you can only improve (sin less) with grace from the Holy Spirit.  By homosexual activists telling people that what they are doing is NOT SINFUL, is setting them up for eternal punishment, compared to them sinning and repenting, improving with the help of the Lord.  The Lord is just.  We will all be punished for our sins, appropriately (hopefully with lots of mercy).  Why encourage a whole segment of the population to sin and then to continue to sin when you know they will face punishment for their actions?

Do try to stay on topic.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 3, 2011)

Dragon said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Spoken like someone that has never read the Gospels.
> ...



Sexual sins like adultery start with hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and religious corruption.  Those are pretty much the root of all sins.  You are not loving your Lord, and you are definitely not loving your neighbor, but "using" them.  

The reason Yeshua came down so hard on the Pharisees was because they were men of "appearances", not heartfelt actions.  He called them on their deception, and He loathed deception in all forms.  He would forgive anyone that truly repented (that would include the sexually immoral).

Calling me a Pharisee makes no sense.  I have no authority to judge, or condemn.  I can only tell you what I have read and what I understand of the Bible.  Personally, I think your statements are muslim-like: deceptive and destructive.  I guess it is harder to encourage people to improve themselves and easier to try to tear a person down to your level.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 4, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sexual sins like adultery start with hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and religious corruption.



Nonsense. They start with sexual desire. Sometimes they even start with love. (I'm setting aside things that _I_ would consider sexual sins, such as rape -- which certainly doesn't start with love.)

It is absolutely untrue that an adulterer is necessarily "using" his/her illicit partner. Sometimes that's the case, but often it is not. An extramarital affair can be a thing of great passion and deep love. The rules restricting sex to a single partner are arbitrary and artificial, and it's inevitable that on occasion natural desire will run counter to them. If one believes in and is committed to monogamy within a relationship, one will experience internal conflict when smitten with desire for -- more so, with love for -- someone who is not one's partner. That doesn't make acting upon the desire right necessarily. But to say that it arises from hypocrisy is plain nonsense.

One can sense in Jesus' attitude an awareness that sexual sins arose always from natural desire and often from love, making them less serious than non-carnal sins arising from greed or self-righteousness. I find his attitude completely comprehensible. I also find it one hundred and eighty degrees removed from the attitudes commonly found among his followers today.



> The reason Yeshua came down so hard on the Pharisees was because they were men of "appearances", not heartfelt actions.



I realize this is a traditional Christian interpretation, but like many traditional Christian interpretations it is twisted from the plain, straightforward, and obvious meaning, which Christians would often find uncomfortable.

Look at what he actually said about the Pharisees. One thing he said about them was that they strained at a gnat but swallowed a camel. Does that have anything to do with appearances as opposed to heartfelt actions? No. But it has everything to do with placing excessive importance on the trivial while neglecting the really important things.

What were the really important things? He said it simply enough: Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Therein lie all the Law and the Prophets. The Pharisees' errors were, first, to focus on the minutiae of the Law and the nitpicking details of religious and personal behavior, neglecting love; and, second, to puff themselves up with self-righteous arrogance for their strict observance of the Law's tenets. For this he called them whitewashed tombs and a generation of vipers.



> Calling me a Pharisee makes no sense.



It makes perfect sense. Like the Pharisees (who, incidentally, also had no authority to judge or condemn; they were a philosophical Jewish sect, distinct from the Scribes or lawyers who did have that authority), you focus on the minutiae of the Law -- as altered somewhat for Christian purposes -- and neglect love. It's for this reason that you are so caught up in worries about sexual transgressions, the very area that Jesus considered no big deal, and so outraged at the suggestion that he lived a sexually sinful life himself, when there is every indication that he may have, and certainly that he condoned it or at least didn't take it very seriously in others.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 4, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Right so why does it seem based on how you post at least, that homosexuals having homosexual sex is worse than straights performing sodomy (oral and anal sex)?

Or straights who remarry?  When there's no doubt by the scripture that's far worse than anything having to do with homosexuality.

You understand if you go exactly by what the Bible says word for word, that there's FAR more straights in the world openly sinning through sex than gays right?  All the pre-marital straight sex, all the oral sex by married straight couples, all the remarrying and having sex with 2nd/3rd/4th/11th wives.

However, despite the obvious # of straights sinning far outnumbering the # of gays sinning through sexual acts, you hear more griping and whining from the self-righteous fundamental types at a rate of about 1000 to 1 in terms of gays to straights.  Besides obvious prejudice and hatred, what else could be the rationalization?


----------



## logical4u (Oct 4, 2011)

Dragon said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sexual sins like adultery start with hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and religious corruption.
> ...



If you are in an adulterous affair, have you been honest with your spouse?  Have you committed yourself to the marriage vows?  The hypocrisy is: you vowed one thing and you are now going against "your" vows.  Yes, say it with me .... deception.

The Pharisee thing, it looks like we are saying the same thing in different ways.  Now please explain to me how you can "love your neighbor" when you are dishonoring their child and their family.  That is not love.  That is selfish.

I am not "caught up in worries about sexual transgressions".  I do not like deception.  To say that homosexual acts are not sinful is deception.  If people are privately having sex, there is no way that I can know about it (I do not want to know about it).  If homosexual activists want to declare "legitimacy" of their sinful acts by legislating faux marriage, I have the right to speak against it.  Say it with me.... it is deceit.  Because you choose to accept forms of deceit is your choice.  My choice: call it by name and bring it into the light of day (reason).


