What is your take on gays?

[iron butterfly]

Apparently " they " didn't want my "take " but rather an other side to a story to wipe "ars "on ,ha ha ha .How gay of them . LOL They're all the same so why do we call them abnormal ??? LOL

I feel WWWWOOunded .LOL:roll:

 

[jallman]

No, he's not. I've shown his illogic for what it is to the point where he tried to find his own version of "peace with honor" and his buddies have nothing but the old "he's right, you're wrong, so boo-ya" tripe.


Yeah, OK, pal...


My faith is not based on a wager. It's based on my personal relationship with God. On the other hand, Pascal's wager does make sense. You have more to lose if you guess wrongly in favor of atheism.

And so, here is expressed that same intellectual immaturity which made me walk away from the conversation to start with. Your smugness surely knows no bounds. :roll:

 

[battleax86]

Sure, a lot of things make sense when you manipulate the facts. Due to the subject matter of the wager, it opens itself up to a broader context.

How was there any manipulation of the facts? This was logic based on one's opinion, not any factual argument.

And so, here is expressed that same intellectual immaturity which made me walk away from the conversation to start with.

Ah, so it's not intellectual immaturity to say "He's right, you're wrong," but it's intellectually immature to laugh at somebody for using that argument? :roll:

Your smugness surely knows no bounds. :roll:

This was the definition I got for "smug:"

Main Entry: smug
Pronunciation: 'sm&g
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): smug·ger; smug·gest
Etymology: probably modification of Low German smuck neat, from Middle Low German, from smucken to dress; akin to Old English smoc smock
1 : trim or smart in dress : SPRUCE
2 : scrupulously clean, neat, or correct : TIDY
3 : highly self-satisfied
- smug·ly adverb
- smug·ness noun

I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make by calling me that. Maybe you're just trying to throw out words at somebody because you lost an argument.

 

[talloulou]

"Tom W. Smith's much more recent study, Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Numbers of Partners, Frequency and Risk, conducted among a full probability sample of the adult U.S. household population, reported that "Overall... less than 1% [of the study population] has been exclusively homosexual."

I would wager that most gays and lesbians have not lead a life that has been EXCLUSIVELY homosexual. Not because they aren't really gay or lesbian but because it only makes sense to at least try out what most people are doing at least once? Right?

Plus the whole exclusive thing doesn't take any experimental stuff in to consideration. If I have never fallen in love with or had a major crush on a girl yet I have had some sexual experience with a girl....am I a lesbian? Not in my opinion. But I wouldn't fall into the catagory of having lived an EXCLUSIVELY heterosexual life would I?

Plus there are sooooo many sins in the Bible in regards to marriage and sexuality. Many religious people understand that so they don't harp too much on the whole Homosexuality is a sin because the bible says so factor. I don't understand the religious people that do harp on this. I don't see them starting threads complaining about and disapproving of people who've had affairs and people who've had divorces. I'm sure they'd say they disagree with these things too....but in reality they don't attack them the same way they bash and attack homosexuality. It's all very unchristian like if you ask me.

 

[jallman]

How was there any manipulation of the facts? This was logic based on one's opinion, not any factual argument.

Ah, so it's not intellectual immaturity to say "He's right, you're wrong," but it's intellectually immature to laugh at somebody for using that argument? :roll:

Whatever it takes so you can sleep at night, pal.

This was the definition I got for "smug:"

Main Entry: smug
Pronunciation: 'sm&g
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): smug·ger; smug·gest
Etymology: probably modification of Low German smuck neat, from Middle Low German, from smucken to dress; akin to Old English smoc smock
1 : trim or smart in dress : SPRUCE
2 : scrupulously clean, neat, or correct : TIDY
3 : highly self-satisfied
- smug·ly adverb
- smug·ness noun

I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make by calling me that. Maybe you're just trying to throw out words at somebody because you lost an argument.

Third definition for the word smug, fits you to a tee. No, its not a compliment, and no, I did not lose an argument to your hysterics and spiritually sadistic non-points. But again, whatever it takes so you can sleep at night, pal.

 

[jallman]

Plus there are sooooo many sins in the Bible in regards to marriage and sexuality. Many religious people understand that so they don't harp too much on the whole Homosexuality is a sin because the bible says so factor. I don't understand the religious people that do harp on this. I don't see them starting threads complaining about and disapproving of people who've had affairs and people who've had divorces. I'm sure they'd say they disagree with these things too....but in reality they don't attack them the same way they bash and attack homosexuality. It's all very unchristian like if you ask me.

And you raise a very good point, talloullou. The reason is simple...homosexuality is not a sin that they see occurring in the person sharing the church pew with them. They feel safe in their pack attacking homosexuality with abandon because they are not presented with the homosexual in every day life. But Mr. Smith so piously screaming his amens whenever the sin of homosexuality is talked about with fire and brimstone, is quite possible banging Deacon Frye's wife on the side...when Brother Watson is nodding his agreement to the homosexual deserving death and damnation, no one wants to assent to seeing him and Sister Baker leave the bar drunk together the night before. It is easy to rail on the sins that you dont have to face in your congregation and to look aside when members of your clique are acting a little shady. And besides, a common enemy always bonds people together. Anyway, thats my take on that whole thing.

 

[steen]

I don't see them starting threads complaining about and disapproving of people who've had affairs and people who've had divorces. I'm sure they'd say they disagree with these things too....but in reality they don't attack them the same way they bash and attack homosexuality. It's all very unchristian like if you ask me.

You will find that fundie dogmatists generally will attack only what they feel not at risk of falling for themselves. Because then it suddenly is only a little sin anyway.

The self righteous hypocrisy of fundies is astonishing.

 

[Willoughby]

And you raise a very good point, talloullou. The reason is simple...homosexuality is not a sin that they see occurring in the person sharing the church pew with them. They feel safe in their pack attacking homosexuality with abandon because they are not presented with the homosexual in every day life. But Mr. Smith so piously screaming his amens whenever the sin of homosexuality is talked about with fire and brimstone, is quite possible banging Deacon Frye's wife on the side...when Brother Watson is nodding his agreement to the homosexual deserving death and damnation, no one wants to assent to seeing him and Sister Baker leave the bar drunk together the night before. It is easy to rail on the sins that you dont have to face in your congregation and to look aside when members of your clique are acting a little shady. And besides, a common enemy always bonds people together. Anyway, thats my take on that whole thing.

thats a good point. the bible makes gives no degree of sin. Homosexuality is as much of a sin as gossiping or lying.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

thats a good point. the bible makes gives no degree of sin. Homosexuality is as much of a sin as gossiping or lying.

Gossiping is a sin? Oh dear, I'm surely going to burn in hell.

 

[shuamort]

How was there any manipulation of the facts? This was logic based on one's opinion, not any factual argument.

No, that's where you're incorrect. You're claiming that it's not a manipulation of reality to claim that there is only one definition of god and that Pascal's wager can be verifiable within this myopic vacuum. That's the manipulation of the facts. When the facts don't fit the argument, you claim that they can be ignore for the sake of the argument.

 

[battleax86]

I would wager that most gays and lesbians have not lead a life that has been EXCLUSIVELY homosexual. Not because they aren't really gay or lesbian but because it only makes sense to at least try out what most people are doing at least once? Right?

Plus the whole exclusive thing doesn't take any experimental stuff in to consideration. If I have never fallen in love with or had a major crush on a girl yet I have had some sexual experience with a girl....am I a lesbian? Not in my opinion. But I wouldn't fall into the catagory of having lived an EXCLUSIVELY heterosexual life would I?

No, it would mean that you fell into that particular sin at one point. As long as you repent of that sin and ask God's forgiveness, it will not be held against you.

Plus there are sooooo many sins in the Bible in regards to marriage and sexuality. Many religious people understand that so they don't harp too much on the whole Homosexuality is a sin because the bible says so factor. I don't understand the religious people that do harp on this. I don't see them starting threads complaining about and disapproving of people who've had affairs and people who've had divorces. I'm sure they'd say they disagree with these things too....but in reality they don't attack them the same way they bash and attack homosexuality.

When was the last time you saw a "Divorce Pride" parade? When was the last time you saw somebody openly admit and advocate a lifestyle of adultery? It's true that divorce (for the wrong reasons) and adultery are just as much sins as homosexuality. Anyone who commits these sins is in the same boat as somebody doing their own re-enactment of Brokeback Mountain. Yet, homosexuality has asserted itself more in public than the other two and that's why we speak out against it more.

It's all very unchristian like if you ask me.

No, what's unChristian is accepting and condoning an activity that Scripture clearly states is a sin.

Whatever it takes so you can sleep at night, pal.

It doesn't take much to get me to sleep at night because I know full well that I am not accepting what God calls a perversion.

Third definition for the word smug, fits you to a tee. No, its not a compliment, and no, I did not lose an argument to your hysterics and spiritually sadistic non-points. But again, whatever it takes so you can sleep at night, pal. :wink:

Ah, so being "highly self-satisfied" is wrong, eh? Look, whether or not you think I'm "smug" is irrelevant to the issue. You lost the argument over the thread's actual topic a few pages ago. You're acting like a second-grader who just lost his argument about the world being flat to a grown-up and is now standing in the corner of the room yelling, "Oh yeah, well you're a stupid POOTIEHEAD!!!" :lol:

And you raise a very good point, talloullou. The reason is simple...homosexuality is not a sin that they see occurring in the person sharing the church pew with them. They feel safe in their pack attacking homosexuality with abandon because they are not presented with the homosexual in every day life. But Mr. Smith so piously screaming his amens whenever the sin of homosexuality is talked about with fire and brimstone, is quite possible banging Deacon Frye's wife on the side...when Brother Watson is nodding his agreement to the homosexual deserving death and damnation, no one wants to assent to seeing him and Sister Baker leave the bar drunk together the night before. It is easy to rail on the sins that you dont have to face in your congregation and to look aside when members of your clique are acting a little shady. And besides, a common enemy always bonds people together. Anyway, thats my take on that whole thing.

And that's a legitimate grievance. There is often a great deal of hypocrisy in churches in terms of condemning the sins of some, yet ignoring the sins of others (or committing them in their own lives). Yet, the hypocritical actions of some do not change what God has said in His Word about what is sin and what is not.

thats a good point. the bible makes gives no degree of sin. Homosexuality is as much of a sin as gossiping or lying.

True.

 

[jallman]

Ah, so being "highly self-satisfied" is wrong, eh? Look, whether or not you think I'm "smug" is irrelevant to the issue. You lost the argument over the thread's actual topic a few pages ago. You're acting like a second-grader who just lost his argument about the world being flat to a grown-up and is now standing in the corner of the room yelling, "Oh yeah, well you're a stupid POOTIEHEAD!!!" :lol:

Again, if you have to convince yourself of a victory where you achieved none, as long as it makes you sleep better at night, have at it.

And that's a legitimate grievance. There is often a great deal of hypocrisy in churches in terms of condemning the sins of some, yet ignoring the sins of others (or committing them in their own lives). Yet, the hypocritical actions of some do not change what God has said in His Word about what is sin and what is not.

Yet, I still dont see you railing against the sins of adultery, lying, lust, theft and the like on any of the other threads in this forum. But here you are making sure the world knows how you feel, in your spiritually sadistic way, about the sin of homosexuality. Very telling, indeed.

 

[battleax86]

Again, if you have to convince yourself of a victory where you achieved none, as long as it makes you sleep better at night, have at it.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that your argument wasn't really destroyed. One day, you might actually believe it.

Yet, I still dont see you railing against the sins of adultery, lying, lust, theft and the like on any of the other threads in this forum.

I don't see any other threads in this forum asking my take on adultery, lying, lust, theft, or "the like." If there were, and some "Christian" was trying to convince people that these things were acceptable, I would most definitely be in that thread.

But here you are making sure the world knows how you feel, in your spiritually sadistic way, about the sin of homosexuality.

Friend, there is nothing "spiritually sadistic" about arguing the fact that Christianity considers homosexuality to be a sin. On the contrary, it is my duty as a Christian to defend the Word of God, and it would be "spiritually sadistic" to simply walk away and let you go to hell without warning you of the danger that you and others are in.

Very telling, indeed.

What's telling is how you must discard portions of your own faith in order to live your chosen lifestyle.

 

[jallman]

Yeah, keep telling yourself that your argument wasn't really destroyed. One day, you might actually believe it.


I don't see any other threads in this forum asking my take on adultery, lying, lust, theft, or "the like." If there were, and some "Christian" was trying to convince people that these things were acceptable, I would most definitely be in that thread.


Friend, there is nothing "spiritually sadistic" about arguing the fact that Christianity considers homosexuality to be a sin. On the contrary, it is my duty as a Christian to defend the Word of God, and it would be "spiritually sadistic" to simply walk away and let you go to hell without warning you of the danger that you and others are in.


What's telling is how you must discard portions of your own faith in order to live your chosen lifestyle.

And this is exactly why I refuse to discuss spiritual issues with you, despite your continued delusion that I lost some sort of battle to you. When you can grasp an all inclusive perception of the bible, its history, and the politics involved in putting it together, I might be inclined to lend you a shred of credibility on the topic...until then, whatever it takes to make you sleep well at night.

 

[Datamonkee]

Fine. Homosexuality is a sin. How do you explain away these sins:

"A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God."

Pants have been considered men's clothing for centuries. Yet women wear them all the time. Or T-shirts and shorts? What about long hair on a man, and short hair on a woman?

"These you may eat of all that are in the water: whatever in the water has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers; that you may eat. But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination. Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you."

There goes shrimp, scallops, crab, lobster, and various other sea food we all love. That also includes sea weed, which several items of food, cosmetics, and medicines are made of.

It still comes down to Christians picking and choosing what laws to enforce and what are inconvenient or that have been deemed laws that were given to the Israelites for health reasons. That they wouldn't understand the reasoning behind this. As if God couldn't have said, "Hey, if you don't cook your pork correctly, you'll get sick." Or "Don't eat these, they'll make you sick." The Old Testament were laws given to the Israelites to live by, not to us.
http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section09.html

"The NT church was not very concerned about homosexuality as a problem, All three instances referring to homosexuality are from preformed traditions, either Greek or Jewish. No single NT author considers the issue important enough to write his own sentence about it! The argument "against nature" is the most common form of attack on pederasty in the Greco-Roman texts. Pederasty involved forced male rape even by heterosexuals and slave boy prostitutes. It says nothing about today's loving homosexual relationships. Even in Romans 1, where Paul integrates the illustration of homosexuality into his larger theological arguments, there is no advance beyond idolatry and pagan vices of 1 Cor 6:9."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm

" 1Corithians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Emphasis ours)

This verse has been translated in many ways among the 25 English versions of the Bible that we have analyzed. The two activities of interest here have been variously translated as:


effeminate. In the English language, this covers a wide range of male behavior such as being unmanly, lacking virility. One might think of the characters "John," the receptionist on NYPD Blue, or "Jack" on Will and Grace.
homosexuals, variously described as: "men who practice homosexuality," (ESV);
"those who participate in homosexuality," (Amplified);
"abusers of themselves with men," (KJV);
"practicing homosexuals," (NAB);
"homosexuals," (NASB, CSB, NKJ, The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English);
"homosexual perversion," (NEB);
"homosexual offenders," (NIV);
"liers with mankind," (Rhiems); and
"homosexual perverts." (TEV)

Many of these entries are restricted to gay males; lesbians are often excluded. Unfortunately, the term "homosexual" is commonly defined in two different ways: as a behavior (engaging in same-sex activity) or as a sexual orientation (being sexually attracted only to members of the same sex). Most of the biblical translations appear to refer to behavior rather than orientation."......
It is worthwhile to check the words attributed to Jesus by the author of the Gospel of Matthew. He also had a list of sins that could bring doom on a person: Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..." It is worth noting that homosexual behavior is not one of the behaviors that is mentioned in this passage. One might conclude that Jesus did not consider it important.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc3.htm

About the word "against nature," "unnatural," etc: The Greek phrase "para physin" is commonly translated into the English as: "unnatural and abnormal" (Amplified Bible)
"contrary to nature" (English Standard Version)
"against nature" (King James Version, Rheims New Testament)
"sin with each other" (Living Bible)
"unnatural" (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version)
"immoral, unnatural drives" (The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)

This does not seem to be an accurate translation. It may demonstrate prejudice on the part of the translators. "Unnatural" implies that the act is something that is to be morally condemned. M. Nissinen defines "para physin" as "Deviating from the ordinary order either in a good or a bad sense, as something that goes beyond the ordinary realm of experience." 3 The word "unconventional" would have been a more precise word for translators to use. The phrase "Para physin" appears elsewhere in the Bible:

In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul uses the phrase to refer to long hair on men as unusual and not ordinary.
In Romans 11:24, Paul used it to describe God's positive actions to bring Jews and Gentiles together.

I find it interesting that Paul was racist. He did not approve of allowing the Gentiles to come to Christ. Imagine what other prejudices this "man of God" had? Long hair on men, yet all of the pictures of Christ has him with long hair.

 

[cherokee]

There goes shrimp, scallops, crab, lobster, and various other sea food we all love.

OH BULLCHIT!...
No one is going to tell me I cant have my snow crab legs!
Those be fighting words sonny...:sword:.........:smile:

 

[jallman]

OH BULLCHIT!...
No one is going to tell me I cant have my snow crab legs!
Those be fighting words sonny...:sword:.........:smile:

No, thats the point. No one is going to tell you that because Pastor Reverend Deacon Doctor Battleaxe likes to pick and choose what he lifts from the Bible and apply it only to other's lives. He'll argue history that he knows nothing about in order to maintain his justification for railing against sins he wouldnt take part in, but he will turn a blind eye to the sins of his peers with no interest in the Bible and what it literally says anymore. But if it comes down from the pulpit with an AAAAAAAAAMEEEN and a Pu-RAAAAAISE JEEEEZUHZ, then I guess what the Bible says really doesnt matter to him.

By the way, Datamonkee, very good post.

 

[cherokee]

No, thats the point. No one is going to tell you that because Pastor Reverend Deacon Doctor Battleaxe likes to pick and choose what he lifts from the Bible and apply it only to other's lives. He'll argue history that he knows nothing about in order to maintain his justification for railing against sins he wouldnt take part in, but he will turn a blind eye to the sins of his peers with no interest in the Bible and what it literally says anymore. But if it comes down from the pulpit with an AAAAAAAAAMEEEN and a Pu-RAAAAAISE JEEEEZUHZ, then I guess what the Bible says really doesnt matter to him.

By the way, Datamonkee, very good post.

They have always picked what parts to enforce (if you want to call it that).
It has changed with the times,… otherwise we would be killing children who backed talked their parents…

BUT just back away from my crab legs...:blastem:........:smile:

 

[Donkey1499]

And this is exactly why I refuse to discuss spiritual issues with you, despite your continued delusion that I lost some sort of battle to you. When you can grasp an all inclusive perception of the bible, its history, and the politics involved in putting it together, I might be inclined to lend you a shred of credibility on the topic...until then, whatever it takes to make you sleep well at night.

True battle is hand-to-hand combat with the victor standing on the fallen carcass of his foe!

 

[Gibberish]

True battle is hand-to-hand combat with the victor standing on the fallen carcass of his foe!

We need to bring back hand to hand combat. Guns and bombs are to easy to kill people with. Wars would not be fought so easily if they were fought as they were before guns and bombs.

 

[Donkey1499]

We need to bring back hand to hand combat. Guns and bombs are to easy to kill people with. Wars would not be fought so easily if they were fought as they were before guns and bombs.

Amen my brother! Maybe my sword, BronzeBeak, will yet taste terrorist blood! Buwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.......... hahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[steen]

Amen my brother! Maybe my sword, BronzeBeak, will yet taste terrorist blood! Buwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.......... hahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Heh, my sword "chainsaw" will take your brass stick down in a moment. :2razz:

 

[BodiSatva]

Is this a secret "gay" manner of flirting?

Swords, brass sticks, carcasses, and blood? Yuck!

 

[Sir_Alec]

Is this a secret "gay" manner of flirting?

Swords, brass sticks, carcasses, and blood? Yuck!

Yeah. My sword is a great sword crafted by German and British blacksmiths. It has the great ability to penatrate through the thickest armor and is great at fighting other swords :mrgreen:

 

[Gibberish]

Is this a secret "gay" manner of flirting?

Swords, brass sticks, carcasses, and blood? Yuck!

The topic of battle and carnage helps those masculine individuals feel better about themselves after talking about homosexuality. Perhaps they think just talking about homosexuality makes them homosexual?

Or perhaps we just went really off topic. Personally I stand by my post, we as a race would be better off without guns or bombs.