BANNED!

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-11-11 07:04pm

I have noticed that you way that love is not possible without marriage. rather convenient to then say that the very group that you say is not capable of ture love shouldnt be allowed to marry. DOnt you think. You define a condition for love and then say that a group of people does not qualify for that condition. sounds like how before the civil war a person coudnt file a lawsuit i they werent a citizen. They would then deny citizenship to all non-whites and so keep them under the yolk of oppression. How nice of you, harkening back to the days of slavery.

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-11 07:04pm

Flawed analogy. The reason against cannibalism is that someone, the one eaten is pretty much going to be hurt by the act. If you wish to use this analogy what is the harm in a gay marriage?

It was not meant to be a perfect analogy. I am just saying that using a generalization can ultimitely change someone's view.

One harm of gay marriage would be to the child. A mother posseses a certain touch that a father does not, and vice versa.

I thought you said that actions don't get you into heaven. So why the struggle? And it's still love. So why is it a struggle compared to a hetero couple.

The struggle isn't because they are afraid of punishment, but out of a want to please.

Really, and how has he done this? Did he come down and say, oh yeah, homosexuals don't be homosexual?

I have already argued with verilon about who deserves the credit in the Bible, and do not wish to repeat it.

So where's the vagina? It said a man screwing a man like a woman. If the man had both parts, that can be considered an "abomination" in those times.

If I said "treat your spouse like yourself" then would you reffer to her as neoolong?

Hermaphrodite. Could be saying that you shouldn't screw a hermaphrodite. In fact as it includes the whole phrase this is closer to what it says literally.l You assume that it means homosexuals but it doesn't say that.

If any other publication said something like this, you would not say it was a hermaphrodite they were reffering to. Thus, you are using your own belief that homosexuality is not a sin to decide what the passage is talking about.

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-11-11 07:13pm

CreationistAllTheWay...

It seems you take the Bible fairly literally. But remember, this book was written during the Bronze Age (OT) and the Iron Age (NT). It was written at a time when tribal bashing was popular, rule was determined by the mightiest sword, and the neighbors all believed in the mighty Zeus and the lovely Isis. This was the society that the Bible was plunked down into.

If you've read things like Virgil, Suetonius, Livy and others, you'd know that during these ancient times spirituality was big and taken very seriously. Competition was fierce, and in Rome people were alarmed by the popularity of the Isis cult taking away worshipers from the good Roman gods. All these ancient gods were running about smiting people, hurling mountains, and so on. The God of the Hebrews had to compete with this, and nobody wants to follow a wimpy god.

So we got a book full of allegory, stories, myths and tales of power and great heroes. Powerful stuff. Not wrong or bad, just written to fit the times. But times change. You know I believe in God but I also cannot deny the evidence I have before me that supports science. I can see evidence of evolution, and a lack of evidence for a Flood. Therefore, using the brain, reason, and logic God gave me, I realize, "Flood stories are great for tribal tales, but now it is time to grow up and realize that these campfire stories are of another time. The real evidence is here before me." I realize that if God did bring about the universe, then it must have been through an expansion of matter and time into space, slowly unfolding itself into swirls of gas and dust that collected... you know.

So tribal campfire stories, while they once served their purpose in uniting a small band of people in a common bond of national survival, are not needed at an age where we can accept science and reason without having it confound our sense of self and shake our confidence. Rules about bashing or excluding people who are different don't fit in a world where we realize that Adam & Eve were allegory, and the tale of Noah was just that-- a tale. A fun, harmless tale. If you believe God is a God of love, then who would you be to say that you must shun others?

This goes for people of different or mixed race, as well as differing backgrounds. In the case of homosexuals, they do not choose this path. It is a hard life-- who wants to be excluded from their families, kicked out of their homes, beaten up and made fun of, and held as an object of ridicule by many in the popular media? No sane person would choose this life for kicks. Let people be who they are. We are above tribal law now. Besides-- in the passage stated, that a man shall not lay with a man as with a woman, while it may say that God doesn't think it should happen, he also doesn't say that you should punish them, as it has been demonstrated that it does not preclude a place in the Kingdom of Heaven, or send them to "Hell" (A ghastly imagination to have come up with that!).

