Working on the Sabbath is one of the big ones, Alma. It's like Blasphemy. It's in the 10 commandments you Christians rave about so much. Those are much more serious sins than @#%^ing someone of the same sex.
Y'know why? Because you can ask for forgiveness for everything except blasphemy. Yay religion.
It's always nice when the atheist knows more about the theist's religion than he does...
Edited, Jul 3rd 2011 9:08pm by Nilatai
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- Update on DADT Policy
Update on DADT PolicyFollow
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Idiggory wrote:
And in every version of the bible, it's a sin for a woman to speak in church. What's your point?
My point is that if it is blatantly written that it is a sin for a woman to talk in church and a woman asks is it a sin to talk in church, the Chaplain has an obligation to say "yes, it is a sin for women to talk in church". The point is, the Chaplain has to stay true to what is written, not what others agree with.
Idiggory wrote:
So most Christians don't eat pork?
What?
Did you read what I said? What people agree with or do has nothing to do with what is written. Most Christians have pre-marital sex, don't tithe, don't read the Bible, don't go to Church, curse, smoke, drink, gamble, along with a lot of other sin. That doesn't change Churches from stop teaching about it because it isn't popular.
Obviously the pork thing is yet a denomination, based on various interpretations. There is no interpretation deviation with homosexuality. You're comparing apples with oranges. If homosexuality weren't common across the board, then you would have a point in reference to homosexuality, but that isn't the case.
Idiggory wrote:
And yes, chaplains have their own faith. But it's also required of them, but the military, to speak with anyone who wishes to talk to them. AND, it's forbidden for them to negatively address those individuals' faith, regardless of what it is. If I was a Muslim, I would be able to go to a Christian chaplain if I needed to talk. And he wouldn't be allowed to insinuate that I was a sinner for anything relating to my religion.
Ok, at this point, I will stop repeating myself, because we're just saying the same thing. It was fun to get like +30 post count today, but now you're just wasting my time. Until you actually say something different, I will start ignoring your repetitive points that have already been countered.
They are not condemning any religion, but if you ask a Jewish Chaplain if something you are doing is considered a sin, then it is their obligation to tell you based off the Jewish faith. He is not going to try to guess what religion you are and tip-toe around your feelings. You asked a specific question, he will answer it. You may believe in a religion that he is completely unaware of.
So, what you're saying is that if a person has a religion that believed that wives should have sex with their husband's friends and family, that a Christian Chaplain can not say that is a sin if the question was brought to their attention?
Idiggory wrote:
Most Christains in the US are in favor of gay rights, in general. Marriage is what gives them pause. For the most part, they are fine with two gays living together, and the support for civil unions is WAY higher than marriage. Why? Because they are obsessed with the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. MOST Christians are perfectly fine with gay people.
Just plain false. I already explained why. As stated above, I will no longer repeat myself if you're just going to keep saying the same thing.
Idiggory wrote:
You claim to be in the military, yet don't even know how this works? Federal statutes apply to all military personnel. There are federal protections for race, religion and sex. There aren't for sexual orientation. Chaplains are bound by all federal anti-discrimination policies.
Except for the Chaplains, hence why the rules are the way the are. Oh, I get it, I guess the entire Chiefs of staffs don't get it, but you do? Man, how did they miss that? Maybe you should call them and tell them that made a mistake. I'm sure they didn't realize what they were doing.
Really? You're doing all of this instead of just admitting that the Chaplain Corps is a different case? Not every governmental employee are bound by the same rules and regulations. If you ever worked with GS employees then you would know that.
A GS civilian and a Soldier are NOT the same type of employee nor bound by the same rules.
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
it's because everyone agrees with me but doesn't want to come out and say it.
That is definitely a possibility in other threads, but I've argued this topic too many times and have posts of references stating the exact opposite of what he is claiming.
Nilatai wrote:
Working on the Sabbath is one of the big ones, Alma. It's like Blasphemy. It's in the 10 commandments you Christians rave about so much. Those are much more serious sins than @#%^ing someone of the same sex.
