[Kevin]

UnixMac I wasn't posting asking about your zealous nature with Catholicism.

That wasn't my question.

No need to get your insecurities in a bunch.

The Catholic church took text that already existed before it did and put them together.

It really has nothing to do with what it says.

Dig?

The Catholic church was basically the publisher. Not the writer.

Which means little in the big picture.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Salty

The fact is the Church fights the idea of male on male or female on female relations solely on the sexual level which is silly and near sighted. This is because Christians fight out of disgust not out of reasoning or pure motives. This is why right now the modern Christian church is ill-equiped to fight. They are fighting people not concepts.

Salty, I have friends that are now homosexuals, but they know where I stand on homosexuality, and they know WHY I make my stand concerning homosexuality.

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination..."

1 Corinthians 6:9 - "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,"

But I know that I don't need to post these Scriptures, Salty. You already know them. The Scripture is the reason I oppose homosexuality, not because I find the act of homosexuality disgusting. This is the case with all of the Christians I know.

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The Catholic church took text that already existed before it did and put them together.

It really has nothing to do with what it says.

Dig?

The Catholic church was basically the publisher. Not the writer.

Which means little in the big picture.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it.. Nobody said they wrote the bible, I said the "Canonized" it.. The guiding hand of the Holy Sprit assembled those texts in that Bible thru the body of the Church. This is now that bible that YOU quote to further your agenda, or make your points came into being. Don't forget under who's watch that bible came into being. Do you have any idea how many books were thrown out before the bible took it preset form? Some of those books were written by the very authors of included texts by Titus, Paul and others.. Therefore, to infer that the Catholic church has "silly near sighted reasons" for opposing the homosexual lifestyle goes to the heart of this. Before the bible, for 400 some years, there was just the spoken traditions and scattered letters to guide the church.

I just hate Catholic bashers who don't know or understand the history of Christianity.. Especially bible thumping 700 club watchers who don't understand it's origins.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by UnixMac

Therefore, to infer that the Catholic church has "silly near sighted reasons" for opposing the homosexual lifestyle goes to the heart of this. Before the bible, for 400 some years, there was just the spoken traditions and scattered letters to guide the church.

I never said that about the Catholic church. And you are over-reacting.

You act as if Christianity wouldn't have existed without it. You put more importance to the Church, then Jesus's actions.

Christianity would have existed without it.

I just hate Catholic bashers who don't know or understand the history of Christianity.. Especially bible thumping 700 club watchers who don't understand it's origins.

I understand fully. And I don't watch the 700 club.

I suggest you take one of these.

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I never said that about the Catholic church. And you are over-reacting.

You act as if Christianity wouldn't have existed without it. You put more importance to the Church, then Jesus's actions.

Christianity would have existed without it.

I understand fully. And I don't watch the 700 club.

I suggest you take one of these.

...clicks "unsubscribe button"

peace, out.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by UnixMac

...clicks "unsubscribe button"

peace, out.

Come back when your panties are less knotty.

Or would that be naughty?

[Kerrigan]

Homosexuality is pretty trivial thing when you boil it down. It's not unethical in any way. The only reason that it's such a big deal in the world of religion is because priests and theologians are all closet cases.

[Madferret]

Christians = stupid.

[Madferret]

Originally Posted by qnxde

OMG it's tootsie!

I've never slept with a girl either and have no desire to. Also i think any guy that loves gay porn probably is gay whether they've had any experience or not.

I dunno dude. If you've never been with a girl, I don't think you should automatically try guys. Girls are pretty amazing creatures in the sack.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Homosexuality is pretty trivial thing when you boil it down. It's not unethical in any way. The only reason that it's such a big deal in the world of religion is because priests and theologians are all closet cases.

Originally Posted by FrankeniMac

Christians = stupid.

Yes, and you two are shining examples of smart non-Christians.

[Kerrigan]

I guess it's no coincidence that MacNN's resident priest-in-training is gay.

And it's no coincidence either that he spent years stirring up debates on homosexuality.

There's nothing wrong about gay people being drawn to the ministry, but honestly let's call a spade a spade.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I guess it's no coincidence that MacNN's resident priest-in-training is gay.

