BANNED!

[Vympel]

You got my vote.

[neoolong]

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.

Right. So let's have a scenario. A heterosexual couple who are single and 20 and love each other are allowed to marry. Does that mean that a homosexual couple who are single and 20 and love each other are allowed to marry? By denying them that right you are denying them equal rights. And you are nitpicking. Of course heterosexuals want to marry the other gender. That's not the point. The person they love which is what marriage should be based on is the important point.

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.

Ok.

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

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

Why is it a struggle? There are many homosexuals who are perfectly fine with who they are as homosexuals. Lust is irrelevant.

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.

Right and just because God says its wrong, its wrong. And the Bible is right, unless you say its wrong. Face it, you are just using belief in something you can't know to justify your own beliefs. Has God told you that homosexuality harms people and so is wrong?

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 whose sin is that?

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.

That is choosing favorites if a homosexual as a homosexual can't get in.

In context of the verses mentioned.

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

And others?

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)

So now you accept secular evidence when before you wouldn't. So you only accept evidence when it supports your beliefs and not when it doesn't. And of course that doesn't show how you justify your own beliefs so that you can say you aren't a bigot.

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.

If you are going to appeal to the Bible as the justification you will have to show why it is valid instead of because some guy said so.

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.

Look at my above scenario.

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.

Right people get to restate and interpret the Bible to fit what they want. If the Bible is supposed to be literal it would not take literary form. It didn't say, homosexuals don't have sex or I'll punish you. It's more akin to something like the sun sets, as a head hits the pillow. It's an analogy. You want to interpret it fine. It just is based on your own beliefs so that your interpretation is your way of justifying your feelings toward homosexuals.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You also said that that was not a prime example of homosexuality. It may not be, but on the same token, it proves that we are as capable of romantic love as any heterosexual. Your stereotype has just been ripped to shreds.

[Kelly Antilles]

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.

I never said opinions. I said morals. There is a difference. And you're still a slave. You have no freedoms by making all your decisions based on a BOOK.

[haas mark]

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

<sarcasm>

Oh, no, not me....never.....

</sarcasm>

[Coyote]

CreationistAllTheWay...

If you know your Hebrew letters (Aleph, Bet, Gimel, Daled, etc..) spell the word out for me and I'll see what I can find on the "Lay down with" word.

So tell me, how much do you accept the Bible as literal? That every single word in it was written down according to God's exact intent? I mean, much of the New Testament was actually written by Jesus's desciples, so you know those parts were inspired by the minds of people...

But let's face it, the Bible has been around for centuries, and lots of it existed as legends and tales and oral tradition before getting codified. It's been translated and fallen into the hands of kings and dictators and popes who are knowingly corrupt. At some point, I am sure that these petty chieftains got in there and wrote passages about killing and raping and torturing others to justify their own corrupt desires.

How do you know that those passages that carp about morality or right of the might werebn't written by some bloody warlord or selfish 'religious' leader out to make his life fat? How would you feel if you were to discover that you were not folling the word of God, but the desires of someone like Pope Benedict VIII (if I rememner right, it was one of the Benedicts)... a man who was described as having "an unnatural relationship with a pet pig"? That man, and others of his caliber, once controlled the writing of the Bible. You can bet they abused their authority in more ways than just molesting the swine.

You also say that God does not play favorites; I remember that from the Book of Acts, after the centurion Cornelius joins the church (ater first becoming Jewish, too, I saw). It seems to be a reflection of the Jewish concept of "a place for the righteous among all the nations". That leaves no room for humans to exclude others from the community. Who knows? Gays and others who face discrimination may well be God's favorite people, considering the martyrdom aspect of your Jesus.

People who are smug with their position of being "saved" are commiting the sin of pride, and using that positin to keep others downtrodden... tch,tch,tch. You say they are not downtrodden, but they say they sure feel downtrodden, so something's not right.

A gay man who forces himself into a marriage with a woman is still a gay man, inside, he's just wearing a mask. So what has this oppression truly changed?

[Andrew J.]

According to the Bible of Andrewianism, Book of Jericho, verse 3:17:

"And it came to be revealed that the one who did say that he was not only a creationist, but a creationist all the way, was, indeed, an ignorant, bigoted jackass."

Refute that, assclown.

[haas mark]

According to the Bible of Andrewianism, Book of Jericho, verse 3:17:

"And it came to be revealed that the one who did say that he was not only a creationist, but a creationist all the way, was, indeed, an ignorant, bigoted jackass."

Refute that, assclown.

w00t!!!

[Andrew J.]

According to the Bible of Andrewianism, Book of Jericho, verse 3:17:

"And it came to be revealed that the one who did say that he was not only a creationist, but a creationist all the way, was, indeed, an ignorant, bigoted jackass."

Refute that, assclown.

w00t!!!

(r34710|\|1$74ll7|-|3\/\/4y=l4|\/|3r!

(Jeez, 1337 is hard!)

[haas mark]

Yes, very much so...

[Andrew J.]

Yes, very much so...

Did you understand what I wrote?

[haas mark]

Yes, very much so...

Did you understand what I wrote?

Yes, I did.

[The Dark]

Yes, very much so...

Did you understand what I wrote?

Yes, I did.

I didn't.

[Kelly Antilles]

creationistalltheway=lamer

[The Dark]

creationistalltheway=lamer

Merci beaucoup. Once you pointed it out, it was obvious. I guess I just have trouble with pattern recognition.

[Darth Servo]

OK creationistalltheay, answer this.
You believe that everyone deserves to go to hell. Right?
You believe that God uses some unknowable reasons to decide who gets to go to heaven through his grace instead. Right?
You believe that our works have nothing to do with this process. Right?

So then WHY DO YOU CARE whether a person is homosexual or not? 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???

[Durandal]

I can answer this one. Creationistalltheway, like most fundamentalists, can't find a purpose for himself in life. So, he seeks to aggrandize himself by "spreading 'the Word'" and trying to either convert others or shun them for not agreeing with him. This way, he figures he is doing God's work, and thus he feels important.

The spread of Christianity can easily be traced to lack of self-confidence on the part of the perpetrators.

[Non Catenatum]

You also said that that was not a prime example of homosexuality. It may not be, but on the same token, it proves that we are as capable of romantic love as any heterosexual. Your stereotype has just been ripped to shreds.

IT depends on if you classify the scenario's act of kindness out of the love for a friend, or sexual longings. I took it to be the first.

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 was correcting myself on using the wording "ethical" when I should have said "socially acceptable"

Wrong. Your God does not exist outside your belief in him

I refuse to get into a spiritual debate with you on this issue, as I realise it is a lost cause for both sides.Either you believe it or you don't, but no one will believe it because a debate won them over.

I've read the Bible, dumb-ass. What makes you think I don't know anything about your mass-murdering God?

This "mass-murdering" God had a choice to either let His chosen people, the israelites, lose, or let their enemies lose. Call it whatever you like.

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

no comment

And you're still a slave. You have no freedoms by making all your decisions based on a BOOK.

No, I have the freedom to do whatever sin I wish, as does anyone. I am not a slave to the book, I just follow it as a guide.

If you know your Hebrew letters (Aleph, Bet, Gimel, Daled, etc..) spell the word out for me and I'll see what I can find on the "Lay down with" word.

Can't say i know the hebrew letters, and it seems hebrew letters don't work on the board.

So tell me, how much do you accept the Bible as literal? That every single word in it was written down according to God's exact intent? I mean, much of the New Testament was actually written by Jesus's desciples, so you know those parts were inspired by the minds of people...

I accept the things of the Bible in the forms they're in. Though I believe it's all Divinely Inspired, the things such as a dream (revelation) poetry and songs (psalms, song of solomon) should be taken as they were written, not necissarily literal. However, the commands (throughout the Bible, but especially in leviticus, deut. and the Epistles) pretty much speak for themself, and I wonder how it could be taken illiteral. And narratives (much of the Old Testament, gospels, and acts) are very obviously narratives, not poetry or dreams.

Its all in the hermenuetics of which genre the book is in.

But let's face it, the Bible has been around for centuries, and lots of it existed as legends and tales and oral tradition before getting codified. It's been translated and fallen into the hands of kings and dictators and popes who are knowingly corrupt

Firstly, are you reffering to the Old Testament, or the New Testament?

I realise that, if any other book were given such time of oral tradition, it would get lost in fables. The only difference is, if God (Jehova) wanted to get his message across, would he really let man's capabilities get in the way of His divine scripture?

How do you know that those passages that carp about morality or right of the might werebn't written by some bloody warlord or selfish 'religious' leader out to make his life fat?

For one, that is why generally most moral commands are repeated in the New Testament as well as the old. The epistles, for example, did not necissartily go around by word of mouth, as they are letters.

Also, it's again an act of trust that God wouldn't spend His time writing a book if He had not intended it to last.

How would you feel if you were to discover that you were not folling the word of God, but the desires of someone like Pope Benedict VIII (if I rememner right, it was one of the Benedicts)... a man who was described as having "an unnatural relationship with a pet pig"?

Then for one I would wonder why he decided to keep the sexual purity verses

It seems to be a reflection of the Jewish concept of "a place for the righteous among all the nations". That leaves no room for humans to exclude others from the community. Who knows? Gays and others who face discrimination may well be God's favorite people, considering the martyrdom aspect of your Jesus.

I'd assert that homosexuality is not necissarily the person, but his actions, btw.

People who are smug with their position of being "saved" are commiting the sin of pride, and using that positin to keep others downtrodden... tch,tch,tch

I agree there are far to many people willing to laugh and say "God chose me, but you're a reject." and that is in all aspects a wrong mindset. We have no way to know who is a potential believer, thus treat everyone, believer or not, just as well as anyone else.

A gay man who forces himself into a marriage with a woman is still a gay man, inside, he's just wearing a mask. So what has this oppression truly changed?

Though I agree, but (this statement is bound to get more then one people shouting "we don't care what you think") the Lord is the only one that can offer true salvation from homosexuality.

"And it came to be revealed that the one who did say that he was not only a creationist, but a creationist all the way, was, indeed, an ignorant, bigoted jackass."

Why thank you. Nice to know there are some willing to respect my position.

(r34710|\|1$74ll7|-|3\/\/4y=l4|\/|3r!

\/\/|-|0'$3 7|-|3 |3|&&07 |-|3r3 ??

[Non Catenatum]

Right. So let's have a scenario. A heterosexual couple who are single and 20 and love each other are allowed to marry. Does that mean that a homosexual couple who are single and 20 and love each other are allowed to marry? By denying them that right you are denying them equal rights. And you are nitpicking. Of course heterosexuals want to marry the other gender. That's not the point. The person they love which is what marriage should be based on is the important point.

"a man marrying a man" and "a man marrying a woman" are not equal, thus it is just the generalization "Who they love" that makes it equal. Not to say a homosexual is equated to a cannibal of course, but picture this:

There is one vegetarian man. Another man is a cannibal.

There is a law in the united states that says a man cannot eat another human being. Thus the vegetarian gets to eat what he likes, and the cannibal cannot.

Why is it a struggle? There are many homosexuals who are perfectly fine with who they are as homosexuals. Lust is irrelevant.

I am saying for the true Christian it should be a struggle because they are trying to glorify God with their actions.

Right and just because God says its wrong, its wrong. And the Bible is right, unless you say its wrong. Face it, you are just using belief in something you can't know to justify your own beliefs. Has God told you that homosexuality harms people and so is wrong?

No, buyt God has shown that it is "abominable" to Him thus in itself it i s a sin.

And whose sin is that?

What do you mean?

That is choosing favorites if a homosexual as a homosexual can't get in.

Their sexuality does not get them in our out./ It is that a Christian ought to be at least struggling with it because they know it is wrong. Sin doesn't decide who goes to heaven, it just should reflect the person's decision.

So now you accept secular evidence when before you wouldn't. So you only accept evidence when it supports your beliefs and not when it doesn't. And of course that doesn't show how you justify your own beliefs so that you can say you aren't a bigot.

The secular evidence enforces it. And who say's I won't accept secular evidence? I just said I don't need it.

It didn't say, homosexuals don't have sex or I'll punish you.

It did say "for it is an abomionation to the lrod"

It's more akin to something like the sun sets, as a head hits the pillow. It's an analogy

What could that be an analogy to?

So then WHY DO YOU CARE whether a person is homosexual or not? 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???

I did not come here to tear homosexuals to shreds, that argument arose from me claiming not to be a bigot. If it were up to me, I would not go shouting on homosexual-controlled boards "Hey, thats a sin! You're going to hell!" because I have too much sin in my life to argue that.





Happy veterans day

[data_link]

You keep saying "only the lord can offer true salvation from homosexuality." Answer this:

1) Why do they need saving at all? What is so evil about homosexuality that they would need to be saved from it? (And don't say "it's an abomination to God," having an uncircumsized penis is an abomination to God. Women in positions of power are aboinations to God. There are a lot of perfectly harmless things that are abominations to God. Give us something substantial.)

2) Only God can offer you salvation from breathing oxygen. What is wrong with the previous sentence (aside from the fact that it's a lie, as you could accomplish the same thing by choking yourself)?

3) Why would God, a being of infinite power, need to sacrifice himself to himself, in order to change a law he made himself?

[Non Catenatum]

1) Why do they need saving at all? What is so evil about homosexuality that they would need to be saved from it? (And don't say "it's an abomination to God," having an uncircumsized penis is an abomination to God. Women in positions of power are aboinations to God. There are a lot of perfectly harmless things that are abominations to God. Give us something substantial.)

By substantial you mean reasons aside from the Biblical perspective?

Firstly, many here have said that being homosexual was not a choice. If so, then would you rather be hetero-sexual? Why?

2) Only God can offer you salvation from breathing oxygen. What is wrong with the previous sentence (aside from the fact that it's a lie, as you could accomplish the same thing by choking yourself)?

That statement implies that oxeygen itself is bad.

3) Why would God, a being of infinite power, need to sacrifice himself to himself, in order to change a law he made himself?

He made the law because the people of Israel wanted a law to live by.

His sacrafice was because He knew that they needed saving. It is, indeed, one of the most mysterious things to think about. Why would God, in all His glory, feel the need to sacrafice Himself? The simple answer is, HE was setting an example. Perfect Repentance. IT was perfect, because He was God, and repentance because He was human. (paraphrased from CS Lewis' Mere Christianity)

[data_link]

Right. So let's have a scenario. A heterosexual couple who are single and 20 and love each other are allowed to marry. Does that mean that a homosexual couple who are single and 20 and love each other are allowed to marry? By denying them that right you are denying them equal rights. And you are nitpicking. Of course heterosexuals want to marry the other gender. That's not the point. The person they love which is what marriage should be based on is the important point.

"a man marrying a man" and "a man marrying a woman" are not equal, thus it is just the generalization "Who they love" that makes it equal. Not to say a homosexual is equated to a cannibal of course, but picture this:

There is one vegetarian man. Another man is a cannibal.

There is a law in the united states that says a man cannot eat another human being. Thus the vegetarian gets to eat what he likes, and the cannibal cannot.

Why is it a struggle? There are many homosexuals who are perfectly fine with who they are as homosexuals. Lust is irrelevant.

I am saying for the true Christian it should be a struggle because they are trying to glorify God with their actions.

Right and just because God says its wrong, its wrong. And the Bible is right, unless you say its wrong. Face it, you are just using belief in something you can't know to justify your own beliefs. Has God told you that homosexuality harms people and so is wrong?

No, buyt God has shown that it is "abominable" to Him thus in itself it i s a sin.

And whose sin is that?

What do you mean?

That is choosing favorites if a homosexual as a homosexual can't get in.

Their sexuality does not get them in our out./ It is that a Christian ought to be at least struggling with it because they know it is wrong. Sin doesn't decide who goes to heaven, it just should reflect the person's decision.

So now you accept secular evidence when before you wouldn't. So you only accept evidence when it supports your beliefs and not when it doesn't. And of course that doesn't show how you justify your own beliefs so that you can say you aren't a bigot.

The secular evidence enforces it. And who say's I won't accept secular evidence? I just said I don't need it.

It didn't say, homosexuals don't have sex or I'll punish you.

It did say "for it is an abomionation to the lrod"

It's more akin to something like the sun sets, as a head hits the pillow. It's an analogy

What could that be an analogy to?

So then WHY DO YOU CARE whether a person is homosexual or not? 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???

I did not come here to tear homosexuals to shreds, that argument arose from me claiming not to be a bigot. If it were up to me, I would not go shouting on homosexual-controlled boards "Hey, thats a sin! You're going to hell!" because I have too much sin in my life to argue that.

The law would be wrong if it absolutely forbade eating human flesh. If, however, there is only a law preventing them from killing other human beings in order to obtain said flesh, but no law against eating humans that are already dead, then there is no problem.

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?

May I point out (as I have done before) that God considers women in positions of power to be an abomination. Why aren't you trying to protest women's voting rights on the same basis, hmmm? (Hint: it's because you know that's total crap and that if you start actually following your Bible you'll dicredit your position)

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>

So then you admit that you only accept secular evidenced when it supports your position. Concession accepted.

Homosexual-controlled boards. It sounds like you're trying to turn homosexuals into a political party, or portray homosexuality as some grand conspiracy. 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.

[neoolong]

Right. So let's have a scenario. A heterosexual couple who are single and 20 and love each other are allowed to marry. Does that mean that a homosexual couple who are single and 20 and love each other are allowed to marry? By denying them that right you are denying them equal rights. And you are nitpicking. Of course heterosexuals want to marry the other gender. That's not the point. The person they love which is what marriage should be based on is the important point.

"a man marrying a man" and "a man marrying a woman" are not equal, thus it is just the generalization "Who they love" that makes it equal. Not to say a homosexual is equated to a cannibal of course, but picture this:

There is one vegetarian man. Another man is a cannibal.

There is a law in the united states that says a man cannot eat another human being. Thus the vegetarian gets to eat what he likes, and the cannibal cannot.

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?

Why is it a struggle? There are many homosexuals who are perfectly fine with who they are as homosexuals. Lust is irrelevant.

I am saying for the true Christian it should be a struggle because they are trying to glorify God with their actions.

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.

Right and just because God says its wrong, its wrong. And the Bible is right, unless you say its wrong. Face it, you are just using belief in something you can't know to justify your own beliefs. Has God told you that homosexuality harms people and so is wrong?

No, buyt God has shown that it is "abominable" to Him thus in itself it i s a sin.

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

And whose sin is that?

What do you mean?

"Everyone deserves hell because of our sin." Whose sin, the sin of each person?

That is choosing favorites if a homosexual as a homosexual can't get in.

Their sexuality does not get them in our out./ It is that a Christian ought to be at least struggling with it because they know it is wrong. Sin doesn't decide who goes to heaven, it just should reflect the person's decision.

Why is it wrong? What is the harm? Why a struggle if you can't show it is wrong? If it isn't a prereq then why did you claim it was previously?

So now you accept secular evidence when before you wouldn't. So you only accept evidence when it supports your beliefs and not when it doesn't. And of course that doesn't show how you justify your own beliefs so that you can say you aren't a bigot.

The secular evidence enforces it. And who say's I won't accept secular evidence? I just said I don't need it.

You claim that only Christians should struggle with homosexuality. You claim that homosexuality is a choice. Despite homosexuals telling you otherwise you still claim it is a choice. You deny it. Therefore, you only accept secular evidence when it suits you.

It didn't say, homosexuals don't have sex or I'll punish you.

It did say "for it is an abomionation to the lrod"

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. 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.

It's more akin to something like the sun sets, as a head hits the pillow. It's an analogy

What could that be an analogy to?

Irrelevant. It still is one and if the Bible was literal it wouldn't use an analogy.

[Non Catenatum]

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

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.

May I point out (as I have done before) that God considers women in positions of power to be an abomination

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

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.

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.

So then you admit that you only accept secular evidenced when it supports your position. Concession accepted.

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

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.

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...

[data_link]

By substantial you mean reasons aside from the Biblical perspective?

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.

That statement implies that oxeygen itself is bad.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner! Now, can you guess what that was an analogy to?

He made the law because the people of Israel wanted a law to live by.

His sacrafice was because He knew that they needed saving. It is, indeed, one of the most mysterious things to think about. Why would God, in all His glory, feel the need to sacrafice Himself? The simple answer is, HE was setting an example. Perfect Repentance. IT was perfect, because He was God, and repentance because He was human

Couldn't he have given them a law that recognized women as human beings?

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?