Y'know why? Because you can ask for forgiveness for everything except blasphemy. Yay religion.
It's always nice when the atheist knows more about the theist's religion than he does...
Y'know why? Because you can ask for forgiveness for everything except blasphemy. Yay religion.
It's always nice when the atheist knows more about the theist's religion than he does...
Soooooo basically you have nothing.. Ok. I was wondering you were you able to gauge the level of sin. As I already stated, that isn't a sin for the Chaplain, because that's the day reserve for holy teaching, hence the holy day.
The focus is making it a holy day. Most small owned business do just that. They are either closed on a Sunday or have shortened hours to give time to observe God. The Chaplain is the person who does the teaching.
Quote:
That is definitely a possibility in other threads, but I've argued this topic too many times and have posts of references stating the exact opposite of what he is claiming.
So why haven't you shared them?
Quote:
Really? You're doing all of this instead of just admitting that the Chaplain Corps is a different case? Not every governmental employee are bound by the same rules and regulations. If you ever worked with GS employees then you would know that.
Federal anti-discrimination statutes don't have exceptions except when addressing the religious rights of institutions. Chaplains are federal employees and, as such, are not exempt. It's the same way for any ordained minister who takes office--you're exempt only so far as your parish is concerned, not your office.
And we're just pointing out that your argument is ********* because if a chaplain were to preach everything the bible said, it would only apply to a very small minority of Christians. So, instead, they preach a bare-bones version of the bible that's limited to only the most basic religious doctrines.
The military doesn't have the right to ignore federal statutes. Federal anti-discrimination laws specifically regard all federal and state gov'ts. Religious or not, the chaplain is an employee of the gov't and is bound by these laws.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
I thought that all sins carried the same weight or some such? So, premarital sex is just as bad as gay sex and listening to "world music." Oh, and cussing is bad too...etc...etc...
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Working on the Sabbath is one of the big ones, Alma. It's like Blasphemy. It's in the 10 commandments you Christians rave about so much. Those are much more serious sins than @#%^ing someone of the same sex.
Y'know why? Because you can ask for forgiveness for everything except blasphemy. Yay religion.
It's always nice when the atheist knows more about the theist's religion than he does...
Y'know why? Because you can ask for forgiveness for everything except blasphemy. Yay religion.
It's always nice when the atheist knows more about the theist's religion than he does...
Soooooo basically you have nothing.. Ok. I was wondering you were you able to gauge the level of sin. As I already stated, that isn't a sin for the Chaplain, because that's the day reserve for holy teaching, hence the holy day.
The focus is making it a holy day. Most small owned business do just that. They are either closed on a Sunday or have shortened hours to give time to observe God. The Chaplain is the person who does the teaching.
No sorry, you're not allowed to work on the Sabbath, and the Chaplain is getting paid for his preaching. That counts as work.
Besides, that was a for instance. Like, do you eat shellfish? How about pork? When you eat meat, do you eat the fat too?
See, no one cares about any of these. Yet, you make a big deal about homosexuality. You're inconsistent.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
-REDACTED-
Scholar
1,150 posts
Exodus wrote:
I thought that all sins carried the same weight or some such? So, premarital sex is just as bad as gay sex and listening to "world music." Oh, and cussing is bad too...etc...etc...
You haven't been talking to my former comrades, have you? That sounds like a brand of crazy I'm familiar with.
Nilatai wrote:
No sorry, you're not allowed to work on the Sabbath, and the Chaplain is getting paid for his preaching. That counts as work.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
I'm going to drink myself to sleep. If I can find that JW:BL.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
For the record, I disagree with everything Alma has ever said. About anything.
Idiggory wrote:
So why haven't you shared them?
I will in a bit.
Idiggory wrote:
Federal anti-discrimination statutes don't have exceptions except when addressing the religious rights of institutions. Chaplains are federal employees and, as such, are not exempt. It's the same way for any ordained minister who takes office--you're exempt only so far as your parish is concerned, not your office.
