First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply How do you view homosexuals?
Moderator
252 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Riverside, CA
Offline
Posted 12/6/08
It is quite clear to group that you have no intellectual basis and therefore nothing credible to bring to the table. This isn't a smart way to persuade your audience. Oh, and by the way, Copi has a PhD. What do you have? Once again, you are slandering and not persuading. The official logical fallacy (for the sake of the group) being used here is called ad hominem abusive. When someone utilizes this form of argument, it clearly shows that it isn't the content of the information that is being debated but rather is focused on the person. They attack the person instead of the argument. Therefore, if you want to actually debate something, drop your little language tags and actually bring something to the table.
Moderator
252 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Riverside, CA
Offline
Posted 12/6/08
Oh, and I want to see references, no exceptions.
Posted 12/6/08

jmartinez83 wrote:


Stickmania wrote:


jmartinez83 wrote:


Stickmania wrote:


Jellybean123 wrote:

I personally believe no one is born homosexual. I think that it is the devil working inside there hearts. To me those previous sentences I wrote are commen sense (in my mind) but when my friends ask me about this and I say that its like they dont believe it. Do people really think they were born homosexual? Anyways, I have nothing against them. They have 2 eyes, 1 nose and a heavenly father who loves them even though they do wrong. Homosexuality is wrong. But then many christians are too. We sometimes lie, get pressured into situations and give into it (like stealing--which ive never done). The only difference is we ask for forgiveness. I've met homosexuals before and I think they are sweet people as long as they dont include me in what they do with whoever they like, Im good. I hate the fact that they are not welcomed inside some churches. For we are supposed to welcome every kind of folk--no matter what the sin they commit is. That is between them and god and not for christians to judge. I completely agree with everything aburairukia said. Everyone has different views but I hope everyone remembers that every individual christian's behaviour reflects on the full group of christians.


This is a prime example of why I can't get along with Christians. PEOPLE ARE BORN GAY. It is in their genes and it is not a 'choice' therefore it is not a sin as it quite simply cannot be helped. Why would anyone choose to be gay anyway when all it brings them is discrimination from people like you? Have none of you noticed how gay people are physically different to a straight person? Higher voices, certain mannerisms and the like? Clearly you can't choose what you get in terms of your body can you. Arrgh! You guys make me sick sometimes you really do. Even if it was a choice then do you have any right to judge whether it is a sin or not? No you bloody don't you get on your high horses and say 'well I must be right cos it says it in the bible, a book which has been historically proven to have been modified many many times and mistranslated over the years to the point where we can no longer even hazard a guess as to what was actually in the original. Hell the stupid book even contradicts itself yet so many of you use it as an excuse to look down on people and judge them for their actions. You bunch of morally bankrupt jackasses.

(Please note that this is aimed not just at the person I quoted but also every single one of you who had the nerve to call homosexuality a sin in this thread)


Having looked at the MDA and the Medical Journal of Psychology, there is no--I repeat, no--psychologist or geneticist that believes your thesis. Even the most stringent atheist who repudiates anything relating to religion would grant that. To say that gays are born gay also runs the risk of saying that it is a genetic disease: are you saying that those "infected" with the so-called gay gene are a cancer to society? That is how your thesis runs. There are those medical anomalies that demarcate (or pinpoint) a hormonal imbalance. Do you want to call these cases "normal." I think the best argument the gay community has against the Christians is that homosexuality isn't a sin. If you're smart, you'd start there. Good luck trying to prove it, though. I will guarantee you that I will not make your job easy.


No dumbass, I am not saying they are a disease- (maybe you should have actually read my response to Ratman before posting)
I'm saying that there is nothing wrong with them whatsoever and that it is natural. Just because it is caused by genetics does not mean it is a disease or cancer- the difference between gay and straight is as simple as the difference between being born with blonde or brown hair or short or tall. Neither is a problem. it has been happening for millenia and gay people live very happy lives (assuming people like you can stop harassing them for ten seconds) And you and I have clearly seen some different medical journals but oh well sounds like your not the type to listen anyway. I actually have some friends who are gay and let me tell you it wasn't a 'choice' for them, i have asked them. Oh and Btw I also said that even assuming it is a choice to be gay what right do you have to judge them for it, seriously are you that arrogant? What you are doing is plain discrimination and there is no way you can get away with that by claiming 'its ok cos its my religion'.




