BANNED!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-10 12:35am

Verilon, don't bother arguing Bible quotes with this bigot. By doing so, you succumb to his (or her) bizarre mentality that the Bible constitutes a moral authority.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-10 12:37am

Darth Wong wrote:Verilon, don't bother arguing Bible quotes with this bigot. By doing so, you succumb to his (or her) bizarre mentality that the Bible constitutes a moral authority.

Well, ther are *certain* Bible quotes that I will argue, and others that I will drop. You know my reasons as well as anyone.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-10 12:42am

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

If you oppose people because they want to hurt you or limit your legitimate rights (the right to project your beliefs onto society is not a legitimate right), that's not bigotry. That's why it's OK for homosexuals to oppose you.

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.

You're ignoring the point. God is unfair, and you praise him for being morally perfect, therefore you agree with his judgement. You believe that we should suffer forever, but you should not. You are a bigot.

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

Who said they're unexplainable? The aversion to death and pain is hardly unexplainable; it is instinctive for obvious reasons.

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.

Splitting hairs. You want homosexual marriage to be illegal, therefore you advocate discrimination against homosexuals despite your lies to the contrary. That is the point; your nitpicks do not change that.

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?

I explain why it is bigotry, and I point out specific examples of you stating claims as fact. Those are points, even if you are too stupid or obstinate to admit it.

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.

Irrelevant, irrelevant, and wrong. I don't give a shit what annoys you; your beliefs annoy me and hurt homosexuals. Your notions of spirituality are similarly unimportant. And you have failed to explain why it is unethical to use "foul language". Yet again, you state your claim as if it were a fact.

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

Ignoring the point about non-Christian marriages and restating your claim as if it's a fact. Typical for a fundie.

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

If you believe that, then you must also believe that he created homosexual men, and their longing for male partners. Let them get married.

Yes, both religions worship an unrepentant mass-murderer. Yay.
Say that to Coyote as well.

I have. I will say that to any Christian, and dare them to contradict me. Your God is a mass-murderer.

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-10 12:46am

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.

Alright, I was just wondering if you believed catholics were equally prejiduce.

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

Sorry, I tried to put the greek lettering in here, and it didn't exactly work out. Just ignore the words at the top, they're just to provide what the original Hebrew Meaning is.

And there is no link, because I just found it in my Hebrew and Greek Biblical Concordance.

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.

Ah, I see now. Sorry for the ignorance

I'll check out what the original text said, to see the different options of translations.

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

Alright, I concede that it never clearly said a sin. However what is a sin other then something that is abominable in God's eyes?

Hey, you're only human.

A lazy one at that.

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.

I agree that it again depends on interpretation. Therefore we are on equal ground that it takes some interpretation to go either way.

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

Ephesians 2:8 and 9
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no man can boast.

What's your version say?

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

I mean, where did you get the info to interpret death to be "of wealth"?

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

I found out the hard way.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-11-10 12:46am

The typical vaccuous Christian response to "your God is a mass murderer" is you can't say it's REALLY wrong because you don't have an "objective" moral standard.

Of course, their 'objective' moral standard is an invisible man in the sky for which there is no evidence- and this is supposed to be more objective than the good of humanity- whose existence is not in dispute.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-10 12:53am

creationistalltheay wrote:
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.
Alright, I was just wondering if you believed catholics were equally prejiduce.

They're not.

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

Ephesians 2:8 and 9
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no man can boast.

What's your version say?

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.

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

I mean, where did you get the info to interpret death to be "of wealth"?[/quote]

Like I said, lemme get to the footnotes...

I have to go back and look up the Book/verse/chapter...

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-10 12:55am

If you oppose people because they want to hurt you or limit your legitimate rights (the right to project your beliefs onto society is not a legitimate right), that's not bigotry. That's why it's OK for homosexuals to oppose you.

I give homosexuals the right to oppose me. Heres your chance, verilon and Alyrium. Let me have it

You're ignoring the point. God is unfair, and you praise him for being morally perfect, therefore you agree with his judgement. You believe that we should suffer forever, but you should not. You are a bigot.

I believe that we all should suffer forever. You are downright wrong about me believing I should not suffer. I believe that I deserve the deepest pits of hell.

Who said they're unexplainable? The aversion to death and pain is hardly unexplainable; it is instinctive for obvious reasons

I'm reffering to opinions. They are just that;opinions.