----------



## logical4u (Oct 4, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Little boy, the only difference between the sins is that one group says it is NOT sinful, while the other group knows that it is and that they are committing sins.  They are not trying to get the whole country to SUPPORT their sins.  Everyone sins.  One tiny part of the population wants their "sins" declared legitimate, and then wants the majority Christian population to support them with tax dollars.  Is that clear enough?
Do couples living together demand the "benefits" of being married?
Do prostitutes demand that tax dollars be used to legitimize their lifestyle?
Are their classes to teach that other forms of immoral sex is okay (say like: one of my dads is a kangeroo), or that if you think sex with inanimate objects is strange, you should try it before you judge, in schools to little children?
Is your arguement really, really down to: "they did it too!"?  Do you need a pacifier?


----------



## Dragon (Oct 4, 2011)

logical4u said:


> If you are in an adulterous affair, have you been honest with your spouse?  Have you committed yourself to the marriage vows?  The hypocrisy is: you vowed one thing and you are now going against "your" vows.  Yes, say it with me .... deception.



So you're saying that as long as the adulterer is perfectly honest and up-front about his affair, that makes it all right? 

Regardless of that, nobody has an extramarital affair out of a motivation to lie or deceive. It's always from sexual desire and sometimes from love. Deception is merely an accompaniment.



> Now please explain to me how you can "love your neighbor" when you are dishonoring their child and their family.  That is not love.  That is selfish.



You're making my point for me here: focusing on nitpicks, insisting that any gnat of minor disobedience to a rule and regulation be strained out, and swallowing the camel that focusing on those nits itself represents.



> I am not "caught up in worries about sexual transgressions".



Of course you are. It couldn't be more obvious.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 4, 2011)

Dragon said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > If you are in an adulterous affair, have you been honest with your spouse?  Have you committed yourself to the marriage vows?  The hypocrisy is: you vowed one thing and you are now going against "your" vows.  Yes, say it with me .... deception.
> ...



I said that an adulterer is a deceiver.  I did not mention what the motivation "was".
How is breaking 3 of the 10 Commandments, trivial or nonconsequential?
Obvious to you, in your own private world?


----------



## Againsheila (Oct 4, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> For fish to be considered clean to eat they must have fins and scales.  It is in Leviticus.  I can't quote chapter and verse though.
> the same book that says hosexuality is a sin as well.
> And a sin is a sin.



According to the Catholics, there are "mortal" sins and "venial" sins.  The former being one that makes you go to hell and the later being one you can be forgiven for, maybe serve time in purgatory?


----------



## uscitizen (Oct 4, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > For fish to be considered clean to eat they must have fins and scales.  It is in Leviticus.  I can't quote chapter and verse though.
> ...



Is that like a vomitorium?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 5, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Little boy lol, you can always tell when someone is defeated by what they stoop to saying in their posts.

I never hear unmarried straight christians say them having sex is sinful.  I also don't hear ppl clamoring for sex before marriage to be illegal.

I never hear married straight christians say aspects of their sex lives are sinful.  I also don't hear ppl clamoring for gov't to regulate what type of sex ppl should have.

I never hear straight christian couples getting married for the 2nd/3rd/etc time say the act of them getting remarried is breaking one of the 10 commandments.  Churches don't even think that or they wouldn't perform the marriages, I can't see a priest/preacher openly allowing one of the 10 commandments to be broken inside church walls.  I also don't hear ppl calling for remarriage to be illegal.

In every sex ed class you go to sex before marriage is just assumed, so in your mind yes taxpayer dollars are being used towards "sinful" sex.  However you of course don't care about that, only "sinful" gay sex.  Sinful straight sex, as has been throughout your entire hypocritical stance in this thread, is a-ok.

So every stupid argument you've made to rationalize your hate for gays, and downplay the biblical sins of straight people, goes right out the window with the application of common sense.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 5, 2011)

logical4u said:


> I said that an adulterer is a deceiver.  I did not mention what the motivation "was".



I did, though, and you were responding to what I said.



> How is breaking 3 of the 10 Commandments, trivial or nonconsequential?



Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself: these are all of the Law and the Prophets. Implied: Don't get hung up on what the text says by, for example, counting how many Commandments are violated.

If someone cheats on his/her partner, that may or may not be a serious problem depending on the rules of their relationship and how seriously the partner takes it. It is in any case in a completely different category than, say, the CEO of a major bank hiring lobbyists to provide bribes to legislators to make sure the law enables the bank to siphon vast amounts of other people's money into its own coffers. Or a televangelist using his charisma to get poor people to donate money they desperately need, to him, who clearly doesn't. Or a company dumping its well-paid workforce to hire dirt-cheap labor in a third-world country with an oppressive government that stomps all over workers' rights.

It's not that sexual sins are not wrong (although in many cases, e.g. premarital sex by unmarried people, I do think things traditional Christianity calls wrong aren't wrong), it's just a matter of perspective. Even when they're wrong, they're not horribly wrong, compared to sins that people like you tend to ignore.

And that's my point here. Jesus saw it more or less the way I do. He brushed off adultery with a sophistry and a "neither do I accuse you," but drove the money changers from the temple with a whip. He was lax about enforcing the Sabbath, and when some i-dotter called him on it, responded that the Law was made for man, not vice-versa. He hung out with the despised -- the poor, prostitutes, even the loathed tax collectors -- and castigated the well-regarded for thinking they were better than these people. He had no respect at all for wealth or status, and only contempt for ostentatious holiness. And he obviously didn't make a big deal about sins arising from love, or from carnal desire, focusing his big guns on those arising from greed and desire for power.

