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

Status
Not open for further replies.

vindicator

Rear Admiral
Hmmm,

what did I do? :( so many arguments I don't think I care anymore I am tired and I haven't slept in 18 hours

-Rance-
 
yeah u should try that, but i will repeat that whilst i dont think marrage to gays is necicarly wrong i dont agree with them rasing children its imoral and not natural even if it wasnt
 
whats that mean exactly in one thing u say its horrid then u say its not an issue with u, does that mean it doesnt bother u? or that u dont like it, because it is unatural, it was not inted for ppl who couldnt have children to have children, more so in gay cases where they need part of a female or male to get them a child anyway
 

vindicator

Rear Admiral
I meant that any gay person should think about the child why should Johnny or suzzie have to explain or understand why they have 2 mommies/dadies?

-Rance
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
I don't know -- there are a lot of starving children in the world... if a gay couple wants to feed and clothe them, isn't that better than letting them die?
 

Hobbie

Spaceman
Wow, LOAF really should not have had to say that, it should be obvious to you two children. Maybe you guys would have problems with gay parents, and you are transfering that insecurity upon someone else. If a child is adopted at a young age, they won't know the difference until they are old enough and wise enough to understand that there is nothing wrong with it. It just shocks me that you would rather a child be poor, starving, or uneducated then have that child have two loving parents. WHO CARES IF THEY ARE GAY IF THEY CARE ABOUT THE CHILD? It's just amazing your selfishness and insecurity. OK, I am done ranting.
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
vindicator said:
Gay people adopting children as I said before is horrid and isn't an issue with me.
Wow. I'm impressed vin, at your stance on this. All too many folks on this issue forget the fact that its the welfare of the child that must remain paramount, not the desires of the would-be parents.
Bravo, way to go...
::claps::

Quarto said:
...Having established that - pray tell, exactly where do the scriptures talk about how bishops should be appointed and who is elegible for such positions?
...How about marriage - where do the scriptures talk about who is elegible to be married... indeed, where do they talk about who is elegible to conduct marriages?
...I haven't read much of the Bible, so partially I ask this out of curiosity... however, I'm also pretty sure that the answer to at least some of the above questions is 'nowhere'.
The emphasis is not so much on HOW they are to be appointed, but rather on WHO is eligible to be appointed. Inasmuch as an apostle to replace Judas was appointed by the remaining apostles (after much prayer by them), IIRC that a similar process was used for other leaders of the local churches. Anyway, the qualifications go like this:

"Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.".
(1Timothy 3:2-7)


Also similar passages exist elsewhere, beginning in verse 12 here, and with Titus 1:6. I'll not quote them here, since they're so similar to one another, but you can read 'em yerself. Those passages refer to the offices of deacon and elder. The bottom line, though, is this: These passaages show that someone like this Episcopal bishop guy clearly would NOT be eligible, since gayness was so clearly established both in the OT & NT as being a sin.
-- As to who can BE married, well, that's established back in Genesis (2:24), w/ the union of Adam & Eve. Christ then goes on to reinforce the idea in the gospel account (Matt 10; Mark 19), and Paul again in Ephesians 5. I don't recall any passage establishing who can PERFORM the ceremony, but within the context of the church, it has always been a duty exclusive to the clergy.
-- Only 1 of your questions had the answer of "nowhere", and that's only cuz I'm not aware of any such passages. Regardless, who can perform it is the least important of the questions. Anyhoo, If any one else can come up w/ such a passg, let us know.

Hobbie said:
Wow, LOAF really should not have had to say that, it should be obvious to you two children. Maybe you guys would have problems with gay parents... If a child is adopted...until they are old enough and wise enough to understand that there is nothing wrong with it. It just shocks me that you would rather a child be poor, starving, or uneducated then have that child have two loving parents. WHO CARES IF THEY ARE GAY IF THEY CARE ABOUT THE CHILD? It's just amazing your selfishness and insecurity. OK, I am done ranting.
Yup, "rant" pretty much nails it alright... :Methinks you misunderheard LOAFs post; he was saying that gay adoptive parents is better than no adoptive parents. In short, he's kinda AGREEING with you. I believe you owe the boy an apology...

@LOAF:
I would respond to your post by saying that feeding & clothing the child is one thing, but raising the child is quite another... The STATE can feed & clothe 'em (and does), but what the State ain't so good at is raising 'em.
That's where I'd hafta agree with Rance, and say that - all things considered - for child-rearing purposes, it's better for the child that they have straight parents.
Bob McDobb said:
Spluh, I'm worn out from the week and don't feel like responding in the near future ... let's just agree for now that generalizations are generally bad
Generally speaking, of course... :D
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
LOAF said:
Perhaps you are not familiar with THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORLD.
Oh. Um, whoops...

::faint sheepish grin::

Pedro said:
And for bloody hells sake stop saying gays shouldn't be married to eachother, that they should turn around get married with women and have kids, we're overpopulated enough as it is.
No one said they "should" become straight. All the Bible requires is that they remain celibate, since they biblically are ineligible to marry.

Now lets take you, for seemingly no reason based in this world you like to seperate the world in holy and evil sinners, hence hurting people, causing rifts, so forgetting about God you fall under the category of evil, remembering God we remember he doesn't need anything.
Um, nope. For one, we HAVE a reason, though you're sorta correct in saying it's not of this world: The Bible exists in our world, but it - for the Christian - came to us from another world; the kingdom of God. Also, there is no "separation" here; ALL are sinners (Romans 3:23). Hence, the rest of your passage is moot. I'll say again, God may not NEED mankind or its praises, but He has desired, and therefore has CHOSEN, to create us that we may love & adore Him. And, he has required of us that we do:

"He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.".
(Micah 6:8)


...By the way a parent sets rules and guidlines, they don't say "love me despite the fact I may not exisit or roast on the eternal fires of hell" in fact my parents probably wouldn't even simply turn me out to find my own place if a rift came between us, I guess that makes them more forgiving than your all loving creator.
...And personally I'd be more likley to put up someone I couldn't stand in my house...than someone who had murdered somebody...surely God should be a little more concerned too.
-- Either that, or your parents are just suckers (or to use a nicer, more clinical term: "co-dependent"). What I mean is this: I can't tell you how many parents have had Johnny stay home with them despite his breaking their rules and totally disprespecting their authority, only to end up having a totally selfish, self-absorbed, disrespectful, rebellious, law-breaking, lazy, drug using slacker on their hands that they end up eventually unleashing on society. Now of course, they regret it by the time it gets that far, only by then its too late, and all of US get to pick up the pieces. How do I know this? For one, statistics & sociologists alike bear this out. More personally, though, this is exactly how my ex-wife raised her son, and that's exactly how he turned out.
Bottom line? Love without discipline is one of the most unloving things you can do to a child. Rules without accountability are toothless. On the other hand, there are a large # of parents who realized that they need to enforce discipline on the kid, and they do what my parents did. Those parents end up gifting to society kids that are a lot more well-adjusted, considerate, law-abiding and good citizens than the alternative.
-- I guess what I'm saying here is that if you wanna raise your child the "first" way, you're hella lot more LIKELY to end up with a murderer on down the line. God IS "more concerned", bub: He knows this, and its exactly why He so strongly stresses that parents must raise their children to respect the authority of their parents, and the law in general.

I mean imagine a good honest human woman who happened to believe in god her whole life, despite everything that happened to her. She and mother were raped (yadda yadda yadda)....
there she finds her mothers killer and rapist who repented, the mob of people who killed her father as they believed they were doing gods work. By my definition that poor girl is in HELL
Um, I'm not gonna waste my time on this one except to say to you this: Go back & do some reading on this thread: This kinda thing has been addressed already. If you don't agee with it, fine, but don't argue with me, argue with my Maker...
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
vindicator said:
Gay people adopting children as I said before is horrid and isn't an issue with me
Say that again and I'll varnish this floor with your brains.
 

Hobbie

Spaceman
Preacher said:
Yup, "rant" pretty much nails it alright... :Methinks you misunderheard LOAFs post; he was saying that gay adoptive parents is better than no adoptive parents. In short, he's kinda AGREEING with you. I believe you owe the boy an apology...
I was AGREEING with LOAF, and ranting at vin and nath, but that's ok :).
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
dextorboot said:
...So basically what you're telling me is that the concensus among religious denominations determined what would be in the Bible and NT ..., yes? ...Ok, so by that theory so long as the concensus is that if people want-to-be/are gay then it's ok.
...The RCC has actually reconsidered (multiple times) adding some more texts. They not to be put in for various reasons (completion of the text, contradicting other texts, fear of the catholics not accepting them...)
...You're using them to back your argument against homosexuality then discounting your source by saying it has been wrong before.
...2 Timothy 3:16 - the real keyword there is "inspired."
Yo, Dex: try using the "Quote" tags next time; it'll make your posts hella easier to understand. Anyway:

-- No, that ain't what I'm saying. When the canon of Scripture was finalized, there WERE no denominations (least not in the sense that we mean the word today). Thus, your following theorum is invalid.
-- Your point, please?... Bottom line is that they DIDN'T add to the canon; you add nothing to the discussion by telling us this.
-- Funny, I don't ever recall saying that the Scriptures were wrong...
-- Right you are. According to the footnote in my NAB (RCC) version, this phrase/wording indicates that the Scripture "has God as its principle author", and sez " the Scriptures are the word of God in human language". Does that work better for ya?... In any event, that's essentially what I said from the get-go. I stand correct.

...Jesus says we can sin in thought also. Sorry pal.
...You may want to steer clear of Revelations for any of your arguments. It's prefaced by the author who claims it is no more than an account of what he saw, not what God told him to write...
...But it's not the first time a US prez has used his religious beliefs to dictate policy or American culture.
-- I guess there's no simplifying things for some people. I already pointed out that, the way the original poster phrased his assertion, it was oversimplified and thus not quite correct. I then went on to explain what the actual meaning was. Anyhoo, here's my response to that: Yes, we can sin in thought. But again, we only sin when we choose to entertain such thoughts; that is, to dwell on them and fantasize about them. Simply having a lust thought pass briefly thru your mind, there's no sin in that.
As my old priest used to say: "Sinful thoughts are gonna come knocking on your door; you only commit a sin when you open the door & invite 'em in for a cup of coffee". In this vein, to sin in thought IS to commit a sinful ACTION; the action of choosing to invite that thought in for coffee. Comprendes?...
-- Read it again pal, I only mentioned Revelation as being the last (sequentially) book of the Bible; I made no comment whatsoever on its content. But since you bring it up: You might want to do us all a favor & read Revelation yourself. Clearly you have not, for John is repeatedly - from beginning to end of the book - commanded to "write"... (14 times, by my count...)
-- Yeah, like when Abe Lincoln (if I recall correctly) came up with the idea for a national holiday where folks would pray & give thanx to God for all ther blessings He bestowed upon us, both individually and as a nation. We call it "Thanksgiving".
 

Hobbie

Spaceman
Funny, I thought Thanksgiving originated with the Pilgrims and it is derived from way back then. Maybe Abe made if an official holiday, but I am pretty sure it was a Pilgrim tradition (them giving thanks for the crops and the help of the Native Americans, I believe).
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Hobbie said:
Funny, I thought Thanksgiving originated with the Pilgrims and it is derived from way back then. Maybe Abe made if an official holiday, but I am pretty sure it was a Pilgrim tradition (them giving thanks for the crops and the help of the Native Americans, I believe).
10-4.
They came up with it, and Abe made it into an official national holiday. Sorry 4 any confusion...
 

Napoleon

Spaceman
Preacher and Vindicator, your positions in respect to homosexuals, especially about allowing them to adopt children, makes me ASHAMED to be a human
 

vindicator

Rear Admiral
I was simply stating not thast gays are bad parents and dngerous to a child. As a gay person I understand the feelings of wanting a child but asking a child to go through the hate they'd go through by people that already hate gays I can't ask a child to go through that if you can then you aren't thinking of the child


-Rance-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top