I explain why it is bigotry, and I point out specific examples of you stating claims as fact. Those are points, even if you are too stupid or obstinate to admit it.

It is just where we differ from what is and is not biggotry. You believe my beliefs are self centred, I believe they are due to God's commands.

Irrelevant, irrelevant, and wrong. I don't give a shit what annoys you; your beliefs annoy me and hurt homosexuals. Your notions of spirituality are similarly unimportant. And you have failed to explain why it is unethical to use "foul language". Yet again, you state your claim as if it were a fact.

I did not say my reasons were important to you. And for the ethical part, cursing is considered unethical. Movies get their MPAA ratings based partially on cursing. Public speakers hardly ever curse, and when they do the news gets over them immediately.

Ignoring the point about non-Christian marriages and restating your claim as if it's a fact. Typical for a fundies

I am not ignoring it. Non-christians can still happen to marry within God's bounds.

If you believe that, then you must also believe that he created homosexual men, and their longing for male partners. Let them get married

Why he created some with an increased homosexualk desire, I do not and will not claim to know. I only speak out of what I do know; that He also claims it's wrong. His reasons aren't mine.

[/quote]

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

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.

Ah. So you admit that you are not acting on your own free will when you worship, and I am justified in trying to save you from someone who is controlling your thoughts. Or do you believe mind control is a good thing?

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

Nope, it isn't. The correct course of action is to base your morality on what can be objectively verified. We can objectively verify that murder and rape cause harm, therefore humanity has a legitimate interest in preventing these things from happening. Therefore, we find these things immoral. Homosexuality does not cause objective harm to anyone, therefore, it is not immoral.

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.

And you admit that in states where gay marriage is legal, you want to see it outlawed. Darth Wong is correct. Further, you are also showing that you have no argument by engaging in such petty semantical nitpicking in preference to actual debate.

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

Every one of his posts has had a logical argument. The fact that most of them are logical arguments showing that you do not have a logical argument does not make them any less logical.

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.

Hey, if you think that's bad, what about us? When reading posts on your board, even after washing our monitors still reek of the bullshit you guys call evidence.

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.

And nobody here gives a shit what you believe. As for man longing for a partner, without appealing to your God, what is wrong with that partner being another man.

I also like how you completely missed the point of Alyrum Denryle's post. Are you really so bigoted that you cannot see an act of love when it's staring you in the face?

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-10 01:01am

Tobit 12:8-10

8 Praying and fasting are good, but better than wither is almsgiving accompanied by righteousness [good deeds]. A little with rightewousness 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.

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-10 01:03am

Ah. So you admit that you are not acting on your own free will when you worship, and I am justified in trying to save you from someone who is controlling your thoughts. Or do you believe mind control is a good thing?

No more mind control then a dead man being raised from the dead. Its too late, he's alive. what's he gonna do about it? would he really want to?

Nope, it isn't. The correct course of action is to base your morality on what can be objectively verified. We can objectively verify that murder and rape cause harm, therefore humanity has a legitimate interest in preventing these things from happening. Therefore, we find these things immoral. Homosexuality does not cause objective harm to anyone, therefore, it is not immoral.

For objective evidence, I'd like to send you to to homosexuality discussions STP has posted on creationweb, on different topics aside formt he spiratual side.

And you admit that in states where gay marriage is legal, you want to see it outlawed. Darth Wong is correct. Further, you are also showing that you have no argument by engaging in such petty semantical nitpicking in preference to actual debate.

I've seen others on this board do the same, such as my typo screen name, etc.

Hey, if you think that's bad, what about us? When reading posts on your board, even after washing our monitors still reek of the bullshit you guys call evidence.

Just my way of saying I hate cursing (does that mean I hate those who cute, OT)

And nobody here gives a shit what you believe

MY reason for liking creationweb more. In case none of the members noticed, they've kept Coyote, who's beliefs aren't the same as the majority of members. Some of us actually do care about the other's beliefs.

I also like how you completely missed the point of Alyrum Denryle's post. Are you really so bigoted that you cannot see an act of love when it's staring you in the face?

I did not. I can love my male friends and still have it not be wrong. Love and lust are different issues.