Let these people go!

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-11-11 07:15pm

he is simply taking it word fo word literally.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2002-11-11 07:18pm

HEY creationistalltheay!!!

Why don't you answer MY question at the top of this page!?!?!?!

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-11 07:19pm

creationistalltheay wrote:
Flawed analogy. The reason against cannibalism is that someone, the one eaten is pretty much going to be hurt by the act. If you wish to use this analogy what is the harm in a gay marriage?

It was not meant to be a perfect analogy. I am just saying that using a generalization can ultimitely change someone's view.

Meaning what?

One harm of gay marriage would be to the child. A mother posseses a certain touch that a father does not, and vice versa.

And what is the proof that this is a harm? Or do you think that your claims equal facts.

I thought you said that actions don't get you into heaven. So why the struggle? And it's still love. So why is it a struggle compared to a hetero couple.
The struggle isn't because they are afraid of punishment, but out of a want to please.

Right, they want to please a genocidal maniac who gets to lay down an ambiguous saying which is then interpreted by morons into a law against homosexuality which they say is bad but causes no harm. Right.

Really, and how has he done this? Did he come down and say, oh yeah, homosexuals don't be homosexual?
I have already argued with verilon about who deserves the credit in the Bible, and do not wish to repeat it.

So you still can't say that God actually said anything about homosexuality except for your claims that he did the Bible.

So where's the vagina? It said a man screwing a man like a woman. If the man had both parts, that can be considered an "abomination" in those times.
If I said "treat your spouse like yourself" then would you reffer to her as neoolong?

No, because that would be reality not literature. And the fact that it regards to treatment and not identity. And one doesn't use analogies in the situation you said, as opposed to using one in literature, like the Bible.

Hermaphrodite. Could be saying that you shouldn't screw a hermaphrodite. In fact as it includes the whole phrase this is closer to what it says literally.l You assume that it means homosexuals but it doesn't say that.
If any other publication said something like this, you would not say it was a hermaphrodite they were reffering to. Thus, you are using your own belief that homosexuality is not a sin to decide what the passage is talking about.

No. If it was fiction it would be more clear. If it was nonfiction it would use homosexual or gay. The words are vague and the most literal taking is hermaphrodite. That is after all what you do, take a literal view of the Bible. Well, except when you want to justify your beliefs about homosexuals.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2002-11-11 07:19pm

Creationstalltheway:

It seems fairly odd that you, of all people, should be opposed to homosexuality.

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-11-11 07:22pm

creationistalltheay wrote:So if you saw a stranger on the street eating the dead body of a relative, you would have no complaints?

Well, that's just not in the cards at all. A cannibal kills and eats someone. That causes harm to an other person (the one on the combo plate).

Two gay people having a marriage and living together in peace, love, and mutual supoports harms no one. In fact, they frequently benefit the community: they are DINKS: Double Income, No KidS. They pay taxes and have extra spending power to lavish on the community at large.

It isn't that God needs the glory, but we need to be glorifying. It's out of gratitude...

I don't show my gratitude by excluding others.

Too many people forget that Jesus was Jewish in race...

Also in religious practice. He was a devout Jew, I wonder what he'd say about all this interpretation that has been done on his life.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-11 07:24pm

CATW: Strange that you should shjun any and all arguments brought against you by myself.

Jawawithagun · Post by **Jawawithagun** » 2002-11-11 07:25pm

creationistalltheay wrote:So if you saw a stranger on the street eating the dead body of a relative, you would have no complaints?