That makes no sense.

BTW salty isn't catholic.

[Kerrigan]

I've only met 1 or 2 priests/ministers who didn't give me gay vibes

the most religiously devout person i know is a southern baptist, and he's also blatantly gay. Everyone who knows him can pick up on it, but the poor guy will probably never come out of the closet.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Salty, I have friends that are now homosexuals, but they know where I stand on homosexuality, and they know WHY I make my stand concerning homosexuality.

But I know that I don't need to post these Scriptures, Salty. You already know them. The Scripture is the reason I oppose homosexuality, not because I find the act of homosexuality disgusting. This is the case with all of the Christians I know.

Do they know because they asked you or because you told them? Honestly I hate it when straight Christians tell me that they have to tell me where they stand on the issue, I assumed they were ignorant before hand, and they only proved me right. I recently had a friend who found out because another friend accidently blurted something out in his presence.
The ensuing two hour conversation was essentially me continually informing him that simply being attracted to other men was not sin. Eventually when he realized that I wasn't going to live a "gay lifestyle" almost an hour into the conversation after the fifth time I told him, he settled down and started listening.

As for Scripture, it is not arbitrary. God does not decide that purple is a bad colour but orange freaking rocks! There are always REASONS why Scripture condemns or encourages certain action. If the only reason you oppose homosexuality is because your NIV mistranslates a passage saying that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God then you're in an unfortunate state.
The actual wording is in reference to people who are engaging in homosexual activity. Inheriting the kingdom of course means God's progressive sanctifying work in a person's life conforming them to the Character of Christ. Since you probably know at least a few homosexual Christians whether or not they tell you, who you respect, it's clear that homosexual people can have God work in their life. The passage is stating that those who are living in a lifestyle of sin will not have God make them progressively more into how He wants them. Growth won't be happening.
The fact is right now the evangelical church especially is following bad theology pushed by groups like Focus on the Family, who are largely ignorant and have one agenda that they decided upon and have stuck to it even though it does not honour God. If I were a demon I would want nothing more than to convince every Christian on the planet they NEED to tell gay people where they stand (in ignorance) so that those people would never feel as if they can come to Christ, because Christians sure as hell don't love them.

[Chuckit]

Right, it's a lot less arbitrary to send someone to Hell for kissing a guy than it is to send people to Hell for wanting to kiss a guy.

Oh, wait, no it ain't.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by UnixMac

I just hate Catholic bashers who don't know or understand the history of Christianity.. Especially bible thumping 700 club watchers who don't understand it's origins.

I don't know what set you off but Kevin wasn't Catholic bashing, and I actually took his comments that he was affirming their stance against homosexuality was biblically based.

[Kerrigan]

Salty I think you should become an orthodox Presbyterian. That way, your adherence to God's law doesn't have any bearing on whether or not you go to heaven. Sounds like a good deal to me, no?

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Salty I think you should become an orthodox Presbyterian. That way, your adherence to God's law doesn't have any bearing on whether or not you go to heaven. Sounds like a good deal to me, no?

Dude, the way things are doesn't change depending on what denomination you're in. That said my salvation is already secured not by my own works but by the grace of God.

[Kerrigan]

So you are already a Calvinist, and I'm preaching to the choir

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

So you are already a Calvinist, and I'm preaching to the choir

Yup, I'm what my high calvinist friends call a moderate calvinist. That said they're pretty dang near hyper so. I'm far more calvinist than most wishy washy Christians like. That said I am that way because I believe that is what Scripture teaches.

[Kerrigan]

I always thought Calvinism was pretty interesting.

How do you explain what the Catholics say, namely, that it empties Christianity of its morality?

[Chuckit]

Calvinism empties Christianity of volition altogether. Morals are irrelevant if you believe everything is really God's choice anyway. It's like a Christian form of Nihilism.

[Kerrigan]

I'm sure, as a Calvinist, he'll have a good answer for us.

Probably something along the lines of: the Elect have certain outward signs, for instance, deep religious fervour, so people are encouraged to worship and follow the Bible and to desperately hope that they display the characteristics of the Elect.

Frankly I think that as a religious doctrine Calvinism may be very harsh, but it is rather consistent with a scientific view of the world, and so it can't simply be dismissed as superstition like Catholicism.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by FrankeniMac

Christians = stupid.

keep trying FrankeniMac. It gets easier as you go. With enough practice, before you know it you'll be making actual, cogent points.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Frankly I think that as a religious doctrine Calvinism may be very harsh, but it is rather consistent with a scientific view of the world, and so it can't simply be dismissed as superstition like Catholicism.

I fail to see how Calvinism is more scientific than Catholicism. It's, like, the same thing except God takes a more proactive role in Calvinism.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I fail to see how Calvinism is more scientific than Catholicism. It's, like, the same thing except God takes a more proactive role in Calvinism.

Because god is completely transcendental in Calvinism. Nothing you can do will make him change the outcome of events or interfere with the physical universe. Not prayers, not even worship. It's a sort of mechanical view of creation, we are -to borrow a metaphor- cogs in the gears of a clock. People who adopted Calvinism to its fullest extent like the Puritans viewed themselves as divine agents, simply doing the work of god but not fully comprehending it nor having any ability to petition god through prayer.

Catholics, on the other hand, believe that salvation is determined by whether or not a person chooses, with his free will, to do things like join the church, take part in the sacraments, etc. etc.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Salty

Dude, the way things are doesn't change depending on what denomination you're in. That said my salvation is already secured not by my own works but by the grace of God.

Couple of things Salty;

I've always appreciated your contributions to these threads and your Christian perspective on issues. While I am not homosexual, I do respect the faith you've illustrated in Scripture and your adherence to that principle. Personally in knowing my own past, I was unable to squelch my desire for premarital sex and have battled what would only be called "lust issues" in my marriage. It took some time to work through these things and they were not easy. It's one thing to accept that I'll not be having sex with various women, it's another thing entirely to consider the possibility of not having sex at all. I certainly could not have sex with a man to quench this desire. Because of this fact, I have a great deal of respect for your notion of life-long abstinence.

I am a Christian, but not a Calvinist so there are aspects of it I find questionable such as the OSAS principle. Given that however, if your name is in the book and can not be erased is there a particular reason why abstinence must remain your life-long compromise? Are there degrees of paradise? I will not project a lacking faith onto you, but I find this abstinence notion near impossible to believe. Faith should be a consistent morning to night ideal, but in reality faith ebs and flows in contradiction to the flesh. IMO, this is why they call it a "walk" and not a "ride". Do you plan to be with a woman instead and will she also be aware of your preference? Are you at this age (from posted picture a very young age) truly saying you will never quench the desire to have sex?

I have a friend at work who is homosexual and I unwittingly offended him. He came out of the closet shortly thereafter and my apologies to him were swift and sincere. At one point we were talking about various religions up to and including being intrigued by Buddhism and other philosophies. I asked him if he'd ever considered Christianity and he was quick to say; "no, they're way too judgemental. There's no way I'd be caught dead in a church." I found this to be most unfortunate. I invited him to mine, but I too am afraid he'd be judged. It's only natural. As a Christian, I receive about the same level of tolerance from homosexuals who don't know me just as Christians passing judgement without knowing them. Anyone who claims they aren't judgemental simply lacks judgement. This is not necessarily an admirable trait IMO. Often times judgement is necessary, good for society, and good for the soul.

To be clear none of this is my business, but I'd be curious to know more about your upbringing.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Because god is completely transcendental in Calvinism. Nothing you can do will make him change the outcome of events or interfere with the physical universe. Not prayers, not even worship. It's a sort of mechanical view of creation, we are -to borrow a metaphor- cogs in the gears of a clock. People who adopted Calvinism to its fullest extent like the Puritans viewed themselves as divine agents, simply doing the work of god but not fully comprehending it nor having any ability to petition god through prayer.

Catholics, on the other hand, believe that salvation is determined by whether or not a person chooses, with his free will, to do things like join the church, take part in the sacraments, etc. etc.

Yes, but how is it more scientific to say God immutably chooses what will happen rather than positing a fluid, causal universe that God has the power to influence?

I'm just not seeing how either of these makes you think, "Hey, that's science!"

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Hey I was away... so what I miss? the usual?

[Chuckit]

It turned out that moderators are only 50% straight, as opposed to members in general, who are 80% straight. Kind of interesting.

[Salty]

For the Calvinism points:
The way I look at it is, God is all knowing, all powerful, and all intelligent correct? As well God actively interacts with creation correct? For example God has been known to heal people from cancer, help people in battles, make me feel better when I feel like crap, any number of things.
As well humans are a clump of atoms with a soul. We are pretty easy to predict, I can tell what someone is going to do in a situation and I don't have intimate knowledge of exactly who they are. God on the other hand knows the beginning and the end, and even if He didn't know the end by sheer virtue of not being bound by time, He would still be able to know what absolutely every event in history will be by simply understanding the world fully in one instance, and then drawing out all the logical conclusions.
If we allow for this, and then understand that God has more than once interacted with His creation we recognize that God does things that ultimately will push people in one direction or another. God knew that when He revealed Himself to me as a child when I drown that I would forever view Him in a different manner. Thus God set me headed on a path towards Himself. If God has interacted once in a person's life to the point where they are not set on a path towards Himself, then he has actively predestined them towards Himself.
I do not believe that God has strings that are making me type all these letters, but I believe that earlier today when we talked and I felt His presence that that set my life in a different direction than it would have gone if He had not done so. Thus he had determined the direction of my life. The idea of free choice assumes that we might make different choices. But the fact is we will only ever at one point in time in one circumstance make one choice. That said we don't know what that choice is.
So is it God's "fault" on some level that some of you don't love Him? Perhaps. But at the same time you have run the course of your life and you have also chosen not to love Him, even if He knew that you would not chose Him if He did not intervene.
Does that make sense? That's my spin on the Calvinist view of predestination
That said Calvinism consists of five points.
TULIP
Total Depravity: you are born fundamentally opposed to God, by definition on your own you will not gravitate towards honouring Him but instead will gravitate toward sin (makes homosexuality make a lot more sense but whatever)
Unconditional Election: God chose you before you chose Him. You might have chosen to accept Him, but before He started interacting with you He knew what the outcome would be.
Limited Atonement: Christ only died for those who would accept forgiveness. The sins of those who have not repented have not been forgiven at the cross, which makes sense otherwise we would all be defaultly redeemed.
Irresistible Grace: if God choses you, you will chose Him. Keeping in mind that God understands you perfectly and if you are meant to enter into relationship with Him, He will know what buttons to push.
Preservation of the Saints: Once sin is forgiven it can't be unforgiven. At the cross all the sins someone who has been saved commits are forgiven. Thus if even the sins that I will commit tomorrow are forgiven, then I can do no sin that will put me out of God's grace. The only sin that is not forgivable would be the sin of not accepting forgiveness, it is not forgivable because forgiveness can not be offered for it.

As for the no sex thing:
Honestly I have no idea what would happen if some insanely hot guy stripped naked and offered to have sex with me. I might laugh and walk away or I might decide to be a bit "naughty". That said part of it is simply not putting yourself in a situation where you are likely to fall. I mean I've even been to a gay bar with a friend, and I realized even if I wanted to be a lil naughty it'd be tough! I mean people just don't talk to you there! So I realized I'd have to find someone else who was gay, who found me attractive and I found him attractive, and who wanted to sleep with me. So the logistics of it just don't seem super practical. And they don't seem to be something you could entirely work out in a moment of weakness. Not to mention I'm insanely paranoid about getting an STD!
Honestly I'm not going to say I'm sure I'll never have sex with another guy. I'd love to be able to say that, I can only say now that I haven't. And that even if I did that would not somehow put me beyond God's love. Simply because all my sins are forgiven does not give me licence to sin. Each sin that I commit was heaped on Christ at the cross, I can not express my love toward Christ and still sin. Therefore though I fumble and mess up, I obey God not out of a fear of punishment but a desire to express my love for who He is. Which is what Christianity is supposed to be about.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

keep trying FrankeniMac. It gets easier as you go. With enough practice, before you know it you'll be making actual, cogent points.

I'm pretty sure that FrankeniMac is Ca$h (and doing a reasonable job of hiding that fact), so he's had lot of practice.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Personally in knowing my own past, I was unable to squelch my desire for premarital sex and have battled what would only be called "lust issues" in my marriage. It took some time to work through these things and they were not easy. It's one thing to accept that I'll not be having sex with various women

There's no reason for this at all. There's nothing in the Bible against having more than one wife to satisfy your lust issues. This "one wife" thing is purely a cultural construct (probably to limit the amount of nagging a bloke has to endure).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy

There's no reason for this at all. There's nothing in the Bible against having more than one wife to satisfy your lust issues. This "one wife" thing is purely a cultural construct (probably to limit the amount of nagging a bloke has to endure).

I respectfully disagree Doofy. As a Christian I also try to respect the laws of man. I say try because I've done a poor job of that historically as well. If I've been running late, I've broken the speed limit. I believe the polygamists in the Bible always illustrated strife. I believe monogamous marriage is indicative of the relationship between Christ and Christ's faithful. If you never plan to be an elder in your church perhaps polygamy is acceptable though I believe this is a stretch also. I believe the 10th Commandment indicates textual singularity and monogamy. The best examples of godly men then and not surprisingly today, are those who remain monogamous. In theory, there really should be no time for multiple wives. In the Bible you will find examples of governing behavior not unlike how the Bible governed slave owners, alcohol, and the like. Polygamy is one such example where invariably there is some conditional restriction implied whereas monogamy is presupposed throughout.

I am not I Am and as such cannot stand in ultimate judgement of you. If you can find a woman willing to live in this condition, at least make sure you can too.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Salty

For the Calvinism points:

I followed along without hesitation again until you came to the TULIP principle.

Limited Atonement: Christ only died for those who would accept forgiveness. The sins of those who have not repented have not been forgiven at the cross, which makes sense otherwise we would all be defaultly redeemed.

I believe your sins have all been redeemed already should you choose to accept Jesus' life, death, and return to life as atonement for that sin and likewise agree this is not carte blanche to go and sin more. That said, repentance is not "stumbling and messing up". If you're stumbling and messing up on alcohol for example, you're no less a drunkard than the one who does not believe. I believe you unwittingly caused some confusion by including the two notions in one sentence separated with a comma, not a period. For example;

Therefore though I fumble and mess up, I obey God not out of a fear of punishment but a desire to express my love for who He is.

Either you're in obedience or you're not IMO Salty. Would you likewise fumble and mess up in obedience to God out of a desire to express your love for who He is? I don't get it. I think if we feared Him a little more, we might be less apt to fumble and mess up. Faith is something that ebs and flows in contradiction to the flesh IMO. This means that we "try" to obey God, but fool ourselves in believing we really are. Our own thoughts can betray us. We do this because like our faith in Him, our fear of Him wavers also. I believe the OSAS principle is dangerous doctrine and does in fact lead to a carte blanche approach to sin and repentance. Repentance is change. Leaving the old. Dying to one's self as Christ did and in being Christ-like. This is what Christianity is supposed to be about. I have the utmost respect for anyone who can truly live this way. I too will continue to try.

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by tooki

I wonder who the second gay mod is? I figured it was just me... (Trust me, it's not one of the criteria!)

tooki

I always assumed Xeo and Forkies were a gay couple in college. No seriously. I spent a summer sharing part of a dorm with them. It would make sense from Forkies posts and from his webpage.

This is just personal observation, and if it is wrong at all, just let me know Xeo and or Forkies. No hate or slander intended.

[Madferret]

Originally Posted by Salty

Eventually when he realized that I wasn't going to live a "gay lifestyle"

So basically you're going to give up sex your entire life because of the bible. Wow that's stupid.

[Madferret]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

keep trying FrankeniMac. It gets easier as you go. With enough practice, before you know it you'll be making actual, cogent points.

I could make some and bring up scripture but then Salty and Kevin would just tell me that I shouldn't take the text literally if I am taking it literally, or that I should take it literally if I'm taking it on another level. It's that method of arguing christianity bullshit that the followers are NEVER wrong. It's also that reason that I really don't bother trying. They are so wrapped up in their total man created bullshit that they have no hope of ever becoming rational human beings.

[Madferret]

Originally Posted by Salty

For the Calvinism points:
I might laugh and walk away or I might decide to be a bit "naughty".

I think it's hilarious that all this jesus bullshit actually has you convinced what your body tells you is WRONG. You are literally denying your own existence, denying your own sensual perception, and denying your most powerful attribute: Your own mind. You give up your mind in exchange for the belief in a book that was written thousands of years ago, edited by constantine to remove much of the material, and translated through many languages into the total cluster**** it is today where it has a stance on both sides of almost any issue. Though shall not kill.... except if they disagree with you or offend god, then kill all of them, even the women and children. Though shall not be a fag or suffer eternal damnation...except love everbody and accept them for who they are.

Salty, you believe in total bullshit. And I truly feel sorry for you.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by FrankeniMac

I think it's hilarious that all this jesus bullshit actually has you convinced what your body tells you is WRONG. You are literally denying your own existence, denying your own sensual perception, and denying your most powerful attribute: Your own mind. You give up your mind in exchange for the belief in a book that was written thousands of years ago, edited by constantine to remove much of the material, and translated through many languages into the total cluster**** it is today where it has a stance on both sides of almost any issue. Though shall not kill.... except if they disagree with you or offend god, then kill all of them, even the women and children. Though shall not be a fag or suffer eternal damnation...except love everbody and accept them for who they are.

Salty, you believe in total bullshit. And I truly feel sorry for you.

At least my bullshit doesn't require me to troll other people's posts, devaluing them and their chosen way to live their life. At least mine allows me to show respect for other people, and abide by the idea of loving people as they are instead of the way you're behaving.

[Madferret]

Originally Posted by Salty

At least my bullshit doesn't require me to troll other people's posts, devaluing them and their chosen way to live their life. At least mine allows me to show respect for other people, and abide by the idea of loving people as they are instead of the way you're behaving.

You devalue your own life salty. You ignore your own brain and accept the values that the current church says they are, instead of using your most powerful, wonderful ability: To think.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I've only met 1 or 2 priests/ministers who didn't give me gay vibes

the most religiously devout person i know is a southern baptist, and he's also blatantly gay. Everyone who knows him can pick up on it, but the poor guy will probably never come out of the closet.

Kerrigan I would say that says more about you than....

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Right, it's a lot less arbitrary to send someone to Hell for kissing a guy than it is to send people to Hell for wanting to kiss a guy.

Oh, wait, no it ain't.

One you can control, the other you cannot.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by FrankeniMac

I could make some and bring up scripture but then Salty and Kevin would just tell me that I shouldn't take the text literally if I am taking it literally, or that I should take it literally if I'm taking it on another level. It's that method of arguing christianity bullshit that the followers are NEVER wrong. It's also that reason that I really don't bother trying. They are so wrapped up in their total man created bullshit that they have no hope of ever becoming rational human beings.

No one ever told you that. We said you were taking it out of context Rob.

You don't ever pay attention do you?

Originally Posted by FrankeniMac

You devalue your own life salty. You ignore your own brain and accept the values that the current church says they are, instead of using your most powerful, wonderful ability: To think.

Ignoring your own brain? No him refusing his beliefs would be doing that.

You simply don't get it Rob. You never have.

Your insecurity about this is showing. You are acting out.

[Madferret]

No. I'm not. You're the one who doesn't get it. Christianity= obviously man made 'belief system' based on an outdated book with contradictory points of view responsible for millions of death and billions of confused people who feel guilty about everything.

Christianity ****ign sucks. I honestly wish all you religious wackos would comet hyatuke yourselves.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by FrankeniMac

No. I'm not. You're the one who doesn't get it. Christianity= obviously man made 'belief system' based on an outdated book with contradictory points of view responsible for millions of death and billions of confused people who feel guilty about everything.

Christianity ****ign sucks. I honestly wish all you religious wackos would comet hyatuke yourselves.

Ah typical old-school Rob.

I see you still haven't grown up yet.

And here I was hoping marriage would atleast mature you a bit.

Every point you have made, has been debunked many times. Yet you still repeat them as if they have not.

Talk about self delusion.

Why do people have to constantly repeat themselves to you?

You are a closet case Rob.

[Madferret]

Every point I have made, has only been debunked in YOUR eyes. And let me point out that you're the one that believs in hocus pocus magical stuff. I don't. You have debunked it using your own flawed logic and irrational belief system, which is ultimately invalid becuase it is CIRCULAR. You cannot define a word by using that word in it's definition, thus you cannot 'debunk' my problems with christianity by using faith based arguments.

Why do you constantly repeat your 'very point you have made, has been debunked many times. Yet you still repeat them as if they have not.' arguments? Talk about self delusion. You are a closet case Kevin. You say the same stupid **** that holds no water everytime.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

One you can control, the other you cannot.

That's like saying it's less arbitrary to shoot someone for blinking (which you can control) than for having a heartbeat (which you can't). Whether or not you can control the action makes no difference to whether it's logical to forbid it. In case the exact context of what I said wasn't clear from my post, here's the statement I was referring to:

"As for Scripture, it is not arbitrary. God does not decide that purple is a bad colour but orange freaking rocks! There are always REASONS why Scripture condemns or encourages certain action."

As you can see, volition has nothing to do with it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by FrankeniMac

Every point I have made, has only been debunked in YOUR eyes. And let me point out that you're the one that believs in hocus pocus magical stuff. I don't. You have debunked it using your own flawed logic and irrational belief system, which is ultimately invalid becuase it is CIRCULAR. You cannot define a word by using that word in it's definition, thus you cannot 'debunk' my problems with christianity by using faith based arguments.

Well it's a good thing I never did that. You keep repeating the same thing over and over again even after it's been debunked rob.

This is what happens.

1. You keep making the same un-informed comments.
2. They keep getting debunked.
3. You then spaz out, and start making personal attacks till you are banned again.

Now who is deluded?

Next time you attempt to "debunk" the Bible, please don't do it by copy and pasting other sites that too are uninformed. Probably written by someone just like you. Who also posted information from another site.

I was once gonna put up an Anti-Christian page full of BS just to see how many clowns would find it, and post links to it from forums as proof that Christianity is evil.

I know someone that did it once. He then posted it in a forum. Then MONTHS after that, the anti-Christian silly people like yourself kept posting links from said site AS PROOF!

Boy did they look silly.

Why do you constantly repeat your 'very point you have made, has been debunked many times. Yet you still repeat them as if they have not.' arguments? Talk about self delusion. You are a closet case Kevin. You say the same stupid **** that holds no water everytime.

Again, if you believe this, you are even more self deluded that the Christians you hate.

Get a grip Rob.

You and the wide fighting or something?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

That's like saying it's less arbitrary to shoot someone for blinking (which you can control) than for having a heartbeat (which you can't).

Blinking? No. It's a reflex. You don't have to think about blinking, it just happens.

Poor example.

Whether or not you can control the action makes no difference to whether it's logical to forbid it.

To you it may not. But it makes perfect sense to me. Why? Because you made a choice.

I said wasn't clear from my post, here's the statement I was referring to:

"As for Scripture, it is not arbitrary. God does not decide that purple is a bad colour but orange freaking rocks! There are always REASONS why Scripture condemns or encourages certain action."

As you can see, volition has nothing to do with it.

You mean you simply don't understand the reasoning behind it.

And that's ok. A lot of people don't. Mainly out of choice.

And it's really not the act that will get you in trouble. But the justifying it.

What I want to know is, there are TONS of other sins out that are equal to this one.

Yet this is the one this forum seems OBSESSED with. As if it was different than any other sin.

You see no threads about monogamy, or lying, or what have you.

[Kerrigan]

Great, another tedious "debate" between Rob & Kevin. ripe for teh lock