BANNED!

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-09 12:31am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Ow. I felt that hurt. That sounds too close to home to be anything less than the voice of experience.
Lets just say that I know that story very well, as I live it every day.

I feel for you man.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-11-09 12:32am

*waiting for the bigot to answer my question*

Thanks guys.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2002-11-09 12:32am

You know, when it comes to forcing a gay guy into a straight relationship, you just can`t stuff a marshmallow into a toaster.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-09 12:34am

Someday, you'll find your happiness, Alyrium. Even if it may not seem like it right now.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-11-09 12:42am

I know, I will eventually, but until then, its off into the trenches of unrequited love with me

OVER THE TOP!

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-11-09 12:43am

Yes I still can keep a positive outlook.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-09 12:44am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Yes I still can keep a positive outlook.

Hey, as can I.....now, to lure somebody in....

Just don't move too fast for yerself, ok? Dun want any potential friendships turning into rebounds.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-11-09 12:44am

*sits down and begins reading from huge leather bound book with letters written in draconic with a spidery script*

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-11-09 12:45am

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2002-11-09 12:51am

I can`t think of anything to say to you that wouldn`t sound like a cliche. But buck up little trooper, the stone does not appreciate the sculpter`s chisel but the end result is beautiful.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-11-09 01:02am

I love a good cliche every now and again. "what does not kill us makes us stronger" And you never know, Art as been blipping ever so faintly on the gaydar as of late.(hey if that one dim light of hope helps me get through my day...)

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-09 01:04am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:I love a good cliche every now and again. "what does not kill us makes us stronger" And you never know, Art as been blipping ever so faintly on the gaydar as of late.(hey if that one dim light of hope helps me get through my day...)

You never know.......there is ALWAYS the chance of bi-ness....

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-11-09 01:06am

Again, it helps me make it through my day.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-11-09 01:09am

But I dont want to spam this wonderful board with my persoanl problems. PM me though if you want to continue the conversation

. I just want the bigot to answer

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-11-09 04:04pm

creationistalltheay wrote:
Yes, it does. Catholism outranks 'Calvinism' (I thought that died out after the salem witch trials?) because it predates it. Judaism predates and outranks Catholism, and all of that is outranked by the Jewish cult worship of the Canaanite mountain god who later came to be known as Yahweh.

Christianity is just cult revisions of the belief of El-Shaddai. You've simply choosen to look at El-Shaddai differently than what he originally was.
Age does not necissarily mean worth. Ancient egyptian beliefs predate Catholism, and the theory of evolution for that matter.

I was more referring to its deviation from the original presentation of God. Yahweh is specifically derived from El-shaddai, the Canaanite 'Lord of the mountain', and Judaism is simply the devoted monotheistic worship of him and fear of his jealous wrath (though Solomon certainly 'knew' of ofther deities; he had a temple erected in the honor of Ashtoreth; Yahweh's 'wife' (derived from the Canaanite goddess Astarte).

Christianity has simply gone farther and farther from what God originallysaid he was. It's a form of cult revisionism; an attempt to stray from the mainstream by making their own changes to the rules.

If I created a religion that said God was really an alien, and he wants us to return to his world by any means necessary, regardless of morals, would I still be Christian? Of course not. The religion I derived it from would be 'more' correct than mine, if anything. the same goes for Christian sects: Catholism and Eastern Orthodox being the highest modern ones (while Jesus' teachings are above 'Paulism'), and so on.
El-Shaddai should've gotten his story straight 4000 years ago, that lazy bum.

I doubt Creationistalltheay (aka 'Mr typo-name'

) will respond to any of this (assuming he's not just taking weekends off, like Spanky T. Dolphin does), unless he wants to make his sixth 'last post'.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-11-09 04:35pm

Post edited for out of spite- Tonberi Muyo.

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-09 05:25pm

wow, I"m gone for a day and the thread gets 3 more pages added onto it.

P.S., thanks for mentioning my typo name. Makes it hard to log in sometimes.

I've only got a little biut and I still have yesterday's school (was out most of the day and night) to do, but I'll try to respond to all the posts soon.

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-10 12:04am

Warning, very very very very long post.

Neoolong:

So you claim it without proof. So it's just your hatred then.

