Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day , page 20
Pages: <<  17    18    19    20    21  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times


reply posted on 2-2-2009 @ 09:53 AM by detachedindividual
reply to post by Clearskies


Oh come on! Is absolutely EVERYTHING to do with the NWO?!
This is becoming quite the joke on these forums.

And if I was to raise the evidence that all of what you quote was manufactured by right-wing conservatives in an effort to discredit Kinsey and his research you'd flatly deny that wouldn't you?

The truth is, psychology is complex. Research is not always deemed to be acceptable by all. But the mere whiff of pedophile activity is a cheap and easy shot isn't it?
Choose the most socially unacceptable behavior and associate it with someone and you immediately discredit everything they ever said or did.
And it's very easy for a person to come along who doesn't agree with the findings and try to discredit them through propaganda and blatant false accusations.

Whether you or I offer abhorrent behavior in posts it doesn't deny the results of research.

And I assume you found nothing on Adams?
Well, I'll bet there must be something out there in cyberspace, produced by the right-wing religious homophobes who state that it must be a lie to suggest that homophobes would pop a stiffy to gay porn!

Make any accusations you like, the evidence has been seen time and time again. Kinsey wasn't the last one to reach these same conclusions. You can find many more examples of this throughout psychological research since Kinsey.

But, I don't expect you to actually educate yourself on sexuality and psychology, because that would make you have to rethink your dogmas and religious views. It's much easier to try to destroy anything that makes you look deeper than you feel comfortable doing.

It is a shame though. Humans only have a short life, and to spend that time being terrified of what other people think of you, denying yourself and restricting your enjoyment of life, and all because some others think they have a right to control you, it really is a waste.


reply posted on 2-2-2009 @ 10:21 AM by Clearskies
Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by Clearskies


Oh come on! Is absolutely EVERYTHING to do with the NWO?!
This is becoming quite the joke on these forums.

No joke, really.

And if I was to raise the evidence that all of what you quote was manufactured by right-wing conservatives in an effort to discredit Kinsey and his research you'd flatly deny that wouldn't you?

Why would I deny conclusive evidence????

The truth is, psychology is complex. Research is not always deemed to be acceptable by all. But the mere whiff of pedophile activity is a cheap and easy shot isn't it?
Choose the most socially unacceptable behavior and associate it with someone and you immediately discredit everything they ever said or did.
And it's very easy for a person to come along who doesn't agree with the findings and try to discredit them through propaganda and blatant false accusations.

No, if they are 'blatantly false.'


And I assume you found nothing on Adams?


Who?



But, I don't expect you to actually educate yourself on sexuality and psychology, because that would make you have to rethink your dogmas and religious views. It's much easier to try to destroy anything that makes you look deeper than you feel comfortable doing.


Believe me, I have looked 'deeper' and my sexuality has little to do with who I am.
It's a small thing compared with the issues facing our world.

It is a shame though. Humans only have a short life, and to spend that time being terrified of what other people think of you, denying yourself and restricting your enjoyment of life, and all because some others think they have a right to control you, it really is a waste.

Honestly! I don't care what people think of me as long as I'm not hurting them!
If I thought gay or bi was good, I would do it openly, but I don't. It's about what G-d is and what I think is right or wrong.
There is no research on child sexuality that is acceptable!


reply posted on 2-2-2009 @ 02:32 PM by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: You were doing so well as I had starred several of your posts to this thread but then you come up with this trash and I quote "No those cities were not destroyed because of homosexuality. It's pretty clear why they are destroyed according to the Bible. Homosexuality is not one of them.

Anti-gay Bible-thumpers use this account in their favor by purposefully misinterpreting it. There is a part where the townsmen want to gang-rape the angels (which they think are human men), and this gets interpreted as a homosexual act. Which it is not. It is an act of Rape.".......and I have just recently totally DEBUNKED this rubbish in this thread HERE!
Basically its BOTH rape and a case of situational homosexuality both of which are condemned! Care to refute or endorse this POV?

Also some more scriptures...[Also said by Jesus!]

Mark 7:20-23
Mark 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Mar 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

And its quite clear from the OT that homosexuality is considered to be fornication and so would lasciviousness. So is Jesus condemning Homosexuals?

John 5:45-47
Jhn 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is [one] that accuseth you, [even] Moses, in whom ye trust.
Jhn 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
Jhn 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Is Jesus fully endorsing the OT position [which is anti homosexuality]?

and finally...
Luke 12:49-53
Luk 12:49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
Luk 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
Luk 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
Luk 12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
Luk 12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

So Jesus is divisive and not inclusive at all and in fact will cause major dissent! Seems the 2 scriptures above this one reinforce this position. Care to endorse or refute?

Personal Disclosure: Scripturally the Abrahamic faiths ARE against homosexuality and unfortunately there is no escaping it!
But thats not to say I or MY Goddess endorse that position. Do what thou will and HARM NONE!



reply posted on 2-2-2009 @ 02:33 PM by OmegaLogos
reply to post by TKainZero
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: I was all cool with this post of yours [HERE!] UNTIL you went completely off topic [You started this thread by the way ] with this statement and I quote "DOn't try to ram it down our throughts..."....And since you started this thread which is a direct invite to have your ignorance denied, I suggest you pull your head in a bit OK Don't start something and then complain as YOU ONLY HAVE YOURSELF TO BLAME!!!

Here is some bog stock answers for your leaky questions!

1)Whats wrong with civil unions? Its not equality!!!
2)Why isn't that enough? Its not equality!!!
3)Why do homos want to have the word marriage? Because its a state of equality!!!
4)Why? EQUALITY! Defined at the freedictionary.com website as follows....
e·qual·i·ty (-kwl-t)
n. pl. e·qual·i·ties
1. The state or quality of being equal.
2. Mathematics A statement, usually an equation, that one thing equals another.
[Middle English equalite, from Old French, from Latin aequlits, from aequlis, equal; see equal.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

And now to answer some of your OP's questions...

"What do you want your kids to learn today in the first grade..."="co-mutual respect for each other and then when they're not fighting we can move on!"

"If that isn't a blantent example of what Social indoctrination is. Give me a couple more. "="DOn't try to ram it down our throughts..."...ain't it just grand to meet yourself on the other side of the debate answering yourself!

"What were the First feild trips you remember in school... "="old peoples village right next to the school where I got both a social and cultural education"!

Personal Disclosure: BTW RE: "DOn't try to ram it down our throughts..."...Thanks for speaking for me by proxy, you complete expletive deleted!, NOT!!!
"Our"? You and Me do not consist of a "We" let alone an "Our"...Get thee behind me [Description Mod'ed in extreme by the author but I'm sure you can guess my drift!]!!!!

