Are you offended by Christianity?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
oh, by the way, I'm am very offended by Christianity. I'm bisexual, and I shouldn't have half of Christ's followers trying to kill me.Benjamin-Tand I was extremely offended by your hasty generalization.
[QUOTE="sammynmunch"]but Im a christian, and I accept evolution.My only answer is yes, they are annoying because apparently the earth is 6k years old even with all the evidence against them.
fanofazrienoch
Thats beacause you're a smart christian lol
[QUOTE="smarb001"]I trust "science books" because they have been scrutinized for centuries, rewritten, changed, and proven with FACTS not FAITH. Their not 100% perfect, but what is?
Godly_Cure
They can't be facts if they've been rewritten and changed.
The bible has been rewritten or edited plenty of times also
[QUOTE="Benjamin-T"]oh, by the way, I'm am very offended by Christianity. I'm bisexual, and I shouldn't have half of Christ's followers trying to kill me.fanofazrienochand I was extremely offended by your hasty generalization.
Uh huh. Tell me what happens if you're gay in Jamaica. US is a bit more organized, but the gay marriage newsstory that happened in 2004 shows how much most of the people in America feel.
[QUOTE="Godly_Cure"][QUOTE="smarb001"]I trust "science books" because they have been scrutinized for centuries, rewritten, changed, and proven with FACTS not FAITH. Their not 100% perfect, but what is?
Truth_Seekr
They can't be facts if they've been rewritten and changed.
The bible has been rewritten or edited plenty of times also
the textual reliability of the New Testament is better than any work of antiquity.and I was extremely offended by your hasty generalization.[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Benjamin-T"]oh, by the way, I'm am very offended by Christianity. I'm bisexual, and I shouldn't have half of Christ's followers trying to kill me.Benjamin-T
Uh huh. Tell me what happens if you're gay in Jamaica. US is a bit more organized, but the gay marriage newsstory that happened in 2004 shows how much most of the people in America feel.
:lol:not wanting you to marry your partner =/= wanting you dead
[QUOTE="Truth_Seekr"][QUOTE="Godly_Cure"][QUOTE="smarb001"]I trust "science books" because they have been scrutinized for centuries, rewritten, changed, and proven with FACTS not FAITH. Their not 100% perfect, but what is?
fanofazrienoch
They can't be facts if they've been rewritten and changed.
The bible has been rewritten or edited plenty of times also
the textual reliability of the New Testament is better than any work of antiquity. Only to those who believe it to be fact in the first place. ;)
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] 1: you didn't see my later post. no one dies for something they know to be a lie.People during those times had no education.. Many mistook things for what they really were, and believed it to be a sign from god.. You think these people were rational well educated people? Give me a break.fanofazrienoch
*facepalm* so because they are not as educated as we modern westerners are, they would be more than willing to die for something they know for 100% to be a lie? give me a ****ing break
Yes because we can full well know they were educated enough to not mistake something for another thing.. Who says they died for something for a lie? Whos to say they mistaken something? You have no evidence to prove this and its at best cirucmstantial as wella s a theory.
2: no one could not construct a worse strawman than that! I said Jesus was divine, and his miracles attest to this. IE, the miracles (resurrection) prove he was divine.Thats not a straw man argument, because I never gave an example analogy for an argument.. What I pointed out is you have no condition to prove otherwise.. The oen you try to do doesn't have enough evidence what so ever.sSubZerOo
actually, yes, that was a strawman. you said that I said Jesus was divine because of his miracles, and that his miracles happened because he was divine. that was not my argument. you constructed a strawman.
No it wasn't because I went into more depth why it was so.. That your only evidence was through shoddy testimony that we can't even trust to be accurate to this day.
the empty tomb, the post resurrection appearences, the disciples' belief in the resurrection & miracles, the fact that their beliefs dont conflict or contradict eachother, and Paul's conversion, all support the historicity of the resurrection and the miracles.and then you called ECREE on me (you didn't say it outright, but it is SOOO easily implied from that post), but ECREE suffers from a serious problem. "Extraordinary" is subjective. there is no objective way to measure how objective a claim is, and there is no way to measure how extraordinary a piece of evidence for this claim is.
in a nutshell, ECREE is subjective nonsense.
