The CIC OT Zone's Official You're All Huge Idiots Religion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dark_Knight

Spaceman
vindicator said:
Hmm, I think I didn't make myself clear

what gives bush the right to opress the homosexual lifestyle, and futher more excersie his power to do that? and furthermore would you like it I became president and was outspoken on staright marrige being wrong and had a bible with my own scripture to back it up and then tried to outlaw straight marrige because I thought I was right?

-Rance-
first off..if he was to do that..he wouldnt be presidents anymore. second homo lifestyle is wrong and against God and the beliefs this country was built upon. this country was built around God's rules you know? i guess some people have forgotten that.
 

Bob McDob

Better Health Through Less Flavor
Dark_Knight said:
alright smartass keep it up...the Gulf Wars isnt what i was thinking..sure they show stuff, but not everything, like people dying and blood and guts. Virtual reality, or pc games, doesnt seem to be enough for some people.
And these people are ... hmm?

Referring to legalizing stuff i mean like marijuana.
Marijuana will be around no matter how hard we try to stamp it out. (Like gays). I'm simply proposing what I feel is the most logical choice in the matter, that's all.

and sure go ahead and ignore my post.
I would, but I'd like to clear up a few things first. Also, if you want me to ignore you, why are you talking to me?
 

Ghost

Emperor
Dark_Knight said:
first off..if he was to do that..he wouldnt be presidents anymore. second homo lifestyle is wrong and against God and the beliefs this country was built upon. this country was built around God's rules you know? i guess some people have forgotten that.
Yeah, i remember old Jeremiah Springfield and his friend Enoch Shellby
And i remember when Shelbyville was build, full of heteros marrying their brothers and sisters.
Damn, them all.
 

vindicator

Rear Admiral
Dark_Knight said:
first off..if he was to do that..he wouldnt be presidents anymore. second homo lifestyle is wrong and against God and the beliefs this country was built upon. this country was built around God's rules you know? i guess some people have forgotten that.
that's your opinion but again you haven't given me an answer what gives bush or anyone else the right to opress homosexuals
biblical reference? well if that's true then you can probably find the right reason to slaughter homosexuals if you look hard enough

-Rance-
 

Iceblade

Admiral
Ghost said:
Oh great, then straight people can do bad things like raping children and homo people!!!
I also don't agree with straight people doing this either, and it is also illegal in most countries, if not all-I would hope.
 

Ghost

Emperor
Iceblade said:
I also don't agree with straight people doing this either, and it is also illegal in most countries, if not all-I would hope.
I hope not!
I need more p0rn in my collection....and of course i need more people like you that buy that kind of p0rn. :)
 

Ghost

Emperor
Silly Bob
Straight people must also be gay...and gay people must also be straight...so everyone would be bisexual.
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
dextorboot said:
...Ok Preach, so you say that the Church has been wrong before and made many mistakes and yet you use the NT to back up your arguments... The NT is just a collection of texts that the Church decided should be part of their sacred texts.
...We now know that there were other texts Christians followed before the NT was what it is today.
...By doing what you're doing you're negating your own argument. By your own words, the Church could be wrong about what it included in the NT.
...It's also the Church's belief that the NT is man-made. Biblical historians confirm that there were other texts that didn't hold with what the Church wanted so they just keep them out. They also confirm the high possibility that (even though they believe it was written by God through the writers) the writers own beliefs entered the texts.
...To say that the RCC (or any other denomination) is wrong in its teachings, then using the sacred texts (colored by each denominations printing of it) to back your argument doesn't hold water. All you're really doing is deciding what parts of the Bible (whichever version you're using) should be taken literally and which should not...
...Most would agree that any word put at the beginning of a sentence is capitalized. You obviously recognize the two are related, meaning it's no accident that it's called "The Roman Catholic Church."
...My joke-o-meter is always on, the needle just doesn't move for jokes that aren't funny
(1) Um, could you please clarify why it is that you think my admitting the church has been wrong before has ANYthing to do with my using the NT to back up my arguments?... The NT is a collection of texts, sure..what about it?... The fact is, all the Christian faiths that I know of AGREE on which texts make up the canon of the NT; where there's some dispute is in the OT, not the NT. And there, it's just a matter of whether the 6 "bonus books" I referred to should be included or not. In any event, you won't ever find me citing THOSE books, because it would only create another dispute, and there's nothing in them that I need to draw on at all. The ones that we ALL agree on will do quite nicely.
(2) Sure there were other texts that the NT writers used. Most of us call it "The Old Testament". If you're referring to other stuff that "didn't make it into" the canon of NT scripture, the church eventually decided that (for various reasons) those texts didn't meet the test to be considered as such. And since about 400 AD (give or take a couple hundred years, if memory serves correctly), ALL Christendom has agreed on what books belong in the NT.
(3) Um, hate to pop yer bubble, bub but I never said "the Church could be wrong about what it included in the NT". Instead of trying to put words in my mouth, how 'bout you concentrate on what words are flowing out of your keyboard, since they clearly a bit disjointed and incoherent (see #4 & #5 below).
(4) Not quite, pal. Obviously human hands physically wrote the NT, and human minds/hands assembled the texts, but I know of know credible Christian source/denomination that claims that the Bible was "man-made, in the sense that you seem to be using the term. And BTW, how do you reconcile your claim that "It's also the Church's belief that the NT is man-made" with the ensuing sentence "They also ... believe it was written by God through the writers..."?... The only logical solution to that dichotomy is if you're alleging that the "church" is at odds with the biblical historians on the issue. So, IS that what you're saying?... If so, then please SAY so; if NOT, then, good Lord, man, please clean up your writing and start to write coherently. :rolleyes:
Finally, the writers own beliefs only entered the texts in that they believed that what they were writing was true. So what?... Seems you're implying that the writers "added" to what God told 'em to write. Not so, and if it IS what you're trying to say, I'd like to know how they (or better, YOU) intend on going about proving that hypothesis...
(5) Are you for real?... If one can't use the sacred texts of THAT very religion to back one's argument for/against a doctrinal point of the same religion, then what, pray tell, is one SUPPOSED to use?... Not only does it "hold water", Professor Einstein, but it it's probably the most airtight, seaworthy method one CAN use. Perhaps you meant that one can't use one's OWN religious texts to disprove the tenets of ANOTHER faith. If so, you need to do some remedial work on your English composition.
Anyhoo, as a Christian (and an evangelical, in case yer wondering), I believe in the whole Bible, and with the exception of the 6 "bonus books" I mentioned, it's the same Bible that Catholics use. What parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and which are not is a question that has largely been settled for most of the body of the biblical text. Are there some legitimate disagreements between denominations about some stuff? Sure, but those account for little of the body of the text, and pointedly NOT the passage I quoted (esp. since the "Jesus is the only way" theme is repeated so generously elsewhere in the NT). Here, try these on for size:

"...that it was done by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean, whom you crucified and whom God raised from the dead. In the power of that name this man stands before you perfectly sound. This Jesus is `the stone rejected by you the builders which has become the cornerstone. '. There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be saved."
(Acts 4:10b-12, from the New American Bible - a.k.a., the "NAB" - a standard ROMAN CATHOLIC translation)


"ALL Scripture is inspired of God and is useful for teaching - for reproof, correction, and training in holiness, so that the man of God may be fully competent and equipped for every good work."
(2 Timothy 3:16, emphasis mine. Again, taken from the NAB...)


That pretty handily torpedos your erroneous theory...
(6) Um, so?...You can put in the last paragraph at the end of the sentence on the bottom of the page for all the difference it makes. The RCC clearly chose their name for a reason. Duh. I was pointing out that "catholic" refers to the concept, and "Catholic" tends to refer to the proper name of the specific denomination.
(7) Oh, well in that case you might wanna check & see if yer sarcasmometer is functional. Oftentimes that ends up being the root of the problem. Hint: The word "Sheesh" often indicates nearby humor and/or sarcasm.

Pedro said:
...I give up, I mean you can't even see the problems with a fair and just god requiring your love to goto heaven,
...your belief despite the evidence leaning far in the direction of him not actually existing, scientific evidence contradicting everything in the bible...
-- That's because there ARE no problems. My parents were pretty fair and just, yet once I turned 18, they made it clear that, if I were to come back and live in their home, there were certain guidelines that were to be followed (no drugs in the house, no sleeping with girls under their roof, no firearms or high explosives, etc.), and if those were not followed by me, I was no longer welcome to live in their house.
The reasoning went something like this: "You're our son, and we love you. We will always love you. But you're 18, and are able now to live on your own. You're capable of making adult choices. But you also are responsible to live with the consequences of those choices. If you decide to violate our guidelines, you can find yourself somewhere else to live." Same principle with God.
-- You are so far off-base here I'll hafta ask you to get me a hotdog from the concession stand, since you're out there anyway:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy"- Bill Shakespeare.
"Jesus said, 'If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains'. "'. -John 9:41
 

Bob McDob

Better Health Through Less Flavor
Gays, Secularly Speaking

Perhaps I should use the apparent lull to further clarify my theory on this issue.

The standard mindset on homosexuality is that it revolves around sex ... which is technically true (just as it is between men and women), but misleading. Furthermore, I believe the importance of sex has been exaggerated by especially militant gay rights activists (you know who I mean).

I believe there are two types of people, True Heterosexual (i.e., attracted to the opposite sex with little to no interest in the same) and True Homosexual (vice versa). Both have the same "equipment" as such (i.e., have sex with either the same or opposite sex). However, only "True Homosexuals" are capable of harboring genuine romantic feelings for the same sex to accompany their sexuality. A man can have his anus ... erm, stimulated by another man, but without genuine attraction this is nothing more than an elaborate case of masturbation. I have done some questioning of homosexuals I know, and all of them speak of a quite strong attraction (even lust) for the same sex. To me, this denies any possibility heterosexuals and homosexuals are alike in this matter.

So why don't I propose turning gays straight? I probably would, if I could ... but the fact of the matter is, WE CAN'T. Homosexuals have been around since at least the ancient Greeks, probably longer. The biggest amount of homoerotic literature was written during the Renaissance, when various churches were actively involved in "burning fags on a pile of fags". Continuing the Vietnam analogy, it kept alive the hope that "just one more ... will end this war".

It didn't work. Here's what some gays think about it.

There is a difference between behavior and desire. Let me give you an example. I do not like liver. Now, if I must, I can eat liver. If I had nothing else to subsist on, I would probably grow accustomed to eating it. My behavior can change. The fact that I do not like liver would not change. In the same way, I could make myself go after women. There was one girl a few years ago who was interested in me; if I had tried, I probably could have married her. At the time I could probably even have had sex with her. That does not mean that my desires would change.

That is one of the tricks of the ex-gay groups. They do not distinguish between behavior and desire. To them, homosexuality is living a stereotypical promiscuous lifestyle. Very often, when you ask the converts, they will tell you that they still feel homosexual desires, but they do not act on them. They define homosexuality by a certain behavior, so if a person is celibate, he is not homosexual.

There was recently one study of these groups. A psychologist asked the ministries to send him lists of contacts, giving them every opportunity to pick only their best cases. Of the individuals he then contacted, the majority did not return his survey. We would assume that real successes would be quick to answer his questions and show that their religion worked. Of those that responded, he determined something like 5% experienced a real permanent change. Of course, he did not have the opportunity to interview them all personally, so it is impossible to be sure that none of the "successes" were lying or bisexual, and he only got a few hundred replies, making the results statistically meaningless.

Also keep in mind that, for the male at least, sex is to a large degree mechanical and automatic. An eighteen year old boy could stick it in anything that was not painfully uncomfortable. Only opportunity and personal shame will inhibit his sexual behavior. The average teenage boy, if honest with himself, will have to admit that he could sleep with a man if he chose, and so he might think that homosexuality is a choice. What he has to ask himself is if he would really want to sleep with men. That is the difference. Once he gets past his sexual prime and his hormones calm down a bit so that arousal is not automatic, then he will understand how important desire can be.
John Paulk. He and his wife were both "ex-gays." They splashed their faces across the country in full-page newspaper ads for how the "truth" can let people change.

Lo and behold, Paulik was caught in a Baltimore gay bar (one I've been to a few times, actually) by some of those who fight the ex-gay movement. He made a lame excuse that he had just stopped in to use the bathroom. Gee, John, then why did you have that drink in your hand, and why were you hitting on guys?

It was a huge embarrassment to the "Ex-gay" movement, and sent them running with their tail between their legs. Paulk confirmed in interviews even before this incident what psychologists and other experts said all along--his sexual attraction for men never went away, he just suppressed it and forced himself to be heterosexual in action.

Exodus and other groups never publish their "success" numbers. That's because they are all dismal failures. The AMA and APA both roundly condemn sexual conversion therapy as being mentally destructive to the patient. Any gay like myself who was in the closet for a while can testify to this pretty easily.

Oh, and the two men who founded Exodus eventually fell in love with each other and left the group, denouncing it for the fraud that it is. They are still together, as I recall.
The fact of the matter is, gays have always been around, even when they'll unpopular, even when THERE'S A CONCERTED EFFORT TO WIPE THEM OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH. They may be horrible immoral blasphemous deviant perverts, but last time I checked there wasn't a clause in the Constituion of the United States outlawing that (provided, of course, you don't hurt anyone). You may not like it, and to that I'll drop the pseudo-analytical approach and tell you my (somewhat frustrated, admittedly biased) opinion straight:

Quit bellyaching about it and deal with it.
 

Bob McDob

Better Health Through Less Flavor
vindicator said:
I never had any idea wow John paulk was my moms prime example yay I am so calling her tomorrow :D


-Rance-
Why do I feel like you're making me do all your grunt work for you? :(
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Preacher said:
God changing his policy from the OT to the NT?... Hmmm, wait a minute; lemme check...
"...you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand..."
(Exodus 21:23-24)
"But I tell you,... If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
(Matthew 5:39)
Um, yeah, that would seem to be a big 10-4...
Hmm. Just to play the devil's advocate, I feel compelled to ask you this - how do you know that the appointment of a gay bishop isn't a sign from God regarding another policy shift? :p
 

vindicator

Rear Admiral
Quarto said:
Hmm. Just to play the devil's advocate, I feel compelled to ask you this - how do you know that the appointment of a gay bishop isn't a sign from God regarding another policy shift? :p
Yay Fun :)

-Rance-
 

Napoleon

Spaceman
vindicator said:
would they really be straight then? :( :(

-Rance-
actually no they wouldnt. Pedopheliacs are almost exclusively heterosexuals. sorta seems against the definition, but homosexuality is a genetic thing, pedophelia is an aquired characteristic.
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Bob McDobb said:
...Don't be racist, thank you.
...What? This is like saying that you don't like spam, therefore the world doesn't like spam.
...Also, I don't believe that legalizing an institution is necessarily a step to promoting it - in fact, the opposite can occur
...Other examples don't exactly bear your argument out - Mormons don't drink alchohol, Creationists don't believe in evolution, Jews don't eat pork, yadda yadda yadda...
-- I'm not. The French are only a "race" in the sense of "Tour de France" (usually won by a certain American, thank you very much)
-- No it's like saying that the existence of even ONE purebred dog refutes the theory that "All dogs are mutts"... Silly Bob; you should know better.
-- Gee, that's funny; I seem to recall that since Roe v. Wade took effect, the # of abortions in this country have skyrocketed compared to before that; Once the legal age for drinking was dropped to 18, alcohol sales increased significantly; once RU-486 was made legal here, the drug company's sales of it have increased, etc., etc., etc.
The question is not "what CAN occur in some instances?"; the question is "what's LIKELY to occur most of the time?"
-- Um, I'm sorry, which argument of mine are porky Jewish Mormon creationists supposed to be tied in with?...

...Unless you are directly harming someone else, it's not the government's job to legislate morality.
... So why don't I propose turning gays straight? I probably would, if I could ... but the fact of the matter is, WE CAN'T. ...There was recently one study of these groups....Of those that responded, he determined something like 5% experienced a real permanent change. ...he only got a few hundred replies, making the results statistically meaningless.
-- Maybe not, but it is their job to ensure the health & survival of the citizenry, and of the republic, and legalizing gay marriage is counterproductive to both goals. I've posted my "why" previously here, so don't ask me the details; look it up yerself.
-- Um, no. Even if you accept that the success rates are far lower than what might be hoped for, the salient point is that it is possible at ALL. If it's possible at ALL, then it's not "hardwired" into them, since genetic traits are not open to being "changed" by force of will. Thus, the theory that it can't be "chosen" is refuted. In short, if you're talking about absolutes, even ONE becomes statistically significant...

... They do not distinguish between behavior and desire. Very often, when you ask the converts, they will tell you that they still feel homosexual desires, but they do not act on them.
-- Well, as far as the Christian faith is concerned, that would be sufficient. God does not condemn homo- or hetero- thoughts or feelings, only how the individual chooses to act on them. As a single hetero guy, if I got together w/ an old girlfriend of mine and started sleeping with her, I'd be just as guilty before God as any gay person sleeping with their partner. It ain't about the thoughts, it's about the actions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top