[/quote]

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-10 01:05am

creationistalltheay wrote:
Nope, it isn't. The correct course of action is to base your morality on what can be objectively verified. We can objectively verify that murder and rape cause harm, therefore humanity has a legitimate interest in preventing these things from happening. Therefore, we find these things immoral. Homosexuality does not cause objective harm to anyone, therefore, it is not immoral.
For objective evidence, I'd like to send you to to homosexuality discussions STP has posted on creationweb, on different topics aside formt he spiratual side.

Every single one has turned into a spiritual debate. No point in even looking.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-10 01:11am

creationistalltheay wrote:I give homosexuals the right to oppose me. Heres your chance, verilon and Alyrium. Let me have it.

You are evading the point again; they already have the right to oppose you; you would refuse them the right to marry, which is the right we were talking about.

I believe that we all should suffer forever. You are downright wrong about me believing I should not suffer. I believe that I deserve the deepest pits of hell.

You lie. If you believe that you deserve the deepest pits of Hell just as much as I do, then you should believe that God is being unfair by sentencing me but not you. Yet you believe that God is morally perfect, so he can't be unfair! Ergo, you believe it is morally acceptable to torture people like me but not people like you. Ergo, you are a bigot. I have made this point repeatedly, and you keep ignoring or evading it. This grows very tiresome.

Who said they're unexplainable? The aversion to death and pain is hardly unexplainable; it is instinctive for obvious reasons
I'm reffering to opinions. They are just that;opinions.

Who said anything about opinions? You're the only one here who's masquerading opinion as argument. I'm talking about a simple value judgement that suffering/death are bad, and the logical conclusions which can be drawn from that value judgement.

It is just where we differ from what is and is not biggotry. You believe my beliefs are self centred, I believe they are due to God's commands.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter where your bigotry comes from.

I did not say my reasons were important to you. And for the ethical part, cursing is considered unethical. Movies get their MPAA ratings based partially on cursing. Public speakers hardly ever curse, and when they do the news gets over them immediately.

"Appeal to popularity" fallacy. Sorry, but you fail the test. You were utterly unable to produce anything resembling an explanation for your claim that swearing is unethical.

Ignoring the point about non-Christian marriages and restating your claim as if it's a fact. Typical for a fundies
I am not ignoring it. Non-christians can still happen to marry within God's bounds.

You are ignoring it. You claimed that your religion "created" marriage. I pointed out that this is completely false. Now you're trying to quietly change the subject to this "God's bounds" bullshit.

Why he created some with an increased homosexualk desire, I do not and will not claim to know. I only speak out of what I do know; that He also claims it's wrong. His reasons aren't mine.

Irrelevant. If you defend them, then you must answer for them. Your God is an asshole and a mass-murderer; you cannot prove that something is immoral just because he supposedly thinks so.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2002-11-10 01:18am

Here's an essay from a Bob Jones University theology school graduate who uses biblical evidence to prove that homosexuality is acceptable:

http://www.totse.com/en/religion/christ ... obibl.html

I think that proves that you can use the bible to prove anything.

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-10 01:19am

You are evading the point again; they already have the right to oppose you; you would refuse them the right to marry, which is the right we were talking about.

You already know my reasons

You lie. If you believe that you deserve the deepest pits of Hell just as much as I do, then you should believe that God is being unfair by sentencing me but not you

IS it fair that a president pardones one and not the other? And I didn't say you were going to hell. No one but God can know that.

Who said anything about opinions? You're the only one here who's masquerading opinion as argument. I'm talking about a simple value judgement that suffering/death are bad, and the logical conclusions which can be drawn from that value judgement.

Um., the quote I was replying to made by Kelly asked if I got all my opinions from the Bible.

"Appeal to popularity" fallacy. Sorry, but you fail the test. You were utterly unable to produce anything resembling an explanation for your claim that swearing is unethical.

I was reffering to socially unethical. Ethical as in socially acceptable, not morally acceptable.

You are ignoring it. You claimed that your religion "created" marriage. I pointed out that this is completely false. Now you're trying to quietly change the subject to this "God's bounds" bullshit.

No, I say that God, whom I believe in, created marriage. Big difference.

Irrelevant. If you defend them, then you must answer for them. Your God is an asshole and a mass-murderer; you cannot prove that something is immoral just because he supposedly thinks so.

The fact that I am not God does not mean He has no reasons.

I am getting very tired of you repeatedly mocking a God of whom you know nothing about aside from an "invisible man in the sky". He seems like a mass-murderer to you, because you choose to believe that He is.