Prove it. There is no geneticist that has done so, yet you make claims that they haven't made. Just because you assert a thing to be true doesn't make it true.


Like I said even if I did pull something up you would just say I forged it or something cos you strike me as that kind of guy. Also I would have to write a very long post to do so which i can't really be bothered to do seeing as I dont care so much about that point. If you like I will even agree its a choice to make you happy (even if i dont mean it).

You see the thing that really pisses me off is the way you discriminate against them, whether its a choice or not. Care to explain how you can sleep at night?
Moderator
252 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Riverside, CA
Offline
Posted 12/6/08
So you're willing just to concede rather than prove your point? That's a little inconsistent, isn't it?
Moderator
252 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Riverside, CA
Offline
Posted 12/6/08
Yes, I can sleep at night because God has written His Law in the hearts of men, yet they still sin against Him. I still wonder why men and women who berate the Law of God and yet sleep at night. Buddy, repent from your sins by recognizing that your ideas are not only repugnant to society, but it also challenges the Holy, with whom you will have to give an account on THAT day.

One theologian put it like this,


Besides while some may evaporate in their own
superstitions and others deliberately and wickedly desert God, yet all
degenerate from the true knowledge of him. And so it happens that no real
piety remains in the world. But as to my statement that some erroneously
slip into superstition, I do not mean by this that their ingenuousness
should free them from blame. For the blindness under which they labor is
almost always mixed with proud vanity and obstinacy. Indeed, vanity
joined with pride can be detected in the fact that, in seeking God,
miserable men do not rise above themselves as they should, but measure
him by the yardstick of their own carnal stupidity, and neglect sound
investigation; thus out of curiosity they fly off into empty speculations (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.4.1.).

Here, Calvin is saying that those who even presume to be "enlightened" have the problem by measuring their knowledge of God, but their knowledge is so plagued with sin that it obscures that knowledge with their vain interpretations of their intellect--an intellect plagued with sin. I would argue that if those men who seek to be pious and are plagued with bad noetic[1] (or dealing with knowledge explained above) structure, how much more a homosexual who thinks nothing of God!

[1] The Webster's Dictionary defines "noetic" this way:
"...of or having to do with the mind or intellect; sometimes, specif., able to be understood only by the intellect."

Moderator
252 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Riverside, CA
Offline
Posted 12/6/08

RivrStyx wrote:

... okay who brought a dead thread to life? I haven't been on crunchyroll for a good 4 or 5 months and this thread is still going? sheesh. give it a rest already.

Homosexuality is not something that one can change about themself. I know quite a few homosexual christians who, all they do is, abstain from homosexual activities. It's a matter of choice for the individual, whether they choose to live that lifestyle or not. It shows a lot of character for someone to abstain from something that comes naturally for them. God loves man. pure and simple. God hates anything to do with sin including thoughts of sin, but he does not hate the sinner. martinez, dont take scripture out of context. Roman's 9 only refers to specifics. Most homosexuals are a hell of a lot nicer than other people, especially a lot of christians I know. Get to know a few and you might change your mind. Homosexually is something that people will never agree on, "is it bad or is it good?" Basically, if the person is a homosexual and a christian I would expect them to live out their lives in respect to what the Bible says, but if they're not christian who am I to judge their lifestyle or life choices. I have a lot in my own life to work through before I get to the point where I can start judging people... In fact I dont think I'll ever get to that point.