Edited to fix missing Link. me a

[edit on 2-2-2009 by OmegaLogos]


reply posted on 2-2-2009 @ 02:34 PM by OmegaLogos
reply to post by TKainZero
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: Ok I won't consider you an equal RE: "But don't tell me that you want to be called an equal to those in a Normal-hetero realationship."...I'll consider you as less than for your particular choices! Happy Now?

Personal Disclosure: Those who want a right to anything MUST 1st extend that right equally to all others! Are you human because you are human or because the rest of the human herd agrees with you?


reply posted on 2-2-2009 @ 03:37 PM by OmegaLogos
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: I can't speak for anybody else but I have both natural (instinctive) sexual urges (very homosexual) and chosen (force of will) sexual desires (i.e. very large older women and in particular my g/f). As to the natural urges and desires I have always had them but when it comes to the chosen ones I have my intellectual bootstrap which is as follows "meat[large women] is for the man! and bones[waif like models] are for the dogs!" which I heard stated by an African tribal leader and it just struck an intellectual chord with me [very strange as I was and still am quite misogynistic but my g/f is helping me overcome this quite rapidly [5+ yr relationship]]

Personal Disclosure: I naturally like many things that are considered taboo but I choose to conform to the laws and customs of my society. I have also consciously chosen my g/f 1) because she's the ultimate loving person I have ever met and I choose to have sex with her regardless of her gender. Your sexuality is your choice regardless of your preconditioning. There may be some mitigating medical reasons that go against this such as long term syphilis etc but if your healthy and of legal consenting age you are not hindered in making your mind up for yourself.


reply posted on 2-2-2009 @ 08:48 PM by HowlrunnerIV
reply to post by Clearskies


Whether propoganda is okay or not in school is somewhat beside the point. When the argument is that (this) propoganda shouldn't be introduced at school, then the argument is self-negating because of all the other (social) propoganda taught at school.

Obviously you haven't read my posts or you'd know I have two boys. Also, I believe the word "first" was only used by me once in a much longer post. If that is all you got out of what was written, you need to hit the zoom out button and widen your focus.

Do you (or did you) pledge allegiance in school? (I'm not sure if that's official policy, unofficial policy or not actually done). Does that not fall under the definition of propoganda? School is where society teaches the values it regards as fundamental. That, by any other name, is propoganda. And that is what makes the argument being used here that the field-trip was propoganda completely self-abnegating.

Now, back to the "first" issue. School is certainly where some people are first punished (or educated) for intolerance. Because, as we can see, home is where some people are taught intolerance.


reply posted on 2-2-2009 @ 09:22 PM by HowlrunnerIV
Originally posted by OmegaLogos
Anti-gay Bible-thumpers use this account in their favor by purposefully misinterpreting it. There is a part where the townsmen want to gang-rape the angels (which they think are human men), and this gets interpreted as a homosexual act. Which it is not. It is an act of Rape.".......and I have just recently totally DEBUNKED this rubbish in this thread HERE!
Basically its BOTH rape and a case of situational homosexuality both of which are condemned! Care to refute or endorse this POV?


Well, as my Christian practices are informed by the words "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" AND "...drink of my blood this is a NEW covenant..." I don't hold very much of the OT to be of any actual use in my relationship with God through his son.

As for this:

Also some more scriptures...[Also said by Jesus!]

Mark 7:20-23
Mark 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Mar 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

And its quite clear from the OT that homosexuality is considered to be fornication and so would lasciviousness. So is Jesus condemning Homosexuals?


No, in fact it is remarkably unclear that that's what the Son of God is doing. Mostly because you have no prior (OT) quotes for those scriptural quotes to be in reference to.

Mostly what I see is a public moral education lesson telling the reader to take responsibility for his (or her) own damn actions.

But maybe I'm just missing something. Now this:

John 5:45-47
Jhn 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is [one] that accuseth you, [even] Moses, in whom ye trust.
Jhn 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
Jhn 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Is Jesus fully endorsing the OT position [which is anti homosexuality]?


Appears only to be the second of the Holy Trinity telling the general populace that his arrival had been prophesied and that they are basically ignorant. He isn't saying that his position is based on the OT's. What he IS saying is that the Jews are basically lost because they are continuing their pattern of disregarding the words of God as revealed first by the prophet Moses and now by the Son of God. I don't see an endorsement, I see a castigation, an admonishment.

Now, this:

and finally...
Luke 12:49-53
Luk 12:49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
Luk 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
Luk 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
Luk 12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
Luk 12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.


is a complete non-sequitor.

So Jesus is divisive and not inclusive at all and in fact will cause major dissent!


Yes. That was seen during his lifetime. As chronicled in the so-called Good Book. I believe that's what I was taught in Sunday School and celebrate on those odd occasions I partake of the communion. He was divisive because Man (that would be some of the Israelites) ignored his message of the way to redemption. That choice engendered the division. That choice led to the crucifiction. That choice led to the schism that created the Christian church. There is your division.

Seems the 2 scriptures above this one reinforce this position. Care to endorse or refute?


As noted, not seeing what you're seeing. Mostly because I don't see references to homosexualtiy in the words you chose to quote. As captain of the school debate team I would have told you to rewrite your speech.



reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 03:31 AM by OmegaLogos
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

UPFRONT Personal Disclosure: Apologies to the OP for any off topic debunking I may have to spout!

Explanation: You state and I quote "Well, as my Christian practices are informed by the words "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" AND "...drink of my blood this is a NEW covenant..." I don't hold very much of the OT to be of any actual use in my relationship with God through his son.".....Cool and No problems from me at all, JUST don't tell me the NT is Canon [YHVH's word/law] when it's clearly not! [see my Thread linked on that subject below in 2nd post!].

Next you state and I quote "No, in fact it is remarkably unclear that that's what the Son of God is doing. Mostly because you have no prior (OT) quotes for those scriptural quotes to be in reference to.

Mostly what I see is a public moral education lesson telling the reader to take responsibility for his (or her) own damn actions.

But maybe I'm just missing something.".....So you didn't read the entire thread "Behold,this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom" That I linked? Because if you had I wouldn't be having to debunk this off topic subject here!