Sure I would, it's quite unhealthy. Humans are at the and of the food chain and all kinds of toxins accumulate in our bodies.

creationistalltheay wrote:
Why do christians need to constantly glorify God with their actions? Is God (who supposedly created the world in six days, in violation of every law of physics known to man) not already glorious enough
It isn't that God needs the glory, but we need to be glorifying. It's out of gratitude, not because He needs me to stop lusting or else He won't be able to sleep at night.

Stop! YOU need to! I do not. I can perfectly live within a universe without any gods.

creationistalltheay wrote:
So in other words, you say that sin has no bearing on whether one goes to heaven? <sarcasm>Great, I think I'll go rape some nuns, rob some banks, and generally spread madness, mayhem, death and destruction, and then accept Christ into my heart at the last second and be secure in the knowledge that I'm going to heaven</sarcasm>
No, I do not mean sin has no bearing. Our sinful nature is the ultimate thing between us and God.

YOUR sinful nature maybe. I deny the term "sin" any relevant meaning should it be applied to my person.

creationistalltheay wrote:
Homosexual-controlled boards. It sounds like you're trying to turn homosexuals into a political party, or portray homosexuality as some grand conspiracy
I merely meant one dominated by people who practice homosexuality. You know what I meant.

So? They're there. Noone requires you to go there too.

creationistalltheay wrote:
This reminds me of a great leader (who unfortunately, was an asshole of a person) who used the same tactic to gain political power in Germany through his portrayal of Jews. His name was Adolf Hitler.
I do not promote adolf hitler's persecution of Jews in any way.

Too many people forget that Jesus was Jewish in race...

As do too many Christians. Their religion is still only a jewish spinter faith.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-11 07:35pm

So if you saw a stranger on the street eating the dead body of a relative, you would have no complaints?

Provided that I had no reason to believe that said relative had been murdered, my only complaint would be that the stranger has no taste in meat. There would be no moral objections.

It isn't that God needs the glory, but we need to be glorifying. It's out of gratitude, not because He needs me to stop lusting or else He won't be able to sleep at night.

So... God doesn't need us to be glorifying, but because we're all mindless sheep, we're going to glorify him anyway? That makes... no sense at all. If I do you a favor (say it's a big one, so you have reason to be real grateful), and then I tell you to live your life a certain way, and then you never see me again, are you really going to spend the rest of your life doing exactly what I told you to do for my glory? Think about your mother - she did you the biggest possible favor by giving you life - are you really going to follow all her instructions?

State the verse (I believe I know what you are thinking of, but I'd like to be sure)

1 Tim 2:11-12, and Isiah 3:12. Also Lev. 18:22, according to many biblical scholars.

No, I do not mean sin has no bearing. Our sinful nature is the ultimate thing between us and God.

The situation you just listed is an example of the misconceptions TV evangelists often give. "Come now, receive God, He can't live without you" makes us think we're so important we can sin against Him and pretend to "accept" Him. People often say "give Jesus a chance" as if He's the one that needs to be helped. If we think about it like that, then of course we could go out and sin just thinking "doesn't matter, God needs me. Its my free will, who's God to interfere?"

The truth of the matter is, we can't just say "I'll accept Him later....after I shoot my cousin". That isn't a sincere faith, its a faith that is self-centered and not what God is calling us to have.

But, if this sequence of events took place, and I was sincere when I finally accepted God, then I would go to heaven, in spite of the fact that I was an abomination to humanity.

No, I admitted that secular evidenbce is helpful, though not necissary.

In other words, you admitted that when secular evidence is provided that contradicts the bible, it carries no weight, but if it supports the bible, then it has weight. Which is exactly what I accused you of doing. Again, concession accepted.

I merely meant one dominated by people who practice homosexuality. You know what I meant.

Of course I do. The question is, do you know what you meant?

I do not promote adolf hitler's persecution of Jews in any way.

Too many people forget that Jesus was Jewish in race...

And Hitler used the doctrines of christianity to persecute Jews, as outlined in Jeremiah 44:11. You may not support Hitler, but the bible sure does.