If you want to be like Jesus, go and do likewise.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 5, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



You didn't answer the questions.

BTW, there are a lot of people that have issues with our tax dollars subsidising immoral sex.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 5, 2011)

Dragon said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > I said that an adulterer is a deceiver.  I did not mention what the motivation "was".
> ...



For someone that claims not to "believe" the Bible, you sure do use it to your advantage.

If you do not hold a person accountable for "nonconsequential" actions, it will be harder to hold them accountable for more serious crimes (if a child is killing little animals and you say nothing, the child's crimes will grow with the child)  (if children that are sport stars are allowed to cheat in classrooms, what makes you think they will be honorable on the playing field or in life?)

Man asked for the "Laws".  They begged Moses to petition the Lord for rules that they could live by without angering the Lord.  After those original "laws", men started pushing the envelope, and "man" had to expand, stretch, clarify the laws to keep the peace (these are the "laws" that Yeshua is referring to when He talks of man's laws).

You did not answer the question: How can you love your neighbor when you are coveting a person that belongs to their family for less than honorable intentions?  How can you dishonor a person that you used for sexual gratification and claim that you "love your neighbor" and have done right by them?  How can you claim that adultery is not sinful (did you not break your word, your vow?  Is that not deceit?)?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 6, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



I don't answer loaded questions.  There should be no such thing as straight marriage and gay marriage, it should all just be called marriage.  

I have no idea where you're going with your prostitute analogy.  Frankly I don't want to know. 

But I torched all your silly post by pointing out that according to what the Bible says is sinful sex, that yes sex ed does teach about sinful sex and yes taxpayer dollars are already used for that.

It just goes along with your hypocritical stance you've had this whole time, straights having sex the bible calls sinful=no problem, gays having sex the bible calls sinful=a travesty.


----------



## Newby (Oct 6, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



You made very good points, Drock, but you're leaving out one tiny little fact.  And that is that about 40 to 50 years ago all of the things that you listed were not acceptable in society, sex outside of marriage, adultery, premarital sex, sex education taught in schools, etc... But, the counter culture has fought so hard over the last 40 to 50 years to erradicate any of those morals from our society that they have now all become 'acceptable' in today's age.  The same is being done with homosexual sex and marriage, and I'm sure in another 20 years, it will also be considered 'acceptable' by mainstream society.   However, that doesn't necessarily mean that any of it is good or right.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 6, 2011)

Newby said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Sex outside of marriage is just going to become more prevalent with ppl getting married at older ages.  40-50 years ago everyone got married between 17-21 more or less, now everyone is in college until 22-26 and you don't have time to devote to a wife/husband and kids.  Also a lot of people who are 22-26 have $30,000-$150,000 in college debt, certainly a burden that will keep people from wanting to have kids.  

I'm more with the mainstream, premarital sex and sex education are good things.  Adultery is awful I agree, and I have zero issue with 2 consenting gay ppl having a sex life and a marriage.  It affects no one else, so no one else should an issue with it, however as we see in society that's not the case.

Luckily though, the anti-gay and anti-gay marriage voice has become the voice of the minority and a continuingly dwindling minority.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 6, 2011)

Newby said:


> You made very good points, Drock, but you're leaving out one tiny little fact.  And that is that about 40 to 50 years ago all of the things that you listed were not acceptable in society, sex outside of marriage, adultery, premarital sex, sex education taught in schools, etc... But, the counter culture has fought so hard over the last 40 to 50 years to erradicate any of those morals from our society that they have now all become 'acceptable' in today's age.  The same is being done with homosexual sex and marriage, and I'm sure in another 20 years, it will also be considered 'acceptable' by mainstream society.   However, that doesn't necessarily mean that any of it is good or right.



Several things that YOU'RE forgetting Newby......

First, there were people who helped start this country who were kicked out of Britian for being too puritanical.

Second, you're also forgetting the fact that several things that you say were unacceptable to AMERICAN SOCIETY (you forget that the US isn't the only culture in the world), WERE acceptable to other societies and belief systems.  Check Hindu sometime.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Oct 6, 2011)

Newby said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Premarital sex was all the norm in the roaring 20s and before the Victorian age. 
What is wrong with teaching sex ed in school? 
Homosexual marriage is a non issue. It affects no one. Waste of time.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 7, 2011)

logical4u said:


> For someone that claims not to "believe" the Bible, you sure do use it to your advantage.



I don't "believe in the Bible" the way many Christians do, but neither do I believe every word in it is false (which would be just as unlikely as every word in it being true). I don't know for sure that the Gospel accounts are accurate as to what Jesus really taught and did and believed, but I am familiar with what they say, and happen to admire Jesus as he is described. So the story is worth referring to, not least as proof that Christians often depart radically from his teachings while thinking they are conforming to them.



> If you do not hold a person accountable for "nonconsequential" actions, it will be harder to hold them accountable for more serious crimes



As a practical matter, the law does not operate that way. I've jay-walked many times in full view of police officers without getting a ticket, but that doesn't lead me to expect the law to be lax if I rob a store at gunpoint. (It does lead me to think I can jay-walk with impunity, though.)

But what really gets me is that so many Christians do what the Pharisees did: focus on the inconsequential sins and let the truly bad ones go by, or even honor those who commit them.



> Man asked for the "Laws".  They begged Moses to petition the Lord for rules that they could live by without angering the Lord.  After those original "laws", men started pushing the envelope, and "man" had to expand, stretch, clarify the laws to keep the peace (these are the "laws" that Yeshua is referring to when He talks of man's laws).



The law he was specifically referring to at the time was one of the Ten Commandments: Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. So, no.



> You did not answer the question: How can you love your neighbor when you are coveting a person that belongs to their family for less than honorable intentions?



I did answer the question, you just didn't like my answer. I reserve the right, of course, to rephrase any question when it is presented in misleading terms as you have done here.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 7, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Hey, don't let the truth get in the way of your "good" opinion.
I called you a "little boy" because, I am having to repeat statements that you simply ignore: like: all immoral sex is sinful, it is only the homosexual activists that are claiming what they are doing is not sinful. The same way you have to explain to a four year old, over and over, when it comes to them not doing what they want to do, I have to explain that homosexual acts are sinful.   The prostitute analogy: homosexual activists are teaching their preference of sex in schools, the prostitutes are not (kind of flames your: heterosexual sins are okay theory).
I know you "get it" because then, you want to focus on "heterosexual sins".  That is not what this thread is about.  If you want to start a thread on that topic, go for it.  You will find that I have been consistant when it comes to "sin".
You, too, are consistant: if it is sin, then "do it"!  And that applies across the board for immoral sex.  When people start doing those other sins (theft/covet, murder/abortion), then you want to draw lines.  If you want to throw the hypocrit label around, you might try the person in the mirror, first.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 7, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Why is it, whenever homosexual preferential benefits are put on the ballot, the vote is mostly against the homosexual additional rights?


----------



## logical4u (Oct 7, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



I think that "premarital sex" has proven itself, repeatedly, to be costly and disasterous for societies.
Nothing is wrong with teaching sex ed in school.  Stick to the facts: this is what happens, when you participate in this activity/ you are sharing germs with every other person your partner has been with/if you have intercourse, there is a good possibility you will have a child/more than one out of three people are or have been infected with sexually transmitted diseases/you can reduce you risk of catching sexually transmitted diseases by choosing one partner (preferably that has also chosen one partner, only), and sticking with that partner.
Homosexual faux marriage works pretty much like any other type of immoral sex: it hurts societies over time (it corrupts people).


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 7, 2011)

how does it corrupt people?  what part of them is corrupted?  and how does a corrupted person then pass on that corruption to the rest of society?  Can you be corrupted for living to close to the gays?  Do you catch the gay virus?


----------



## chesswarsnow (Oct 7, 2011)

Sorry bout that,





SmarterThanHick said:


> how does it corrupt people?  what part of them is corrupted?  and how does a corrupted person then pass on that corruption to the rest of society?  Can you be corrupted for living to close to the gays?  Do you catch the gay virus?






1. The problem with sin, you don't always sense it.
2. And the further away from GOD you are, the less you sense it.
3. When Homos sin with their lewd actions, they sin against mankind, and GOD, its a shame, when homo enablers stand up for this obvious sin, they themselves become a partaker in their sins.
4. Kinda like when a pedophile uses children in an evil and sinful way, and then other people who watch what he did on the internet, the man watching on the internet isn't actually doing the acts, but he is enjoying it just as much, so yes, like he is corrupted, for watching the video, just like when people who are not homos defend homos, they too are just as corrupted as the homos.
5. If you watch videos of children being abused by a pedophile on the internet or anywhere else, you can go to jail for it, seems this should apply to the Homo defenders as well.
6. Then I think another example of sin being used to corrupt others, is how children get shot up with too many vaccines, at too young of an age, this corrupts the children, and also corrupts those who instigate this sin, they both are being corrupted, one is innocent, the other has no excuse, both suffer in the end, and sin is multiplied, and more shame is discovered.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 7, 2011)

so you're saying you can sense the gays because you're closer to God?  That's interesting that you feel that it is your religion that gives you the innate ability to SENSE a gay man.  Be honest now: do you sense gays with your penis?


----------



## chesswarsnow (Oct 7, 2011)

Sorry bout that,






SmarterThanHick said:


> so you're saying you can sense the gays because you're closer to God?  That's interesting that you feel that it is your religion that gives you the innate ability to SENSE a gay man.  Be honest now: do you sense gays with your penis?







1. You are a sinful person.
2. And your sin is not hidden.
3. Vile and evil you are.
4. Thats your problem, you deal with it.
5. And you pretend to be in the medical field, God help those whoever they are of which you have anything to do with.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 7, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> so you're saying you can sense the gays because you're closer to God?  That's interesting that you feel that it is your religion that gives you the innate ability to SENSE a gay man.  Be honest now: do you sense gays with your penis?



Apparently, because Crap Whore Sow is so close to God that he can figure out who is gay and who isn't, means he has really good gaydar.

Apparently, God approves of gays, otherwise, someone so close to God wouldn't be able to sense them so well.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 8, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> how does it corrupt people?  what part of them is corrupted?  and how does a corrupted person then pass on that corruption to the rest of society?  Can you be corrupted for living to close to the gays?  Do you catch the gay virus?



I really wish that you people would pay attention.
DECEIT is corruption.  If you are deceptive to yourself, to society, to your intended victim's family, that is corruption.  If you are DECEPTIVE in one area of your life, chances are, that you find no problem with being deceptive in other parts of your life.  Once that is established, then it is okay to covet....., etc, etc, etc.
Now that you have a "partnership" of deceptive people, they encourage other people to act in a similar manner, next thing you know, there is a "community" of deceptive people.  Within that partnership or community those people take advantage of "outsiders" (they set them up to loose money, they blackmail them, they steal from them).  Now the next community becomes vindictive or wants revenge.  They circle grows, society weakens.
Is it possible to limit the deception?  That is a question for the deceivers.  The Biblical prophets condemn those that deceive.  Maybe, we should pay attention to something that is basic to the foundations of society and discourage deceit as well.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Oct 8, 2011)

logical4u said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > how does it corrupt people?  what part of them is corrupted?  and how does a corrupted person then pass on that corruption to the rest of society?  Can you be corrupted for living to close to the gays?  Do you catch the gay virus?
> ...



I really wish you would leave non-christian gays alone.  You are unbelievable in your prejudice.  Move to your own planet where no gays live.

Sad.

Homophobes make all Christians look bad.  Thank God some of you are actually tolerant and kind.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 8, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...



Oh, please quote me on being "intolerant" and "unkind".


----------



## chesswarsnow (Oct 8, 2011)

Sorry bout that,





ABikerSailor said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > so you're saying you can sense the gays because you're closer to God?  That's interesting that you feel that it is your religion that gives you the innate ability to SENSE a gay man.  Be honest now: do you sense gays with your penis?
> ...






1. My *Gay-Dar* went off again.
2. No GOD will punish *ALL* gays.
3. You gay enablers too.
4. Watch out is my advice.
5. Corrupted bastards.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## chesswarsnow (Oct 8, 2011)

Sorry bout that,





Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...






1. If possible, can I go to some other planet where there are no gays too?
2. It would make me *happy*.
3. I'm a homophobe and a Christian, hows that make you look?



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Gadawg73 (Oct 8, 2011)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



WTF is a "gay enabler".
Splain that one Moe.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Oct 8, 2011)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You sure are nothing like JC.  He would love gay people.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 8, 2011)

chesswarsnow said:


> 1. You are a sinful person.
> 2. And your sin is not hidden.
> 3. Vile and evil you are.
> 4. Thats your problem, you deal with it.
> ...


Seriously I'm interested.  You said you could sense sin.  What part of you tingles when you are close to a gay person?  Describe this extra sense of yours.  I'm quite interested. 



logical4u said:


> I really wish that you people would pay attention.
> DECEIT is corruption.  If you are deceptive to yourself, to society, to your intended victim's family, that is corruption.  If you are DECEPTIVE in one area of your life, chances are, that you find no problem with being deceptive in other parts of your life.  Once that is established, then it is okay to covet....., etc, etc, etc.


And I really wish you'd answer the question: what is being CORRUPTED?  OK let's look at a computer.  If I take a magnet near my hard drive, I can say I'm corrupting the computer.  Specifically, the thing that is being corrupted is the data storage on the hard drive.  I can not only specifically point to the corrupting force, but also what exactly is being corrupted.  So let's go back to your silliness. You are constantly pointing at the alleged corrupting force, but you seem completely incapable of saying what is specifically being corrupted.  Well?  What is it?  



logical4u said:


> Now that you have a "partnership" of deceptive people, they encourage other people to act in a similar manner, next thing you know, there is a "community" of deceptive people.  Within that partnership or community those people take advantage of "outsiders" (they set them up to loose money, they blackmail them, they steal from them).  Now the next community becomes vindictive or wants revenge.  They circle grows, society weakens.


So you think gay people encourage other people to turn gay, and then the gay community sets up outsiders to be blackmailed and robbed?  

I love nutjobs.  Crazy always makes my case for me. 



Gadawg73 said:


> WTF is a "gay enabler".
> Splain that one Moe.


Apparently it's someone who encourages others to turn gay, then blackmails them. Or maybe it's someone who buys alcohol for underage gay teens?  I lose track of the meaning of all these made up terms.


----------



## chesswarsnow (Oct 9, 2011)

Sorry bout that,







Gadawg73 said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...






1. No problem Curly, a *Gay-Enabler* is a person who defends gays and makes room for them in society making claims being gay is normal.
2. Gaybiker, made my *Gaydar* like *Radar* go off when he entered this thread.
3. Gays are in the world, and man can't change it,  but gays should be in the closet, not be promoted by non-gays.
4. There is nothing good about being gay-homo, they are a dead tree, with nothing to offer, and never shall have anything to offer mankind/womenkind....period.
5. A freak of nature, how does a dead tree grow?
6. This question many should want me to answer, but few have the nads to ask.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Samson (Oct 9, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > You need to quote chapter and verse for every biblical assertion.
> ...



"Targeting" Homophobes?

That sounds like a violent threat against anyone who won't invite a guy in drag over to his home to eat catfish with his children.


----------



## chesswarsnow (Oct 9, 2011)

Sorry bout that,






chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 
> ...






1. Lets get this straight, some evil souls want to twist what I said here, I will further drive in the nail on this.
2. Those people who know not GOD, do not sense what sin is, they have no conscience of sin, and they are corrupted, and corrupt others with their lies, in the matter  homos, they spread lies, and corrupt the minds of the weak, and at times teachers of the Gospels, seeing some Churches have succumbed to these lies, even allowing homos to be their Priests in their congregations, this should not be, and these churches should be shunned out of the faith, and their tax free exemptions should be taken away too, they are nothing but a cult as far as I can see.
3. So those without GOD, tend to think being a homo is fine, its okay, they know not what they are of, and who they are promoting, which is satan, the father of all lies, even if you are not a homo, and you still promote homos, you shall be judged over that.
4. How can this be you might ask?
5. Because the sin you promote, does cling to you, and can not be washed off.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## chesswarsnow (Oct 9, 2011)

Sorry bout that,





Sky Dancer said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...