A) "Since when is the OT not the word of God. Either the whole KJV is the word of God and not just the New Testament or none of it is." [posted by whaaa]

B) "IN THE New Testament ...MEANING OF THE WORD FORNICATION ...
In the Strongs Concordance ...
www.blueletterbible.org...
Mat 19:9
Jhn 8:41
Rom 1:29
1Cr 6:13
ETC ETC ETC >>


1) illicit sexual intercourse

a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.

b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18

c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12

2) metaph. the worship of idols

a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols


So it is mentioned (Not just in Lev and Romans ) under the sins of fornicating ..." [posted by Simplynoone]

C) "3rdly The OP states and I quote directly "Proverbs 6:16-19 (homosexuality not mentioned)

These six things doth the Lord hate:yea,seven are an abomination unto him:A proud look,a lying tongue,and hands that shed innocent blood.An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,feet that be swift in running to mischief.A false witness that speaketh lies,and he that soweth discord among brethen". Would not a homosexual scriptually be considered to be
"An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations"(i.e. wicked imaginations =practicing homosexuality) whose "feet that be swift in running to mischief"(i.e.mischief= practicing homosexuality) and are "he that soweth discord among brethen"(i.e. by practicing homosexuality!)???" [posted by OmegaLogos ]

D) "Explanation: 1stly "An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations" basically equates to anybody (an heart) that thinks about sinning and acts to carry those thoughts out!(ie that deviseth wicked imaginations and yes that includes homosexuality according to the abrahamic faiths OT! see Lev18:22 )
2ndly "feet that be swift in running to mischief" basically equates to anybody(feet that be swift) running head long into sin (in running to mischief and yes that includes homosexuality according to the abrahamic faiths OT! see Lev20:13)
3rdly "he that soweth discord among brethen" basically equates to anybody (he) who disrupts by sinning against god (that soweth discord ) will piss off the GOD FEARING community at large!(among brethen). And as i have shown above homosexuality is a sin according to the abrahamic faiths OT! Again read Lev18:22 (provided below)

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind:it is abomination.

AND

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.".....[posted by OmegaLogos ]

E) "Rom 1:21-27 Provided by you[EDIT***NOTE that this is in reference to the OP'er of the thread I linked to and is NOT in reference to HowlrunnerIV] to support your misstated argument via the NT but I refute it like this:- specifically verses 24,26 and 27 all clearly are talking about homosexuality and fornication! Or how do you reconcile vrs 27 especially as not being about homosexuality!" [posted by OmegaLogos ]

F) "Rom 1:28-32 Provided by you [EDIT***Again in reference to the linked threads OP'er] to support your misstated argument via the NT but I refute it like this:- "reprobate mind,unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,malignity,haters of God,inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents(YHVH is THE Father!),without understanding,covenantbreakers, without natural affection" are all euphemisms for sin/ning and sexual sin/ning
of which Homosexuality is included as per Lev 20:13 which you have yet to "falsify". Oh and Specifically note what it says in Rom 1:32 about taking pleasure in it (will you be telling me next homosexuals or rapists can't or don't derive pleasure during homosexual acts???) and that they deserve the good old death penalty! which again supports the Lev 20:13 scripture I provided wholeheartedly." [posted by OmegaLogos ]

G) "You[***see EDITS above] provide no evidence ( and leave them hanging as to which version of bible you will accept) when discounting Simplynoone's evidence, which as much as I am Loath to use the NT, it does back up my argument that fornication includes, but is not limited homosexual acts and or desires (I provide an extra scripture not mentioned specifically by Simplynoone's post. Jude 1:7 about "Strange flesh"!). Care to elaborate? Do you or do you not believe that Strong's Concordance is a worthy reference book? If not then why not?" [posted by OmegaLogos ]

Continued Next post below.


reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 03:31 AM by OmegaLogos
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
Continued from above post...

Explanation continued: You then post and I quote "Now this:

"John 5:45-47
Jhn 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is [one] that accuseth you, [even] Moses, in whom ye trust.
Jhn 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
Jhn 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Is Jesus fully endorsing the OT position [which is anti homosexuality]?"


Appears only to be the second of the Holy Trinity telling the general populace that his arrival had been prophesied and that they are basically ignorant. He isn't saying that his position is based on the OT's. What he IS saying is that the Jews are basically lost because they are continuing their pattern of disregarding the words of God as revealed first by the prophet Moses and now by the Son of God. I don't see an endorsement, I see a castigation, an admonishment."........... DEBUNKED in my thread HERE! [Please read it so I don't have to debunk it off topic in this thread and if you disagree then please deny my ignorance in u2u or in that linked thread. Thanking you in advance!]. Basically my thread says if Jesus is the prophet that YHVH promised through Moses and the Torah then Jesus must conform TOTALLY to the restrictions placed on that prophet such as "Don't add too, or take away from the Torah!". Care to refute with proof or endorse this POV?

Following that you junk my evidence from Luke with and I quote "is a complete non-sequitor."....And just because you can't see the link doesn't mean there isn't one, especially when you provide no proof of it being "a non sequitur". So here is the link as I see it.....

Luke is quoting Jesus directly and Jesus is saying quite clearly that he is not only a divider but acts upon that [i.e. is not fully inclusive or forgiving!] and this is supported by John where Jesus claims he is the prophet of YHVH [ a non inclusive and wrathful God] promised through Moses and the Torah [i.e. a TWO WAY endorsement! He Endorses the Torah because it Endorses Him...Or does it?I think not because the scriptures you provide which again quote him directly MAKE HIM A HYPOCRITE! Torah therefor says Jesus as TRUE prophet of YHVH = EPIC FAIL!] and this is clearly supported by the scriptures from Mark where Mark in quoting Jesus Directly shows that Jesus fully Endorses what YHVH laid out for the Israelites through the Torah authored by Moses. Can you see the link now? Wheres it weak point and does it snap when placed under the pressure of scrutiny?

Amazingly you associate me with something, and I quote "There is your division."... Hey Whooaah up there a little bit please. I'm not of the Abrahamic faiths [although I am an ex Christian of the JW's] and personally I'm not against them or their way of life [lets define my favorite demographic as the moderates OK] and I would suggest that any division is of their OWN making and not of mine! I'm just showing up whats said in the bible, none of which I personally believe in as Canon! Care to retract!

Finally you state and I quote "As noted, not seeing what you're seeing. Mostly because I don't see references to homosexualtiy in the words you chose to quote."....And you blame me for this when you clearly didn't bother to vet the 1st Thread I linked to. OMG! that is so cognitively dissonant that I can only in the presence of your ability not to see things as they really are but as how you want them to be. I would love to have this ability as I would literally be a god in my own heavenly illusion created by my mind. How can anybody who has this power to distort reality ever have a problem as clearly they have the power to change that by just believing!