Subjective non sense? To maek a air tight case in proving fact there has to be room beyond reaosnable doubt.. Aside from eye witness acounts, thats ALL you have.. You have no other proof otehr then this.. And I am sorry but no historical evidence in history has been accepted as fact that has defied the laws of nature and phyiscs.. It just doesn't happen..sSubZerOo
once again, historians are split on this matter. so dont give me any BS about "oh, historians dont take other miracles as fact" because roughly half of them who have credentials in this field do accept it as history.
Point out another event in history that historians accepted some one to have myhtological powers.. Oh thats right you can't, historical community as a whole does not.. There is no 50/50 out of it, if there is give us a source that shows this.
And extraodinary is not subjective, when I am pointing out that its direclty defying phyiscs all together.. If I claimed I could fly, and that hundreds of other people said I could to.. Would you believe me? Of course not you would want to see it for your self, as well as check it if it were a trick.. Why isn't the exact same scrutiny given to Jesus? I suppose Magiacans must have had divine powers to, after all many people claimed they knew magic..sSubZerOo
so Jesus was a magician? and his miracles can be replicated? okay. I have a challenge for you. have someone shoot you in the head 5 times with a .50 caliber browning machine gun, and have a doctor on sight to confirm that you are in fact dead. bury your body (well have someone else to) in a dark tomb, and if I see you walking around perfectly healthy, I'll believe that you are divine.
Now this right here is making me laugh.. Thats my exact point.. If I do this to billions of people I know for sure I will get the exact same conclusion. They stay dead.. Jesus has shown to be no different and the only evidence you have shown to prove otherwise is shaky testimony from people who have been dead for thousands of years.. I suppose we should accept that the First king of China was divine? After all he had a whole nation of people who believed it.
and yes, extraordinary IS subjective. you cannot measure how extraordinary a claim is.
Extrordinary is not subjective in this argument.. The oridinary is you run by phyiscs.. Thats common.. It is extraordinary that you defie phyiscs.. And other then some shaky testimony, nothing has shown to him that he was divine.. Outside the holey scriptures not a single objective historian during that period has made that claim..
Yet again you have no provided enough evidence to go beyond a reasonable doubt.. We have numerous other stories in other religions that have cliamed eye witnesses.. What makes this one so special? Whats worse is it directly contridicts the laws of nature..
sSubZerOo
1: you cannot prove anything beyond "reasonable" doubt.2: "reasonable" is also subjective
3: who are these other eye-witnesses for the other religions?
4: you STILL have not provided a shred of evidence that a supernatural entity is subject to the laws of nature. I already told you to not pull that bull**** with me until you provide EVIDENCE.
No reasonable doubt goes into the idea of Occom's Razor some what in that the simpliest explaination is the most correct one.. Now are we to believe from some shoddy testimony from 2000 years ago from uneducated people who we could never cross examine and who we knew next to nothing was correct? Or that Jesus was merely a man because we have trillions of pieces of evidence that show that you can not walk on water under your own power.. That you can't raise from the dead unde ryour own power.. When a completely objective person looks upon this, with only one account of such so called divinity, and an uncountable amount of evidence showing that you all follow the laws of nature.. They are going to take the second one.. You will not be able to convicne a rational and objective perosn on this..
Make matters even funnier the reason why I said beyond a reasonable doubt is this.. It was a act of mercy, to argue its a fact is even more laughable because phyiscs something thats far more reliable and crediable then 2000 year old testimony disproves it as fact, but a possible theory that we can never cement as fact...
No whether you concider it fact or not is beyond the point.. I really could care less, but in the scholarly spectrum of things, it is 100% not fact.. It is a theory at best, and a supstitious belief at worse.
[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Truth_Seekr"][QUOTE="Godly_Cure"][QUOTE="smarb001"]I trust "science books" because they have been scrutinized for centuries, rewritten, changed, and proven with FACTS not FAITH. Their not 100% perfect, but what is?
Mr_sprinkles
They can't be facts if they've been rewritten and changed.
The bible has been rewritten or edited plenty of times also
the textual reliability of the New Testament is better than any work of antiquity. Only to those who believe it to be fact in the first place. ;)ehh, no, its actually a fact, attested even by most secular scholars, that the New Testament as we have recieved is closer to the original than any work of antiquity. the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament are 100 years younger than their originals. the oldest manuscripts of the annals or the antiquities are nearly 1000 years younger than their originals.
oh, by the way, I'm am very offended by Christianity. I'm bisexual, and I shouldn't have half of Christ's followers trying to kill me.Benjamin-T
Lol... You think we're trying to kill you... Btw, I'm gonna buy you free tickets to Afghanistan and lets see if the extremists are worse than us.. Also, me and millions of people are friends with bisexuals, your point has been disproven.
