Topic: Christian BS - page 9. (Read 12748 times)

Why are you still arguing with him? lol it's obvious he's a psychopath.

Actually...

...irrelevant.


So what if it produces offspring?  There's nothing logical about saying that having offspring is automatically good.  For the sake of your image, I wouldn't be arrogant while asserting a non-sequitur.  


Which is it?  Unnatural or natural?  You recognized that animals have displayed homosexual tendencies (*hilarious* that you call them heterosexual and talk about their psychology, as if you interviewed them for Cosmopolitan or something).  

If that wasn't enough, you then try to equate "unnatural" to "flawed."  Um, no, you can't do that.

I'll give you another shot to demonstrate that what you said makes sense (hint: it doesn't).  Construct a deductive argument in the form of a series of premises that prove your conclusion(s), "Therefore, homosexuality is unnatural and bad."  If you can't, then I'll assume you have no idea what you're talking about (I'm being facetious, here; I already know you won't be able to, but I want you to see that you can't for yourself).


This is so full of stupid I am actively hoping bad things happen to you right now. You're a danger to humanity and you should be removed from this society, and if it were in my power to do so, I would.

You poor child. Were you abused by someone of the opposite sex in your life? Besides, I wasn't smiling. That was a Smiley on my post.

If that's the track you want to take, you're the one taking it, not me. There are many tracks off my train of thought. However, consider. Homosexuality doesn't produce offspring. Only heterosexuality does. All the rest of the stuff (except some of the health advantages that are found in heterosexuality only) can be found in deep friendship, even if it seems to be going in the direction of "sex," but doesn't quite get there.

Homosexuality is unnatural. Even the few heterosexual animals that partake of homosexuality show that they are flawed psychologically. Now, there isn't anything wrong with having flaws. Flaws are inherent in all of us as things stand. The thing that makes flaws into perversion is when people LIKE their flaws rather than trying to find ways out of them.

The comforting friendship between sexual partners of the opposite sex, when a child is not produced, are there to strengthen the relationship. The stronger relationship will beneficially affect future children, present children, adult children whose parents become more strongly bonded. But there isn't ever going to be any child produced by homosexual relations. So, why not simply be good friends, and avoid the perversion of being gay?

No, it doesn't, and you're an awful human being.  Your "ONE reason" is an unsound assumption.  Following your train of thought, sex of any kind is "unnatural" and "bad," and thus any time any two people have sex, regardless of whether they are hetero- or homosexual, it is always bad and unnatural if it does not result in a child.  

You must be an incredibly stupid person (I have no qualms about calling you names at this point because you're an embarrassment to me) to not realize that consenting sex between two individuals of any sexual orientation can be a symbolic act of love, and in such a case it deserves our utmost respect.  

You ought to be ashamed for saying this with a smile on your face and acting as though you shouldn't also be looking down your nose at, for example, your own parents, who undoubtedly didn't *only* have sex as many times as they had children.  It's also obvious by this conversation that your birth can ruin people's lives, so I'd argue what your parents did was pretty bad if you are the result.  God's children -- Born to Hate.

Now that we are on the gay thing, homosexuality has no beneficial function in nature.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with good, loving friendships. Multitudes of people of the same sex are best of friends. They often love each other so deeply that they would die for their friends of the same sex. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is a good thing.

Sexual activity has ONE reason for existing... propagation of the species. Homosexuality does NOT do this... propagate the species. Everything that is good that is found in homosexuality, can be found in people that are best of friends.

Be good friends. Be best of friends. Drop the homosexual part, because it is essentially unnatural. In its bad parts, it can ruin people's lives.

the only kind of stoning gay people receive in Uruguay is the good kind

Self-preservation.  One less rock hurled at them means one more to hurl at you.

That's a good Christian. Jesus would be proud, if he existed that is.

Why wreck good stones? 

Do you think homosexuals should be stoned?

I would have thought that someone who is so much into riddle-like mathematical equation suggestions, would easily have seen the answer in that.

Who did Jesus speak these words to? Wasn't it the Jews?


I have never said the OT is obsolete. That's the trouble with people. They want to satisfy their own lusts, and so they read all kinds of things into what their teachers say. Now watch this. Somebody is going to say something like, "What's this BADecker trying to say, now? That he's our teacher?"

The basic gist in my opinion is "do good, be good".

Not applicable. Almost every Christian adheres to (... or rather, is supposed to) an explicit ruleset created in the New Testament along with some additional axioms carried over from the Old Testament. Each denomination has specific interpretations (by man) providing a strict ruleset, but obviously, there can be only one truth with regards to God's and Christ's intentions, and most denominations declare their ruleset follows that intent. For example, some denominations have rules where phrasing that last sentence as "God's and Christ's" would be blasphemy, and there would be no room for interpretation because their men have interpreted the intent of God's and Christ's intent in that way. -But most denominations have liberalized over the years, some even becoming secular/"non-denominational," conceding morality in exchange for a larger member base accepting a vague, flexible - useless - ruleset.

As I was raised, a Catholic wouldn't be considered a true Christian because of their repeat violations both explicitly in their laws and implicitly by actions done in the name of Christ (rather, the Pope and, in older times, government controlling the pope). They've scrubbed Christ's words for their own ends and functioned as an authoritarian, militant government with some ridiculous claim that they have the authority to kill people before living through their natural life and possessing all opportunities to accept their obligations as was intended by God. They're considered idolaters who insist on putting decadent false prophets before Christ, and are necessarily disconnected from the message of Christ. I mean -- forget Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Confucians, and Buddhists, because these Catholics are running around like wolves in sheep's clothing who all need to be explicitly excommunicated - at least everyone else has a different ruleset. -but I was raised Baptist (really, Anabaptist) with a strong iconoclast sentiment pounded into us where a church owning property is itself a sinful act. It's not "no true Christian," it's "here're the rules you've institutionalized violation of, thus becoming a puppet of the devil." There wasn't some exhaustive text on what kind of ideas and rules you had to accept to be a Scot, but there are exhaustive texts on what you need to accept to be a Christian.

Incidentally, I haven't fully shaken Baptism from my own code. I found myself mildly offended when a great-aunt-in-law "baptized" my daughter when she was an infant (she didn't realize she was seen), not because my daughter was being involuntarily associated with stupid Christian rituals with absolutely zero effect, but because it made a statement to God that she accepted Christ and His ruleset without her being able to declare it herself. It's like a government forcing someone to be a citizen because they were born in a certain location. -Like, she can't even speak and you violated her sacred obligation as a creation of God (which, by God, only she has liberty to reject or accept) -- the very idea that a Catholic implies they have God-given authority over my daughter's soul offended me, as well as being offended on God's behalf since I was raised to be very sure this was an explicit rule violation. I know it's dumb as Hell, but it initially struck me as a rule violation which'd piss God off, because now if she wants to make a commitment to adhere to Christianity, she has to reject the Catholic soul-fascism at her real baptism, which means I have to talk to her about why her great aunt is an unwitting agent of Satan.

Those who say "Oh, it's not 'real' Christianity", need to look up what the "No true Scotsman fallacy" is