Personal Disclosure: RE:"As captain of the school debate team I would have told you to rewrite your speech."...I'm honored to be in the presence of someone of such high stature and debating authority such as you claim to be. You will of course be able to DENY any IGNORANCE I may have or be promoting to a high degree then. I'm looking forward to this

P.S. Got any tips for my rewrite? u2u me please.


reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 10:26 AM by lunchbox1979
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV


actually tolerance is taught at home, and no im not ok with actions taken during the civil rights movement, and yes duck and cover is b.s. so was all the films made during the 50's and sixties that taught that weed would make you a murderer and that homosexuals were child rapists and yes thats all propaganda, and its wrong but you seem to think that propaganda is ok as long as it supports a "good" agenda, thats hypocrasy
live veiws start with the home and the individual some people unfortunatly are unable to think for themselves and wont take the time to seperate fact from conjecture, thats sad, and thats where most raceism and bigotry stems from, its lazyness. i grew up in the american school system, and i can tell you i never experianced the whole americana apple pie veiw of our society, every school i went to taught us to feel guilty about our country and our past sins against other nations and our own people, and even a little digging past school text books will show even worse events.
thus the reason why im against all propaganda in schools even the "good and popular " stuff

by the way i hope im not upsetting you, you make good points and im rather enjoying this exchange.


reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 10:43 PM by HowlrunnerIV
Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
Amazingly you associate me with something, and I quote "There is your division."... Hey Whooaah up there a little bit please. I'm not of the Abrahamic faiths...Care to retract!{/quote]

Not particularly. As I said, I was captain of the school debate team, you clearly were not. Or you would have understood that "your division" is simply a shorter way of saying "the division you were speaking of". "There's your proof right there" does not mean "there's the proof that belongs to you", does it?

Finally you state and I quote "As noted, not seeing what you're seeing. Mostly because I don't see references to homosexualtiy in the words you chose to quote."....And you blame me for this when you clearly didn't bother to vet the 1st Thread I linked to.


You have a strange definition of the word "blame" and a wholly too self-centred veiw of the mechanics of debate. Time to get some distance and perspective and stop taking everything that happens around you as a personal insult.

OMG! that is so cognitively dissonant that I can only in the presence of your ability not to see things as they really are but as how you want them to be. I would love to have this ability as I would literally be a god in my own heavenly illusion created by my mind. How can anybody who has this power to distort reality ever have a problem as clearly they have the power to change that by just believing!


Yes, I've met a large number of evangelical Americans (well, a large number of the evangelical Americans I've met) for whom this is a central fact of their life as based on their faith in Jesus. A faith I don't share with them as, as I stated, I have a radically different interpretation of his words.

As for cognitive dissonance, you clearly failed to actually read what I wrote. Instead choosing to read what you thought I wrote. The words you quoted make no clear reference to homosexuality. The words that the standard right-wing bible-thumper usually uses to illustrate the Bible's outlawing of homosexuality go remarkably like "thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman..." because it is remarkably unambiguous.

Originally posted by OmegaLogosAlso some more scriptures...[Also said by Jesus!]

Mark 7:20-23
Mark 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.


Yes. But we're basically talking sin (by thought or deed) in general here, no? I mean, I don't see anything regarding where you may choose to stick certain interlocking parts of your anatomy...

Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Mar 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.


Once again the lesson is that you are responsible for your actions. You are responsible for your thoughts and deeds. To take lasciviousness as a direct reference to homosexuality is quite a leap. Especially as lasciviousness is a nice, broad term that is more about a person's behaviour and/or demeanour...so to go from there to

And its quite clear from the OT that homosexuality is considered to be fornication and so would lasciviousness.


May be true, but, as I stated, what the OT has to say about it is irrelevant according to (Potestant, like me) Christian doctrine. Perhaps you have never sat in church as the Minister prepares the communion and quotes Jesus' words from the last supper: (as previously noted) "...this is a new covenant". Which for some Christian communities explicitly replaces the covenant of Abraham and the obligations that go with it and definitely replaces the Law of Moses.

Therefore,

So is Jesus condemning Homosexuals?


No. And that's now twice I've stated why. And my view is coming from one of (quietly) practising Christianity. As you are choosing to stand outside my faith and tell me what tenets it does and does not hold to be true, your words are of little value in that their purpose is to paint the religion to which I profess faith as being intolerant.

From YOUR studies of the SCRIPTURES you find Christianity to be an intolerant religion. You then choose to use that position to attack MY practicing interpretation of that faith. You also then accuse me of being ignorant as to the tenets of my faith. So, I guess I'm going to Hell because I haven't recently burned calves, shot footballers or stoned my mate who screwed around on his wife, but do relatively regularly eat shellfish and converse with homosexuals.

As I said, I follow the dictates of a new covenant through the words of the originator of that covenant.

Personal Disclosure: RE:"As captain of the school debate team I would have told you to rewrite your speech."...I'm honored to be in the presence of someone of such high stature and debating authority such as you claim to be.


That's your get-off. With a total win-loss record of 90%-10% I have a reasonable foundation on which to believe in my ability to use words and speech in a logical manner to prove points. You, on the other hand, appear to make leaps of logic which you cannot account for to your audience.


reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 11:11 PM by HowlrunnerIV
Originally posted by lunchbox1979
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV


actually tolerance is taught at home,


One more person who read but, you know, didn't. Of course tolerance is taught at home. So, as I said, is intolerance.

and no im not ok with actions taken during the civil rights movement,


Of course you're not. I think a large number of us would have extreme contempt for someone who was. I didn't say you were, I did, however, state that twisting the intent of your words and giving them far greater reach than you wished could lead to a conclusion.

...and yes thats all propaganda, and its wrong but you seem to think that propaganda is ok as long as it supports a "good" agenda, thats hypocrasy


Yes, it certainly would be if that were my specific bent here. All I did was illustrate how those sending a cease and desist order on the grounds of propoganda needed a new argument.

But, you know what, the act of teaching is nothing more than dissemanating propoganda. And if you don't like that then you're in for a long, hard battle. Which you won't win.

But, before we go any further, allow me to stand up and cop to your first charge. You bet I'm a hypocrite. We all are. I am a sea of contradictions in thought and deed (wow, I must be feeling all religious at the moment). I will turn on the television here in my SEAsian paradise and rail against the propoganda I see being fed to the drones and hicks in the provinces on the nightly news, but also support the teaching of those values and morals I regard as important and defend the practice loudly. I will use the media to run the kind of propoganda I find important in direct counterpoint to what the government shovels out every day.

by the way i hope im not upsetting you, you make good points and im rather enjoying this exchange.


No. I was disappointed by the earlier demand that kids be taught "comfortable" notions, but here I get to put my double-standards on full view. I hate "propoganda" with a passion, when its intent is negative (regardless of the instigator's opinion of what is negative or positive), but must admit that what I call "propoganda" I demand be countered with "public education", which, let's face it, is little more than the PC term (it even consists of two words!) for propoganda.


reply posted on 5-2-2009 @ 10:18 PM by OmegaLogos
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!
UPFRONT Personal Disclosure: I'm reminded of an old song..."Run Rabbit, Run Rabbit, Run Run RUN..."! I'll try to be humane before I turf you into oblivion. You get 3 strikes and then your out.