[QUOTE="Godly_Cure"][QUOTE="smarb001"]I trust "science books" because they have been scrutinized for centuries, rewritten, changed, and proven with FACTS not FAITH. Their not 100% perfect, but what is?
Truth_Seekr
They can't be facts if they've been rewritten and changed.
The bible has been rewritten or edited plenty of times also
Doesn't mean the bible was changed as in historical datas. ITs like me editing Lord of the Rings in the simple gangsta language. It may change the vocabulary of the book, but it doesn't change the plot.
[QUOTE="Truth_Seekr"][QUOTE="Godly_Cure"][QUOTE="smarb001"]I trust "science books" because they have been scrutinized for centuries, rewritten, changed, and proven with FACTS not FAITH. Their not 100% perfect, but what is?
fanofazrienoch
They can't be facts if they've been rewritten and changed.
The bible has been rewritten or edited plenty of times also
the textual reliability of the New Testament is better than any work of antiquity.That just means they could all be false..
[QUOTE="Benjamin-T"]oh, by the way, I'm am very offended by Christianity. I'm bisexual, and I shouldn't have half of Christ's followers trying to kill me.Wolf-Man2006
Lol... You think we're trying to kill you... Btw, I'm gonna buy you free tickets to Afghanistan and lets see if the extremists are worse than us.. Also, me and millions of people are friends with bisexuals, your point has been disproven.
[QUOTE="Godly_Cure"][QUOTE="smarb001"]I trust "science books" because they have been scrutinized for centuries, rewritten, changed, and proven with FACTS not FAITH. Their not 100% perfect, but what is?
Truth_Seekr
They can't be facts if they've been rewritten and changed.
The bible has been rewritten or edited plenty of times also
Doesn't mean the bible was changed as in historical datas. ITs like me editing Lord of the Rings in the simple gangsta language. It may change the vocabulary of the book, but it doesn't change the plot.
Completely false.. Some languages have words that don't exist, or mean completely different things.. Over time this difference in translation can get worse.. And this isn't to say also that the bible wasn't changed.. Which the making of the bible to begin with had many writings and a group of men decided to slash them out from existence.. Hell what about the fact that there are so many religious sects in Christainty alone, some with VAST differences in interpreations and writings.
Im still waiting for fanofraz to explain away the claims of other religious texts and supposed eye witnesses.xxDustmanxx
It won't happen.. Drac avoided them too.
[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Truth_Seekr"][QUOTE="Godly_Cure"][QUOTE="smarb001"]I trust "science books" because they have been scrutinized for centuries, rewritten, changed, and proven with FACTS not FAITH. Their not 100% perfect, but what is?
fanofazrienoch
They can't be facts if they've been rewritten and changed.
The bible has been rewritten or edited plenty of times also
the textual reliability of the New Testament is better than any work of antiquity. Only to those who believe it to be fact in the first place. ;)ehh, no, its actually a fact, attested even by most secular scholars, that the New Testament as we have recieved is closer to the original than any work of antiquity. the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament are 100 years younger than their originals. the oldest manuscripts of the annals or the antiquities are nearly 1000 years younger than their originals. :o ah, I didn't read properly. I thought you said historical reliability. Yeah, it's as close to the original as you're gonna get, but that doesn't make them any more factual :P
oh, by the way, I'm am very offended by Christianity. I'm bisexual, and I shouldn't have half of Christ's followers trying to kill me.Benjamin-T
Immoral sex is wrong in all circles of religion and Christians,if they were true Christians,obviously wouldn;t kill you because of it because it's wrong to kill
PS. Immoral sex does not just include man on man or women on women sex.
[QUOTE="Benjamin-T"]oh, by the way, I'm am very offended by Christianity. I'm bisexual, and I shouldn't have half of Christ's followers trying to kill me.blacktorn
Immoral sex is wrong in all circles of religion and Christians,if they were true Christians,obviously wouldn;t kill you because of it because it's wrong to kill
PS. Immoral sex does not just include man on man or women on women sex.
Sweeping generalization.. And untrue.
[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"]Im still waiting for fanofraz to explain away the claims of other religious texts and supposed eye witnesses.sSubZerOo
It won't happen.. Drac avoided them too.