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-11 10:30pm

HEY creationistalltheay!!!
Why don't you answer MY question at the top of this page!?!?!?!

II don't have much time, but I saw the big red lettering and devil faces and thought I"d respond.

I did answer your post at the top! read my second long post on page 17, and one of the last responses was to your question.

Thanks, Gotta go.

CaW

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-11 10:49pm

This is completely random, but every time I see this thread's title ("BANNED!"), I think of Golem in Fellowship of the Ring screaming, "LOST!"

That is all.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-11 10:56pm

This is completely random, bu I think Drundal is trying to boost his post count by posting meaningless bits of information at random.

That is all.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2002-11-11 10:58pm

Durandal sees his post-count edging toward four-figure territory ...

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-11 11:21pm

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssss...

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-11-12 10:22am

So, Creationistalltheay' whole argument balances upon 'because the bible says so."

Has he provided a reason as to why anyone should even give a rat's ass about this thing in this millenium? I sure as hell don't see why anyone should.

And, no, Creationistalltheay, no you don't KNOW God. You know what people have taught you what God supposedly is, you've read his alleged work, but you sure as hell can't know an infinitely perfect being. Not when Archangels have a 3rd pair of wings just to shield their eyes from him (nobody can even look upon God). The infintessimally finite knowledge you posess of God doesn't amount to anything resembling an actual knowledge. You simply believe in God; to pretend you *know8 him is a contradiction of faith.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2002-11-12 10:56am

creationistalltheay wrote:
HEY creationistalltheay!!!
Why don't you answer MY question at the top of this page!?!?!?!
II don't have much time, but I saw the big red lettering and devil faces and thought I"d respond.

I did answer your post at the top! read my second long post on page 17, and one of the last responses was to your question.

You did NOT answer the question. You EVADED it. NOW ANSWER THE DAMNED QUESTION!!!

What difference does homosexuality make if our personal works do NOT have any effect on our chances for getting into heaven as per your OWN beliefs?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2002-11-12 11:00am

Darth Utsanomiko wrote:And, no, Creationistalltheay, no you don't KNOW God. You know what people have taught you what God supposedly is, you've read his alleged work, but you sure as hell can't know an infinitely perfect being. Not when Archangels have a 3rd pair of wings just to shield their eyes from him (nobody can even look upon God). The infintessimally finite knowledge you posess of God doesn't amount to anything resembling an actual knowledge. You simply believe in God; to pretend you *know8 him is a contradiction of faith.

But then again, people seeing God is yet ANOTHER of the many Biblical contradictions.

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-12 05:23pm

Darth Servo:

You did NOT answer the question. You EVADED it. NOW ANSWER THE DAMNED QUESTION!!!
What difference does homosexuality make if our personal works do NOT have any effect on our chances for getting into heaven as per your OWN beliefs?

Touchy...

I guess I'll have to answer it point by point.

You believe that everyone deserves to go to hell. Right?

With the exception of Jesus, yes.

You believe that God uses some unknowable reasons to decide who gets to go to heaven through his grace instead. Right?

Unknowable to us, knowable to Him, but aside that yes.

You believe that our works have nothing to do with this process. Right?

I believe that works do not affect whom He choses.

So then WHY DO YOU CARE whether a person is homosexual or not?
I know you don't want me to answer "because its an abolishment..." so...

I care because I would like to assert that sin is a destructive nature in a person's life. I also assert that on the Judgement, God will have us account for all our sins. Our lives will be better whether or not we sin, not mainly because God will reward us, but our turning away from sin will consequently give us a better life.

If all of us commit "amominations in the sight of God" but God decides to let some people into heaven anyways what difference does someone's sexuality make???
It makes a difference because, like all other sin, it is destructive to ourselves.

Heres a thought. Theres one hetero-sexual couple and one male-homosexual couple. The hetero-sexual have kids, the homosexuals adopt a child. Both children are 2 year old girls. Which child do you believe will grow up normal? The one with a father and a mother each providing their unique care, or the child with duplicate fathers, who has no motherly love to learn and immitate?