Didn't I make it clear in an earlier post that God hates not only the sin but the agent who does it? How many times do I have to explain a simple plenary idea found in Scripture?
Moderator
252 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Riverside, CA
Offline
Posted 12/6/08 , edited 12/6/08
Can you show me where I have taken any piece of scripture out of context. Following upon such "inept" trials, can you give me your method of interpretation? Also, I have read more than what qualifies as enough of the early church fathers as well as commentators on the subject. Can you refer to what exactly you mean? You are the only one who has made such a statement about my response. Is David, then, wrong when he said, "The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence" (Psalms 5:5; 11:5)? Following your logic, then it would please God more to send the sin to hell rather than the sinner. As it seems to me, you have divorced yourself from biblical hermeneutics. The logic also implies that God is impassive towards sin.

Also, why do you refer to Romans 9? Is there something you don't like about my interpretation of the text? If so, what? As far as I have seen, my development is in long standing with the tradition of Bavinck, Hodge, Augustine, the Six Forms of Unity, etc. I would ultimately argue that this is the view of St. Paul and St. Peter.


Moderator
14744 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
64 / M / FL. But, I (May...
Offline
Posted 12/7/08
Stick the The Ball is now in your court. Return serve or give up.
Posted 12/7/08

jmartinez83 wrote:

So you're willing just to concede rather than prove your point? That's a little inconsistent, isn't it?


Not really, re read my post and see if your (apparently tiny seeing as you dont get this) brain can comprehend exactly what I meant.

And at your other post you basically just admitted that you can sleep at night because the Bible says its ok to discriminate. Oh joy you clearly see morals as important don't you. Let me ask you has God ever contacted you directly? Or Jesus for that matter? Or any angel? Or any holy being? Or even a voice in your head? Or has it just been that book, written by men, and men who put on fancy clothes and call themselves priests who have influenced you into your sickening ways? Cos if it has you should see that you are a very bad person and are to be frank going straight to hell (if such a place even exists). Discrimination is wrong. Doesn't matter how you look at it or what excuses you use you should be ashamed of yourself.
Moderator
252 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Riverside, CA
Offline
Posted 12/7/08
To Stickmania, an uninformed teenager
Again, you have provided nothing valuable as a so-called rational person. Instead of actually providing something of a cogent argument, you rant and continue with name calling. Let this be a lesson to those actually reading this post.

To the group
This person is not only arrogant, but he shows us no proof of his alleged thesis--that homosexuals are born gay--and he continues by "landsliding" something other than his original point--e.g. the Scriptures' authenticity. He makes claims that I am a "bad person." Tell me, where does this normative definition come from? I will submit that such an erroneous definition comes from what Dr. F. Schaeffer calls, "the line of despair." When people started the think of absolutes as an erroneous enterprise, people--or individuals--began with themselves. They no longer could think of morals as universal. And so this is where Stickmania is getting this brand of "new definitions." He can only--as logic would permit--label me a bad person in himself. He can't, for instance, actually prove that there is something inherently evil about me or my actions, namely because he would need an absolute-universal in order to make such a claim; and to do that--Nietzsche, a vehement atheist, would say--is to approve of the existence of the universal[1], i.e., God.

[1]see Frederick Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
Posted 12/8/08

jmartinez83 wrote:

To Stickmania, an uninformed teenager
Again, you have provided nothing valuable as a so-called rational person. Instead of actually providing something of a cogent argument, you rant and continue with name calling. Let this be a lesson to those actually reading this post.

To the group
This person is not only arrogant, but he shows us no proof of his alleged thesis--that homosexuals are born gay--and he continues by "landsliding" something other than his original point--e.g. the Scriptures' authenticity. He makes claims that I am a "bad person." Tell me, where does this normative definition come from? I will submit that such an erroneous definition comes from what Dr. F. Schaeffer calls, "the line of despair." When people started the think of absolutes as an erroneous enterprise, people--or individuals--began with themselves. They no longer could think of morals as universal. And so this is where Stickmania is getting this brand of "new definitions." He can only--as logic would permit--label me a bad person in himself. He can't, for instance, actually prove that there is something inherently evil about me or my actions, namely because he would need an absolute-universal in order to make such a claim; and to do that--Nietzsche, a vehement atheist, would say--is to approve of the existence of the universal[1], i.e., God.

