Topic: Christian BS - page 8. (Read 12699 times)

A better question is where in nature is there anything like money used? All of nature depends on real resources, and whenever trade happens, real resources are traded. So things like money, and cars, glasses, computers, space rockets, etc are all unnatural. If you are going to complain about something being unnatural, make sure to abstain from all unnatural things. Unless you are some sort of a hypocrite.

what human civilizations have not organically arised a money medium of trade no matter how geographically separated?

Using money is very unnatural. So anyone who thinks we shouldn't do unnatural things, please stop using bitcoin and leave this forum, lest you keep being tempted to do things that are unnatural and not in god's design.

Haven't read his works but Bahaullah's writings might be worth looking at

Responding to your points in order, for your convenience:

1) Your statement that sex is "for procreation" is, at the *very* best, unclear.  First, you do not specify here whether you believe it's *only* purpose is for procreation, or if is merely one of its purposes.  But, even if could prove this premise, it does not follow that it is wrong to engage in sex if procreation isn't the objective.  Here, you would need another argument to prove this premise is true.

2) I agree with your premise that procreation does not and cannot result from homosexual acts.  At this point, you're 1 for 2 with your premises.

3) I also agree with your premise that same-sex friendships can vary in intimacy and so can same-sex sexual activities.  You're 2 for 3 with premises.

4) Here you restate your conclusion that, because of the aforementioned premises, homosexuality is not only unnecessary, but it's perverted.  So, let's condense what you said:

Premise 1: Not included because it is provably unfounded.
Premise 2: Homosexual activities do not an cannot result in procreation.
Premise 3: Same-sex friends can share a level of intimacy that approaches the intimacy of same-sex sexual partners.
Therefore: Homosexuality is unnatural and perverted.

So, there you go.  There's your awesome logic.  Wow, what a huge load of crap.

You REALLY want to continue to defend your position with this pathetic argument?  Like, in front of people?  You actually want people to think that this is what you produce when asked to bring your highest level of reasoning to the table?

I'll give you a chance to reconsider if you'd like a second attempt.  Otherwise, it's safe to say that your argument has been shown to be based upon untrue assumptions that, even if entirely true, do not lead to your conclusion.

Thanks for playing!

We regularly swallow water in order to quench our thirst and stay alive. That is what 'drinking' is for, its purpose is to keep us alive.

We also choose to swallow liquids which we consume when we are not actually thirsty, but just because we enjoy doing so. Tea, coffee, coke, beer, wine.


Against nature? Hahahaha, does nature take offence when we stray from the proscribed use of our senses? Or, perhaps, maybe you just feel entitled to condemn anyone who doesn't prescribe to your uptight fundamentalist sexual world-view.


Sticking a smiley face on the end of a bigoted assertion doesn't make it any less disgustingly homophobic a position to hold.

It isn't about being 'approving' of homosexuality, its about being 'not hateful bigoted and homophobic' about homosexuality.

You see, I don't care if people want to have grown-up sex with other grown-ups in a way that is enjoyable to all and doesn't harm them. You, on the other hand, want everybody to have only the sex you assert is 'right', although you will permit gay people to be, you know, 'friends'. How benevolent of you.

Okay. I will restate briefly, talking about people.

Sexual process is for procreation.

Same-sex sexual process has no procreation in it.

Same-sex friendship can be almost as intimate as opposite-sex sexual process, but without having same-sex sexual process.

Because of the above, there is not only no need for same-sex sex, but it is perverted against nature, at best useless.

I don't necessarily concede to anything that you have to say. However, I wouldn't want to deprive you of your right to assume anything.

If you approve of homosexuality, perhaps it is because you have so hardened your conscience to what is right that you don't feel it any longer.

That's true, there was no cliffhanger in the NT, yet *somehow* God managed another sequel under the Arabic alias "Allah"

No -- see, that's the thing; I already read them.  However, as you know, I've already asserted that I believe your arguments don't make sense because I believe they are unsound, and I've told you why, point-by-point.  You also know that I understand what your conclusion is, but I believe your premises not only do not lead to your conclusion, but also are untrue unto themselves.  Therefore, I believe your argument is not only unsound, but completely invalid.

So, because we both know what your conclusion is, and we have both read your premises, I am simply asking you to restate them in a way that soundly leads to your conclusion that homosexuality is bad and unnatural.  If you can do that, then I *must* concede to a superior argument.  I'm just waiting for you to do that.  This is your chance to prove once and for all that I am wrong, and since you seem so confident in your knowledge of the topic, it should be easy for you.  You know this like the back of your hand, right?

However, if you will not, I (and anyone that understands how deductive arguments work) will assume that you cannot, and thus also will assume you concede to my superior argument.  That might give you just enough time left to work on changing some things so you can live with your conscience.

I think the bible needs to be updated... It was written as guidlines on how to live 2000 years ago ~~ People following this book with 100% heart are very stupid.

Easy to do. In fact, I have already done it. Simply go back and read what I have written in my previous posts in this thread.

Another thing that is wrong, simply because it is not using the things that exist for the use they were made for.

No problem!  That's why they invented the BJ

Nobody would argue that a BJ is not designed for having kids.  And in fact they usually feel about 130-190% better.

Come on, Lethn. Help me build those people up who have already belittled themselves by expressing their favor for something so naturally perverted as homosexuality. The only way is to show them the light.

Phrase it as a deductive argument, smarty-pants.  You are asserting premises and conclusion(s), so you have all the ingredients you need to construct a good, deductive argument.

So show me!  This is your opportunity to organize your points in a way that is Universally recognizable, according to the very same rules of logic and reason that your creator endowed you with.

Go ahead. Make my day

Edit:

Here, I'll get you started.

Premise 1:  (Insert here)
Premise 2:  (Insert here)
Premises 3, 4, 5, etc., or however many you need: (Insert here)
Therefore:  Homosexuality is unnatural and bad.

All you need to do choose your premises and fill them in!    Shouldn't take you long.

Ah, the old 'kid' attack pretending he's more of an adult by trying to belittle the people he's arguing with after being defeated by logic and reason.

The point is, we can have enjoyment and pleasure in many ways. But the only natural biological way to make children is through sex. And the only way sex works is when the partners are of the opposite sex. That's what sex is designed for - having kids.

Want to have pleasure or enjoyment? Do it the many ways that exist outside of perverting the method that has been place there to have children.

That's the unknown variable that makes it all the worthwhile.  I guess that for a good number of 'his type,' they *are* intelligent enough, but will never let you admit it, and it's only when they put down the keyboard and are left alone to their thoughts do they admit to themselves, even if only tangentially, "Oh wait...what I said was pretty dumb.  Better make sure I don't say it that way again!"

I do too, but it's not worth it if they're not even intelligent enough to comprehend what you're saying.

I get a kick out of debating against people I think are (edit: being) stupid.  It's the narcissist in me.