Data_Link:

If you have them, that will do just fine.

Those who are saying homosexuality is not a choice would rather not have to put up with all the bigotry they get from people around them. It's like a black person circa 1920 wishing he was white so that he wouldn't have to be segregated from the rest of society. Not on the same scale mind you, I don't see any signs of seperate drinking fountains for homosexuals, but it is apparent that the rest of society wants them to go away and they'd rather not deal with the rejection.
Read the scenario I said to darth servo above.

Oh, and before you go around comparing homosexuality to racism, do you have any proof that it is not a choice?

Ding ding ding. We have a winner! Now, can you guess what that was an analogy to?
That was an analogy to homosexuality, but I do not see the point.

Couldn't he have given them a law that recognized women as human beings?
He could have given them a law that permitted anything. The point of a law was to set boundaries for which they had to follow. It was a test of obediance.

But, as we know from your bible, he rose from his grave three days later. So, it wasn't perfect repentance, because he used the cop-out of ressurecting himself. Was he trying to set an example that we should only sacrifice what we know we can get back?
Which would be better? Him ressurecting to earth, or to heaven? (Hint: the latter is what we believe we get to do)

Alyrium:

I have noticed that you way that love is not possible without marriage. rather convenient to then say that the very group that you say is not capable of ture love shouldnt be allowed to marry
I did not say they were not capable of love.

DOnt you think. You define a condition for love and then say that a group of people does not qualify for that condition
I did not define the condition.

ounds like how before the civil war a person coudnt file a lawsuit i they werent a citizen. They would then deny citizenship to all non-whites and so keep them under the yolk of oppression. How nice of you, harkening back to the days of slavery.
You keep acting as if I wrote, translated, and invented the verses in the Bible. I am not hearkening back to the days of slavery.

Coyote:

It seems you take the Bible fairly literally. But remember, this book was written during the Bronze Age (OT) and the Iron Age (NT). It was written at a time when tribal bashing was popular, rule was determined by the mightiest sword, and the neighbors all believed in the mighty Zeus and the lovely Isis. This was the society that the Bible was plunked down into.
Yes, but can you name another book that was written over such a large timespan and still follows the same theme?

If you've read things like Virgil, Suetonius, Livy and others, you'd know that during these ancient times spirituality was big and taken very seriously. Competition was fierce, and in Rome people were alarmed by the popularity of the Isis cult taking away worshipers from the good Roman gods. All these ancient gods were running about smiting people, hurling mountains, and so on. The God of the Hebrews had to compete with this, and nobody wants to follow a wimpy god.
Given, though God did not necissarily have to compete.

So we got a book full of allegory, stories, myths and tales of power and great heroes. Powerful stuff. Not wrong or bad, just written to fit the times.
but some of those "myths" have been cross references. For example, the Exodus of the Israelites, the kings mentioned in the books, etc. have been known to be real.

But times change. You know I believe in God but I also cannot deny the evidence I have before me that supports science. I can see evidence of evolution, and a lack of evidence for a Flood. Therefore, using the brain, reason, and logic God gave me, I realize, "Flood stories are great for tribal tales, but now it is time to grow up and realize that these campfire stories are of another time.
So using the brain God gives you, you have seen "evidence" and put it before the place from which you got your knowledge of Him in the first place.

I realize that if God did bring about the universe, then it must have been through an expansion of matter and time into space, slowly unfolding itself into swirls of gas and dust that collected... you know.
I myself am not 100% sure of how God created the universe. The Bible talks of a Young Earth, it doesn't necissarily say the age of the universe.