1. What makes you think Jesus is a *Gay-Enabler*?
2. Jesus doesn't condone being homo.
3. A homo would like to poke everyone in the butt, you think Jesus would like to be poked in the butt, and poke you into the butt? If your answer is yes, you're sicker than I thought.....
4. "Do unto to others as you would have done to you". With a homo mindset, we all know this is just plain wrong, its corruption, and leads to nothing butt evil.
5. This is corruption, you can't fish with that bait, won't work.




Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 9, 2011)

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yo........Sir Flamer of TexASS, can you provide a specific Bible verse where Yeshua condemns homosexuality?

I'm betting you can't.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 9, 2011)

chesswarsnow said:


> 1. Lets get this straight, some evil souls want to twist what I said here, I will further drive in the nail on this.
> 2. Those people who know not GOD, do not sense what sin is, they have no conscience of sin, and they are corrupted, and corrupt others with their lies, in the matter  homos, they spread lies, and corrupt the minds of the weak, and at times teachers of the Gospels, seeing some Churches have succumbed to these lies, even allowing homos to be their Priests in their congregations, this should not be, and these churches should be shunned out of the faith, and their tax free exemptions should be taken away too, they are nothing but a cult as far as I can see.
> 3. So those without GOD, tend to think being a homo is fine, its okay, they know not what they are of, and who they are promoting, which is satan, the father of all lies, even if you are not a homo, and you still promote homos, you shall be judged over that.
> 4. How can this be you might ask?
> ...


Yes, you've said that.  Once again I ask: what part of you SENSES sin?


----------



## logical4u (Oct 9, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...



The Savior would be telling you the same thing He told the adulterous woman (also "immoral sex): Stop That!


----------



## Sky Dancer (Oct 9, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > chesswarsnow said:
> ...



God and Jesus have no problem with me and my wife.  You, on the other hand, seem to do nothing else but think about other people's "sins".

I feel sorry for you.  You're missing out on knowing some wonderful people because your view is so narrow and harshly judging.  Clean up your own act and we'll talk.  God has a special hell for those who you who think you're superior to the rest of us.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 9, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > 1. You are a sinful person.
> ...



Okay, as to a four year old: corruption is the degrading of spirit.  You do not work right, mentally, or spiritually.  If you allow yourself to accept deceit, it is easier to convince you to accept coveting (theft), and so on, and so forth.  
Once "people" are corrupt, society becomes corrupt: the laws only apply to those NOT in charge, etc, etc, etc.

Deception in a community encourages other deception.  If deception is "accepted", then so is stealing (from others).  There are also parties, outsiders come in, and in an intoxicated moment, someone takes advantage of them, or takes some very "questionable" pictures.  This is used to get "a favor" or money, that would not have been available under normal circumstances.  This behavior "corrupts" society.

How many homosexuals had their "first" homosexual experience with an adult, or much older teen, before they were at the age of consent?  If you take advantage of a child, and then tell them that experience, could not have happened if they were not homosexual, isn't that "creating" homosexuals?

Immoral sex acts lead to really, really bad behavior.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 9, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...



Way back in this thread there is a specific verse where the Savior lumps immoral sex, lewdness, and perversity in with sins that "we" consider far worse like theft and murder.  Since the word "homosexuality" was not around at that time, the word is not listed.

Anyone, but someone that is intentionally being obtuse, would understand that immoral sex, lewdness, and perversity cover homosexual acts.  If you want to re-read the thread, it is there.  If you want to do a web search with the words above, you can find it (though it is getting harder to find the Biblical stuff).


----------



## logical4u (Oct 9, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Are you telling me that you speak for the Lord, now?  Please tell me, by what authority do you speak for the Lord?

Let me repeat myself, again, for you: as long as you are promoting sinful behavior as not sinful, I will speak out against those falsehoods.

Wonderful people?  People that cannot admit they have serious issues, and sin, are not people that I want to spend a lot of time getting to know: which one am I getting to know?  Will it be the person that is deceitful to themselves and everyone around them by saying there is nothing harmful in their behavior?  Will it be the person that hurts those that they claim to love for their own personal, selfish reasons?  

I enjoy meeting genuine people, not faux people.  If you are one way on the surface, and entirely different on the inside, I do not want to spend time with you.  If I have to work with you, fine.  We have a job to do, let's knock it out, and go home to our respective homes.  Socially, I will not be seeing you (and you would not want to spend time with me, either, as I have a way of bringing falsehoods into the light).  Most deceivers I meet, spend as little time with me as possible; I shake their world to its foundations, and they do not like it, one bit.


----------



## yidnar (Oct 9, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...


do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman ,that is detestable ...... Leviticus 18:22


----------



## chesswarsnow (Oct 9, 2011)

Sorry bout that,





ABikerSailor said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry bout that,
> ...





1. Jesus didn't directly say anything about murdering, or pedophilia, or terrorism, crashing planes into buildings, either.
2. So seeing Jesus didn't say something, then its *all good*?
3. Certainly you are gay.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Sky Dancer (Oct 9, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Are you telling me that YOU speak for God?  I'm telling you I have my own relationship with God.

I feel so sorry for you that you are so busy tending to other people's business.

God and I are good.    There is nothing sinful in my marriage.  It's the envy of many of my heterosexual friends.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 10, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Why do claims matter if it happens anyway?  I'm the one who has to repeat myself.  Christians, and this isn't an insult cuz all cultures are like this, for the most part have premarital sex and most of them don't condemn it or they wouldn't do it, but it still happens.  Why is that less bad to you than homosexuals having "sinful" sex?  Simply because of what words they say?  