I claim it without secular evidence that is presentable to another. (Physical evidence) But I do NOT hate homosexuals! I don’t hate verilon, nor do I hate the (admittedly) few homosexuals I know in real life. If you would like to argue that I do, then I think you’re the one who is interpreting based on set ideas.

A prostitute isn't one who only has to have sex with a man. You haven't heard of a gigolo? The definition of boy prostitute is that he is a prostitute. It doesn't say he only screws men.

Still, you are using as much interpretation as I. I interpret it to mean homosexuality is wrong, because of the numerous verses that point in that direction. You claim they can be interpreted another way. We both “interpret” it.

And you haven't shown that you don't hate homosexuals. You base your beliefs on an irrational concept that it is wrong and that they will go to hell, yet there is no proof that they do any harm

It seems irrational to you, but I have no point in defending that position to one who’s ideas are set in stone. Oh, and I never said homosexuality will send you to hell. There are Christians who struggle with homosexuality as well. Another claim goes down the drain…

Besides, in this case hating the action is equivalent to hating the person. Homosexuality is who a homosexual is. It is not a choice

Would you prefer me to phrase it “I hate homosexual sex”?

Have you actually talked to a homosexual? Or do you think they want to be shunned by society

Yes to the first, no to the latter. I have talked to a homosexual, including this thread. Or do you mean physically spoke to them?

They don’t want to be shunned by society, quite the contrary.

The actions make up the person, by hating the action you hate who they are and you hate them.

Actions do not make up the person (plus, according to you it is not an action but an inevitable state of being)

They are not wrong and you thinking they deserve hell is hate.

I think everyone deserves hell. If that is considered hate, then I “hate” every single person on this earth, including myself. Bigotry, huh?

And the meanings are?

To what words are you referring to. You were saying that I interpret based on my bias, and I said I generally look at the Hebrew meanings on verses I am unsure. It was none in particular.

Right. And of course you get to decide which parts are true.

No. Do you intend to start a belief that states the apocrypha is the sole word of God? I say that one or the other must be true, and given the evidence for the old testament, I say that it is the right one. But the conflict isn’t between the apocrypha and the protestant bible, its the Catholic Bible (all the protestant + Apocrypha) versus the protestant bible.

Marriage is about who you love. Not just because the person is of the opposite sex. And how does your point make it right for them not to be able to marry who they love?

The main thing that makes it right for them to not marry the one they “love” is that marriage is not intended to be between a man and another man, nor woman and another woman. I’ll find more explicit verses, but off the top of my head Ephesians 5:31 (and Genesis 2:24) “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

Verilon:

Ummm.....why, exactly, would they want to? Am I missing something here?

They wouldn’t, but my point is a homosexual isn’t given less privileges then a heterosexual, just not given more.

Where?

See my response to neoolong 2 quotes up.

You are reiterating prejudice against homosexuals.

You are a former Catholic. Do you believe the church has any right to be against premarital sex? Is that prejudice as well?

That it is, but again, is subject to interpretation.

I looked it up in Strong’s Greek and Hebrew concordance (ok, I clicked a button on my nice e-sword Bible program) and found that:

The first use of lie “If a man lies with another man” is:

H7901
ùÑëá
shakab
shaw-kab'
A primitive root; to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease or any other purpose): - X at all, cast down, ([over-]) lay (self) (down), (make to) lie (down, down to sleep, still, with), lodge, ravish, take rest, sleep, stay.

That one is subject to interpretation. Thus, the writer added

As a man lieth (H4904) with a woman.

îùÑëÌá
mishkâb
mish-kawb'
From H7901; a bed (figuratively a bier); abstractly sleep; by euphemism carnal intercourse: - bed ([-chamber]), couch, lieth (lying) with.

Note that by euphemism, it means intercourse. Seems to piece together to mean sexual connection with a man.

Any thoughts?

It also says that "practicing homosexuals" is a group of homosexuals that are pedophiliacs.

Sorry, I missed that. Can you show me again?

He said it was abominable, not a sin. There is a difference. Nice jump toi conclusion.

Please explain how something can be abominable, yet not wrong (or implying wrong) in God’s eyes , and then I’ll concede that I jumped to a conclusion.

Sorry about the wrong verse numbers. I was up late that night looking and my mind must have gotten a bit short circuited. I’ll try to redeem the references to the best of my memory.

In woman was sin's beginning, and because of her we all die.

This is because humans were to live forever in the Garden of Eden, remember?