Just something to chew on, everyone dies sometime. God just decided when.

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-11-10 01:33am

creationistalltheay wrote:
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?

Try it from this angle: you have a right to not practice homosexuality (or premarital sex, or sex with women of different races, or whatever). That is up to you. But where do you get the authority to say that others cannot do these things? You would deny them their lives and happiness to make yourself feel more comfortable. Is this morally acceptable?

What Alyrium wrote was not "the lustful desire to have sex". He gave an example where a man felt a deep emotion for another human being, a love that could never see fruition. It led to emotional upheaval, not the frustration of a wasted erection. You don't cry yourself to sleep over some passing fancy. If God made all things, then he made gay people (and animals, too). Can't get around that, and as God's creation they need love and compassion as much as anyone else.

Where have you done such, other then ... repeating that everything is because of bigotry?

Denying the rights of a certain class of people because of a behavior pattern that causes no harm to others is a position of bigotry. It is no different than denying an interracial couple the rights to buy a house in a particular neighborhood, or saying that Jews can't come to a certain school, and so on.

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

Actually, according to Jewish law, marriage is basically when a man and woman have sex and accept each other as partners and set up a relationship together. I can also just give a woman a gift valued more than two sheqels before two reliable Jewish witnesses. In Israel, I am technically a bigamist to an amazing degree.

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

Stable household, loving supportive relationsip, mutually beneficial and good citizens. What if they happen to be two guys or two women, but meet all the above criteria?

Darth Wong wrote:Yes, both religions worship an unrepentant mass-murderer. Yay.
Say that to Coyote as well.

He has. I respect Mike Wong despite that fact that in some areas we disagree; actually that is one of the reasons I am here-- I find it boring when everyone agrees in lock-step with each other, and I learn many good things here. I couldn't argue from a theology-uber-alles point of view; not with passion and devotion.

While believing in God, I have issues with him. He killed everyone on the planet except Noah & his family. He firebombed S'Dom and ordered the genocide of the Canaanites. I will not even pretend to defend or rationalize these acts, if ethics are universal, then they apply to me, Mike, Verilon, God, and you, which leads us back to where we started-- using belief to rationalize and justify bad behavior... without even questioning if that is right or wrong.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-10 01:52am

Goddammit, you evaded every single point. I pointed out that you deny homosexual rights, hence you are lying about not advocating discrimination against them. You refuse to admit this, and give me useless answers that have nothing to do with the point, like "You already know my reasons" and "No one but God can know [why it's OK for him to be a bigot, and for you to praise his perfection anyway]"

"Appeal to popularity" fallacy. Sorry, but you fail the test. You were utterly unable to produce anything resembling an explanation for your claim that swearing is unethical.
I was reffering to socially unethical. Ethical as in socially acceptable, not morally acceptable.

You're pathetic. Now you're making up your own definition of ethics! Ethics is not "whatever is socially acceptable". In 1930's Nazi Germany, it was socially acceptable to beat Jews. Does this mean it was ethical? What the fuck is wrong with you, apart from an obvious brain injury that seemed to nuke your ability to comprehend morality and reason?

No, I say that God, whom I believe in, created marriage. Big difference.

Wrong. Your God does not exist outside your belief in him. And humans, not God, created marriage. Don't give me this "you have your beliefs and i have mine" bullshit; there is no faith required to conclude that humans created the social construct known as marriage.

The fact that I am not God does not mean He has no reasons.

Irrelevant. The point is that you cannot justify your bigotry, and deferring to your imaginary God is no excuse for that bigotry.

I am getting very tired of you repeatedly mocking a God of whom you know nothing about aside from an "invisible man in the sky". He seems like a mass-murderer to you, because you choose to believe that He is.

I've read the Bible, dumb-ass. What makes you think I don't know anything about your mass-murdering God? One of the differences between someone like you and Coyote is that Coyote does not deny a fact when it's staring him right in the face. You do.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-11-10 02:06am

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.

A prime example...That is the story of my life. Before you make a generalization about a group of people, try talking to one of them first. Has it ever occured to you that I am just as capable of love as a heteerosexual? You base your opinions off of a stereotype. I have done the most painful thing I could ever do for the sake of the person whom I love, That love has gone unrequited. How dare you belittle that as meaningless lust.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-11-10 02:14am

*steams with rage*

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-11-10 02:30am

I remember an epiphany moment for myself. It was 1989, I'd gotten out of Active Duty and went to live in California with a girl named Gloria. Things turned sour; she was emotianally abusive, manipulative, etc.