I had sex ed from like 4th grade thru freshman year of college, never heard anything about someone wanting to teach homosexual sex.  So I wouldn't attach that thought to all homosexuals, probably a tiny minority.

I'm not a christian, so I don't label things as sinful.  However I don't find it the least bit immoral for ppl to have sex before marriage (as long as they aren't cheating, are being safe, etc), nothing immoral about homosexual sex (as long as they aren't cheating, are being safe, etc), nothing immoral about remarrying (but i do think divorce is immoral if you have children).


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 10, 2011)

yidnar said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > chesswarsnow said:
> ...



Hey Skidmark........you DO realize that Leviticus is from the OT, while Yeshua didn't show up until several hundred years LATER.  Additionally, Leviticus was written for the Levites (Jewish priests), and Yeshua wasn't a priest even though He taught as a rabbi.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 10, 2011)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > chesswarsnow said:
> ...



Really?  I think that a scholar site dedicated specifically towards all sacred texts would be a lot more accurate than your bullshit......



> * Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
> * The Qur'an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
> * Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
> * The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
> ...



Internet Sacred Text Archive Home

And no, it's not hard to find, you just have to be able to search something other than church blog sites.

I trust scholar sites over specific church sites btw, because the church site will infect you with their dogma.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 10, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Nice dodge!  You speak with no authority.  All I have done is relate what is in the Bible.  That is not "my" guidance, but the Lord's.  I do not speak for the Lord.  The Lord has spoken thru the Bible, because you choose to ignore His will is not my concern.  When you start telling other people that sinful acts are not sin, then, I have a concern.  You know better, yet, you are deliberately misleading people, away from the Lord.  I feel sorry for you.  The Lord is just, and each of us will be punished for our sins.  If we assist others in sinning, those sins will be added to our own sins.  You seen to want to take many sins onto your soul.  No wonder, you always seem so lost, turning this way and that for "reason".  When it is not what you want to hear, you reject it, utterly, without consideration.  A wise person once told me that when the world keeps telling you that you are not right, and everyone you meet, tells you the problem is yours, then you might want to consider that you are missing the mark (you are wrong).


----------



## logical4u (Oct 10, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Please, stop with the chicken shit: 





> * Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
> * The Qur'an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
> * Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
> * The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
> ...


----------



## Sky Dancer (Oct 10, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



I have taken back God and Jesus.  My sins are none of YOUR business.  That's between me and God.  God and I are good.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Oct 10, 2011)

Here in Georgia the gay boogeyman scare has been around for a long time. Recently, a long time talk radio personality Ludlow Porch died. His show was non political. I listened to him in the early 70s up until the late 90s. He had a night show early on in his career. Early on in his show about once every 6 months he would announce he was going to have a very controversial subject for that evening. He would then state that he was going to interview a male elementary school teacher that was a homosapien. Within seconds the board would light up with calls "Ludlow, I ain't a believin you is havin one of dem homosapiens on your show" and "homosapiens ain't got no biznes teaching our kids them bad morals they have" and such. It was hilarious. Interesting enough he was cousins with Lewis Grizzard.
The arguments here remind me of the callers to the Ludlow Porch show when he was on the subject of elementary school teachers that are homosapiens.


----------



## Samson (Oct 11, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



If "harsh judgement" means I don't wanna invite a guy that packs fudge into my house to eat catfish with my children, then color me superior.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Oct 11, 2011)

Samson said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



How do you know if any of your male friends are "packing fudge" with their wives or girlfriends?
However, I respect your and everyones choice of who they invite into their homes.


----------



## Samson (Oct 11, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I set up hidden cameras.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 11, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I wish you well.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Oct 11, 2011)

Samson said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Never figured you for an anal "fudge packer" voyeur Samson but to each their own. Have fun.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 11, 2011)

i love the homophobes who claim to speak for god and sense sin with their extra organs.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 20, 2011)

Who would that be? Because I haven't seen anyone say they speak for God....

And c'mon, Gaybiker sets off all my alarms and whistles too.


----------



## Samson (Oct 20, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> Who would that be? Because I haven't seen anyone say they speak for God....
> 
> And c'mon, Gaybiker sets off all my alarms and whistles too.



Queers don't have much going for them: Please don't shatter their illusions.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 21, 2011)

Samson said:


> If "harsh judgement" means I don't wanna invite a guy that packs fudge into my house to eat catfish with my children, then color me superior.


Why are you letting other kinds of guys into your house to eat catfish with your children?



Samson said:


> I set up hidden cameras.


Oh I see.  You enjoy watching video of what men do with your children while eating catfish.  I see. 



koshergrl said:


> Who would that be? Because I haven't seen anyone say they speak for God....


You haven't been here too long then.  There are people on this forum who literally believe they can SENSE sin.


----------



## Iridescence (Oct 21, 2011)




----------



## MarcATL (Oct 21, 2011)

Stash said:


> It must have been repealed...Christians eat pork all the time...what a minute...are you telling me that it hasn't been repealed!!!...Oh my GOD!!! We're all going to hell!!!



Most Christians today don't even crack the bible. They don't know what's in there. They live "Culturally Christian" lives. That is lives or lifestyles based on culture, not on Scripture.

Most Christians today are also "Name-Only-Christians" or "One Day Christians", more like "One-Hour Christians" actually. The compartmentalize their life. Meaning that only at certain times and/or situations they whip out Christianity as a badge or a name. Other than that it's meaningless as it doesn't apply to how they actually live their lives. You see this very clearly in those who profess to be Christians yet are the most mean-spirited, belligerent, foul mouthed human beings you could ever dream of coming across. The polar opposite of what it means to be a Christian.