Romans 5:19
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

This says that it was by Adam’s sin, not eve’s.

3 An unruly child is a disgrace to his father; if it be a daughter, she brings him to poverty.

In other words, a bad daughter is bad luck.

I’m not sure what translation I was using, but it does make a difference in the argument. Sorry again 0:-)

Maybe you should try reading the version that Catholics use? I mean, it makes sense to Catholics to read their own version. What does it contradict, anyhow?

Sorry about the version, I wasn’t thinking of the translation when I got these verses. But the idea of purgatory goes directly against the wages of sin. In other words, if purgatory is true, then instead of “The wages of sin is death” then “The wages of sin is temporary reform”

29 Water quenches a flaming fire, alms atone for sins.

It says “alms atone for sin”, meaning our salvation is through (dictionary definition) money or goods given as charity to the poor. That is saying that we are redeemed through the acts of good we do to others.

I have absolutely no idea where the 17 came in, but.

for almsgiving saves one from death [of wealth]

From where do you derive the commentary in brackets?

Because the references to the OT are quite vague within themselves, and they have no reason to reference the Aprocrypha.

Then why is it that the new testament quotes nearly (if not all) every book in the old testament, but none of the many books of the Apocrypha.

I look forward to picking apart more quotes of yours. ^_^

As is everyone else, it seems

. I swear, all this quoting is giving me a headache, and I’ve only replied to 2 users so far (typing this on Microsoft Word, so if the BBCode is a little off, then you’ll know why)

Kelly:

I don't mean to break up this debate, but... do you have any of your own morals, or does the bible rule your life? Do you do only what the bible says? That makes you a slave to a book. And that's what it is, A BOOK. A predjudice translation of supposed writings from centuries ago.

I have my own morals, but the Word of God overrides my morals based on my limited scope on life. I’m not a slave to a book. I’m just a follower of the Author.

Wicked Pilot:

OK, Creationistalltheway has now made 50 bigoted and/or unintelligent post spanning over ten pages, and she has still not been banned. Come on, I don't think all of our guys put together got to make 50 post on CW.org. It's at least time we hand out some Fundie Moron titles.

I am doing my best to answer every post. Just getting very hard to not repeat myself when responding to similar posts made by so many members.

If you would all like to ban me, I have no problem with that. I’ll stay while I can, and when you’ve grown bored of me you can have yourself a good mockery;-D

Darth Wong:

It is discriminating to say that you want homosexual marriage outlawed, dumb-a**! Jesus A**-f****** Christ, how stupid can a human being be? Tell me, if you did not "approve" of interracial marriage, would you admit that to be bigotry? Or would you think it's OK if the Bible says so?

I base my beliefs on whether or not God approves of them. Also, you’re twisting words against me. I said I would not endorse a bill for homosexual marriage, and its called outlawing it.

All your responses to my posts have just been mocking either the way I answer or my beliefs in general. I realize you are the admin and have the right to speak out for yourself, but I do not prefer to answer posts made for the sole purpose of getting out anger. I’ll answer your posts if you would like to say more then “dum-a**! F****** bigot”. If you’d like to repeat it, don’t worry, everyone’s gotten that point across.

Lust, oh how I love how bigots throw that word around. I wonder if he even knows what lust is? So tell me creationistalltheway, do you? I will give you a small scenario.

Before I go further, I need to rephrase myself. When I speak of lust, I am meaning lust outside the bounds of Biblical marriage (i.e., premarital, homosexual, etc.)

A homosexual, we will callhim....Greg, he is attracted to a guy named...John. Now he starts talking to john. And it turns out that John is straight. Now Greg finds himself cherishing his friendship with John, he is still attracted to john, and finds himself willing to do anything even for so much as a smile. Now say he confides in his friend Tina his everyt feeling for John. Then the worst possible thing happens, John asks Tina out, and she accepts, despite how she knows Greg feels. Greg finds out and suffers through the worst betrayal in his life. He getsover the feeling of betrayal when he realizes how much the two care for each other. He begins to help nurture the couples romance because he wants John to be happy, regardless of how many times he cries himself to sleep, regarless of how much it hurts, he puts Johns happiness befor his own.

Tell me, is that lust?

lust: Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.

Though I am hetro sexual, I have had similar experiences, and there is a difference between a longing to have sex, and “crush” as many people call it.

That, though, seems to be restraining homosexuality, not a prime example of it.