[1]see Frederick Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra.


You have a nasty habit of selective hearing you know that? What I have been doing is very different from ranting. I have actually already answered most of your accusations in previous posts.

You are also something of a hypocrite.

You accuse me of name calling and then fail to note that you just called me an 'uninformed teenager' two lines earlier- which is btw untrue in every sense seeing as I recently turned 20- it says 19 in my profile because I just put a random date in (I don't like putting such information on my profiles.) and also because I am not uninformed, nor would be even were I a teenager-
Indeed many of the posters in this thread are around 15 or so and I daresay they will take offense that you consider their opinions of lesser worth than your own.
Strange but for someone who is only 24 you do assume you have rather a lot of experience don't you lol. Some would even call that arrogance you know.

You should understand that I am assuming nothing or saying I am right without basis. Everything I have said is based on what I can see and hear and not a religion which is entirely based on things which are intangible at best. It is you who are foolish to make such an argument based on something with no factual basis whatsoever.

Finally let me ask you three questions. Please note I expect answers.

1) Is it wrong to discriminate?
2) Do you or do you not discriminate against gays? (for whatever reason)
3) Does the existence of gays harm the world in any way shape or form?

I want a 'yes' or 'no' answer to all three of those questions. Nothing less, nothing more. Do not avoid them like you have been up till now. Should you attempt to avoid them yet again it will be fairly safe to assume that you are incapable of answering them for everyone reading this thread. Once you have written your answers you will hopefully see why I call you a bad person.

Copy and paste this to save you time when you write your answers:

1)

2)

3)
Posted 12/8/08
Oh, one last thing is that please don't assume I have given up or accepted your argument if I don't respond to you immediately as I have exams over the next few days and will hence struggle to find time to actually get online to reply.
Rest assured you will get one though, you just might have to wait a few days.
Moderator
14744 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
64 / M / FL. But, I (May...
Offline
Posted 12/8/08

Stickmania wrote:



You accuse me of name calling and then fail to note that you just called me an 'uninformed teenager' two lines earlier- which is btw untrue in every sense seeing as I recently turned 20- it says 19 in my profile because I just put a random date in (I don't like putting such information on my profiles.) and also because I am not uninformed, nor would be even were I a teenager-
Indeed many of the posters in this thread are around 15 or so and I daresay they will take offense that you consider their opinions of lesser worth than your own.
Strange but for someone who is only 24 you do assume you have rather a lot of experience don't you lol. Some would even call that arrogance you know.


BUT I RATMAN have much more life experience than the both of you. And yes I do think you a uninformed person. Who rants when its not going your way

You should understand that I am assuming nothing or saying I am right without basis. Everything I have said is based on what I can see and hear and not a religion which is entirely based on things which are intangible at best. It is you who are foolish to make such an argument based on something with no factual basis whatsoever.

Oh I know what is foolish and what is not. The Bible, God and Jesus are not. Mankind very foolish and some what dumb.

Finally let me ask you three questions. Please note I expect answers.

1) Is it wrong to discriminate?
2) Do you or do you not discriminate against gays? (for whatever reason)
3) Does the existence of gays harm the world in any way shape or form?

I want a 'yes' or 'no' answer to all three of those questions. Nothing less, nothing more. Do not avoid them like you have been up till now. Should you attempt to avoid them yet again it will be fairly safe to assume that you are incapable of answering them for everyone reading this thread. Once you have written your answers you will hopefully see why I call you a bad person
.

Copy and paste this to save you time when you write your answers:

1) Yes (as the world and God would view it)

2) No (do I think the homosexualy is sin YES)

3) No (as this is broken world and the Devl wants it to keep going this way"DOWN")


Now you have said we have avoided answering dir. What about
[1]see Frederick Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra. DID YOU LOOK IT UP HMMM?