And we're just pointing out that your argument is bullsh*t, because if a chaplain were to preach everything the bible said, it would only apply to a very small minority of Christians. So, instead, they preach a bare-bones version of the bible that's limited to only the most basic religious doctrines.
The military doesn't have the right to ignore federal statutes. Federal anti-discrimination laws specifically regard all federal and state gov'ts. Religious or not, the chaplain is an employee of the gov't and is bound by these laws.
And we're just pointing out that your argument is bullsh*t, because if a chaplain were to preach everything the bible said, it would only apply to a very small minority of Christians. So, instead, they preach a bare-bones version of the bible that's limited to only the most basic religious doctrines.
The military doesn't have the right to ignore federal statutes. Federal anti-discrimination laws specifically regard all federal and state gov'ts. Religious or not, the chaplain is an employee of the gov't and is bound by these laws.
And yet we're having this conservation because they were given the right to do so. Interesting.
Exodus wrote:
I thought that all sins carried the same weight or some such? So, premarital sex is just as bad as gay sex and listening to "world music." Oh, and cussing is bad too...etc...etc...
I wasn't going to get into this, but since you brought it up, many of the things that are considered "sin", aren't actually "sin" by themselves. Any thing that keeps you from being prosperous, healthy, or any other role or trait described in the Bible can be considered as a "sin".
So, drinking alcohol isn't a "sin", getting drunk beating your spouse and kids and not remembering anything, is. So, as a result, religion typically preaches against alcohol for that reason. Homosexuality isn't in that category, it is blatantly described as a "sin" along with adultery and incest. There's no interpretation issue.
Nilatai wrote:
No sorry, you're not allowed to work on the Sabbath, and the Chaplain is getting paid for his preaching. That counts as work.
Besides, that was a for instance. Like, do you eat shellfish? How about pork? When you eat meat, do you eat the fat too?
See, no one cares about any of these. Yet, you make a big deal about homosexuality. You're inconsistent.
Ohh.. nice try.
1. You're saying that a man, who's job is to live holy 24/7, is violating the law because he is preaching on the day that society has reserved for the holy day. How are you able to break down his hours to say that he is actually getting paid for his teaching as opposed to maintaining the Church?
2. The Sabbath day is observed differently in different religions because of the different calendars. Now, you're referencing denominations, which isn't what the Chaplain does. Wednesday or Friday could very well be the Sabbath for you.
3.Our society has "Separation from Church and State". Your employer, who may not be religious, does not have to let you off to observe your Sabbath Day. Society, for the most part has observed Sunday to be the Sabbath day and revolves our weekends around that.
Because of that, that's when our Pastors, ministers, etc. teach, based on the society that we live in. The alternative would be nobody being there because of work, which defeats the purpose of having a Sabbath Day.
4. I did a little google search and some use verses to claim that Jesus' death was symbolic of living every day as the "Sabbath day" to reflect upon God through the teachings of Jesus as opposed to waiting till the Sabbath Day to reflect upon God.
5. Admittedly a "weak" argument, but is something true just to keep in the back of your mind, nor you or I are religious experts. If we can think of something that appears to be so blatantly contradictory, I assure you the numerous of Religious instructors with PhD's have all found some combination of verses to counter your statement. To believe that you, Nilatia, the religiously ignorant (simply not knowing, nothing personal) poster of allakhazam would be able to "check mate" the entire religious base on a religious concept (i.e. not a fact vs fiction) is just silly.
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
No sorry, you're not allowed to work on the Sabbath, and the Chaplain is getting paid for his preaching. That counts as work.
Spoonless wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
No sorry, you're not allowed to work on the Sabbath, and the Chaplain is getting paid for his preaching. That counts as work.
idiggory wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
That is definitely a possibility in other threads, but I've argued this topic too many times and have posts of references stating the exact opposite of what he is claiming.
So why haven't you shared them?
This is all from one thread. I didn't go through the entire thing, but I'm sure if I were to go through additional threads, I would find more people stating that religion, primarily Christianity, is against homosexuality.