With that said, not all.

"By their fruits ye shall know them."


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 22, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> Stash said:
> 
> 
> > It must have been repealed...Christians eat pork all the time...what a minute...are you telling me that it hasn't been repealed!!!...Oh my GOD!!! We're all going to hell!!!
> ...


 
You have proof of this, of course.

Because I've never been in a church where the congregation didn't read the bible. At the very least in Sunday school and during the sermon itself.


----------



## Iridescence (Oct 22, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> Stash said:
> 
> 
> > It must have been repealed...Christians eat pork all the time...what a minute...are you telling me that it hasn't been repealed!!!...Oh my GOD!!! We're all going to hell!!!
> ...



Very good and very well... AND yet there are quite the interestingly necessary evils that most real Christians will still deny or refuse themselves thinking it wiser when, in and by fact, it is foolish and debilitating. *hearts*


----------



## MarcATL (Oct 22, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Stash said:
> ...



See Matthew 7:16 and Galatians 5:22-23

And the highlighted pretty much proves my point..."one-day Christians" or "one-hour Christians." That's NOT what Christianity is all about.

Scripture provides all the proof I need. What do you think Matthew 7:21 is referring to?


----------



## Samson (Oct 22, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> "By their fruits ye shall know them."



I'm surprised King James was using a colloqialism to refer to queers.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 22, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...


 
That's not proof of what you stated...that most Christians don't crack the bible.

Of course, you contradicted it yourself in the same post, so really no more needs to be said.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 22, 2011)

koshergrl said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



It's not so much that Christians don't actually read the Bible, the problem is that they selectively quote verses that support their bigoted views.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 23, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > If "harsh judgement" means I don't wanna invite a guy that packs fudge into my house to eat catfish with my children, then color me superior.
> ...



There are a "bunch" of us that are willing to discuss what is in the Bible.  It is the the "elite" intellectual (wanna-bees) that want to declare parts of the Bible invalid, and add in words that are not there to fit their agenda.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 23, 2011)

Samson said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > "By their fruits ye shall know them."
> ...



Bad!  Bad! (but you made me laugh, anyway.  I will have to beg forgiveness, now)


----------



## logical4u (Oct 23, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Isn't that one of your ..... tricks?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 24, 2011)

logical4u said:


> There are a "bunch" of us that are willing to discuss what is in the Bible.  It is the the "elite" intellectual (wanna-bees) that want to declare parts of the Bible invalid, and add in words that are not there to fit their agenda.


and you realize they look like loons, right?


----------



## logical4u (Oct 24, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > There are a "bunch" of us that are willing to discuss what is in the Bible.  It is the the "elite" intellectual (wanna-bees) that want to declare parts of the Bible invalid, and add in words that are not there to fit their agenda.
> ...



Some times it is hard to tell the difference.  The ones that use the Biblical quotes with true comprehension will usually teach you something if you are willing to learn.  The ones that pull Biblical quotes and use them out of context usually resort to repeating things, because that is all they have, a few quotes that clearly do not mean what they are saying it means.


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Sep 11, 2016)

High_Gravity said:


> Where does it say that?



It doesn't.  Eating catfish is an abomination.  It wasn't punishable by death in the Old Testament.  Eating catfish isn't even mentioned in the New Testament.  Homosexuality is clearly mentioned in Romans.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 11, 2016)

Whoever is still debating on this thread and topic:
ADULTERY and coveting someone else's wife or husband is against the TEN COMMANDMENTS.
There is not a single commandment against eating certain foods, just not COVETING which can apply to any unnatural desire or lusting after what isn't rightfully yours.

Spiritually the husband/wife soulmates are supposed to be joined in spirit and in flesh as one, and that covenant reflects the same oneness of the Lord/Law/God with the people/humanity/church or bride.  

So the point of being against unnatural lust/relations (whether homosexual or heterosexual) is that it doesn't respect that commitment and spiritual partnership.

That's the real issue.

(as for eating foods, the Bible says clearly that man is not defiled by what goes in our mouths but what comes out. So bearing false witness and promoting hateful unforgiving speech and attitudes does more damage to relationships. We are supposed to speak the truth with love to heal and build relations with our neighbors, not destroy out of hate which is murder in spirit. We are not supposed to kill relationships but make amends through forgiveness and healing. The truth is supposed to be established that sets us free from strife and conflict, bringing peace and justice. corrections are done out of love and respect for the relationship between neighbors, it is not for vengeful force or coercion. So that approach to this whole debate is off to begin with if the point is not to reach agreement and restore good faith relations between neighbors.)


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 12, 2016)

WTF??????


----------



## Death Angel (Sep 12, 2016)

Baruch Menachem said:


> Also, you will note in Acts that the rules of Kashrut don't apply to Christians.


I don't know what "kash rut" is, but Acts doesn't make unclean meats clean. The Op is right. Gods True Church doesn't eat unclean meat.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 13, 2016)

Death Angel said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > Also, you will note in Acts that the rules of Kashrut don't apply to Christians.
> ...



Dear Death Angel
Matthew 15:11 What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them." MATTHEW 15:11

What Defiles a Man
10Jesus called the crowd to Him and said, “Listen and understand. 
*11A man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but” by what comes out of it.* 
12Then the disciples came to Him and said, 
“Are You aware that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 13, 2016)

ABikerSailor said:


> WTF??????



No, KJV:

*A man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but by what comes out of it.
- Matthew 15:11*


----------