Darth Wong again:

Besides, what's wrong with lust? Does this "creationistalltheway" idiot think that heterosexual relationships are based on some kind of platonic love? Grow the f*** up and open your eyes.

I love my wife Rebecca very much. I also have intense lust for her. This is not a contradiction, and there's nothing wrong with lust. You fundies have criminalized it in your minds for no reason except for the traditional fundie mentality that you just can't stand the idea of other people having any fun.

When I said lust, as I stated above, I am referring to a sexual craving outside the bounds of Biblical marriage. Obviously two parents will have a version of lust (sexual craving), and God created marriage, part of that to fulfil those needs.

Dath Utsanomiko:

I was more referring to its deviation from the original presentation of God. Yahweh is specifically derived from El-shaddai, the Canaanite 'Lord of the mountain', and Judaism is simply the devoted monotheistic worship of him and fear of his jealous wrath (though Solomon certainly 'knew' of ofther deities; he had a temple erected in the honor of Ashtoreth; Yahweh's 'wife' (derived from the Canaanite goddess Astarte).

Christianity has simply gone farther and farther from what God originallysaid he was. It's a form of cult revisionism; an attempt to stray from the mainstream by making their own changes to the rules.

If I created a religion that said God was really an alien, and he wants us to return to his world by any means necessary, regardless of morals, would I still be Christian? Of course not. The religion I derived it from would be 'more' correct than mine, if anything. the same goes for Christian sects: Catholism and Eastern Orthodox being the highest modern ones (while Jesus' teachings are above 'Paulism'), and so on.
El-Shaddai should've gotten his story straight 4000 years ago, that lazy bum.

As Coyote has stated, the differences between the worship of El Shaddai is just that one is waiting for the Messiah, the others have found Him. Jews still worship the same God the Father, they just not have accepted the One He sent to save them (as we Christians believe, Jesus).

I know this post has been incredibly long. If anyone hasn’t been answered, tell me and I will try to respond. *Phew* now I can go do something else:-D

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-10 12:05am

oh, and can one of the mod's help fix this? All my quotation marks are being turned into &#8217

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2002-11-10 12:10am

I have my own morals, but the Word of God overrides my morals based on my limited scope on life. I'm not a slave to a book. I'm just a follower of the Author.

He authored the book? I think not. Someone predjudicely translated something. He did not author it. So yeah, you're a slave. A mindless one at that.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-11-10 12:13am

Why won't you say Fuck. Its just a word that has been expanded from its original meaning of basicly "rape" to denote a whole host of emotional meanings. Where in the Bible(authored by god) does it say you can't say f***.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-10 12:17am

creationistalltheay wrote:I claim it without secular evidence that is presentable to another. (Physical evidence) But I do NOT hate homosexuals! I don't hate verilon, nor do I hate the (admittedly) few homosexuals I know in real life.

You don't want them to have the right to live their lives as they see fit, even if it has nothing to do with you and they don't hurt anybody. Denial of rights is bigotry, whether you admit it or not.

I think everyone deserves hell. If that is considered hate, then I "hate" every single person on this earth, including myself. Bigotry, huh?

Yes, because you left out the part where you worship a deity who is so fair that he will only spare people from this torture if they pledge allegiance to him. In other words, you and your little club, but not us. And you claim that he is morally perfect, which in turn means that you think it is right to torture us.

Kelly Antilles wrote: I don't mean to break up this debate, but... do you have any of your own morals, or does the bible rule your life? Do you do only what the bible says? That makes you a slave to a book. And that's what it is, A BOOK. A predjudice translation of supposed writings from centuries ago.
I have my own morals, but the Word of God overrides my morals based on my limited scope on life. I'm not a slave to a book. I'm just a follower of the Author.

No, you're a slave to a book. Whenever anyone asks for your opinion, you pull it from that book.

Darth Wong wrote:It is discriminating to say that you want homosexual marriage outlawed, dumb-ass! Jesus Ass-fucking Christ, how stupid can a human being be? Tell me, if you did not "approve" of interracial marriage, would you admit that to be bigotry? Or would you think it's OK if the Bible says so?
I base my beliefs on whether or not God approves of them. Also, you're twisting words against me. I said I would not endorse a bill for homosexual marriage, and its called outlawing it.

Don't split hairs. "Refusing to legalize" something and "outlawing" it are the same damned thing, and you know it.

