toldailytopic: Does your opinion about homosexuality change if the behavior turns out

[some other dude]

It's worth pointing out that to even consider the idea that a child can give consent justifies a crime...

One of the more foolish things from Granite's keyboard, and that's saying something.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, obviously.

Careless of you not to be more precise, but not unexpected. :chuckle:

The fact that the context was obvious didn't require absolute precision. Your comment backfires on yourself dude.

As did the law fifty years ago wrt homosexuality.

And? Previous laws tolerated slavery and denied women rights. Things progress.

No artie, I'm using your "logic" to show that societal acceptance of homosexuality, which you, and Granite, and most of the leftist/liberal/progressive/democrats champion, will lead to societal acceptance of pedophilia. It's inevitable.

No dude. If I'm a 'bigot' for being opposed to that which violates others then it applies to toddlers being molested also given your *argument*. No surprise you've completely skirted around that.

It's only paranoid dingbats like you who think the latter would occur...

lain:

 

[some other dude]

The fact that the context was obvious didn't require absolute precision. Your comment backfires on yourself dude.

Now don't get all excited artie. Most people don't really expect much from you, past the canned insults and silliness.

And? Previous laws tolerated slavery and denied women rights. Things progress.

Thanks a lot, progressives, for socially acceptable abortion! :thumb:

No dude. If I'm a 'bigot'...

No "if" about it artie. You're definitely a bigot.

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain
Well, lets give a big round of applause to the nazis who wiped out so many of the 'scourge' in concentration camps then.

It's only paranoid dingbats like you who think the latter would occur...

Actually, quite a few pedophiles are convinced they can follow the same path to social acceptance as homosexuals have, by playing on the weak minds and bleeding hearts of liberals.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Now don't get all excited artie. Most people don't really expect much from you, past the canned insults and silliness.

I don't expect even that 'much' from you....

Thanks a lot, progressives, for socially acceptable abortion! :thumb:

What's that got to do with slavery and women's rights? There's plenty left of centre who are anti abortion. Ask Rusha....
Should we still have slavery dude? Women being tied to the sink? How about children dying cleaning chimneys? Was it 'progressive' to abolish child labour as well?

No "if" about it artie. You're definitely a bigot.

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain
Well, lets give a big round of applause to the nazis who wiped out so many of the 'scourge' in concentration camps then.

You do realize that continually repeating this quote sans context only makes you look even more thick right? The fact that scourge is wrapped with ' should have given a clue to the irony alone. How could you possibly have missed it?

Of course it's also a convenient deflection to avoid answering on point.

Actually, quite a few pedophiles are convinced they can follow the same path to social acceptance as homosexuals have, by playing on the weak minds and bleeding hearts of liberals.

Well they're just as deluded as you are then...

lain:

 

[some other dude]

I don't expect even that 'much' from you....

Childish artie.

Should we still have slavery dude?

Thanks to the Republicans, America doesn't have slavery anymore.

But neo nazis like you seem to think we should still have slavery.

Of course it's also a convenient deflection to avoid answering on point.

...says the guy who applauds the nazis...

Well they're just as deluded as you are then...

lain:

Exactly what a progressive would say about the incipient push for social acceptance of homosexuality fifty years ago! :thumb:


you're priceless artie! :chuckle:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Childish artie.

Well grow up then.

Thanks to the Republicans, America doesn't have slavery anymore.

But neo nazis like you seem to think we should still have slavery.

Oh, so we just have Republicans to thank for that do we? how about child labour? Women's rights? I don't think slavery or racism should be tolerated whatsoever dude. But then you know that already....

...says the guy who applauds the nazis...

Which of course anyone who understands irony would know was the exact opposite. Keep digging that hole for yourself dude....

Convenient really as you still haven't addressed anything on point.

Exactly what a progressive would say about the incipient push for social acceptance of homosexuality fifty years ago! :thumb:


you're priceless artie! :chuckle:

You aren't. Pushing for adults to have equal rights in regards to relations isn't even remotely similar to accepting crimes which violate people, which like irony sails right over your bonce.

lain:

 

[some other dude]

Convenient really as you still haven't addressed anything on point.

You keep saying this as if you've actually made some points. :think:

 

[Arthur Brain]

You keep saying this as if you've actually made some points. :think:

I have, which as is usual with trolls they'll deflect away from addressing. Have you learnt what irony is yet?

:think:

 

[Lighthouse]

The pseudo-solution you endorse results in most of the planet being tormented in hell for eternity for faults they had no idea they had and no reason to rectify. It also commands me to embrace servility and admit guilt for my ancestral taint that as we've discussed was imposed upon me without my consent.

You have no idea what the truth is.

It's bad enough that you think we are even capable of rectifying anything. But that you think Adam has anything to do with your guilt is beyond the pale. And to top it all off, no one goes into Hell not knowing why. People go to Hell because they deny and reject that they are guilty when they know better; they go because they are lying to themselves about it, and they know they are.