The simple fact that no one has came out and said "I don't believe most Christians are against homosexuality" is evident that no agrees with you. If it were any other topic, they'll probably lie/troll to say that they do agree with you, but they are not going to say that religion ISN'T part of the opposition.
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm not talking about the additional laws that came AFTER the government decided to get involved in marriage. I'm talking about the time when the government decided to first get involved, what was their reasoning? There had to be some logic on why the government decided to get involved in the first place.
Because government and religion developed hand-in-hand. By the time we got around to modern secular governments, the role of government in marriage was already established.
You're under some illusion that these things were "decided" on some macro scale.
Sir X wrote:
SSM was excluded because people believed being gay was morally wrong. The Church controlled society. That isn't the case any more, and so the only reason SSM was ever banned is now gone. Since that reason doesn't exist anymore, there is no reason to ban SSM any more. It's not a mystery.
Sir X wrote:
Their whole culture was still based around religion though. Most of the country was christian, and so thinking that being gay is morally wrong, it would never have come up to allow them to get married. It was absolutely about the religious culture at the time. It wouldn't have occurred to them to allow gay marriage.
Let me get this clear. You're asserting that when the US was founded, the people there looked at marriage and actually said, lets keep excluding the gays, not because it's religiously wrong, but for some other reason? do you really believe that?
Let me get this clear. You're asserting that when the US was founded, the people there looked at marriage and actually said, lets keep excluding the gays, not because it's religiously wrong, but for some other reason? do you really believe that?
Ugly wrote:
MDenham wrote:
Has anyone given a reason yet why plural marriage should be disallowed other than the mistaken idea that it encourages orgies?
I suppose there's always gbaji's tax benefits spiel. Let's be honest though, it's 100% because God says it's icky.
Ugly wrote:
All we have to do to ruin religion is allow gays to marry? Centuries wasted.
Catwho wrote:
What dimension of the US do you live in, where there are no fundamentalist churches who run "straightening out" camps to try to cure homosexuals of their "disease"?
Belkira wrote:
Religion will continue to fill the role of telling mindless sheep that homosexuality is wrong, don't you worry about that.
Belkira wrote:
Religion will still be an authoritative voice that condemns homosexuality, and it will not go away. I am, of course, speaking mostly of Christians, since that is the largest religious voice in the United States.
Bsphil wrote:
So, why is it that people are so vehemently anti-gay marriage anyway? Aside from the usual suspects:
1) God said so.
2) Slippery slope.
3) Destroy marriage?
4) Some sort of tax argument?
#1 is garbage because of the separation of church and state, #2 is irrelevant, #3 has been said countless times but never once explained by anyone (ever), and #4 is a peculiar one that only gbaji seems to believe from what I've heard.
1) God said so.
2) Slippery slope.
3) Destroy marriage?
4) Some sort of tax argument?
#1 is garbage because of the separation of church and state, #2 is irrelevant, #3 has been said countless times but never once explained by anyone (ever), and #4 is a peculiar one that only gbaji seems to believe from what I've heard.
Almalieque wrote:
Exodus wrote:
I thought that all sins carried the same weight or some such? So, premarital sex is just as bad as gay sex and listening to "world music." Oh, and cussing is bad too...etc...etc...
I wasn't going to get into this, but since you brought it up, many of the things that are considered "sin", aren't actually "sin" by themselves. Any thing that keeps you from being prosperous, healthy, or any other role or trait described in the Bible can be considered as a "sin".
So, drinking alcohol isn't a "sin", getting drunk beating your spouse and kids and not remembering anything, is. So, as a result, religion typically preaches against alcohol for that reason. Homosexuality isn't in that category, it is blatantly described as a "sin" along with adultery and incest. There's no interpretation issue.
So, basically, they ARE sins, but nobody wanted to follow them so they were made exceptions. Even using alcohol as an example, I'm pretty sure you drink more than just a glass of wine per day for a healthier heart. Hell, by your own definition, getting drunk alone is bad, since you can potentially ***** up your insides...don't have to add beating your wife for it to be a sin.
