An Anti-Gay Debate - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- An Anti-Gay Debate
Pages (9): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 »

Posted by RickyM on Feb-11-2009 11:28:

quote:
Originally posted by Alex
Thanks for admitting that you actually have 0 understanding of how the Christian Religion works. Surprise, most of us don't take the Old Testament literally. Your knowledge is at best laughable.

As far as anyone refusing to accept Jesus as their savior burning in hell, I believe your understanding just took yet another turn for the worse. No surprise there. You're a prime example of someone, who in real life probably isn't such a bad guy. You have a warped view of what and who God is because of silly teachings, therefore you have no real understanding of who Jesus was. Yet, without knowing, you probably lead a good life quite similar to his without actually understanding or really knowing who he was exactly. This means that you have accepted his message whether you realize it or not and the Gospels and Paul's letters make it clear that this is yet another path to salvation.

As for the above retardation, Krypton already provided a Biblical source and I imagine even with your limited understanding of things you know the story of Sodom. So kindly allow me to keep calling you dumb until you succeed in not getting completely owned by me in every one of your posts you pleb.

You really are a bit of a twat aren't you? It's a common tactic to label your antagonist as 'an idiot' when you're not even making an argument.
I know how the christian religion works, I used to be one, so enough of this 'I know more than you' bullshit.

'Most of us don't take the old testament literally' I asked you this to see what book you took your viewpoint from you fool, not because I don't know. Funnily enough you mention the story of sodom, which surprise surprise is in the OLD TESTAMENT. You know, that book which you say christians don't take literally.
As for understanding 'who jesus was', I don't think you have any better idea than me. We've both read the same book which has been translated and changed many times over hundreds of years, so don't pretend you know something I don't.
By the way, what happens to those who don't accept jesus as their saviour? From my understanding you must accept jesus to inherit 'eternal life', unless I've been mislead regarding the cornerstone of christianity...
As for 'owning' me...I think you need to do more than call someone an idiot to own them. Keep trying though.

Posted by Alex on Feb-11-2009 11:59:

I know a LOT of things you don't buddy. Your post is full of funnies. And I don't care that you claim you were a Christian, we both know there are plenty of dumb and not very devoted Christians so spare me

Also, just because you've read parts of the Bible (and clearly misunderstood them) doesn't make you knowledgeable.

Have you ever heard of Biblical inerrancy? No? Didn't think so. With a proper definition of Biblical inerrancy you can understand why I used the story of Sodom to prove my earlier point. Just because I don't believe a lot of the Old Testament to be LITERALLY TRUE, IE: The details of the STORIES doesn't mean I don't believe some of the messages to be true.

Owned once more. What are we at? 3 times now? Do yourself a favor and quit while you're ahead, either that or devote some time to coming up with intelligent arguments or points instead of telling me to "fuck off" and making a bunch of sweeping generalizations about what the Bible is based on your baseless opinions.

"Lol u dont no moar than me, i readz da same book!"

Give me a break kid, your statements are at best pathetic.

Posted by colonelcrisp on Feb-11-2009 12:22:

Re: An Anti-Gay Debate

quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
So, I was talking to some dude from one of my classes today, and I am not sure how it came up, but he made some type of comment like "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Being gay is wrong, it says so in the bible".

So I asked "How do you feel about lesbians"?

"4 breasts are better than 2!!"

*sigh*

This irritates me. People who use the bible to back up their choice to like or dislike something, but on the very same note, will support what they claim they are against.

I basically called him a hypocrite after that, but then I started to wonder, is it hypocritical of a person to be attracted to something they believe is fundamentally wrong (based on their religious beliefs?)

Is it reasonable to expect someones beliefs to reflect their sexual preferences/attractions?

Discuss.

I was at Mont Tremblant in early Jan with my friend SJ, we were out bar hopping the one night and we met these two guys from westpoint academy and one of them and SJ hit it off. Unfortunatley for me she insisted on hanging out with these asshats all weekend.... so the next morning we are on the gondola and this guy is trying to impress her with intelligent debate...... then he lets the cat out of the bag..... he is a supporter of intelligent design.... at this point i lost the ability to "play nice" and i spent the rest of my weekend berrating and making fun of him for being a total and complete dunce.

That encounter just solidified my long standing theory that literal interpretation of religion breeds morons...... Further more, anyone who tries to take their "religious values" (quotations inserted because i believe there isn't any value to religion) and use it to measure the worth and merit of others..... If you want to believe that a white guy was born to a virgin in the middle east 2009 years ago and could turn water into wine..... congratulations your an idiot, but thats your perrogative..... just keep it to yourself....

Gah i hate jesus freaks, i have noticed as well of late that all the vocal bible thumpers are either baptist or some form of messed in the head evangelicals..... they should all be rounded up, moved to wisconsin and carpet bombed....... hopefully with all them gone, focus on the family will cease to exist, and i can see tits on global TV during prime time again......

Posted by MrJiveBoJingles on Feb-11-2009 12:33:

quote:
Originally posted by mezzir
You know what, fuck it, I'll say it. The only reason religion is still relevant and practiced is cause it has essentially been grandfather clause'd into public life from generation to generation.

I don't think this is true. The features of human psychology that religion addresses will probably always exist -- fear of death, fear of meaninglessness, a desire to have a clear behavioral code handed down by someone much wiser, a desire to see one's life as part of a much bigger story. Those things aren't going away. Although I do think literal interpretations of religion will grow less popular as people become more knowledgeable about science and history, I don't know if religion will ever disappear entirely.

Posted by RickyM on Feb-11-2009 12:38:

quote:
Originally posted by Alex
I know a LOT of things you don't buddy. Your post is full of funnies. And I don't care that you claim you were a Christian, we both know there are plenty of dumb and not very devoted Christians so spare me

Also, just because you've read parts of the Bible (and clearly misunderstood them) doesn't make you knowledgeable.

Have you ever heard of Biblical inerrancy? No? Didn't think so. With a proper definition of Biblical inerrancy you can understand why I used the story of Sodom to prove my earlier point. Just because I don't believe a lot of the Old Testament to be LITERALLY TRUE, IE: The details of the STORIES doesn't mean I don't believe some of the messages to be true.

Owned once more. What are we at? 3 times now? Do yourself a favor and quit while you're ahead, either that or devote some time to coming up with intelligent arguments or points instead of telling me to "fuck off" and making a bunch of sweeping generalizations about what the Bible is based on your baseless opinions.

"Lol u dont no moar than me, i readz da same book!"

Give me a break kid, your statements are at best pathetic.

lol...kid.
Which parts have I misunderstood, I'd like an example please. There are that many different beliefs and interpretations amongst christians themselves, so I'm unlikely to interpret the bible as you do.
So if you don't believe a lot of the old testament to be literally true, do you believe the new testament to be literally true? If so, why is this? I mean they both contain far fetched nonsense. Unless it's down to the supposed 'comforting' message given in the new testament...easier to believe something if there is something in it for you.

I do know what biblical inerrancy is thankyou...by a proper definition do you mean your definition? Biblical inerrancy means that the bible is without contradiction and accurate historically, which you clearly don't adhere to, so why bring it up?
Lastly, it is quite funny to watch a christian such as yourself acting so condescending and patronising, given what nonsense you believe to be true.

Posted by josh rising on Feb-11-2009 12:45:

bible = no. gay people = yes!

well, some. it depends.

Posted by Moral Hazard on Feb-11-2009 13:03:

quote:
Originally posted by RickyM
From my understanding you must accept jesus to inherit 'eternal life', unless I've been mislead regarding the cornerstone of christianity...

Ricky, you have been mislead or mistaken... sadly, many of the most vocal "Christians" don't really understand their faith. In order to inherit "the kingdom of God" you must be amongst "God's children" which is to say you must accept God's love, which is to say you must accept love. The two most important commandments according to Jesus are "to love God" and "to love your neighbour as yourself." Essentially what Jesus says is that love for God is love for humanity, as long as you have that the kingdom is yours. Any Christian that actually understands their faith believes that there is no reward exclusive to them in heaven, the reward for their faith is only on earth... the kingdom of heaven is open for all who accept it.

Posted by XaNaX on Feb-11-2009 13:16:

this thread is a great example of why I refuse to take part in any kind of organized religion today. They have all taken the bible (or whatever their religious text is) out of its historical context and twisted it and bastardized its teachings to fit their own agendas and to control their followers. Honestly, if Jesus were here today he would be disgusted by some of the teachings being passed off as "Christianity" these days. I honestly don't know how people can think they are Christians when they are hating on gays while one of Christ's most important teachings and most consistant messages was 'Love your neighbor as yourself'. He didn't say 'love your neighbor as yourself unless he is gay then stone the fag to death' now did he?

Posted by mezzir on Feb-11-2009 13:19:

quote:
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I don't think this is true. The features of human psychology that religion addresses will probably always exist -- fear of death, fear of meaninglessness, a desire to have a clear behavioral code handed down by someone much wiser, a desire to see one's life as part of a much bigger story. Those things aren't going away. Although I do think literal interpretations of religion will grow less popular as people become more knowledgeable about science and history, I don't know if religion will ever disappear entirely.

I just don't think that fear of death, meaningless, really need religion to be resolved, I think humans are completely capable of addressing those themselves on an individual basis. In fact I view those almost as individual pursuits, and by taking your answer from someone elses's paper without doing your own research so to speak, you rob yourself of a lot of knowledge of yourself.

I don't think it'll disappear entirely ever either, but at this point in human history I don't really think that it necessarily fills a void that would have existed otherwise, but rather fills one it creates.

Posted by MrJiveBoJingles on Feb-11-2009 13:20:

quote:
Originally posted by XaNaX
I honestly don't know how people can think they are Christians when they are hating on gays while one of Christ's most important teachings and most consistant messages was 'Love your neighbor as yourself'.

They show their love to gay people by warning that their gay activities will lead them into hellfire and damnation. They're just trying to save the gays from eternal torment. Sounds pretty loving to me!

Posted by Moral Hazard on Feb-11-2009 13:26:

quote:
Originally posted by mezzir
So then you think that gay marriage should be perfectly legal?

For me I think it should be legal. I see the problem right now is that some people don't quite understand that there are two different types of marriage. There is the legal arrangement codified under law and there is the religious sacrament. These two things are independent of each other despite the fact that they often co-exist. When Mrs. Hazard and I got married we received the sacrament of marriage by way of a mass within the church, then we entered into the legal arrangement of marriage by completing and submitting the appropriate documentation to the Province of Ontario. If you separate the two marriages then this entire question of homosexual marriage becomes quite easy to deal with. All should have the same rights under the law; if heterosexuals are permitted to enter into a legal cohabitational agreement defined as marriage under the law of a given state then homosexuals should be suffered that same right. Who does and does not qualify to receive the sacrament of marriage must be determined by the church bestowing said sacrament, as this is their exclusive domain. The religious and legal aspects of marriage do not need to be conjoined; subsequently, there really should be no consideration of religious arguments when addressing the question of whether or not the state should allow homosexuals to enter the legal arrangement termed marriage under the law.

Posted by XaNaX on Feb-11-2009 13:43:

quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
For me I think it should be legal. I see the problem right now is that some people don't quite understand that there are two different types of marriage. There is the legal arrangement codified under law and there is the religious sacrament. These two things are independent of each other despite the fact that they often co-exist. When Mrs. Hazard and I got married we received the sacrament of marriage by way of a mass within the church, then we entered into the legal arrangement of marriage by completing and submitting the appropriate documentation to the Province of Ontario. If you separate the two marriages then this entire question of homosexual marriage becomes quite easy to deal with. All should have the same rights under the law; if heterosexuals are permitted to enter into a legal cohabitational agreement defined as marriage under the law of a given state then homosexuals should be suffered that same right. Who does and does not qualify to receive the sacrament of marriage must be determined by the church bestowing said sacrament, as this is their exclusive domain. The religious and legal aspects of marriage do not need to be conjoined; subsequently, there really should be no consideration of religious arguments when addressing the question of whether or not the state should allow homosexuals to enter the legal arrangement termed marriage under the law.

You are 100% correct here. There is no reason at all for gay people to not be allowed to enter into a legal marriage except the hatred and discrimination against them that is rooted in religious beliefs. If your religion doesn't want to let two men or two women have a recognized marriage under that religion then fine, that is their business. But I challenge those religious wackos to come up with even one rational legitimate argument for why gay people shouldn't be able to have a legally recognized marriage.

Hell, I'm Catholic (not practicing obviously) but when I got married I didn't get married in a ceremony at a Catholic church, so I have a legal marriage but didn't get the Catholic sacrament of marriage. I actually got into a discussion with a religious wackjob who honestly believes that even though I'm legally married and faithful to my wife I am currently living in sin in God's eyes and I will go to hell because my wife and I are not really married since I didn't have a Catholic wedding. I think this "Catholic" completely forgot to listen to the teachings of Jesus. I like talking to people like her every now and then, they remind me of exactly why I refuse to be a part of any kind of organized religion.

Posted by Moral Hazard on Feb-11-2009 13:58:

quote:
Originally posted by XaNaX
You are 100% correct here. There is no reason at all for gay people to not be allowed to enter into a legal marriage except the hatred and discrimination against them that is rooted in religious beliefs. If your religion doesn't want to let two men or two women have a recognized marriage under that religion then fine, that is their business. But I challenge those religious wackos to come up with even one rational legitimate argument for why gay people shouldn't be able to have a legally recognized marriage.

Just as a point of order... I know a number of non-religious people who also do not believe that homosexuals should be "married." From what I've been able to gather from them this position is rooted in a believe that a homosexual relationship is not valid or does not have the same merit as a heterosexual one therefore allowing them to enter into a relationship termed marriage devalues there own marriage. As these people are not religious this believe is not born from religious convictions. My point is that discrimination against homosexuals is not entirely a function of religious believes.

quote:
Hell, I'm Catholic (not practicing obviously) but when I got married I didn't get married in a ceremony at a Catholic church, so I have a legal marriage but didn't get the Catholic sacrament of marriage. I actually got into a discussion with a religious wackjob who honestly believes that even though I'm legally married and faithful to my wife I am currently living in sin in God's eyes and I will go to hell because my wife and I are not really married since I didn't have a Catholic wedding. I think this "Catholic" completely forgot to listen to the teachings of Jesus. I like talking to people like her every now and then, they remind me of exactly why I refuse to be a part of any kind of organized religion.

These types of "Christians" do a great disservice to all, as they spread misinformation based on misunderstanding. Anyone who actually understands the Catholic faith would feel badly for you that you did not get to enjoy the sacrament; however, would never suggest that this is a hell-worthy trespass; in truth, those who really understand their faith believe there are no hell-worth trespasses other then a rejection of all that is of God.

Posted by XaNaX on Feb-11-2009 14:07:

quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Just as a point of order... I know a number of non-religious people who also do not believe that homosexuals should be "married." From what I've been able to gather from them this position is rooted in a believe that a homosexual relationship is not valid or does not have the same merit as a heterosexual one therefore allowing them to enter into a relationship termed marriage devalues there own marriage. As these people are not religious this believe is not born from religious convictions. My point is that discrimination against homosexuals is not entirely a function of religious believes.

this is true, and to these people I always say that the divorce rate in heterosexual marriage is in excess of 50%, what can gay people possibly do to devalue marriage that we haven't already done ourselves?

Posted by RickyM on Feb-11-2009 14:20:

quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
those who really understand their faith believe there are no hell-worth trespasses other then a rejection of all that is of God.

Just curious what you mean by 'a rejection of all that is of god'.

Posted by Subtle on Feb-11-2009 14:23:

quote:
Originally posted by RickyM
Just curious what you mean by 'a rejection of all that is of god'.
Why dont you just take your curiosity somewhere else.

Posted by Moral Hazard on Feb-11-2009 14:24:

quote:
Originally posted by RickyM
Just curious what you mean by 'a rejection of all that is of god'.

A rejection of all things that flow from god... to put it in exceedingly simple terms... a rejection of love, joy, and life.

Posted by RickyM on Feb-11-2009 14:38:

quote:
Originally posted by Subtle
Why dont you just take your curiosity somewhere else.

Posted by RickyM on Feb-11-2009 14:38:

quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
A rejection of all things that flow from god... to put it in exceedingly simple terms... a rejection of love, joy, and life.

So...don't be a miserable bastard and you'll be alright?

Posted by Moral Hazard on Feb-11-2009 14:45:

quote:
Originally posted by RickyM
So...don't be a miserable bastard and you'll be alright?

Essentially. The belief of the Catholic church is that one chooses damnation (not that we would really use that term in an actual theological discussion) by rejecting God's love, which means rejecting all love and life, as we believe all love and life is a derivative of God's love. So yeah, don't be a miserable bastard... don't believe that you don't deserve love, and you should be okay... if we're right... (not that I have too much faith that anyone is exactly right on this issue).

*** edit... can we get back to homosexual marriage now... since we've really strayed into a side discussion, which should (IMO) have zero bearing on the right of homosexuals to legally marry.

Posted by johnnyreno on Feb-11-2009 15:06:

God is an Equal Opportunity Lover

Posted by RickyM on Feb-11-2009 15:12:

quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Essentially. The belief of the Catholic church is that one chooses damnation (not that we would really use that term in an actual theological discussion) by rejecting God's love, which means rejecting all love and life, as we believe all love and life is a derivative of God's love. So yeah, don't be a miserable bastard... don't believe that you don't deserve love, and you should be okay... if we're right... (not that I have too much faith that anyone is exactly right on this issue).

Certainly sounds more reasonble on god's part anyway...

Posted by Ania_xox on Feb-11-2009 15:25:

lol at the dumbasses using the perverted priests as a means by which to criticize Christianity

sick fucks exist everywhere - one part does not stand for the whole

Posted by MrJiveBoJingles on Feb-11-2009 15:28:

As far as I know, the rate of sexual abuse among priests is not significantly higher than the rate among the general male population. I think people are especially indignant about the priests because they are in a profession that is supposed to be very trustworthy and concerned with living a moral life.

Posted by Ania_xox on Feb-11-2009 15:29:

Re: An Anti-Gay Debate

Pages (9): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 »