Not to mention it requires a kind of endorsement for human sacrifice which I won't do. If this isn't discreetly tyrannical then what is?

Human sacrifice? What human? Yes, Jesus was a man and He died physically, but His physical death was not the point; He was God and He separated Himself from the Godhead, and that was the death that made the difference.

I only respond to what theists say. If they say something rather immoral or absurd and attribute it to God then any criticism from my end would be as if I am criticising God.

So you don't know of any mistakes God made. That's what I thought.

Non Serviam.

Also, I don't believe it.

You will.

If what you say is true and I eventually do that then it wouldn't be me. Simply put. That God approved of a universe that involved the eventual permanent suffering of people who did not know him says something quite absurd about it all.

No one goes to Hell without knowing God. They meet Him and reject Him and choose to spend eternity separated from Him.

Then they wouldn't be 'my' lies. It would be me being honest and incorrect.

Except that there's a part of you that knows they're lies, and you suppress it because you don't want to believe it.

Responsibility towards what?

For your rejection of God.

And if I do come 'face to face' with the truth I won't deny it though depending on it I may still say non serviam. I separate my anti-theism from my atheism.

I hope you don't deny it, but we're not there yet.

You understand that with your supernatural conspiracy theory you will convince absolutely no-one and only succeed in alienating every single person you attempt to prostelyze to. People will observe you as a conceited conspiracy theorist with no real respect or understanding for their convictions and respond to you with contempt.

Assume what you will...

Great. Let that light shine. I'll bet it illuminates the entire world. The love of Christ spread by calling people names. And I'm sure you're not actually trying to cover for a lack of substance.

If Christ had never called anyone names you'd have an argument; you don't.

That being said and done with, I'm gonna cut this down to the genuine issues that remain between us. Lets see if you can grasp what it is.

The point, again, is that if we are a Creation, as Christianity has always maintained, rather than a natural product of evolution and other natural forces, then the Creator's displeasure with the Creation is his own responsibility, not the fault of us, the Created. If you build a watch, and don't like how it tells time, you have no one but yourself to blame. And yet, Christianity teaches that we are to blame for our defects, that we are created sick and ordered to be well.

:doh:

God liked what He created. Then we broke and He didn't like that. Who would? We weren't made sick, we got sick after the fact and God has the cure; He gave us the cure and you're sitting here refusing it.

As a maker of many things myself, I can tell you that your premise is wrong. I always make things broken, as do all fallible makers. I don't figure out how until I start using them. And when they break, it's my responsibility to figure out why and how to fix them, because the error was mine in the first place.

And God is not fallible.:dunce::duh:

And if you disagree with her?

You're denying what is clearly the truth.

The Bible condemns unbelievers in the same chapter that it offers salvation and eternal life to believers. Sounds like a threat to me.

Salvation is not offered to those who already have it. It's offered to those who don't. And those who refuse it condemn themselves.

I'll complete the analogy for you. The campfire is mandatory. God has set it up and allowed it so that we will all be burned by default but promises only to give people safe equipment to not get burned by it if they accept a bizarre event that they have no reason (from their perspective to accept). This campfire is also unique in that other safety equipment from other providers doesn't work. You must have God's trademarked equipment.

Except that it wasn't set up so we would all get burned.

And that "event" is the safety equipment. God offers the equipment and you sit here rejecting it.

 

[Lon]

I'm never surprised by Christians referencing vicarious redemption or showing disdain or disagreement with homosexuality. It doesn't mean that it justifies outright bigotry and hatred towards homosexuals and nor does it justify any smear campaign towards them.


Well, yes it would.


What are my beliefs, sir?

Anything but the OP

 

[Lon]

It does violate, as the law reflects also. Using your "logic" you may as well accuse people of bigotry if they object to babies or toddlers being in a *relationship*

Yup. Now apply it across board. We used to say the same thing about....

 

[Lon]

Coming from a homophobe that's beyond hypocritical. Either you're deluded, or a considerable fool. And I don't think you're really this stupid.



Yes, Lon. That's right. And for that correct test answer you win a shiny new penny.

Do you have anything to offer beyond thirty-year-old studies cooked up by your predecessors to justify the hatred you stoke? Didn't think so.

If you want stats, figure out what you're looking for, and then let me know. If you can.

Remember: a few of those studies are completely irrelevant to me (so gay guys have a lot of sex: so what?) or shouldn't bother you (gay men usually have low life expectancies: why would you care?) Suicide rates for gay teens? Easy. Then again, if you weren't naturally lazy or disinterested in the facts, you could and would have done this yourself a while ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_suicide_in_the_United_States

Unsurprisingly, considering they have to deal with folks like you (and worse), suicide amongst gay teens remains high. That's a tragedy, and hopefully one our society will deal with by providing a more tolerant world for these young people to live in.