Hell, one of the 7 deadly sins is gluttony, isn't it? So, all overweight people are going to hell right with the gays, right?
Do you gamble?
My point is that there's too many things that are sins which makes anyone fixated on homosexuality being a sin seems completely hateful versus trying to "accomplish something greater" or "cleanse humanity" or whatever the floop. To quote the bible, "Ye without sin, cast the first stone." ie, worry about your damn selves and let everyone else live with their own sins. This whole DADT policy update affects you how? You now know they won't get kicked out? Great. Move on. Didn't really need a thread and I still don't see why you have this need to chime in ever gay thread to speak nonsense, then cry later on how nobody ever wants to deal with you in other threads. You could've made your OP in one of the existing threads on the subject.
Just about any post I actually read from you, on days where I'm either bored or days like today where I just felt like padding my post count, all I get is this:
idiggory wrote:
Probably because a large population actually wanted to take it up the pooper and got shot in the eyes, but couldn't admit to themselves that they did. So they got really violent about it. But being overly angry about it alone makes you stick out, so they needed to get everyone else angry about it too.
And I mean this literally. Homophobia didn't emerge until a dialogue for gay identity opened up. It wasn't until people could ask themselves "Am I gay?" that any kind of widespread homophobic front formed.
And I mean this literally. Homophobia didn't emerge until a dialogue for gay identity opened up. It wasn't until people could ask themselves "Am I gay?" that any kind of widespread homophobic front formed.
Almalieque wrote:
5. Admittedly a "weak" argument, but is something true just to keep in the back of your mind, nor you or I are religious experts. If we can think of something that appears to be so blatantly contradictory, I assure you the numerous of Religious instructors with PhD's have all found some combination of verses to counter your statement.
Almalieque wrote:
To believe that you, Nilatia, the religiously ignorant (simply not knowing, nothing personal) poster of allakhazam would be able to "check mate" the entire religious base on a religious concept (i.e. not a fact vs fiction) is just silly.
Laughable, I know more about your religion than you do.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Nadenu wrote:
For the record, I disagree with everything Alma has ever said. About anything.
Seconded.
Exodus wrote:
So, basically, they ARE sins
NO..
Reread what I said.
I countered your point and instead of accepting it, you're ignoring it. I never denied that people sin, but that doesn't change the fact that things are still sin and people still preach against them.
Your entire argument is "people sin all of the time, so therefore homosexuality isn't a sin and/or shouldn't be bothered". There wouldn't be a need for Jesus existence if there weren't sinners. Your logic fails horribly.
And no, I don't drink nor gamble.
Nilatai wrote:
Name one.
Name one what?
I'm not sure you understand my point. My point is, if you come up with a "get rich quick" scheme or a method to "cheat the system" using something very common such as religion, chances are, people have already thought of it before you.
Nilatai wrote:
Laughable, I know more about your religion than you do.
Some how I doubt that to be true, given that you haven't provided anything to support that only the contrary. Even if that were somehow true (as there are non-religious people who study religion), that means nothing in reference to religion if you're not actually practicing it.
So all those sources of "people agreeing with you" all have to do with why marriage developed to be what it is today? You really do live in your own little world, don't you?
It's just funny, because this doesn't actually add any support to your argument.
It's also funny, because you still think you can boil down the tenants of a religion to the beliefs of only some within it, even if alternate viewpoints are perfectly valid.
Oh, and the church didn't really give a crap about ****** until the late 1970s, a decade after the gay rights movement began. That's when some ***** (a former pageant queen named Anita Bryant) started the Save Our Children campaign. Literally, for 10 years, religious institutions hadn't taken a stance on homosexuality--many of the strongest ***** rights groups met in churches.
That began a trend that grew into the fight over SSM (as the original group formed to overturn basic anti-discrimination laws). Relatively few groups are in favor of removing all rights from gays, and the majority of this nation (which is overwhelmingly Christian) is in favor of civil unions.