All your responses to my posts have just been mocking either the way I answer or my beliefs in general.

You forgot to mention "pointing out the massive ethical and logical flaws in your arguments".

I realize you are the admin and have the right to speak out for yourself, but I do not prefer to answer posts made for the sole purpose of getting out anger.

Appeal to motive; I made real points, despite your frivolous accusations.

I'll answer your posts if you would like to say more then "dum-a**! F****** bigot". If you'd like to repeat it, don't worry, everyone's gotten that point across.

I will use whatever fucking language I want. You are using the style over substance fallacy now. My, you are just full of fallacies, aren't you? How typical for a fundie. PS. Explain what is wrong with using the word "fuck".

When I said lust, as I stated above, I am referring to a sexual craving outside the bounds of Biblical marriage. Obviously two parents will have a version of lust (sexual craving), and God created marriage, part of that to fulfil those needs.

Why is Biblical marriage any more valid than any other kind? There are hundreds of millions of people getting married without any Biblical influence. Why do you believe that God invented marriage? Native Americans had marriage but did not know your God. Asians had marriage but did not know your God. Today, millions get married in a court-house, without any Biblical influence. You consider those all to be invalid marriages?

As Coyote has stated, the differences between the worship of El Shaddai is just that one is waiting for the Messiah, the others have found Him. Jews still worship the same God the Father, they just not have accepted the One He sent to save them (as we Christians believe, Jesus).

Yes, both religions worship an unrepentant mass-murderer. Yay.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-10 12:28am

Kelly Antilles wrote:
I have my own morals, but the Word of God overrides my morals based on my limited scope on life. I'm not a slave to a book. I'm just a follower of the Author.
He authored the book? I think not. Someone predjudicely translated something. He did not author it. So yeah, you're a slave. A mindless one at that.

Already argued that point with him.

creationistalltheay wrote:Verilon:

Ummm.....why, exactly, would they want to? Am I missing something here?
They wouldn’t, but my point is a homosexual isn’t given less privileges then a heterosexual, just not given more.

Where?
See my response to neoolong 2 quotes up.

That still does not tell me where the Apocrypha contradicts the rest of the Bible.

You are reiterating prejudice against homosexuals.
You are a former Catholic. Do you believe the church has any right to be against premarital sex? Is that prejudice as well?

It does; however, gay marriage isn't allowed. So therefore, gays are not allowed to have sex. That sure seems like prejudice against gays, to me, especially if you're willing ot advocate it.

That it is, but again, is subject to interpretation.
I looked it up in Strong’s Greek and Hebrew concordance (ok, I clicked a button on my nice e-sword Bible program) and found that:

The first use of lie "If a man lies with another man" is:

H7901
ùÑëá
shakab
shaw-kab'
A primitive root; to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease or any other purpose): - X at all, cast down, ([over-]) lay (self) (down), (make to) lie (down, down to sleep, still, with), lodge, ravish, take rest, sleep, stay.

That one is subject to interpretation. Thus, the writer added

As a man lieth (H4904) with a woman.

îùÑëÌá
mishkâb
mish-kawb'
From H7901; a bed (figuratively a bier); abstractly sleep; by euphemism carnal intercourse: - bed ([-chamber]), couch, lieth (lying) with.

Note that by euphemism, it means intercourse. Seems to piece together to mean sexual connection with a man.

Any thoughts?

Umm.....could you provide a link? There's all sorts of weird characters in there, and it makes it too hard to read.

It also says that "practicing homosexuals" is a group of homosexuals that are pedophiliacs.
Sorry, I missed that. Can you show me again?

It's on page 9, but in case you didn't want to look:

verilon wrote:1 Corinthians 6:

9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

It says unjust. That means in the eyes of the law. Nowhere here does it say that the law is God's word. In 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, it is subtitled as Sexual Immorality. Nothing in there states anything against Homosexuality.

Footnote: The Grek word translated as boy prostitutes designated catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the "cupbearer of the gods," whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated practicing homosexuals refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Timothy 1:10.

He said it was abominable, not a sin. There is a difference. Nice jump toi conclusion.
Please explain how something can be abominable, yet not wrong (or implying wrong) in God’s eyes , and then I’ll concede that I jumped to a conclusion.

He said abominable. He never said "This is a sin." That you will have to concede to.