So tribal campfire stories, while they once served their purpose in uniting a small band of people in a common bond of national survival, are not needed at an age where we can accept science and reason without having it confound our sense of self and shake our confidence.
Truth is needed wherever, though I understand what yo uare getting at.

about bashing or excluding people who are different don't fit in a world where we realize that Adam & Eve were allegory, and the tale of Noah was just that-- a tale. A fun, harmless tale.
Alright, what do you propose adam and eve is an allegory to? And noah? The decendants mentioned in the Bible go directly down from those "allegories" into the israelites (tales widely accepted). So where does one draw the line from fact to fiction?

If you believe God is a God of love, then who would you be to say that you must shun others?
No, and I do not wish to shun others. If that is what it seems, then I apologize.

This goes for people of different or mixed race, as well as differing backgrounds. In the case of homosexuals, they do not choose this path. It is a hard life-- who wants to be excluded from their families, kicked out of their homes, beaten up and made fun of, and held as an object of ridicule by many in the popular media? No sane person would choose this life for kicks.
I do not deny that within some people, they have more of a tendancy to be attracted to a male then a female. For them, (Christians) I would suggest just steering away from a sexual life. It may be desputed whether they originally choose who to like, but there is no despute that it is their choice that leads them into a relationship.

Let people be who they are. We are above tribal law now. Besides-- in the passage stated, that a man shall not lay with a man as with a woman, while it may say that God doesn't think it should happen, he also doesn't say that you should punish them, as it has been demonstrated that it does not preclude a place in the Kingdom of Heaven, or send them to "Hell
I also do not wish to punish them. I've had no intention of putting down others when I came to this board. It is my belief and will remain such. I may make private decisions due to those beliefs, and I will announce my beliefs to others, but I in no way expect that a non-Bible-believing person will accept them on their own. I believe it is disruptive, but people are willing to take that chance. IT all comes down to God, and its obvious those that do not believe in Him will have no reason to change their lifestyle.

Verilon:

I really don't wanna argue too many Bible quotes, but since you ask...

8 For grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; 9 it is not form woks, so no one may boast.

Although this reinforces your point, Catholics still believe that works can *help.* Works is only an addition to faith. For example, penance after confession is a work; it is a deed. Let's not continue with this as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Sorry, I thought the topic at hand was whether the apocrypha was contradictory to the rest of the Bible. In which case, it is important to the topic at hand.

Tobit 12:8-10

8 Praying and fasting are good, but better than wither is almsgiving accompanied by righteousness [good deeds]. A little with righteousness is better than abundance with wickedness [bad deeds]. It is better to give alms [selflessness] than to store up gold [greed]; 9 for almsgiving saves one from death [of wealth] and expiates every sin. Those who regularly give alms shall enjoy a full life [money does not equate a good life]; 10 but those habitually guilty of sin are their own worst enemies.

Footnote to Tobit 12:8:

Prayer...fasting...almsgiving...righteousness: these together with the proper attitude toward wealth, are treated in great detail by Christ our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 6)

I will quote from 6:1 but nothing more, and if you would like more, please PM me.

1 [But] take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise you will have no recompense fromyour heavenly father.

Brackets in context.
I see. I'm interested in seeing what they used to interpret the contex. Till then I'll drop this.

Neoolong

Meaning what?
Meaning the more precise you arte in defining whether or not it is predjiduce against homosexuality, the easier it is to understand the level of justice they are given.

While I can marry a law-abiding citizen (in a few years, legally), another cannot marry a non-caught murderer publically. Thats it in detail. Going more vague, you get. I can marry my love, but he is not allowed to. More vagueness gets: Some people are allowed to marry who they want to, but others are not given that right.

You see how it changes the argument just by leaving out some details?

And what is the proof that this is a harm? Or do you think that your claims equal facts.
Proof are the children's who live lopsided lives.

Right, they want to please a genocidal maniac who gets to lay down an ambiguous saying which is then interpreted by morons into a law against homosexuality which they say is bad but causes no harm. Right
How can you call Him a genocidal maniac? There is no comparison for which you can provide a way to show what is and is nor moral for God. He creates the morals, it is an oxymoron to call Him immoral.

Not that you believe in Him, but thats a different story.

So you still can't say that God actually said anything about homosexuality except for your claims that he did the Bible.
I'd put it this way. Aside from Biblical and the Holy Spirit's tugging at my heart, no.

No, because that would be reality not literature
But what if the literature were a reality? It is basically a carbon-copy of His words, which I believe were in reality.

(Expects answer to include "right, and of course since you believe it is a fact ::roll:: )

No. If it was fiction it would be more clear. If it was nonfiction it would use homosexual or gay. The words are vague and the most literal taking is hermaphrodite. That is after all what you do, take a literal view of the Bible. Well, except when you want to justify your beliefs about homosexuals.
My version of literal means to read it and take it as if it wer written in a newspaper or another "literal" publication. Literal does not mean I look at the newspaper, read it say "Sun Rise" and "Sun Set" and believe it is justifying a still earth and moving sun.

Andrew J.

It seems fairly odd that you, of all people, should be opposed to homosexuality.

(Says in a monotinous voice) I don't get it...

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-12 05:39pm

creationistalltheay wrote:
Meaning what?
Meaning the more precise you arte in defining whether or not it is predjiduce against homosexuality, the easier it is to understand the level of justice they are given.

The example I gave implied equality in character. Besides, the laws are created in terms of non-criminals. My example is still valid.

While I can marry a law-abiding citizen (in a few years, legally), another cannot marry a non-caught murderer publically. Thats it in detail. Going more vague, you get. I can marry my love, but he is not allowed to. More vagueness gets: Some people are allowed to marry who they want to, but others are not given that right.

You see how it changes the argument just by leaving out some details?

My example implied equality of character.

Proof are the children's who live lopsided lives.
Right so the fact that there are children who live lopsided lives today from heterosexual parents means that doesn't work either. So all marriage should be stopped then? Association does not mean causation dimwit.

How can you call Him a genocidal maniac? There is no comparison for which you can provide a way to show what is and is nor moral for God. He creates the morals, it is an oxymoron to call Him immoral.
He killed damn near everybody and he disregards his own morals when he doesn't want to stand by them. Therefore he is both genocidal and a sociopath. Stop saying he is above morality. Nothing gives him that right. And you still haven't shown why homosexuality is immoral.

I'd put it this way. Aside from Biblical and the Holy Spirit's tugging at my heart, no.
So it is your own beliefs since you can only show that it's your interpretation that feeds your beliefs about homosexuals. Concession accepted.

But what if the literature were a reality? It is basically a carbon-copy of His words, which I believe were in reality.

(Expects answer to include "right, and of course since you believe it is a fact ::roll:: )
And you can prove that it is reality how? And if you believe that they are a carbon copy of his words then I wonder how you will do in geometry. I mean to you pi=3. I guess that means that everbody who thinks pi=3.1415... is against God and will go to Hell.

My version of literal means to read it and take it as if it wer written in a newspaper or another "literal" publication. Literal does not mean I look at the newspaper, read it say "Sun Rise" and "Sun Set" and believe it is justifying a still earth and moving sun.

Your version of literal still means that the section is more of an indictment on hermaphrodites than homosexuals. Newspapers don't use analogies when describing homosexuals. An article on gay sheep doesn't say that the male sheep lay with the other male sheep as they lay with the ewe. Don't be an idiot.

Face, it's still your own beliefs and you still interpret the Bible to justify your irrational feelings toward homosexuals.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-12 05:40pm

I care because I would like to assert that sin is a destructive nature in a person's life.

Hello, Azeron Mk. II.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-11-12 06:52pm

creationistalltheay wrote:
Of course you don't hate them, you just don't want them to have the same rights as other people.
I don't want them to have more rights then others. Homosexuals are given the same rights as a hetro sexual. The only difference, is they oviously wish to marry one of the same sex, which hetro-sexuality does not get either.

Okay, that sounds so retarded, and let me explain why:

Hetero wants to do A, doesn't want to do B
A = have sex with opposite sex / marry opposite sex
Homo wants to do B, doesn't want to do A
B = have sex with same sex / marry same sex

The Law says A is ok, B is forbidden.
Homo says: I want to be able to do B

CreationismUpHisAss says: giving Homo the possibility to do B gives him more rights than Hetero

BULLSHIT: the change in law would also make Hetero able to do B. He doesn't want to, that's his problem. Homo doesn't want to do either.
EXPLAIN: how is it that Homo gets more rights.

My explanation: IDIOT FUNDIE says so, because he hates B and thinks it's an abomination to nature, God and the tooth fairy.

Law applies to both. Law can't say "you can marry your same sex only if you're gay". Law can only say "you can marry your same sex if you want to." Your comment has crossed the line of stupidity.

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-12 06:58pm

The example I gave implied equality in character. Besides, the laws are created in terms of non-criminals. My example is still valid.

But whether or not it is right, homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality.

Right so the fact that there are children who live lopsided lives today from heterosexual parents means that doesn't work either. So all marriage should be stopped then? Association does not mean causation dimwit.

What I mean is, with homosexuality the person is given a large dose of one character (male and female are quite different), thus their lives are "lopsided"

He killed damn near everybody and he disregards his own morals when he doesn't want to stand by them. Therefore he is both genocidal and a sociopath. Stop saying he is above morality. Nothing gives him that right. And you still haven't shown why homosexuality is immoral.

As for the killing, He knows everything...and everyione dies sometime, its just a matter of when. We're short-sighted in the case of time, thus it is wqrong for us to murder because we do not know what that person would have become, what he/she could have benefitted or cursed.

God does know.

I cannot show you why homosexuality is immoral whiole denying the place I get my morality.

So it is your own beliefs since you can only show that it's your interpretation that feeds your beliefs about homosexuals. Concession accepted.

My interpretation, yes, but it seems to be the most obvious one.

And you can prove that it is reality how? And if you believe that they are a carbon copy of his words then I wonder how you will do in geometry. I mean to you pi=3. I guess that means that everbody who thinks pi=3.1415... is against God and will go to Hell.

You don't need to be perfectly straight with everything in the Bible to go to heaven. And where does it say pi is 3?

Your version of literal still means that the section is more of an indictment on hermaphrodites than homosexuals. Newspapers don't use analogies when describing homosexuals. An article on gay sheep doesn't say that the male sheep lay with the other male sheep as they lay with the ewe. Don't be an idiot.

The analogy makes sense because the terms used to describe intercourse could be taken more then one way, thus HE added "like a man lays with a woman".

My own Title, yesss!!!!!

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-12 07:00pm

Okay, that sounds so retarded, and let me explain why:

Hetero wants to do A, doesn't want to do B
A = have sex with opposite sex / marry opposite sex
Homo wants to do B, doesn't want to do A
B = have sex with same sex / marry same sex

The Law says A is ok, B is forbidden.
Homo says: I want to be able to do B

CreationismUpHisAss says: giving Homo the possibility to do B gives him more rights than Hetero

BULLSHIT: the change in law would also make Hetero able to do B. He doesn't want to, that's his problem. Homo doesn't want to do either.
EXPLAIN: how is it that Homo gets more rights.

My explanation: IDIOT FUNDIE says so, because he hates B and thinks it's an abomination to nature, God and the tooth fairy.

Law applies to both. Law can't say "you can marry your same sex only if you're gay". Law can only say "you can marry your same sex if you want to." Your comment has crossed the line of stupidity.

You say "giving the right to do B gives both the right, doesn't matter that the hetero doesn't want to" but others defending it say "thats stupid, because the homosexual wouldn't WANT a!"

They don't want more right for themself alone, but they are not getting less rights as of now.

Yes, I admit I was wrong in wording when I said they wanted to get more rights. But right now they are getting equal rights. In the words of you "they wouldn't want to, thats their problem"