What people get hung up on is marriage. And I'm not going to deny that its primarily due to homophobia or religion, but the point is that they think they aren't being homophobic in denying it. They believe that marriage is somehow inextricably linked to heterosexuality.
SOME of those people believe that gays should have no rights at all, of course. But they are a minority. And they are a minority of churches.
Most churches have accepted that homosexuality is now a fundamental part of our society. They just feel that there is certain domain that is reserved for heterosexual unions (because they are retarded). But gay rights and SSM are not the same thing.
Let me put it to you this way. Two or three years ago, the priest in my parents' church moved to HI and they were given an interim priest by the diocese. She was openly gay, often referred to god as a "mother," etc.
Only some of the older members had any problem with that. Everyone else was fine. And this is a church with people who all flipped out when she gave a sermon saying that the bread and wine were a symbol of Jesus, not his actual flesh and blood.
And that's pretty much the entire Episcopal/Anglican church. A lot of those people, on the other hand, are probably in favor of civil unions but against gay marriage. It's homophobic, yes. But it's homophobic in a way they honestly can't see. And many of them would have felt the same way even if they weren't Christian, because it's the way society has worked their entire lives.
It's just funny, because this doesn't actually add any support to your argument.
It's also funny, because you still think you can boil down the tenants of a religion to the beliefs of only some within it, even if alternate viewpoints are perfectly valid.
Oh, and the church didn't really give a crap about ****** until the late 1970s, a decade after the gay rights movement began. That's when some ***** (a former pageant queen named Anita Bryant) started the Save Our Children campaign. Literally, for 10 years, religious institutions hadn't taken a stance on homosexuality--many of the strongest ***** rights groups met in churches.
That began a trend that grew into the fight over SSM (as the original group formed to overturn basic anti-discrimination laws). Relatively few groups are in favor of removing all rights from gays, and the majority of this nation (which is overwhelmingly Christian) is in favor of civil unions.
What people get hung up on is marriage. And I'm not going to deny that its primarily due to homophobia or religion, but the point is that they think they aren't being homophobic in denying it. They believe that marriage is somehow inextricably linked to heterosexuality.
SOME of those people believe that gays should have no rights at all, of course. But they are a minority. And they are a minority of churches.
Most churches have accepted that homosexuality is now a fundamental part of our society. They just feel that there is certain domain that is reserved for heterosexual unions (because they are retarded). But gay rights and SSM are not the same thing.
Let me put it to you this way. Two or three years ago, the priest in my parents' church moved to HI and they were given an interim priest by the diocese. She was openly gay, often referred to god as a "mother," etc.
Only some of the older members had any problem with that. Everyone else was fine. And this is a church with people who all flipped out when she gave a sermon saying that the bread and wine were a symbol of Jesus, not his actual flesh and blood.
And that's pretty much the entire Episcopal/Anglican church. A lot of those people, on the other hand, are probably in favor of civil unions but against gay marriage. It's homophobic, yes. But it's homophobic in a way they honestly can't see. And many of them would have felt the same way even if they weren't Christian, because it's the way society has worked their entire lives.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Almalieque wrote:
Exodus wrote:
So, basically, they ARE sins
NO..
Reread what I said.
I countered your point and instead of accepting it, you're ignoring it. I never denied that people sin, but that doesn't change the fact that things are still sin and people still preach against them.
Your entire argument is "people sin all of the time, so therefore homosexuality isn't a sin and/or shouldn't be bothered". There wouldn't be a need for Jesus existence if there weren't sinners. Your logic fails horribly.
And no, I don't drink nor gamble.
Nilatai wrote:
Name one.
Name one what?
I'm not sure you understand my point. My point is, if you come up with a "get rich quick" scheme or a method to "cheat the system" using something very common such as religion, chances are, people have already thought of it before you.
Nilatai wrote:
Laughable, I know more about your religion than you do.
Some how I doubt that to be true, given that you haven't provided anything to support that only the contrary. Even if that were somehow true (as there are non-religious people who study religion), that means nothing in reference to religion if you're not actually practicing it.