Im still waiting.
[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] 1: you didn't see my later post. no one dies for something they know to be a lie.People during those times had no education.. Many mistook things for what they really were, and believed it to be a sign from god.. You think these people were rational well educated people? Give me a break.sSubZerOo
*facepalm* so because they are not as educated as we modern westerners are, they would be more than willing to die for something they know for 100% to be a lie? give me a ****ing break
Yes because we can full well know they were educated enough to not mistake something for another thing.. Who says they died for something for a lie? Whos to say they mistaken something? You have no evidence to prove this and its at best cirucmstantial as wella s a theory.
The subject matter was "were the Gospel writers lying?". you shifted the goal post.
and how exactly can one mistake something for a resurrection?
2: no one could not construct a worse strawman than that! I said Jesus was divine, and his miracles attest to this. IE, the miracles (resurrection) prove he was divine.Thats not a straw man argument, because I never gave an example analogy for an argument.. What I pointed out is you have no condition to prove otherwise.. The oen you try to do doesn't have enough evidence what so ever.sSubZerOo
actually, yes, that was a strawman. you said that I said Jesus was divine because of his miracles, and that his miracles happened because he was divine. that was not my argument. you constructed a strawman.
No it wasn't because I went into more depth why it was so.. That your only evidence was through shoddy testimony that we can't even trust to be accurate to this day.
what do you mean we cant trust it? were they lying?
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]the empty tomb, the post resurrection appearences, the disciples' belief in the resurrection & miracles, the fact that their beliefs dont conflict or contradict eachother, and Paul's conversion, all support the historicity of the resurrection and the miracles.and then you called ECREE on me (you didn't say it outright, but it is SOOO easily implied from that post), but ECREE suffers from a serious problem. "Extraordinary" is subjective. there is no objective way to measure how objective a claim is, and there is no way to measure how extraordinary a piece of evidence for this claim is.
in a nutshell, ECREE is subjective nonsense.
Subjective non sense? To maek a air tight case in proving fact there has to be room beyond reaosnable doubt.. Aside from eye witness acounts, thats ALL you have.. You have no other proof otehr then this.. And I am sorry but no historical evidence in history has been accepted as fact that has defied the laws of nature and phyiscs.. It just doesn't happen..sSubZerOo
once again, historians are split on this matter. so dont give me any BS about "oh, historians dont take other miracles as fact" because roughly half of them who have credentials in this field do accept it as history.
Point out another event in history that historians accepted some one to have myhtological powers.. Oh thats right you can't, historical community as a whole does not.. There is no 50/50 out of it, if there is give us a source that shows this.
Dr. Gary Habermas conducted a survey of scholars who commented on this issue.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]And extraodinary is not subjective, when I am pointing out that its direclty defying phyiscs all together.. If I claimed I could fly, and that hundreds of other people said I could to.. Would you believe me? Of course not you would want to see it for your self, as well as check it if it were a trick.. Why isn't the exact same scrutiny given to Jesus? I suppose Magiacans must have had divine powers to, after all many people claimed they knew magic..sSubZerOo
so Jesus was a magician? and his miracles can be replicated? okay. I have a challenge for you. have someone shoot you in the head 5 times with a .50 caliber browning machine gun, and have a doctor on sight to confirm that you are in fact dead. bury your body (well have someone else to) in a dark tomb, and if I see you walking around perfectly healthy, I'll believe that you are divine.
Now this right here is making me laugh.. Thats my exact point.. If I do this to billions of people I know for sure I will get the exact same conclusion. They stay dead.. Jesus has shown to be no different and the only evidence you have shown to prove otherwise is shaky testimony from people who have been dead for thousands of years.. I suppose we should accept that the First king of China was divine? After all he had a whole nation of people who believed it.
and yes, extraordinary IS subjective. you cannot measure how extraordinary a claim is. and again, the apostles SAW and believed. they weren't forced or brainwashed into believing.
Extrordinary is not subjective in this argument.. The oridinary is you run by phyiscs.. Thats common.. It is extraordinary that you defie phyiscs.. And other then some shaky testimony, nothing has shown to him that he was divine.. Outside the holey scriptures not a single objective historian during that period has made that claim..
Testimony is all we have for history. and once again, you need to explain the origin of this testimony. in other words, WHY did they believe it?
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Yet again you have no provided enough evidence to go beyond a reasonable doubt.. We have numerous other stories in other religions that have cliamed eye witnesses.. What makes this one so special? Whats worse is it directly contridicts the laws of nature..
sSubZerOo
1: you cannot prove anything beyond "reasonable" doubt.2: "reasonable" is also subjective
3: who are these other eye-witnesses for the other religions?
4: you STILL have not provided a shred of evidence that a supernatural entity is subject to the laws of nature. I already told you to not pull that bull**** with me until you provide EVIDENCE.
No reasonable doubt goes into the idea of Occom's Razor some what in that the simpliest explaination is the most correct one.. Now are we to believe from some shoddy testimony from 2000 years ago from uneducated people who we could never cross examine and who we knew next to nothing was correct? Or that Jesus was merely a man because we have trillions of pieces of evidence that show that you can not walk on water under your own power.. That you can't raise from the dead unde ryour own power.. When a completely objective person looks upon this, with only one account of such so called divinity, and an uncountable amount of evidence showing that you all follow the laws of nature.. They are going to take the second one.. You will not be able to convicne a rational and objective perosn on this..
you still haven't shown me a single piece of evidence that a supernatural being is bound by the laws of nature. and we have the testimony of dozens or even hundreds of witnesses recounted by Paul's first letter to the Corinthians.
Make matters even funnier the reason why I said beyond a reasonable doubt is this.. It was a act of mercy, to argue its a fact is even more laughable because phyiscs something thats far more reliable and crediable then 2000 year old testimony disproves it as fact, but a possible theory that we can never cement as fact...sSubZerOo
how does a supernatural being disobeying the laws of nature disprove the laws of nature?
No whether you concider it fact or not is beyond the point.. I really could care less, but in the scholarly spectrum of things, it is 100% not fact.. It is a theory at best, and a supstitious belief at worse.
[QUOTE="Benjamin-T"]oh, by the way, I'm am very offended by Christianity. I'm bisexual, and I shouldn't have half of Christ's followers trying to kill me.blacktorn
Immoral sex is wrong in all circles of religion and Christians,if they were true Christians,obviously wouldn;t kill you because of it because it's wrong to kill
PS. Immoral sex does not just include man on man or women on women sex.
Your implying that right and wrong, or better yet "morality" exist outside of the human mind.
Lol... You think we're trying to kill you... Btw, I'm gonna buy you free tickets to Afghanistan and lets see if the extremists are worse than us.. Also, me and millions of people are friends with bisexuals, your point has been disproven.
Wolf-Man2006
No it hasn't. You're just the "half" that's not trying to kill us. We were in hiding till the 70's because USA was founded by Christianity (the pledge part "under god" will prove that). It's also somewhere in the biblie that being gay is "wrong." Lastly, I have to hide from my own family, because I'm underage, dependent, and all of my family members are strong catholics
[QUOTE="Wolf-Man2006"]Lol... You think we're trying to kill you... Btw, I'm gonna buy you free tickets to Afghanistan and lets see if the extremists are worse than us.. Also, me and millions of people are friends with bisexuals, your point has been disproven.
Benjamin-T
No it hasn't. You're just the "half" that's not trying to kill us. We were in hiding till the 70's because USA was founded by Christianity (the pledge part "under god" will prove that). It's also somewhere in the biblie that being gay is "wrong." Lastly, I have to hide from my own family, because I'm underage, dependent, and all of my family members are strong catholics
"Under God" wasn't added to the pledge until the 1950's. The United States was not founded by Christianity, at best it was founded on Christian principles.
[QUOTE="Wolf-Man2006"]Lol... You think we're trying to kill you... Btw, I'm gonna buy you free tickets to Afghanistan and lets see if the extremists are worse than us.. Also, me and millions of people are friends with bisexuals, your point has been disproven.
Benjamin-T
No it hasn't. You're just the "half" that's not trying to kill us. We were in hiding till the 70's because USA was founded by Christianity (the pledge part "under god" will prove that). It's also somewhere in the biblie that being gay is "wrong." Lastly, I have to hide from my own family, because I'm underage, dependent, and all of my family members are strong catholics
the phrase "under god" was added in the 50's and the treaty of tripoli clearly says that this nation was not founded on any religious principle and is not a christian nation.[QUOTE="Benjamin-T"][QUOTE="Wolf-Man2006"]Lol... You think we're trying to kill you... Btw, I'm gonna buy you free tickets to Afghanistan and lets see if the extremists are worse than us.. Also, me and millions of people are friends with bisexuals, your point has been disproven.
fanofazrienoch
No it hasn't. You're just the "half" that's not trying to kill us. We were in hiding till the 70's because USA was founded by Christianity (the pledge part "under god" will prove that). It's also somewhere in the biblie that being gay is "wrong." Lastly, I have to hide from my own family, because I'm underage, dependent, and all of my family members are strong catholics
the phrase "under god" was added in the 50's and the treaty of tripoli clearly says that this nation was not founded on any religious principle and is not a christian nation.That is irrelevant.Proving whether or not this nation was founded on religious principles wont prove the existence of the supernatural.You people are missing the point.
[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Benjamin-T"][QUOTE="Wolf-Man2006"]Lol... You think we're trying to kill you... Btw, I'm gonna buy you free tickets to Afghanistan and lets see if the extremists are worse than us.. Also, me and millions of people are friends with bisexuals, your point has been disproven.
xxDustmanxx
No it hasn't. You're just the "half" that's not trying to kill us. We were in hiding till the 70's because USA was founded by Christianity (the pledge part "under god" will prove that). It's also somewhere in the biblie that being gay is "wrong." Lastly, I have to hide from my own family, because I'm underage, dependent, and all of my family members are strong catholics
the phrase "under god" was added in the 50's and the treaty of tripoli clearly says that this nation was not founded on any religious principle and is not a christian nation.That is irrelevant.Proving whether this nation was founded on religious principles or not wont prove the existence of the supernatural.You people are missing the point.
the point of contention *was* whether this nation is out to get homosexuals.[QUOTE="blacktorn"][QUOTE="Benjamin-T"]oh, by the way, I'm am very offended by Christianity. I'm bisexual, and I shouldn't have half of Christ's followers trying to kill me.sSubZerOo
Immoral sex is wrong in all circles of religion and Christians,if they were true Christians,obviously wouldn;t kill you because of it because it's wrong to kill
PS. Immoral sex does not just include man on man or women on women sex.
Sweeping generalization.. And untrue.
Generalising what? It's no generalisation that Lust is wrong in all major religions.
[QUOTE="blacktorn"][QUOTE="Benjamin-T"]oh, by the way, I'm am very offended by Christianity. I'm bisexual, and I shouldn't have half of Christ's followers trying to kill me.xxDustmanxx
Immoral sex is wrong in all circles of religion and Christians,if they were true Christians,obviously wouldn;t kill you because of it because it's wrong to kill
PS. Immoral sex does not just include man on man or women on women sex.
Your implying that right and wrong, or better yet "morality" exist outside of the human mind.
Erm ok what you just said doesn't make sense....:?
[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Benjamin-T"][QUOTE="Wolf-Man2006"]Lol... You think we're trying to kill you... Btw, I'm gonna buy you free tickets to Afghanistan and lets see if the extremists are worse than us.. Also, me and millions of people are friends with bisexuals, your point has been disproven.
fanofazrienoch
No it hasn't. You're just the "half" that's not trying to kill us. We were in hiding till the 70's because USA was founded by Christianity (the pledge part "under god" will prove that). It's also somewhere in the biblie that being gay is "wrong." Lastly, I have to hide from my own family, because I'm underage, dependent, and all of my family members are strong catholics
the phrase "under god" was added in the 50's and the treaty of tripoli clearly says that this nation was not founded on any religious principle and is not a christian nation.That is irrelevant.Proving whether this nation was founded on religious principles or not wont prove the existence of the supernatural.You people are missing the point.
the point of contention *was* whether this nation is out to get homosexuals.Seeing as there were alot of morons last election that voted for bush in 11 states because he was against gay marriage as being the primary thing, and not the education system, security, the economy, etc etc.. I would say there are a helluva alot of people still out to get gays.
That is irrelevant.Proving whether this nation was founded on religious principles or not wont prove the existence of the supernatural.You people are missing the point.
Then why is it that most of Christ's followers hate, if not loathe, homosexuality? Why does it say in the bible that it's wrong? It's not directly related, but still.
[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="blacktorn"][QUOTE="Benjamin-T"]oh, by the way, I'm am very offended by Christianity. I'm bisexual, and I shouldn't have half of Christ's followers trying to kill me.blacktorn
Immoral sex is wrong in all circles of religion and Christians,if they were true Christians,obviously wouldn;t kill you because of it because it's wrong to kill
PS. Immoral sex does not just include man on man or women on women sex.
Your implying that right and wrong, or better yet "morality" exist outside of the human mind.
Erm ok what you just said doesn't make sense....:?
What do you mean it makes no sense?Your claiming that different forms of sex is immoral.Yet that implies that immorality exists outside of the human mind.Nature doesnt work by what is right or wrong by human standards.
Seeing as there were alot of morons last election that voted for bush in 11 states because he was against gay marriage as being the primary thing, and not the education system, security, the economy, etc etc.. I would say there are a helluva alot of people still out to get gays.sSubZerOo
Amen, no pun intended. Bush introduced an amendment that bans gay marriage in 2004, but after the election, he admitted that he don't care at all about gays and lesbians. It's simple, most people are christians, so most people must hate gays. Didn't he win the election?
What do you mean it makes no sense?Your claiming that different forms of sex is immoral.Yet that implies that immorality exists outside of the human mind.Nature doesnt work by what is right or wrong by human standards.
xxDustmanxx
In simple terms, he's saying what every ignorant christians need to believe: Being gay or being bisexual is not a choice. Why would we want to choose something that demeans and possibly kill us?
In simple terms, he's saying what every ignorant christians need to believe: Being gay or being bisexual is not a choice. Why would we want to choose something that demeans and possibly kill us?Benjamin-T
Durr, because you're a rebel that only wants to defy God's authority.
durr!
[QUOTE="Benjamin-T"]In simple terms, he's saying what every ignorant christians need to believe: Being gay or being bisexual is not a choice. Why would we want to choose something that demeans and possibly kill us?Faylette
Durr, because you're a rebel that only wants to defy God's authority.
durr!
you are a perfect example of ignorants in their natural habitat
[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"]What do you mean it makes no sense?Your claiming that different forms of sex is immoral.Yet that implies that immorality exists outside of the human mind.Nature doesnt work by what is right or wrong by human standards.
Benjamin-T
In simple terms, he's saying what every ignorant christians need to believe: Being gay or being bisexual is not a choice. Why would we want to choose something that demeans and possibly kill us?
Some may be more prone to homosexuality in the same way as some to alcohol (not trying to offend by comparing the two btw) but that doesn't mean they have to go down the path of homosexuality. If a male has no attraction to females but males alone then he simply should never enter into an intimate relationship.
Some may be more prone to homosexuality in the same way as some to alcohol (not trying to offend by comparing the two btw) but that doesn't mean they have to go down the path of homosexuality. If a male has no attraction to females but males alone then he simply should never enter into an intimate relationship.mindstorm
Surely you would only truly know this if you had homosexual thoughts yourself.
[QUOTE="Benjamin-T"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"]What do you mean it makes no sense?Your claiming that different forms of sex is immoral.Yet that implies that immorality exists outside of the human mind.Nature doesnt work by what is right or wrong by human standards.
mindstorm
In simple terms, he's saying what every ignorant christians need to believe: Being gay or being bisexual is not a choice. Why would we want to choose something that demeans and possibly kill us?
Some may be more prone to homosexuality in the same way as some to alcohol (not trying to offend by comparing the two btw) but that doesn't mean they have to go down the path of homosexuality. If a male has no attraction to females but males alone then he simply should never enter into an intimate relationship.And so what if they choose homosexuality, there are plenty of animals besides us that partake in homosexual behavior.You should try not to preach when in a debate.
[QUOTE="mindstorm"]
Some may be more prone to homosexuality in the same way as some to alcohol (not trying to offend by comparing the two btw) but that doesn't mean they have to go down the path of homosexuality. If a male has no attraction to females but males alone then he simply should never enter into an intimate relationship.RationalAtheist
Surely you would only truly know this if you had homosexual thoughts yourself.
I like the females a little bit too much to have homosexual leanings but one of my best friends has had some serious problems with handling homosexuality. He has turned from that route, however, and now dates an amazing girl.
[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="Benjamin-T"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"]What do you mean it makes no sense?Your claiming that different forms of sex is immoral.Yet that implies that immorality exists outside of the human mind.Nature doesnt work by what is right or wrong by human standards.
xxDustmanxx
In simple terms, he's saying what every ignorant christians need to believe: Being gay or being bisexual is not a choice. Why would we want to choose something that demeans and possibly kill us?
Some may be more prone to homosexuality in the same way as some to alcohol (not trying to offend by comparing the two btw) but that doesn't mean they have to go down the path of homosexuality. If a male has no attraction to females but males alone then he simply should never enter into an intimate relationship.And so what if they choose homosexuality, there are plenty of animals besides us that partake in homosexual behavior.You should try not to preach when in a debate.
Animals are not bound to the laws of God because they have no soul. To condemn an animal for its "homosexual behavior" is like blaming a mushroom for having intoxicating effects...[QUOTE="Benjamin-T"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"]What do you mean it makes no sense?Your claiming that different forms of sex is immoral.Yet that implies that immorality exists outside of the human mind.Nature doesnt work by what is right or wrong by human standards.
mindstorm
In simple terms, he's saying what every ignorant christians need to believe: Being gay or being bisexual is not a choice. Why would we want to choose something that demeans and possibly kill us?
Some may be more prone to homosexuality in the same way as some to alcohol (not trying to offend by comparing the two btw) but that doesn't mean they have to go down the path of homosexuality. If a male has no attraction to females but males alone then he simply should never enter into an intimate relationship.Bingo,although very very few gays or bi's can actually control their lust.
[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="Benjamin-T"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"]What do you mean it makes no sense?Your claiming that different forms of sex is immoral.Yet that implies that immorality exists outside of the human mind.Nature doesnt work by what is right or wrong by human standards.
mindstorm
In simple terms, he's saying what every ignorant christians need to believe: Being gay or being bisexual is not a choice. Why would we want to choose something that demeans and possibly kill us?
Some may be more prone to homosexuality in the same way as some to alcohol (not trying to offend by comparing the two btw) but that doesn't mean they have to go down the path of homosexuality. If a male has no attraction to females but males alone then he simply should never enter into an intimate relationship.And so what if they choose homosexuality, there are plenty of animals besides us that partake in homosexual behavior.You should try not to preach when in a debate.
Animals are not bound to the laws of God because they have no soul. To condemn an animal for its "homosexual behavior" is like blaming a mushroom for having intoxicating effects...You speak as if these things are true.Bring me evidence and then we will argue whether or not homosexuality is wrong.
[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="Benjamin-T"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"]What do you mean it makes no sense?Your claiming that different forms of sex is immoral.Yet that implies that immorality exists outside of the human mind.Nature doesnt work by what is right or wrong by human standards.
mindstorm
In simple terms, he's saying what every ignorant christians need to believe: Being gay or being bisexual is not a choice. Why would we want to choose something that demeans and possibly kill us?
Some may be more prone to homosexuality in the same way as some to alcohol (not trying to offend by comparing the two btw) but that doesn't mean they have to go down the path of homosexuality. If a male has no attraction to females but males alone then he simply should never enter into an intimate relationship.And so what if they choose homosexuality, there are plenty of animals besides us that partake in homosexual behavior.You should try not to preach when in a debate.
Animals are not bound to the laws of God because they have no soul. To condemn an animal for its "homosexual behavior" is like blaming a mushroom for having intoxicating effects...Apes have rationality and logic, isn't that part of having a 'soul'?
[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]
Some may be more prone to homosexuality in the same way as some to alcohol (not trying to offend by comparing the two btw) but that doesn't mean they have to go down the path of homosexuality. If a male has no attraction to females but males alone then he simply should never enter into an intimate relationship.mindstorm
Surely you would only truly know this if you had homosexual thoughts yourself.
I like the females a little bit too much to have homosexual leanings but one of my best friends has had some serious problems with handling homosexuality. He has turned from that route, however, and now dates an amazing girl.
So you don't actually know what you are talking about then. It amazes me how you can so easily judge others.
Does your best friend still have homosexual thoughts? Would he tell you if he did, knowing how you feel about it? Can he be sure he'll never have any more, or end up in a loveless marriage because of his suppressed feelings?
I'm not gay but I know there is no cure for being gay It's not a disease but a way of living.
[QUOTE="mindstorm"]
Some may be more prone to homosexuality in the same way as some to alcohol (not trying to offend by comparing the two btw) but that doesn't mean they have to go down the path of homosexuality. If a male has no attraction to females but males alone then he simply should never enter into an intimate relationship.RationalAtheist
Surely you would only truly know this if you had homosexual thoughts yourself.
Well he talks the truth and this is from someone who might have lustful feelings towards his same gender...:o
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment