947 replies to this topic

[BigDMcGee]

David_Nicoson, on Thursday, June 14th, 2007, 10:10 AM, said:

By self-love do you mean narcissism or masturbation?

why does it have to be either or? I love to jerk off looking up into the mirror above my bed.

[jmkiser]

David_Nicoson, on Thursday, June 14th, 2007, 11:10 AM, said:

By self-love do you mean narcissism or masturbation?

lol that's actually a good question, but i am pretty sure he means narcissism

[Loismustdie]

jmkiser, on Thursday, June 14th, 2007, 1:03 PM, said:

lol that's actually a good question, but i am pretty sure he means narcissism

Actually both, but I originally meant masturbation.

[Loismustdie]

jmkiser, on Thursday, June 14th, 2007, 8:37 AM, said:

Because it doesn't infringe on anyone's individual liberties.

Check that.. why it should be just fine in God's eyes, if you believed in God. Why should God be o.k. with it? That's really what it comes down to... remember, for the 1000th time I am a huge fan of the gays, get along with them splendidly, I am disgusted by the sex, but whatever. The struggle is this... how am I suppose to present a case to a congregation that God should be just fine with homosexuality based on the fact that it doesn't infringe on others liberties? Neither does drugs, or alcohol, in most cases, yet we know that we serve God with our minds, and our bodies, neither of which alcohol has a good effect on. So, the question remains.. how am I glorifying God by engaging in the sweet science of man love? As far as what is being deemed the "yucky" test, obviously there is no real science involved here... not that science itself has been able to explain the gays up until now. At this point your guess is as good as mine.

[Loismustdie]

KramitDaToad, on Thursday, June 14th, 2007, 4:31 AM, said:

Nice job at trying to hide behind semantics. You describe something as gross, disgusting, revolting, 'desirable as death'. I say you implying we should hate it. No real stretch there, but just to keep you happy I'll change the above.So if gay sex is immoral we should find male and female gay sex, gross, disgusting, revolting, 'desirable as death' - nope that doesn't happen so gay sex is not immoral.See what I did there? I applied common sense and used your words and your argument is still retardedWhy does it have to be a good or bad thing? Why can it not be morally irrelevant as another physical activity like shaking hands?If 2 informed adults are willingly enjoying each others company who is to judge? Definately not some imaginary boogey-man.However if you want a 'good' tag for it, is it not a good thing to help another human being feel pleasure in a caring and loving fashion? To help them feel loved, to share joy, as well as the physical aspects?So quick to tell people how to behave. So slow to actually think for yourself

Wrong. It just shows that straights, which we already knew, can be warped as well. Sex, as biblically defined, is not supposed to be a free for all, remember? It's supposed to be wait till your married, one man for one woman, etc. Now, we will never know what kind of a world that would be because we are all to busy trying to get our buck on from the time we are 12 on...what kind of world would that be? A better world? More pure of heart and mind? You know it... yet that will never happen so as time goes by concessions are made to just sort of make do with the pile of **** that we have built for ourselves to wallow in. As far as think for myself.... lol. Do I sound like a person who doesn't think for themselves? Do my ideas sound like anything else you have ever heard? To not see that this is all me would make you, and I apologize, but you would be a moron. I don't think you are, however... well, maybe. You just compared *** ****ing to shaking hands on the moral compass.

[Loismustdie]

rog, on Thursday, June 14th, 2007, 8:25 AM, said:

I'm sorry I ever waded in here, and this is why. There were no "gems". Your points really only make sense AT ALL to someone who is starting with the same set of core beliefs as you, so although you think you are producing gems, you're just splashing around trying to justify a belief you already hold. You think homosexuality is wrong because you think there's a God, and you think he's the supreme arbiter of "good" and "evil". You think you know the mind of this God on this subject, and so you believe what you think is in accordance with God's wishes. Bully for you. All this yuck test and rationalization is just so much bull**** trying to export your belief to others with a different world view. Your views are logically inconsistent, irrational, and founded in premises that I and many others don't accept as being true. Where do we go from there? Well, you can keep arguing with logical fallacies, trying to make some objective sense of your very subjective world view, and I'll withdraw from this futile discourse, and just accept that when you start from such radically different views as you and I do, there's insufficient common ground to even hold a meaningful debate.

am not saying that there isn't a double standard. Straight guys are dirty and warped too, evidenced by the love for anything lesbian. And porn. And violence. And self-love.Which really just supports my anything goes thought that I had. How does any of this delicious behavior make for a stronger, more advanced society? It doesn't. Mental illness skyrockets each year... people aren't happy doing whatever the **** they want,quite the opposite.. yet nobody tells them that, they give them a pill, tell them that they are fine, that it's no big deal, carry on. How about a little self control? How about a little just say no? That would require judgement, though, and God forbid we do that...the thing is, there are so many behaviors and issues that we look the other way on these days, the homosexuality is just a glaring sort of WTF moment for me...it is so obviously not what God intended, it is so obvious that it goes against what is natural, yet we look the other way and then pretend that that is enough to call ourselves accepting. Kiser would say that we were programmed to think this way, by society, which is fine.. yet aren't we being programmed right now? You can't make that argumnet and not accept the idea that what you think happened before to make us think a certain way is happening right now to make us think another way. Hi, new guy..this was the paragraph I spoke of. There are definite good talking points where real discussion can take place. If you can't find one....well, that would be sad.

[jmkiser]

Loismustdie, on Thursday, June 14th, 2007, 3:15 PM, said:

Check that.. why it should be just fine in God's eyes, if you believed in God. Why should God be o.k. with it? That's really what it comes down to... remember, for the 1000th time I am a huge fan of the gays, get along with them splendidly, I am disgusted by the sex, but whatever. The struggle is this... how am I suppose to present a case to a congregation that God should be just fine with homosexuality based on the fact that it doesn't infringe on others liberties? Neither does drugs, or alcohol, in most cases, yet we know that we serve God with our minds, and our bodies, neither of which alcohol has a good effect on. So, the question remains.. how am I glorifying God by engaging in the sweet science of man love? As far as what is being deemed the "yucky" test, obviously there is no real science involved here... not that science itself has been able to explain the gays up until now. At this point your guess is as good as mine.

There's nothing in stone yet, but many studies have been done about sexual orientation relating to your personal environment that you've grown up in and exist in today. You know... as kind of a product of your environment type deal. There are plenty of people attracted to the same sex, both sexes, and, the most popular and frequent in our society, the opposite sex.This is only one small small part of the whole picture yet and my knowledge of scientific sexual study is not as large as I wish it was

[Loismustdie]

jmkiser, on Thursday, June 14th, 2007, 8:04 PM, said:

There's nothing in stone yet, but many studies have been done about sexual orientation relating to your personal environment that you've grown up in and exist in today. You know... as kind of a product of your environment type deal. There are plenty of people attracted to the same sex, both sexes, and, the most popular and frequent in our society, the opposite sex.This is only one small small part of the whole picture yet and my knowledge of scientific sexual study is not as large as I wish it was

Now,that sure would spit in the whole "I was born that way" thing, wouldn't it? That would make it a learned behavior,thus changeable. Right?

[jmkiser]

Loismustdie, on Thursday, June 14th, 2007, 8:41 PM, said:

Now,that sure would spit in the whole "I was born that way" thing, wouldn't it? That would make it a learned behavior,thus changeable. Right?

If that was THE factor that determined it, then yeah. The study didn't say it was, though.I was never one of those people who claimed that sexuality was determined at birth. My best friend from Indiana (I just moved to Bakersfield, CA a week ago) said that ever since he started developing sexually that he's always been gay.Again, I admit that my knowledge of the issue is extremely limited. I have no idea one way or the other and I would be very interested in some more studies on the issue.What I never understood was that I wasn't sexual from birth, but, again, I have no idea what the factors are that determine such a thing.

[KramitDaToad]

Loismustdie, on Thursday, June 14th, 2007, 11:23 PM, said:

As far as think for myself.... lol. Do I sound like a person who doesn't think for themselves? Do my ideas sound like anything else you have ever heard?

You are a dime a dozen. Your arguments are just rehashed dribble from countless scared little men & women who have gone before you. Don't think for a second that you are anything special or unique.People who selectively follow religious texts and impose their childish understanding of the world upon their betters have always existed. Unfortunately, as long as there is fear, apathy and ignorance they will continue to exist, to the detriment of humanity.Floating oceans, non-existant dinosaurs and the yucky test.Those are not the product of someone who thinks, they are the product of someone who reacts.

[20TN40]

KramitDaToad, on Thursday, June 14th, 2007, 4:46 AM, said:

Fine, as long as you keep your relationship personal you will get all the respect you want.As soon as you and your fellow followers of imaginary men in the sky start telling me and others what we should think and do, who we should sleep with, who we should vote for, what stories we should scare our children with, when we should work, what we sould eat, what jobs we can do, who we can marry, who we should kill, what we should wear etc etc etc I am going to ask for some convincing evidence. Not too unreasonable is it?

Laws of God and laws of man. Do you stop for red lights? Do you pay your taxes? Did you marry your sister? Do you abide by any of the manmade laws? Why? Does anyone have the right to tell you when and where you can smoke? Drink? Shoot up heroin? Why? Way before man starting telling you who you could sleep with, who you can marry, who you can kill, what day to get you Federal income tax paperwork sent in....there was another set of laws. Laws given by God. Then man started rewording and throwing the "but only if" clause in and then the poop hit the fan. It's much easier being a Christian than it is living here in the Land of the Free and the home of the brave..........a lot less rules from God than man.

[KramitDaToad]

20TN40, on Friday, June 15th, 2007, 11:33 AM, said:

Laws of God and laws of man. Do you stop for red lights? Do you pay your taxes? Did you marry your sister? Do you abide by any of the manmade laws? Why? Does anyone have the right to tell you when and where you can smoke? Drink? Shoot up heroin? Why? Way before man starting telling you who you could sleep with, who you can marry, who you can kill, what day to get you Federal income tax paperwork sent in....there was another set of laws. Laws given by God. Then man started rewording and throwing the "but only if" clause in and then the poop hit the fan. It's much easier being a Christian than it is living here in the Land of the Free and the home of the brave..........a lot less rules from God than man.

Nice rant. But given that you haven't convinced me God exists, the 'laws given by God' couldn't have existed before man-made laws.As I said, all I'm asking for is that if you want to tell me what you big invisible friend wants me to do then produce some convincing evidence for his existance and I'll listen. Until then keep you impositions to yourself.Laws of man (or more correctly human laws) are reasonable to follow because I can see, touch and hear the lawmakers, I can go talk to the law makers, I can vote for the law makers, I can even become one of the law makers. I am reasonably convinced the law makers existI'm sure you'll wave your arms around and with your drooling wide-eyed stare state that you can see, touch and talk to God but excuse me for not wanting to follow the instructions from your own private little world.Convincing, practical evidence. Not too much to ask

[jmkiser]

20TN40, on Friday, June 15th, 2007, 3:33 AM, said:

Laws of God and laws of man. Do you stop for red lights? Do you pay your taxes? Did you marry your sister? Do you abide by any of the manmade laws? Why? Does anyone have the right to tell you when and where you can smoke? Drink? Shoot up heroin? Why? Way before man starting telling you who you could sleep with, who you can marry, who you can kill, what day to get you Federal income tax paperwork sent in....there was another set of laws. Laws given by God. Then man started rewording and throwing the "but only if" clause in and then the poop hit the fan. It's much easier being a Christian than it is living here in the Land of the Free and the home of the brave..........a lot less rules from God than man.

Umm..we've never had laws from godand if you think you ever did, when was this and where is your proof?and seriously, all we ask is for a little piece of undeniable proof... and don't tell me to "look around me" or anything stupid like that as that it proves god exists... I'm tired of old and weak arguments that have been refuted so many ways that I've lost track. And also, just because it's possible that your god might exist doesn't mean that it's anywhere near probable... so please don't go down that road either

[Loismustdie]

KramitDaToad, on Friday, June 15th, 2007, 1:43 AM, said:

You are a dime a dozen. Your arguments are just rehashed dribble from countless scared little men & women who have gone before you. Don't think for a second that you are anything special or unique.People who selectively follow religious texts and impose their childish understanding of the world upon their betters have always existed. Unfortunately, as long as there is fear, apathy and ignorance they will continue to exist, to the detriment of humanity.Floating oceans, non-existant dinosaurs and the yucky test.Those are not the product of someone who thinks, they are the product of someone who reacts.

One issue where admittedly I was wrong, one where it matters not unless your name is Ross, and one idea that I offer as just that, an idea. Relax. If we are wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of. Have I said,"Follow me or I will chop your head off?" No. Detriment of humanity? Sure. Ideas and thoughts kill. Good one. Not unique? Then you don't know **** about your overall opponent. I am the only person on this site that thinks outside of the box when it comes to these issues, not to neccesarily be right, but to think, try new angles on an old issue. I could very well be wrong... which is fine. Eventually, I will find greater understanding through continued search. Meanwhile, you will continue to think what the man tells you. Yet, I am not unique. Real keen insight there.

[David_Nicoson]

Loismustdie, on Friday, June 15th, 2007, 1:22 PM, said:

I am the only person on this site that thinks outside of the box when it comes to these issues, not to neccesarily be right, but to think, try new angles on an old issue. I could very well be wrong... which is fine.

I like to call this box "logic".

[BigDMcGee]

20TN40, on Friday, June 15th, 2007, 2:33 AM, said:

Laws of Man and laws of man. Do you stop for red lights? Do you pay your taxes? Did you marry your sister? Do you abide by any of the manmade laws? Why? Does anyone have the right to tell you when and where you can smoke? Drink? Shoot up heroin? Why? Way before man starting telling you who you could sleep with, who you can marry, who you can kill, what day to get you Federal income tax paperwork sent in....there was another set of laws. Laws given by Man. Then man started rewording and throwing the "but only if" clause in and then the poop hit the fan. It's much easier being a Christian than it is living here in the Land of the Free and the home of the brave..........a lot less rules from Man than man.

FYP

[KramitDaToad]

Loismustdie, on Friday, June 15th, 2007, 6:22 PM, said:

I am the only person on this site that thinks outside of the box when it comes to these issues, not to neccesarily be right, but to think, try new angles on an old issue. I could very well be wrong... which is fine.

David_Nicoson, on Friday, June 15th, 2007, 11:51 PM, said:

I like to call this box "logic".

I've always found that when people claim to be special; to be "the only one here that... yada yada yadas" - they are in fact very special.Just not in the way they hoped

[Loismustdie]

KramitDaToad, on Monday, June 18th, 2007, 4:47 AM, said:

I've always found that when people claim to be special; to be "the only one here that... yada yada yadas" - they are in fact very special.Just not in the way they hoped

Blow me.

[Loismustdie]

David_Nicoson, on Friday, June 15th, 2007, 3:51 PM, said:

I like to call this box "logic".

You could also call logic prison. It limits you as thinking human being.

[KramitDaToad]

Loismustdie, on Monday, June 18th, 2007, 1:19 PM, said:

Blow me.

I'll pass. It would be a sin.