Explanation: 1stly you state and I quote "Not particularly. As I said, I was captain of the school debate team, you clearly were not. ".....Since you refuse [RE"Not particularly."] to retract and you keep trumpeting [RE"As I said, I was captain of the school debate team,"] your own horn and you publicly make a big deal over something I myself have never claimed [RE"you clearly were not."]. BWAHAHAHA I as the ref will call that as a BALL but my home team ain't going to be buying me any beers tonight! and then you go and try pull the wool over my eyes with this swing and miss...."Or you would have understood that "your division"
is simply a shorter way of saying "the division you were speaking of". "There's your proof right there" does not mean "there's the proof that belongs to you", does it?"...
And to answer that question of yours, YES IT DOES and here's why...

1] I will simply replace the word "proof" with the word "dinner" [yes, a noun with a noun] and then lets look at the sentences again shall we?...

A: what you wrote [with my twist]] "There's your dinner right there" [=] "there's the dinner that belongs to you"

As opposed to...

B: what you COULD have typed instead!] "There's the dinner right there" [NOT=] "there's the dinner that belongs to you"

Therefor when you state "your division" YOU ARE directly attributing that to me and I'm clearly insulted because MY DISCLAIMER states clearly and I quote "I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths.' [bold my emphesis]. STRIKE ONE! [NOTE: AGAIN I state for the record that its NOT MY "division" AT ALL. I never stated that at all! YOU DID and then attributed it to me! Tsk Tsk ]

2ndly You state and I quote "You have a strange definition of the word "blame" and a wholly too self-centred veiw of the mechanics of debate. Time to get some distance and perspective and stop taking everything that happens around you as a personal insult."....And so to remind you of yourself I quote [with bold my emphesis] "No, in fact it is remarkably unclear that that's what the Son of God is doing. Mostly because you have no prior (OT) quotes for those scriptural quotes to be in reference to.

Mostly what I see is a public moral education lesson telling the reader to take responsibility for his (or her) own damn actions.

But maybe I'm just missing something."...........[YES YOU DID THEN AND NOW YOUR DOING AGAIN!]

You clearly Identify me as a culprit of some crime and then go on to overlook evidence [i.e. the thread on "The inequity of the Sister Sodom"] which I clearly linked to. So YES, YOU UNFAIRLY BLAMED ME! And You've Insulted ME! [see strike one above!] STRIKE TWO!

3rdly You state and I quote "As for cognitive dissonance, you clearly failed to actually read what I wrote. Instead choosing to read what you thought I wrote. The words you quoted make no clear reference to homosexuality. The words that the standard right-wing bible-thumper usually uses to illustrate the Bible's outlawing of homosexuality go remarkably like "thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman..." because it is remarkably unambiguous."...... BWAHAHAHA O'RLY?! I'll quote from that thread YOU DIDN'T READ! [NOTE: its also in my post above...do you not read? ]

Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

B) "IN THE New Testament ...MEANING OF THE WORD FORNICATION ...
In the Strongs Concordance ...
www.blueletterbible.org...
Mat 19:9
Jhn 8:41
Rom 1:29
1Cr 6:13
ETC ETC ETC >>


1) illicit sexual intercourse

a) adultery, fornication,homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.

b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18

c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12

2) metaph. the worship of idols

a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

SO...[replacing WORD FOR WORD!]

Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, homosexuality, murders,

AND also from that thread and reposted above!

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind:it is abomination.

AND

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.".....[posted by OmegaLogos ]

...STRIKE THREE! YOUR OUT!

Personal Disclosure: That's your argument to the bone with Occams razor. With all this bloody mindedness I had better start cauterizing!

Occams FLAME ON!

4th You butted in between me and Lucid Lunatic [are you protecting them by trying to distract me?] when you could have ignored me. BWAHAHAHA! Just couldn't help yourself could you! Don't go crying now your arguments all bloody and cut to shreds from Occams razor as my Disclaimer is UPFRONT! Care to disclose what set you off???

5th You state and I quote "To take lasciviousness as a direct reference to homosexuality is quite a leap. Especially as lasciviousness is a nice, broad term that is more about a person's behaviour and/or demeanour".......So here is the definition of lasciviousness from freedictionary.
las·civ·i·ous (l-sv-s)
adj.
1. Given to or expressing lust; lecherous.
2. Exciting sexual desires; salacious.
[Middle English, from Late Latin lascvisus, from Latin lascvia, lewdness, playfulness, from
lascvus, lustful, playful; see las- in Indo-European roots.]
las·civi·ous·ly adv.
las·civi·ous·ness n.

Continued next post.


reply posted on 5-2-2009 @ 10:19 PM by OmegaLogos
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
Continued from above post.

So its a noun, which in this case would define it as a quality with that quality defined by the adjective context of the word. So would homosexuality have the quality of exciting lusty, lecherous, salacious sexual desires? Me thinks it would and DOES under certain POV's! [especially the bibles POV...OT or NT!]

6th You state and I quote "May be true, but, as I stated, what the OT has to say about it is irrelevant according to (Protestant, like me) Christian doctrine. Perhaps you have never sat in church as the Minister prepares the communion and quotes Jesus' words from the last supper: (as previously noted) "...this is a new covenant". Which for some Christian communities explicitly replaces the covenant of Abraham and the obligations that go with it and definitely replaces the Law of Moses.".....May be true??? IS TRUE!!! ....OT irrelevant???
Your coming from an A PRIORI PURE GIVEN that the NT is PURE CANON before you go vetting the rest of the bible.....That's the kookiest backwards engineering job ever!

How about you vet the Torah and Moses validity 1st and see what YHVH has to say about things...I recommend you skip over any internal inconsistencies [such as the face of YHVH! Viewable or NOT?]and get on through to the book of Deuteronomy where YHVH states twice through Moses, who writes it in the same book that he declares direct authorship of, "Don't ever add or take away from the LAW [i.e. THE Torah!]"...I discuss all that in the 2nd Thread I linked to. Don't you ever read any source provided to you? None are so blind as they who will not see! RE: "Therefore,

"So is Jesus condemning Homosexuals?"

No."..........Oh yes he is! [Childish I know but your posts have gone all and by around and since there's no cake its like a horrible pantomime. ]

Because IF you go and invalidate the OT [especially the Torah] then what are you doing but invalidating ancient ISRAEL, Moses, YHVH and therefor by extension the validity of the NT which relies DIRECTLY on THOSE EXACT THINGS BEING VALID!!! BWAHAHA! Nice house...Shame you built the
foundations in a swamp on quicksand!!! [prods structure to test integrity...Creak!] Oop's Oh Look! ... Its s[t]inking! Hope you have ideological insurance

7th You state and I quote "And that's now twice I've stated why."...BWAHAHAHA your integrity was in the toilet by the time you got to STRIKE THREE! But since I'm doing an incendiary ideological extermination I burnt those 2 down as well....Like my scorched earth policy?...I can salt it and plough it in if you want!

8th You state and I quote "And my view is coming from one of (quietly) practising Christianity."...Quietly? Your posts sure rang loud in my eye's...My Proof? My Posts in reply!

9th You state and I quote "As you are choosing to stand outside my faith and tell me what tenets it does and does not hold to be true, your words are of little value in that their purpose is to paint the religion to which I profess faith as being intolerant.".....Absolutely True! we finally agree 100% for once....ahhhh must be that ying in the yang/ yang in the ying thing!!!

10th You state and I quote "From YOUR studies of the SCRIPTURES you find Christianity to be an intolerant religion."...No argument here! we agree again! Are you trying to get into my good books now that your ideologies all broken, cut up and cauterized??? GO GET YOUR OWN GOD!!!

11th You state and I quote "You then choose to use that position to attack MY practicing interpretation of that faith."........Yes...Absolutely!....BUT YOU CAME AFTER ME 1st. Don't like my excrement then don't step in my pile!!! MUHAHAHAHA! RE: Use The Ignore Button.

12th You state and I quote "You also then accuse me of being ignorant as to the tenets of my faith."...Yes and that's because you deserved it. See My point No#6.

13th You state and I quote "So, I guess I'm going to Hell because I haven't recently burned calves, shot footballers or stoned my mate who screwed around on his wife, but do relatively regularly eat shellfish and converse with homosexuals.".... Not sure on the "footballers"??? But on all the rest I'm pretty sure the Torah might just agree with that statement of yours!

14th You state and I quote "As I said, I follow the dictates of a new covenant through the words of the originator of that covenant."...And I'll just quote me again..."Cool and No problems from me at all, JUST don't tell me the NT is Canon [YHVH's word/law] when it's clearly not!".

15th You state and I quote "That's your get-off. With a total win-loss record of 90%-10% I have a reasonable foundation on which to believe in my ability to use words and speech in a logical manner to prove points. You, on the other hand, appear to make leaps of logic which you cannot account for to your audience.".....Yes!, O'RLY [you might want to re-adjust that % ratio right now ] and I just accounted for all loose ends by burning them to a crisp!"

Coup de grace/ Mercy Kill.... Did you know Jesus smoked Chesterfields?...You can believe it if you have enough faith and don't think about your religion with your mind! [HERE!]

Autopsy Report: 1 argument butchered, burned and shot beyond recognition.

Coroners Finding: Clearly a case of self inflicted wounds caused by placing ones foot in ones mouth and hopping through a clearly marked minefield in an aid to diffusing it!



reply posted on 5-2-2009 @ 11:22 PM by HowlrunnerIV
Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV


Explanation: 1stly you state and I quote "Not particularly. As I said, I was captain of the school debate team, you clearly were not. "........."Or you would have understood that "your division"
is simply a shorter way of saying "the division you were speaking of". "There's your proof right there" does not mean "there's the proof that belongs to you", does it?"...
And to answer that question of yours, YES IT DOES and here's why...


That's a swing and a sky-ball and you were caught-and-bowled.

1] I will simply replace the word "proof" with the word "dinner" [yes, a noun with a noun] and then lets look at the sentences again shall we?...


No, let's say it out loud, shall we?..

"There's your proof, right there (for all to see...)"

or

"and then there's your division, right there (for all to see...)"

which could alternatively be

"...and there's the division you were speaking of."

Which, if Condoleeza Rice had said it, would be

"and there's your smoking gun."

Are you holding the smoking gun? No?

It's a figure of speech, in several forms. None of which imply ownership.

As you couldn't get that simple point, you're going to have to wait until I clock off before I go into the rest of it.


reply posted on 6-2-2009 @ 02:26 AM by OmegaLogos
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: The fact of the matter is...

1] EXACTLY WHAT I SAID [with bold my emphesis]..."So Jesus is divisive and not inclusive at all and in fact will cause major dissent! "

2] EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID..."He was divisive because Man (that would be some of the Israelites) ignored his message of the way to redemption. That choice engendered the division. That choice led to the crucifiction. That choice led to the schism that created the Christian church. There is your division."...I ONLY agree with your 1st three words and after that ITS COMPLETELY YOUR BOOTSTRAP AND NOT MINE!
My Division??? Its CLEARLY YOURS!

3] EXACTLY WHAT I REPLIED..."Amazingly you associate me with something, and I quote "There is your division."... Hey Whooaah up there a little bit please." ...AND I ASKED ..."Care to retract!".

4] EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID IN REPLY..."Not particularly. As I said, I was captain of the school debate team, you clearly were not. Or you would have understood that "your division" is simply a shorter way of saying "the division you were speaking of". "There's your proof right there" does not mean "there's the proof that belongs to you", does it?".

5] EXACTLY WHAT I SAID IN REPLY TO THAT..."Since you refuse [RE"Not particularly."] to retract and you keep trumpeting [RE"As I said, I was captain of the school debate team,"] your own horn and you publicly make a big deal over something I myself have never claimed [RE"you clearly were not."].[***EDIT***} and then you go and try pull the wool over my eyes with this swing and miss...."Or you would have understood that "your division" is simply a shorter way of saying "the division you were speaking of". "There's your proof right there" does not mean "there's the proof that belongs to you", does it?"...
And to answer that question of yours, YES IT DOES and here's why...

1] I will simply replace the word "proof" with the word "dinner" [yes, a noun with a noun] and then lets look at the sentences again shall we?...

A: what you wrote [with my twist]] "There's your dinner right there" [=] "there's the dinner that belongs to you"

As opposed to...

B: what you COULD have typed instead!] "There's the dinner right there" [NOT=] "there's the dinner that belongs to you"

Therefor when you state "your division" YOU ARE directly attributing that to me and I'm clearly insulted because MY DISCLAIMER states clearly and I quote "I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. [***EDIT***][NOTE: AGAIN I state for the record that its NOT MY "division" AT ALL. I never stated that at all! YOU DID and then attributed it to me! Tsk Tsk ]"

6] AND YOU REPLY WITH THIS FARCICAL NONSENSE..."That's a swing and a sky-ball and you were caught-and-bowled."...Nice...very nice. Loved your offhand statement with NO PROOF!

So do I claim that "Jesus" is divisive? YES! Do I claim any more than that? NO! BUT YOU CLAIM that I claim the following....