Sorry about the wrong verse numbers. I was up late that night looking and my mind must have gotten a bit short circuited. I’ll try to redeem the references to the best of my memory.

Hey, you're only human.

In woman was sin's beginning, and because of her we all die.

This is because humans were to live forever in the Garden of Eden, remember?
Romans 5:19
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

This says that it was by Adam’s sin, not eve’s.

19 For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous.

This makes no statement toward seither man or woman, and my argument stands. And "man" can mean person. It depends on your interpretation of the definition.

3 An unruly child is a disgrace to his father; if it be a daughter, she brings him to poverty.

In other words, a bad daughter is bad luck.
I’m not sure what translation I was using, but it does make a difference in the argument. Sorry again 0:-)

Maybe you should try reading the version that Catholics use? I mean, it makes sense to Catholics to read their own version. What does it contradict, anyhow?
Sorry about the version, I wasn’t thinking of the translation when I got these verses. But the idea of purgatory goes directly against the wages of sin. In other words, if purgatory is true, then instead of "The wages of sin is death" then "The wages of sin is temporary reform"

29 Water quenches a flaming fire, alms atone for sins.

It says "alms atone for sin," meaning our salvation is through (dictionary definition) money or goods given as charity to the poor. That is saying that we are redeemed through the acts of good we do to others.

Yes, deeds are as much a part of salvation as faith.

I have absolutely no idea where the 17 came in, but.

for almsgiving saves one from death [of wealth]

From where do you derive the commentary in brackets?

My own. Basic essay stuff. When commenting or changing a quote, you do it in brackets.

Because the references to the OT are quite vague within themselves, and they have no reason to reference the Aprocrypha.
Then why is it that the new testament quotes nearly (if not all) every book in the old testament, but none of the many books of the Apocrypha.

I wouldn't know.

I look forward to picking apart more quotes of yours. ^_^
As is everyone else, it seems . I swear, all this quoting is giving me a headache, and I’ve only replied to 2 users so far (typing this on Microsoft Word, so if the BBCode is a little off, then you’ll know why)

Oh, and type it on Notepad or something....it comes up with some really funky stuff whe you type on Word....

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-10 12:29am

Oh, and that commentary stems from the footnote, which I will e gald to provide.

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-10 12:34am

You don't want them to have the right to live their lives as they see fit, even if it has nothing to do with you and they don't hurt anybody. Denial of rights is bigotry, whether you admit it or not.

If it had to do with me, it wouldn't be bigotry?

Yes, because you left out the part where you worship a deity who is so fair that he will only spare people from this torture if they pledge allegiance to him. In other words, you and your little club, but not us. And you claim that he is morally perfect, which in turn means that you think it is right to torture us.

I believe God chooses to give grace to some. It isn't about whether or not we pledge alleciance, its whether or not He calls us to follow Him. We worship Christ because of His grace, not vice-versa.

No, you're a slave to a book. Whenever anyone asks for your opinion, you pull it from that book.

Is that any better then pulling opinions from in-explainable inner feelings?

Don't split hairs. "Refusing to legalize" something and "outlawing" it are the same damned thing, and you know it.

Outlawing is trying to break up something that is already a law. Though you are right, I would not like such a law, you still have changed my words for exaggeration.

You forgot to mention "pointing out the massive ethical and logical flaws in your arguments".

Where have you done such, other then generalizing "He says things without stating them" and repeating that everything is because of bigotry?

Appeal to motive; I made real points, despite your frivolous accusations.

It has nothing to do with your points. I've answered all the poitns I saw, I just do not exactly enjoy having to wash my computer screen out with soap with every post.

Explain whats wrong with cursing? Personally, they tend to annoy me. Spiritually, they are useless. Ethically, they make one be looked down upon by others.

Why is Biblical marriage any more valid than any other kind? There are hundreds of millions of people getting married without any Biblical influence. Why do you believe that God invented marriage? Native Americans had marriage but did not know your God. Asians had marriage but did not know your God. Today, millions get married in a court-house, without any Biblical influence. You consider those all to be invalid marriages?

Biblical Marriage is marriage that is within God's boundaries. Many follow those boundaries whether or not they even believe in Him.

I believe God created marriage because I believe He created man, and man's longing for a partner.

Yes, both religions worship an unrepentant mass-murderer. Yay.

Say that to Coyote as well.