Quote:
NO..
Reread what I said.
I countered your point and instead of accepting it, you're ignoring it. I never denied that people sin, but that doesn't change the fact that things are still sin and people still preach against them.
Your entire argument is "people sin all of the time, so therefore homosexuality isn't a sin and/or shouldn't be bothered". There wouldn't be a need for Jesus existence if there weren't sinners. Your logic fails horribly.
And no, I don't drink nor gamble.
Reread what I said.
I countered your point and instead of accepting it, you're ignoring it. I never denied that people sin, but that doesn't change the fact that things are still sin and people still preach against them.
Your entire argument is "people sin all of the time, so therefore homosexuality isn't a sin and/or shouldn't be bothered". There wouldn't be a need for Jesus existence if there weren't sinners. Your logic fails horribly.
And no, I don't drink nor gamble.
That's not it at all. His point is that priests NEVER preach about those things, because they pick and choose what they like. You can't make the argument that "it's in the bible so it's part of Christianity" when there is no standard for accepting, interpreting, or denying what is in the old testement. Because, like we said, the percentage of churches (not just people) that accept everything in the OT as truth is a very, very small minority. Especially because it is literally impossible to do so. Why?
Because the reason the Jews put Jesus to death as a false messiah was that he was changing laws established by previous prophets. You can't believe everything in the OT and everything Jesus says--they aren't compatible.
Believing that a priest should teach everything in the bible, then, is absurd.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Quote:
Look guy, I'm tired of pretending that you and I aren't gay lovers just so that you can +1. Let's just tell everyone about our lurid affair.
Hold on, let me get you some penicillin.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
NO..
Reread what I said.
I countered your point and instead of accepting it, you're ignoring it. I never denied that people sin, but that doesn't change the fact that things are still sin and people still preach against them.
Your entire argument is "people sin all of the time, so therefore homosexuality isn't a sin and/or shouldn't be bothered". There wouldn't be a need for Jesus existence if there weren't sinners. Your logic fails horribly.
And no, I don't drink nor gamble.
Reread what I said.
I countered your point and instead of accepting it, you're ignoring it. I never denied that people sin, but that doesn't change the fact that things are still sin and people still preach against them.
Your entire argument is "people sin all of the time, so therefore homosexuality isn't a sin and/or shouldn't be bothered". There wouldn't be a need for Jesus existence if there weren't sinners. Your logic fails horribly.
And no, I don't drink nor gamble.
That's not it at all. His point is that priests NEVER preach about those things, because they pick and choose what they like. You can't make the argument that "it's in the bible so it's part of Christianity" when there is no standard for accepting, interpreting, or denying what is in the old testement. Because, like we said, the percentage of churches (not just people) that accept everything in the OT as truth is a very, very small minority. Especially because it is literally impossible to do so. Why?
Because the reason the Jews put Jesus to death as a false messiah was that he was changing laws established by previous prophets. You can't believe everything in the OT and everything Jesus says--they aren't compatible.
Believing that a priest should teach everything in the bible, then, is absurd.
Exactly.
I never said homosexuality isn't a sin. I simply said that it's on the long list of things that are, in fact, sins. What your preacher decides to preach about, and worse, what you decide to judge people on is all on you and not the bibles fault. Hell, you shouldn't be judging anyone for their sins anyway:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
Even your bible is telling you to leave them gays alone. Yet, instead, your same preachers will pick and choose which sinners to verbally attack...and for what? To hide his/her own faults?
***** please. You can say I missed your point and assume you know mines, but in reality, you don't know **** about your own religion. In your defense, though, the moral majority are just as ignorant.
Exodus wrote:
Didn't really need a thread and I still don't see why you have this need to chime in ever gay thread to speak nonsense, then cry later on how nobody ever wants to deal with you in other threads. You could've made your OP in one of the existing threads on the subject.
This right here. This.
I also like how he blames us for only ever talking about homosexuality... after he made a thread about it.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Recent Visitors: 156
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (156)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- Update on DADT Policy
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC