- This topic has 883 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 10 2009,04:11) He has not retracted it because your view has not been substantiated. You simply hate homosexuals, that much is obvious.
Do you think he hates them as much as you hate believers?I mean, does he spend his time in Homosexual forums putting them down like you come here putting peoples faith down?
Remember the speck and the log parable?
Amazing how you can forget simple wisdom and end up condemning things that you are actively doing yourself.
Let's be honest KJ. If are behaving in the same manner as those who persecute homosexuals, then you condemn yourself. You accuse him of hating homosexuals when I think that he is saying that he hates sin. So if you think he hates homosexuals, then how much more do you hate believers based on the same judgement? After all you have probably posted hundreds of posts against believers.
Of course it is your choice to behave how you want.
Just pointing out a double standard here though.Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 10 2009,04:21) Please, you guys wouldn't know real persecution if it bit you on the nose. Opposing an ancient goat herder mindset is not persecution
OK, so opposing homosexuals and saying all kinds of negative things to them about what they believe is persecution and when done to Christians it isn't persecution.Worse, I am not even sure that anyone here is saying nasty things about homosexuals, but is talking about sin and putting it on par with any other sin. I could be wrong, I haven't read this whole thread.
But it is certain from what I have read that you have spoken harshly against believers on many occasions.
Isn't that hypocritical KJ?
You can't pick and choose a group and say that one type of behaviour against one is different when done to another because you like one group better than the other. You are only trying to justify your actions KJ.
Presecution comes in many forms. From murder to hateful speech, it is a practice and condition. It is not a one off thing said in a heated moment but a systematic attack against another person or group.
Dictionary
A program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate a people because of their religion, race, or beliefs: the persecutions of Christians by the Romans.
“oppression for the holding of a belief or opinion,”
Wikipedia
Quote Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group. The most common forms are religious persecution, ethnic persecution, and political persecution, though there is naturally some overlap between these terms Quote The persecution of Christians is religious persecution that Christians sometimes undergo as a consequence of professing their faith, both historically and in the current era. In the two thousand years of the Christian faith, about 70 million believers have been killed for their faith, of whom 45.5 million or 65% were in the twentieth century according to “The New Persecuted” (“I Nuovi Perseguitati”).[4] Quote (t8 @ Aug. 10 2009,06:10) Do you think he hates them as much as you hate believers? More, because I do not hate believers.
Quote I mean, does he spend his time in Homosexual forums putting them down like you come here putting peoples faith down? Look at my posting history over the last months. I have a handful of posts, and the latest was to simply question why you guys are so fearful of homosexuals.
Quote Remember the speck and the log parable? Yes, do you? Practice what you preach.
Quote Amazing how you can forget simple wisdom and end up condemning things that you are actively doing yourself. I believe in mythology?!?
Quote Let's be honest KJ. If are behaving in the same manner as those who persecute homosexuals, then you condemn yourself. You accuse him of hating homosexuals when I think that he is saying that he hates sin. So if you think he hates homosexuals, then how much more do you hate believers based on the same judgement? After all you have probably posted hundreds of posts against believers. Of course it is your choice to behave how you want.
Just pointing out a double standard here though.
I do not post against believers, I post against beliefs. I do not hold anyone in contempt for their beliefs unless such beliefs lead them to infringe upon the rights of others.What you do not care for is that I challenge your beliefs. You'd much rather have a nice little bubble of happy believers.
You make the rules, you can ban us at any time.
Faith that cannot hold up to questions is no faith at all.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 10 2009,06:25) OK, so opposing homosexuals and saying all kinds of negative things to them about what they believe is persecution and when done to Christians it isn't persecution. Um…care to show me where I ever said anyone was persecuting homosexuals on here? You are trying to put words into my virtual mouth to support a weak argument.
Quote Worse, I am not even sure that anyone here is saying nasty things about homosexuals, but is talking about sin and putting it on par with any other sin. I could be wrong, I haven't read this whole thread. But it is certain from what I have read that you have spoken harshly against believers on many occasions.
Please provide evidence for the bolded above. I challenge beliefs. If that hurts your feelings, grow a thicker skin or find more faith.
Quote Isn't that hypocritical KJ? You can't pick and choose a group and say that one type of behaviour against one is different when done to another because you like one group better than the other. You are only trying to justify your actions KJ.
*sigh*
Try your best to “demonize” my actions t8. All I asked initially was why there where so many homosexual threads, and why folks here were so homophobic. Simple questions.
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill!
Quote Presecution comes in many forms. From murder to hateful speech, it is a practice and condition. It is not a one off thing said in a heated moment but a systematic attack against another person or group. Dictionary
A program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate a people because of their religion, race, or beliefs: the persecutions of Christians by the Romans.
“oppression for the holding of a belief or opinion,”
Wikipedia
Quote Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group. The most common forms are religious persecution, ethnic persecution, and political persecution, though there is naturally some overlap between these terms Quote The persecution of Christians is religious persecution that Christians sometimes undergo as a consequence of professing their faith, both historically and in the current era. In the two thousand years of the Christian faith, about 70 million believers have been killed for their faith, of whom 45.5 million or 65% were in the twentieth century according to “The New Persecuted” (“I Nuovi Perseguitati”).[4] (1) To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority: a people who were oppressed by tyranny.
(2) To weigh heavily on: Poverty oppresses the spirit.
(3) Obsolete. To overwhelm or crush.So, just who am I “oppressing” on here?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Aug. 10 2009,13:14) [/quote] Quote (Paladin @ Aug. 10 2009,03:44) WhatIsTrue,Aug. wrote:Paladin,
So the question remains:
Was the ingestion of shellfish ever evil?
Only to the Jews to whom it was forbidden fruit. Remember, they were a Theocracy, which means their God legislated their laws for them.(WIT) In other words, it was an arbitrary rule that had no real purpose other than as a stumbling block for God's “chosen people”.
(P) If you have ever been in school, or high school, or college, did your teachers give you tests to let you see what you needed more help in to learn? Or did they just put
“stumbling blocks” in your way to hold you back and embarrass you?(WIT)
Quote It sounds like these “chosen people” should have rejected the deal and stayed pagans. They might have had a better chance to form some sensible rules. And, they could have had lobster while they discussed it! Could be. But then those “Pagans” would never have developed the laws that made them the envy of the ancient world. The Queen of Egypt would never have sought out Solomon, King of Israel, and reputed to be the wisest of all men. No, I think they got a very good bargain. The fact they could not continue to behave themselves has no bearing on the fact of their blessings from God.
Quote (Paladin @ Aug. 10 2009,07:13) But then those “Pagans” would never have developed the laws that made them the envy of the ancient world.
Is this statement supported outside of the bible?Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 11 2009,00:55) Quote (Paladin @ Aug. 10 2009,07:13) But then those “Pagans” would never have developed the laws that made them the envy of the ancient world.
Is this statement supported outside of the bible?
Any good history of ancient societies.Paladin wrote:
Quote If you have ever been in school, or high school, or college, did your teachers give you tests to let you see what you needed more help in to learn? Or did they just put
“stumbling blocks” in your way to hold you back and embarrass you?Yes, my teachers typically asked me questions that were actually relevant to my understanding of the subject. They didn't ask me questions like, “What color skirt was I wearing yesterday?” They could have, but they chose to actually test my knowledge – not my ability to remember irrelevant facts.
Do you think whether or not someone eats shellfish contirbutes to morality or is irrelevant to it? If the former, how so? If the latter, then why did God include it in the law? (Arbitrary stumbling block?)
Quote (Paladin @ Aug. 10 2009,08:40) Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 11 2009,00:55) Quote (Paladin @ Aug. 10 2009,07:13) But then those “Pagans” would never have developed the laws that made them the envy of the ancient world.
Is this statement supported outside of the bible?
Any good history of ancient societies.
You'll have to do better than that. If you truly believe that others were envious of the Israelites, you should be able to back your assertion up.Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 11 2009,04:07) Quote (Paladin @ Aug. 10 2009,08:40) Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 11 2009,00:55) Quote (Paladin @ Aug. 10 2009,07:13) But then those “Pagans” would never have developed the laws that made them the envy of the ancient world.
Is this statement supported outside of the bible?
Any good history of ancient societies.
You'll have to do better than that. If you truly believe that others were envious of the Israelites, you should be able to back your assertion up.
If you drive up to a stop sign in traffic, do you say “You'll have to do better than that, explain yourself?” Or do you stop?I was informing, not educating. You can go online for your education, you have already been informed.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Aug. 11 2009,02:20) Paladin wrote: Quote If you have ever been in school, or high school, or college, did your teachers give you tests to let you see what you needed more help in to learn? Or did they just put
“stumbling blocks” in your way to hold you back and embarrass you?Yes, my teachers typically asked me questions that were actually relevant to my understanding of the subject. They didn't ask me questions like, “What color skirt was I wearing yesterday?” They could have, but they chose to actually test my knowledge – not my ability to remember irrelevant facts.
Do you think whether or not someone eats shellfish contirbutes to morality or is irrelevant to it? If the former, how so? If the latter, then why did God include it in the law? (Arbitrary stumbling block?)
“Morality” has yet to be defined. If by “morality” you mean
“righteous acts and pious thoughts,” you get one understanding, but if you mean “law keeping,” You get a different understanding.I was not speaking of morality, but of law keeping.
Israel was a Theocracy, meaning God gave them laws to obey. It didn't matter if it was a moral law, a civil law, a fashion law, a dietary law, or one of establishing the sacrifical sequences, all were laws, and all were agreed to by the people.
Anytime a people agree to a law to gain, in order to gain from the agreement, they are then bound by that law. And if that agreement also includes penalties for disobedience, they are then subject to the punishments outlined in that agreement.
THAT is the description of the Covenant Israel made with God. They agreed to obey his laws, and worship him as God, if he would bless them above other men; and they agreed that if they disobey in some future context, he was to punish them as outlined in their covenant.
He blessed them, they became fat and lazy, forgot him, and he reminded them with punishment as outlined in the covenant.
You have a problem with that, take it up witn God.
Paladin wrote:
Quote “Morality” has yet to be defined. If by “morality” you mean “righteous acts and pious thoughts,” you get one understanding, but if you mean “law keeping,” You get a different understanding. I was not speaking of morality, but of law keeping.
Again, so what is wrong with my statement:
Quote In other words, it was an arbitrary rule that had no real purpose other than as a stumbling block for God's “chosen people”. If the shellfish law was not arbitrary, then what was it's practical purpose? If the shellfish law was not merely one of many unnecessary stumbling blocks within the law, then why include it?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Aug. 11 2009,06:19)
Again, so what is wrong with my statement:Quote In other words, it was an arbitrary rule that had no real purpose other than as a stumbling block for God's “chosen people”. I have told you twice now, it is not a stumbling block. It is a law placed to see if the people are serious about obeying it.
There are always people who want the good that comes from agreement, but have no idea about the daily tedium. So God included some tedium to see if the people really wanted covenant with him.
That is the same as it is with some “Christians” who are willing to “join the church” so long as it does not make them uncomfortable. Or yelled at. Or attacked for their biases. As soon as some neighbor tries to make it hot for Christians, or churches, they fold. Not all Christians, mind you, but enough to make it a problem.
Then there are others who are willing to put up with anything as long as it makes for peace in the neighborhood. THAT is not Christianity, that is “churchanity.”
Paladin,
I guess this is a case of not defining terms. Let me illustrate it this way.
If I tell my three year old not to eat any cookies before dinner, there is a clear reason behind it. I don't want him to fill up on junk, or overload on sugar. But, if, when he gets his dinner, I tell him not to eat any of the food that is on the top left corner of his plate – or he will forfeit his whole dinner – I think that most people would find it extremely petty of me to even think of enforcing such a rule. It would certainly test his obedience, but it would merely represent a potential stumbling block on his way to eating a full meal.
It's a rule that serves no other purpose than to give him another way to disobey me. What would you call it?
Quote (Paladin @ Aug. 10 2009,12:07) If you drive up to a stop sign in traffic, do you say “You'll have to do better than that, explain yourself?” Or do you stop? I was informing, not educating. You can go online for your education, you have already been informed.
IOW, another assertion that you can't back up.Quote (Stu @ Aug. 09 2009,05:18) Your pop psychology is trivial t8.
I think this says it all:
If you say to anyone from a group that you do not belong to (and especially if it has been persecuted for their looks, culture or beliefs), whether they be negro, jew, homosexual, christian, female, male, poor, foreigner, disabled, then you are persecuting them.
You have not actually stated what the persecution is! And you certainly have not said what part of me telling you that your faith is a lame delusion is PERSECUTION.
I love the christian but hate the mental illness from which they suffer, while Jesus tells you to hate your family.
Stuart
Hi StuWhats wrong Stu, is t8's logic to sound for you?
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 09 2009,05:18) I love the christian but hate the mental illness from which they suffer, while Jesus tells you to hate your family.
So there you have it. We hate the mental illness that you suffer as an athiest and the homosexual who thinks its normal to have sex with the same sex, but we love you and the gays!If you consider that persecution, Oh well!
Persecution is the homosexual community trying to push their agenda down the boyscouts thoat!
As far as your misconstrued understanding of Jesus words, take it up with him, for we have already explained to you his meaning!
WJ
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 07 2009,21:17) All these homophobia threads. They are very clear cut and all completely necessary. Those who started them have comprehensive and widespread data from unbiased research that provides damning evidence of what they are claiming. [/sarcasm]
Stuart
Hi StuThe word homophobia is a cheap word that has no meaning to us who are not afraid, no more than a newly invented word like “Moralphobia” means to you or the gays!
BTW. why do you have so much passion in defending their immoral acts?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 07 2009,05:52) Quote (Cato @ Aug. 06 2009,07:08) WJ, I think you are taking a personal experience and extrapolating such to society in general which may be unfair. Ask almost any girl in the same age group and they will have plenty of stories of older men hitting on them. Face it men are biologically driven and this is true for both gay and straight. I am not justifying any bad behaviour but merely pointing out that you unfairly focus on one subset of the population. Women are rarely sexual predators so not being approached by older woman during the same ages only points to men not gay men necessarily. You need to look at the numbers of women being abused by straight men to realize this is a male problem not one of orientation. I think your own situation and history has understandably given you a bias that affects your objectivity on this subject.
CATOI think you are turning your face and shutting your eyes to reality.
Look at the number of adult straight men compared to the number of adult gay men and check the percentages of those who go after minors between the ages of 12 and 16 and you will see what I mean.
Just check my other poll out, out of only 4 people, 2 were approached by a gay person for sex between 12 and 16.
Lord knows if they are under 16 how many it might be.
WJ
And that's the way it was in ancient Greece too. Homosexuals haven't changed. Judeo-Christian laws in the U.S. have prevented them from being more aggressive.thinker
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 08 2009,13:14) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 07 2009,21:10) So WJ how about you give the stats that support what you are claiming. Stuart
StuTo start with we have 4 votes on this sight and 3 of them between 12 and 16 was approached by a gay person for sex.
Thats significant.
Sorry wrong thread. Nevertheless in the other poll 3 out of 6 were approached between the ages of 12 and 16 for sex by a gay person!
WJ
WJ,
The avatar Stu chose of the ape's eyes being covered was deliberate.thinker
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 11 2009,17:27) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 09 2009,05:18) Your pop psychology is trivial t8.
I think this says it all:
If you say to anyone from a group that you do not belong to (and especially if it has been persecuted for their looks, culture or beliefs), whether they be negro, jew, homosexual, christian, female, male, poor, foreigner, disabled, then you are persecuting them.
You have not actually stated what the persecution is! And you certainly have not said what part of me telling you that your faith is a lame delusion is PERSECUTION.
I love the christian but hate the mental illness from which they suffer, while Jesus tells you to hate your family.
Stuart
Hi StuWhats wrong Stu, is t8's logic to sound for you?
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 09 2009,05:18) I love the christian but hate the mental illness from which they suffer, while Jesus tells you to hate your family.
So there you have it. We hate the mental illness that you suffer as an athiest and the homosexual who thinks its normal to have sex with the same sex, but we love you and the gays!If you consider that persecution, Oh well!
Persecution is the homosexual community trying to push their agenda down the boyscouts thoat!
As far as your misconstrued understanding of Jesus words, take it up with him, for we have already explained to you his meaning!
WJ
WJ,
With the percentages of homosexual men who prey on boys it is only common sense for the Boy Scouts to prohibit homosexual club leaders. But Stu has no common sense.thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