So I left her, drifted awhile, and someone named Lance, who was at the time just an acquaintance of mine, saw what a pitiful state I was in and let me stay at his apartment. He had a big fold-out couch bed that he turned over to me.

Lance was an amazing judge of human character. The first weekend we were in that apartment he brought home an obscene amount of beer, pulled two out, opened them, and said, "We're gonna talk".

Well, everything I went through with Gloria, he went through the exact same thing with a guy named Mark. Halfway through our first case, he and I could practically tell each other what our mutual tormenters would do next. Mark and Gloria were two peas in a pod, and here we were, laughing at them and living well.

Somewhere in my drunken stupor, I thought, "What's wrong with these guys? They're okay! They're just like regular people!" And after a moment, "Of course they're regular people! What else could it be?" If I were to cut him, would he not bleed, red as myself? To borrow a Biblical quote if I may: "..and the scales fell from his eyes".

Lance never treated me with anything less that total respect. He listened to me as I put my life back together; every whine and pity trip, and gave a good sharp dose of reality when I needed it, too. He was one of my best friends. Through time's ravages, we lost touch. And I wish to God I could find him again.

CreationistAllTheWay... all due respect, but you need a beer.

****

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-10 03:15am

creationistalltheay wrote:
Ah. So you admit that you are not acting on your own free will when you worship, and I am justified in trying to save you from someone who is controlling your thoughts. Or do you believe mind control is a good thing?

No more mind control then a dead man being raised from the dead. Its too late, he's alive. what's he gonna do about it? would he really want to?

Nope, it isn't. The correct course of action is to base your morality on what can be objectively verified. We can objectively verify that murder and rape cause harm, therefore humanity has a legitimate interest in preventing these things from happening. Therefore, we find these things immoral. Homosexuality does not cause objective harm to anyone, therefore, it is not immoral.
For objective evidence, I'd like to send you to to homosexuality discussions STP has posted on creationweb, on different topics aside formt he spiratual side.

And you admit that in states where gay marriage is legal, you want to see it outlawed. Darth Wong is correct. Further, you are also showing that you have no argument by engaging in such petty semantical nitpicking in preference to actual debate.
I've seen others on this board do the same, such as my typo screen name, etc.

Hey, if you think that's bad, what about us? When reading posts on your board, even after washing our monitors still reek of the bullshit you guys call evidence.

Just my way of saying I hate cursing (does that mean I hate those who cute, OT)

And nobody here gives a shit what you believe
MY reason for liking creationweb more. In case none of the members noticed, they've kept Coyote, who's beliefs aren't the same as the majority of members. Some of us actually do care about the other's beliefs.

I also like how you completely missed the point of Alyrum Denryle's post. Are you really so bigoted that you cannot see an act of love when it's staring you in the face?
I did not. I can love my male friends and still have it not be wrong. Love and lust are different issues.

[/quote]

You really are an idiot aren't you? You freely admit that you have been brainwashed, and have no desire to change. This is more proof that of the several thousand possible afflictions of stupidity, fundamentalism is the most harmful.

By the way, by referring me to STP's posts, you have just admitted that you yourself cannot substantiate your own claims. By the way, I've seen stp's posts, he doesn't have anything substantial to say either, other than that a genetically engineered virus greated by the US government to kill gays has infected more gays than heterosexuals. Yes, I do have evidence to back up my conspiracy theory, but you won't believe it because you are being paid by the government not to.

(In case you were too stupid to realize it, that was a parody of your "God's existence is obvious, you just don't see it becasue you have not yet been saved." argument)

Actually, not caring about what your personal opinions and debating based on objective evidence is the mark of any competent debater. CW doesn't have competent debaters, that's why they accept their beliefs as evidence.

As for the "love and lust are different issues bit," are you saying that Alyrum Denryle sholdn't be able to marry someone he loves? Or perhaps you are saying homosexual love is okay, but all forms of lust (homo and hetero) are not. Okay, then why don't you try to pass laws outlawing lust. USE your right to freedom of speech.