It's people like you who look other way when the villain of the moment--no matter who the villain may be--is victimized, ostracized, or killed outright. And it's always sanctimonous self-congratulating blowhards who always have some kind of excuse for the hatred and violence you encourage. Always.

non sequitur. I honestly think this is a personality contest and nothing else. You give me wiki? As I suspected, you are all hot air, smoke, and mirrors. I'll assert again, you are the bigot. I'm studied this topic 150% more than you have. Wiki, wow. It is more than evident to me that something emotional is going on with your rejection of Christianity that has very little to do with academic integrity. Go see somebody and get over your emotional hang-ups and look at the world objectively. Your emoting accusations aren't anywhere near the mark.
These subjective postings of yours are tell-tale.
You are a hurt victim unwilling to accept any part of the consequences of your own choices and actions.
You continuously bring the same thing to your every conversation with me.
Can we get back to the OP?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yup. Now apply it across board. We used to say the same thing about....

I already have Lon. Women were oppressed, slaves, and children themselves in 'work houses' etc.....how one can equate tolerance towards adults and consensual homosexual relationships with acceptance of child molestation is just plain deluded....

lain:

 

[some other dude]

I have

Yes artie, you've made the same argument that was made when homos were agitating for their recognition.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes artie, you've made the same argument that was made when homos were agitating for their recognition.

Or rather their right to live in society without bigoted persecution which thankfully society addressed, along with abolishing slavery, child labour and allowing women to have the vote etc....

progression eh?

 

[some other dude]

Or rather their right to live in society without bigoted persecution which thankfully society addressed, along with abolishing slavery, child labour and allowing women to have the vote etc....

progression eh?

and it will be used effectively by those advocating acceptable pedophila, using the same argument. And you idiot progressives will follow right along, like good little sheep.

Oh, right now you'll bleat "nooooo, nooooo weeeee wooooon't", but we all know your foolish little sheep brains will avail you for naught when confronted with the poor poor oppressed pedophile who cries out for his right to live in society without bigoted persecution.

 

[Skavau]

You have no idea what the truth is.

Actually, according to you I do just that I am too proud or whatever to admit. So you think anyway.

It's bad enough that you think we are even capable of rectifying anything.

I don't even think the story is true at all no matter who describes it to me or how they describe it to me. I mean to point out just how absurd it appears.

But that you think Adam has anything to do with your guilt is beyond the pale.

Do you or do you not believe that our wretchedness or inherent 'guilt' at birth is due to the fall?

And to top it all off, no one goes into Hell not knowing why. People go to Hell because they deny and reject that they are guilty when they know better; they go because they are lying to themselves about it, and they know they are.

Get stuffed.

That will be my default response to you when you presume so much as to attempt to read my mind and tell me what I think. You can't demonstrate it and it is nothing more than a conceited smear.

Human sacrifice? What human? Yes, Jesus was a man and He died physically, but His physical death was not the point; He was God and He separated Himself from the Godhead, and that was the death that made the difference.

A God sacrifice or human sacrifice makes no difference. I do not embrace anyone's sacrifice and won't be told that I am bound by anyone's sacrifice. That it was the "death that made the difference" says nothing really. God could have just decreed that eating an apple cake was the difference and it would have been just so. That is how arbitrary it appears to be.

So you don't know of any mistakes God made. That's what I thought.

Does my criticism of what you are telling me not count as an indirect assessment of what you think God did? I don't think God made any mistakes at all or had any accomplishments seeing as I am an atheist and don't think God exists. I naturally think the method of redemption itself that you present is absurd and immoral and therefore by a simple definition a mistake.

You will.

I might. But I don't now.

No one goes to Hell without knowing God. They meet Him and reject Him and choose to spend eternity separated from Him.

How does God know that people would reject him if given evidence in the form of a meeting? Or do you mean to suggest that another opportunity exists there?

Except that there's a part of you that knows they're lies, and you suppress it because you don't want to believe it.

Get stuffed.

For your rejection of God.

That would be thought-crime, sir. I don't approve of the adulation of any man or deity who would hold me responsible for what I think. I would add furthermore that any being that insists upon worship will not receive it from me. Non Serviam.

I hope you don't deny it, but we're not there yet.

I wouldn't. I might still say Non Serviam though.

Assume what you will...

Well apparently that's what people are doing. You at least. You seem quite happy making stuff up about other people and lying about their motives so I'll do the same about you.

Is that fair?

Except that it wasn't set up so we would all get burned.

And that "event" is the safety equipment. God offers the equipment and you sit here rejecting it.

You appear to have a slightly different spin on vicarious redemption than genuineoriginal. That said your response here makes no impact on what I said. The 'safety equipment' is monopolized by God who has rigged all other safety equipment to fail (Islam).

 

[Skavau]

Anything but the OP

So does that mean you don't know my beliefs?

 

[some other dude]

So does that mean you don't know my beliefs?

Do you?

 

[Skavau]

Do you?

Yes.