A]"because Man (that would be some of the Israelites) ignored his message of the way to redemption."...Not my claim....YOURS!

B]" That choice engendered the division."...Not my claim...YOURS!

C]" That choice led to the crucifiction."...Not my claim...YOURS!

D]" That choice led to the schism that created the Christian church."...Not my claim...YOURS!

E]" There is your division."...Not my division...YOURS!

SO WHO'S CLAIMING WHAT HUH?

Now to bury this once and for all!...

You state and I quote "Are you holding the smoking gun? No?

It's a figure of speech, in several forms. None of which imply ownership.

As you couldn't get that simple point, you're going to have to wait until I clock off before I go into the rest of it.".....Simple? Me not get that point? How about you address these simple points when you "go into the rest of it"?

a*] You haven't posted in this thread here! to DEBUNK IT.

b*] You haven't posted in this thread here! to DEBUNK IT. RE"Care to refute with proof or endorse this POV?"

c*] You haven't answered any of these... "Can you see the link now? Wheres it weak point and does it snap when placed under the pressure of scrutiny?"

d*] You haven't DEBUNKED THIS..."How can anybody who has this power to distort reality ever have a problem as clearly they have the power to change that by just believing!"...Yet you seem to have a problem...hmmm oh thats right your 100% cognitively dissonant!

e*] You never responded to this..."P.S. Got any tips for my rewrite? u2u me please! "...Here is your chance to do that now.

f*] You haven't answered this..."Care to disclose what set you off???"

g*] Or this..."So would homosexuality have the quality of exciting lusty, lecherous, salacious sexual desires?"

h*] Or this..."How about you vet the Torah and Moses validity 1st and see what YHVH has to say about things."?

i*] Or this..."Don't you ever read any source provided to you?"

j*] And finally this..."Like my scorched earth policy?...I can salt it and plough it in if you want!".

Personal Disclosure: I thought I saw a Troll...I DID! I DID SEE A TROLL! It ambushed me from under a bridge as I was trying to talk to someone! OMG its a ZOMBIE TROLL! I cut it to pieces and burnt it and shot it and its still twitching!!! We're all Doomed...it said its started breeding already...RE:"or you'd know I have two boys."...LMAO ATS SitX RIGHT NOW!...Survival Boards here I come!

Edited to fix emoticon.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by OmegaLogos]


reply posted on 6-2-2009 @ 06:03 AM by HowlrunnerIV
reply to post by OmegaLogos


It really is starting to hurt my head beating it against this brick wall. You chose to bring in the baseball anaologies, I countered with one from a sport popular the rest of the world over. It's not my fault that you are so untravelled you didn't recognise it.

But that's beside the point, which is this:

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

It's a figure of speech,


Speech. I say again, SPEECH. A. FIGURE. OF. SPEECH.

in several forms. None of which imply ownership.


Do, please, read the words that are on the computer screen in front of you and not the ones in your head.

If you can't get that simple piece of the argy-bargy, why would I bother re-treading the rest of the ground I've already walked twice?

I mean, why accuse me of being a false Christian when I clearly stated the underpinnings of my belief? Given the fact that you are not a Christian at all I find it near hysterical in its humour value that you reject the NT's "canon"-value, but take up the OT wholesale. And (which no sentence should ever start with) then tell me I'm not a Christian because I don't recognise my deity as being homophobic. Now, before you decide to go off on another complete tangent based on the written word, allow me to waste more time by stating that my failure to recognise doesn't stem from my own homophobia (which would therefore make JC and I kindred spirits), it stems from the fact that I don't see an anti-gay agenda in his words. Which allows me, therefore, to reject the values of those who use "Christianity" as the underpinnings of their homophobia.

Once again, I have to say, stop taking everything that happens in this world as a personal insult. Just how much of your anti-Jesus (or should that be "Jesus was a homophobe"?) agenda stems from your personal connection to the GLF world? Just how big is that chip on your shoulder?

(Side bar - Serious question: Were you on the end of some particularly nasty verbal/mental abuse from a Christian once (or for a time)? Has that experience informed your attitude towards Christians and did you undertake studies of the scriptures to discover where the Hell the bile came from?)

I'm sorry that my form of Christianity doesn't conform to your pre-conceived notion of what a Christian should be according to the scriptures you have studied. I'm sorry also that the only experience you have of me across the entirety of ATS is this thread, where, for the first time I have identified myself as being of a faith. For the rest of ATS' members my Christianity has been practised very quietly indeed.

I generally find my faith to be a personal matter between the trinity of God, his son and myself.

But as you chose to paint us all with the colour you found in the Bible, instead of the colours WE found in the Bible, I chose to object to your one-size-fits-all description. Especially as there are more Christian denominations than I am aware of, each with a different set of tenets and teachings. As a Prod, I wholly reject the Catholic view of Christianity, wrapped up as it is with the morals and values of the OT and the idea of divine retribution, when (as Christians) we supposedly celebrate our relationship with God through his son who was sent (as I have recited many times on a Sunday) "for our salvation". As an Anglican I wholly reject the right-wing American Baptist view of Christianity, which is, if anything, even more wrapped up in the OT than Roman Catholicism.

I find both stripes to fail the "judge not, lest ye be judged" test. Which makes me an excellent hypocrite.

As I am literate enough to be able to read for myself I don't need to have a supposed "scholar" tell me what someone else means. I guess it just totally ruins your whole day that I didn't find the same intolerance in Christ's words that you did. It obviously bugs the absolute Hell out of you that you can't "educate" me as to the foul, rotten, intolerance of my faith and saviour.

But that's okay, because I'm not going to tell you that He loves you, too. Mostly because I am neither Catholic nor Baptist. That's up to you and him and people who are worried about whether others have "been saved yet" or not are probably compensating for major problems of their own.

But enough of that. What's really important is this:

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

It's a figure of speech, in several forms. None of which imply ownership.



reply posted on 6-2-2009 @ 06:55 AM by HowlrunnerIV
Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV

Explanation: The fact of the matter is...

3] EXACTLY WHAT I REPLIED..."Amazingly you associate me with something, and I quote "There is your division."... Hey Whooaah up there a little bit please." ...AND I ASKED ..."Care to retract!".

4] EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID IN REPLY..."Not particularly. As I said, I was captain of the school debate team, you clearly were not. Or you would have understood that "your division" is simply a shorter way of saying "the division you were speaking of". "There's your proof right there" does not mean "there's the proof that belongs to you", does it?".


I still don't see what is so hard for you to understand about that.

"Or you would have understood that "your division" is simply a shorter way of SAYING "the division you were speaking of".

5] EXACTLY WHAT I SAID IN REPLY TO THAT..."Since you refuse [RE"Not particularly."] to retract and you keep trumpeting [RE"As I said, I was captain of the school debate team,"] your own horn and you publicly make a big deal over something I myself have never claimed [RE"you clearly were not."].[***EDIT***] and then you go and try pull the wool over my eyes with this swing and miss....


As I said, you brought baseball in first. Don't like it when others play by your rules?

"Or you would have understood that "your division" is simply a shorter way of saying "the division you were speaking of". "There's your proof right there" does not mean "there's the proof that belongs to you", does it?"...
And to answer that question of yours, YES IT DOES and here's why...


No. The answer is "No". I've already stated multiple times why.
The fact that you refused to see what was in front of you leads you to continue down a path based on a false foundation...

Therefor when you state "your division" YOU ARE directly attributing that to me and I'm clearly insulted because MY DISCLAIMER states clearly and I quote "I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. [***EDIT***][NOTE: AGAIN I state for the record that its NOT MY "division" AT ALL. I never stated that at all! YOU DID and then attributed it to me! Tsk Tsk ]"


And you continue to propound my falsehood based on your inability to understand what I posted. Multiple times. I did not attribute its ownership to you. I stated that fact repeatedly. You chose to ignore my words. I really have no idea why you need to do this. Why do you need to reject ownership of something I did not credit you with ownership of?

6] AND YOU REPLY WITH THIS FARCICAL NONSENSE..."That's a swing and a sky-ball and you were caught-and-bowled."...Nice...very nice. Loved your offhand statement with NO PROOF!


Tried looking in the mirror lately? To wit:

with this swing and miss


Anyway, on with the show...

So do I claim that "Jesus" is divisive? YES! Do I claim any more than that? NO! BUT YOU CLAIM that I claim the following....

A]"because Man (that would be some of the Israelites) ignored his message of the way to redemption."...Not my claim....YOURS!

B]" That choice engendered the division."...Not my claim...YOURS!

C]" That choice led to the crucifiction."...Not my claim...YOURS!

D]" That choice led to the schism that created the Christian church."...Not my claim...YOURS!


No. I claim that that is the explanation of what he's saying as read from your post. I do not claim that you are claiming that. I am showing an interpretation of the words you quoted. I thought that was obvious. Oh, wait, you needed to again misunderstand what was said...

E]" There is your division."...Not my division...YOURS!


No, not MY division. THE division you were speaking of.

Tell me, if Columbo finished his recounting of how the crime was committed with "and there's your murderer", would you assume he was ascribing ownership of the murderer to the audience?

SO WHO'S CLAIMING WHAT HUH?


You are claiming not to own something that I did not say you owned. It's really very strange.

Now to bury this once and for all!...

a*] You haven't posted in this thread here! to DEBUNK IT.


Because I came into this thread to discuss gay-marriage and a rather repulsive piece of paper called "Prop 8". Why would I go over to that thread to discuss something else. I stated here why I don't see Christianity as supporting Prop 8.

b*] You haven't posted in this thread


Probably not going to for the forseeable future, either. Many other more important things to do. ATS is not the be-all-and-end-all of my day.

c*] You haven't answered any of these... "Can you see the link now? Wheres it weak point and does it snap when placed under the pressure of scrutiny?"


Don't see the need to. Already gave you an answer, your problem that you don't like the lack of in-depth analysis of the difference between a noun and the adjective that describes that noun. According to your definition, Jesus wasn't just against homosexuality, he was against breeding.

d*] You haven't DEBUNKED THIS..."How can anybody who has this power to distort reality ever have a problem as clearly they have the power to change that by just believing!"...Yet you seem to have a problem...hmmm oh thats right your 100% cognitively dissonant!


Not my fault that you can't read.

[quote*] You never responded to this..."P.S. Got any tips for my rewrite? u2u me please! "...Here is your chance to do that now.

Why would I? You've already proven incapable of understanding.

f*] You haven't answered this..."Care to disclose what set you off???"


When did you ask it?

g*] Or this..."So would homosexuality have the quality of exciting lusty, lecherous, salacious sexual desires?"


Only as does looking at women. As I said, under your (that would be the interpretation you are expounding) breeding itself will send us to Hell.

h*] Or this..."How about you vet the Torah and Moses validity 1st and see what YHVH has to say about things."?


Why would I do that? I know you read what I wrote. I wonder how you think Moses' words predating those of M,M,L and J (as quoting JC) can somehow validate themselves in response?

The point, once again, of Christianity as taught to and practised by me is that it is the word of God as taught by his son. Not by some raving lunatic who went on a rampage of destruction after going mad in the desert for a generation. Oh, wait, I've judged again.

i*] Or this..."Don't you ever read any source provided to you?"

Only when I wish to expand my knowledge.

j*] And finally this..."Like my scorched earth policy?...I can salt it and plough it in if you want!".


Yes, but that was just you being a wanker. What, with all your emoticons and dismissive language and repitition of baseball analogies and what was that you typed about a lack of proof to back up dismissive statements. I mean, let's take a look at some of it, shall we?

Personal Disclosure: I thought I saw a Troll...I DID! I DID SEE A TROLL! It ambushed me from under a bridge as I was trying to talk to someone! OMG its a ZOMBIE TROLL! I cut it to pieces and burnt it and shot it and its still twitching!!! We're all Doomed...it said its started breeding already...RE:"or you'd know I have two boys."...LMAO ATS SitX RIGHT NOW!...Survival Boards here I come!


I saw you from a distance jumping up and down and waving your arms over your head and yelling indistinctly, but I didn't see much cutting, or burning, or shooting. For a moment I thought you'd seen a snake on the track.

Just to really disappoint you, allow me to inform you that those two boys you feel such pity for are being raised with both Protestant Christian and Therevada Buddhist teachings. As I said, mixed-race, not to mention mixed-culture...I guess "Love thy neighbour as thyself" is going to be the foundation of their moral upbringing.

Sorry I can't do better for them than that.
Pages: <<  17    18    19    20    21  >>    ^^TOP^^



Alaska: Samantha Koenig Kidnapped last week.
  Posted 3 days ago with 111 member flags
Blue Spheres Fall from the Sky in the UK
  Posted 16 days ago with 81 member flags
The Chinese have seen the dragon in the sky !!
  Posted 3 days ago with 69 member flags
Strange Sounds in Sky Explained by Scientists
  Posted 12 days ago with 59 member flags
She Dialed 911. The Cop Who Came to Help Raped Her.
  Posted 5 days ago with 49 member flags
Anonymous: Revealing The Arcane Legal Trick Behind ACTA
  Posted 12 days ago with 42 member flags
Anonymous reveals Haditha massacre emails | RT
  Posted 8 days ago with 33 member flags