You dropped my argument about all of Mike's posts being logical. Concession accepted.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-10 03:25am

creationistalltheay wrote: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.

And secular evidence in this case is what? Or do you mean actual evidence. Of course you don't hate them, you just don't want them to have the same rights as other people. That's real love right there.

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.

I'm saying that its a prostitute. That does not necessarily services to only one gender. You however do. That's why I'm not interpreting it, but you are.

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…

My ideas aren't set in stone. Show me the rational and logical proof that homosexuals cause harm and of course I would change my beliefs. And you still show your bigotry. Why is homosexuality a struggle? It is who they are. Some struggle with acceptance but ultimately it is who they are, not a choice.

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”?

Right so you don't hate homosexuals but you hate the exact sex methods they have. So you hate blowjobs and anal by homosexuals but are okay with it in heterosexuals? Yeah, that's not hatred.

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.

Yet they still are shunned. If they wanted otherwise, then why be gay at all?

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)

The action of being gay makes their state of being gay.

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 why does everyone deserve hell? Is it based on their actions or on some irrational belief that some guy nobody knows anymore fucked up? So what, because humans do bad things and you are a human I am justified in taking the punishment out on you? And do you think you are going to go to hell? If you deserve it then are you going to go? Or do you think you will be "saved" because some egomaniacal deity gets to torture humanity and play favorites? And of course this makes him all loving.

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.

In context of the verses mentioned.

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.

Right, evidence. And that would be what? You've already said that you choose what is right. I don't believe that the apocrypha is true or untrue. I mean that you decide whether or not something is true based on your own beliefs so that it justifies your belief system.

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."

This is openended. It does not say, oh yeah don't have gay marriages. And again your basing your beliefs on some two thousand year old text of myths. Can you actually prove any of this is from a deity that you can also prove the existence of? Or do you rationalize it by saying that it is true because you want it to be true because it can justify your beliefs?

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.

By the way, they are given less rights. Aside from the fact that certain states have laws where homosexuals can't have sex, they also then do not have the right to marry who they love, which is the right heterosexuals have.

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?

So how can a man have sex with a man like a woman? Where's the fucking vagina?

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

Verilon mentioned this.

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-10 11:35am

That love has gone unrequited. How dare you belittle that as meaningless lust.

I did not call it meaningless lust, I called it a love for a friend.

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-10 11:52am

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.

I'm saying that its a prostitute. That does not necessarily services to only one gender. You however do. That's why I'm not interpreting it, but you are

I"ll look into the original meanings later when the computer with the Hebrew program gets turned on.

Why is homosexuality a struggle? It is who they are.

I am saying Christians who struggle with it, (as I struggle with lust, etc.)

Right so you don't hate homosexuals but you hate the exact sex methods they have.

I hate the fact that they have sex with another one of the same gender, because it is an "abolishment" in God's eyes.

And why does everyone deserve hell? Is it based on their actions or on some irrational belief that some guy nobody knows anymore... up?

Everyone deserves hell because of our sin. But arguing this will go nowhere.

And do you think you are going to go to hell? If you deserve it then are you going to go?

No. But God doesn't play favorites. He didn't choose someone based on them, but on His own reasons. Again, arguing on this will go nowhere.

In context of the verses mentioned.

For one, the context of the word lie is on an earlier page.

Right, evidence. And that would be what? You've already said that you choose what is right

Archeological evidence, historical evidence (hey, even my sister's history book admits to the exodus of israel)

This is openended. It does not say, oh yeah don't have gay marriages. And again your basing your beliefs on some two thousand year old text of myths. Can you actually prove any of this is from a deity that you can also prove the existence of?

Proving the Bible would be of another thread, but I"m not exactly the foremost debator on that issue.

By the way, they are given less rights. Aside from the fact that certain states have laws where homosexuals can't have sex, they also then do not have the right to marry who they love, which is the right heterosexuals have.

Same reason I do not have the right to marry a married woman whom I may love.

So how can a man have sex with a man like a woman? Where's the vagina?

Since he first word, lie, is not very specific, the author restated it using a word that is a euphemism for sex. That could very well be what the "like a woman" part means.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-11-10 11:58am

His whole post is rediculous, but this one

I hate the fact that they have sex with another one of the same gender, because it is an "abolishment" in God's eyes.

is just a classic.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-11-10 12:01pm

Ok, who thinks this should be moved into the HoS?