Member
747 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / BC, Canada
Offline
Posted 12/8/08 , edited 12/8/08

jmartinez83 wrote:

Can you show me where I have taken any piece of scripture out of context. Following upon such "inept" trials, can you give me your method of interpretation? Also, I have read more than what qualifies as enough of the early church fathers as well as commentators on the subject. Can you refer to what exactly you mean? You are the only one who has made such a statement about my response. Is David, then, wrong when he said, "The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence" (Psalms 5:5; 11:5)? Following your logic, then it would please God more to send the sin to hell rather than the sinner. As it seems to me, you have divorced yourself from biblical hermeneutics. The logic also implies that God is impassive towards sin.

Also, why do you refer to Romans 9? Is there something you don't like about my interpretation of the text? If so, what? As far as I have seen, my development is in long standing with the tradition of Bavinck, Hodge, Augustine, the Six Forms of Unity, etc. I would ultimately argue that this is the view of St. Paul and St. Peter.




I had the wrong verse. Psalms is the old testament and much of it doesn't apply to today. Plus, the Psalms are a collection of songs, poems, laments etc and you cannot say David didn't exaggerate a little. God loves his created. Yes God would put sin in hell rather than the sinner considereing hell was not created for man but for satan. Sin is the byproduct of Satan's tempting and human foolishness. If what you're saying is true than no matter how hard you try you're going to hell. Because God hates you just as much as any other person in the world since you are obviously human and therefore nowhere near perfect. The Lord tests everyone. It's the righteous he tests more because they need to stay strong in the Lord. If what you say is true than only Christ has and will ever make it to heaven so then what is the point of following a religion that condemns its followers? how can you call yourself Christian and teach that God hates man? Biblical hermeneutics are also a human byproduct and have been argued over for centuries and will be argued over for centuries to come. You cannot maintain that one form of hermeneutics is right while another is wrong if they are both consistently using scripture to give its backing
Moderator
14744 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
64 / M / FL. But, I (May...
Offline
Posted 12/8/08

RivrStyx wrote:


jmartinez83 wrote:

Can you show me where I have taken any piece of scripture out of context. Following upon such "inept" trials, can you give me your method of interpretation? Also, I have read more than what qualifies as enough of the early church fathers as well as commentators on the subject. Can you refer to what exactly you mean? You are the only one who has made such a statement about my response. Is David, then, wrong when he said, "The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence" (Psalms 5:5; 11:5)? Following your logic, then it would please God more to send the sin to hell rather than the sinner. As it seems to me, you have divorced yourself from biblical hermeneutics. The logic also implies that God is impassive towards sin.

Also, why do you refer to Romans 9? Is there something you don't like about my interpretation of the text? If so, what? As far as I have seen, my development is in long standing with the tradition of Bavinck, Hodge, Augustine, the Six Forms of Unity, etc. I would ultimately argue that this is the view of St. Paul and St. Peter.




I had the wrong verse. Psalms is the old testament and much of it doesn't apply to today. Plus, the Psalms are a collection of songs, poems, laments etc and you cannot say David didn't exaggerate a little. God loves his created. Yes God would put sin in hell rather than the sinner considereing hell was not created for man but for satan. Sin is the byproduct of Satan's tempting and human foolishness. If what you're saying is true than no matter how hard you try you're going to hell. Because God hates you just as much as any other person in the world since you are obviously human and therefore nowhere near perfect. The Lord tests everyone. It's the righteous he tests more because they need to stay strong in the Lord. If what you say is true than only Christ has and will ever make it to heaven so then what is the point of following a religion that condemns its followers? how can you call yourself Christian and teach that God hates man? Biblical hermeneutics are also a human byproduct and have been argued over for centuries and will be argued over for centuries to come. You cannot maintain that one form of hermeneutics is right while another is wrong if they are both consistently using scripture to give its backing


Ahh guys your getting off topic here
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.