This is a placeholder text
Group text
by FHTracker on 06 August 2010 - 20:08
Anyone with a brain can figure out what I just called you, Raymond.
by raymond on 06 August 2010 - 20:08
Paste them you twit! Then paste all the words the other saints use go ahead you puss !You got nothin you just a wet noodle
by Myracle on 06 August 2010 - 20:08
Umm, to begin...
Here:
So Raymond, am I to believe you think child molesters and murderers are also decent people?
and here:
So if I choose to value that my child has say, autism, and appreciate their diversity and embrace their unique makeup, rather than say, try to use Electroshock therapy or brain surgery to correct it, that means I would also embrace my child having cancer, and would not try to save the child's life through surgery?
and here:
You missed my point.
I'm not comparing homosexuality with medical diseases.
I'm saying that being okay with one thing, does not equate being okay with another.
Being okay with autism, does not mean being okay with cancer.
Do you think being okay with autism is proof that I'd let my child die of cancer?
and here:
No, my acceptance of my child's sexuality or gender identity would be based upon the fact that I have no objections to it.
Just like my acceptance of my child being autistic would be based upon the fact that I have no objections to it. That doesn't mean that I'd accept cancer, as I have objections to my child having cancer.
and here:
Once again, you're taking the remarks in Paul's letter to the Romans, addressing the problems of Pagans, out of context, as well as mistranslating them. The greek word that Paul used to reference homosexuality as is not correctly translated as "unnatural", but rather, references what is culturally unacceptable [an entirely different thing, altogether].
When Paul calls "homosexuality" culturally unacceptable, he is, ONCE AGAIN, referring to practices of forcible homosexual rape of heterosexual men, and pederasty.
Paul makes clear that it is idolatry [a practice which, for the Pagans, the neighbors to whom Paul was referring, included forcible sodomy as a "sacrifice" to their false gods] was the issue, not homosexuality.
and here:
Ah.
So basically, the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, but if that doesn't work, then its just wrong anyway, because you say so.
The founding fathers weren't Christian, btw.
They also made clear that America is NOT a Christian nation:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The Constitution of the United States of America makes no mention of God, whatsoever, anywhere.
Thomas Jefferson originally wrote in the Declaration of Independance:
"All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable."
It was Congress who changed it to "Endowed by their creator".
Regardless, the Declaration of Independance is not a legal document. The LEGAL document is the Constitution, which makes NO mention of God.
In God We Trust was not the national motto until 1956.
Shall I continue?
Yep, totally avoiding responding to anything you say, and clearly limiting my responses to insults.
Totally.
Here:
So Raymond, am I to believe you think child molesters and murderers are also decent people?
and here:
So if I choose to value that my child has say, autism, and appreciate their diversity and embrace their unique makeup, rather than say, try to use Electroshock therapy or brain surgery to correct it, that means I would also embrace my child having cancer, and would not try to save the child's life through surgery?
and here:
You missed my point.
I'm not comparing homosexuality with medical diseases.
I'm saying that being okay with one thing, does not equate being okay with another.
Being okay with autism, does not mean being okay with cancer.
Do you think being okay with autism is proof that I'd let my child die of cancer?
and here:
No, my acceptance of my child's sexuality or gender identity would be based upon the fact that I have no objections to it.
Just like my acceptance of my child being autistic would be based upon the fact that I have no objections to it. That doesn't mean that I'd accept cancer, as I have objections to my child having cancer.
and here:
Once again, you're taking the remarks in Paul's letter to the Romans, addressing the problems of Pagans, out of context, as well as mistranslating them. The greek word that Paul used to reference homosexuality as is not correctly translated as "unnatural", but rather, references what is culturally unacceptable [an entirely different thing, altogether].
When Paul calls "homosexuality" culturally unacceptable, he is, ONCE AGAIN, referring to practices of forcible homosexual rape of heterosexual men, and pederasty.
Paul makes clear that it is idolatry [a practice which, for the Pagans, the neighbors to whom Paul was referring, included forcible sodomy as a "sacrifice" to their false gods] was the issue, not homosexuality.
and here:
Ah.
So basically, the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, but if that doesn't work, then its just wrong anyway, because you say so.
The founding fathers weren't Christian, btw.
They also made clear that America is NOT a Christian nation:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The Constitution of the United States of America makes no mention of God, whatsoever, anywhere.
Thomas Jefferson originally wrote in the Declaration of Independance:
"All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable."
It was Congress who changed it to "Endowed by their creator".
Regardless, the Declaration of Independance is not a legal document. The LEGAL document is the Constitution, which makes NO mention of God.
In God We Trust was not the national motto until 1956.
Shall I continue?
Yep, totally avoiding responding to anything you say, and clearly limiting my responses to insults.
Totally.
by raymond on 06 August 2010 - 20:08
Aaron are you completly mad everything you posted above are your conclusions and have no factual basis! If you wish to examine tham one by one I will make you look like a fool and do it conclusively and with documentation! You have made nothing but your own conclusions based upon supposition and falshood! # iSo Raymond, am I to believe you think child molesters and murderers are also decent people?
This is in reference to my comment of you being a decent person based upon your future actions in reguard to joining in with the other gangbangers! I no where concluded that decency was predicated upon one being a murderer or child molester! So if I choose to value that my child has say, autism, and appreciate their diversity and embrace their unique makeup, rather than say, try to use Electroshock therapy or brain surgery to correct it, that means I would also embrace my child having cancer, and would not try to save the child's life through surgery? Here you attempt to justify Beats the hell out of me? Dugh Medical conditions are far different than behaviorconditions! Some one who hates jews is far different and cannot be justified in their actions as a medical condition can! Want more
This is in reference to my comment of you being a decent person based upon your future actions in reguard to joining in with the other gangbangers! I no where concluded that decency was predicated upon one being a murderer or child molester! So if I choose to value that my child has say, autism, and appreciate their diversity and embrace their unique makeup, rather than say, try to use Electroshock therapy or brain surgery to correct it, that means I would also embrace my child having cancer, and would not try to save the child's life through surgery? Here you attempt to justify Beats the hell out of me? Dugh Medical conditions are far different than behaviorconditions! Some one who hates jews is far different and cannot be justified in their actions as a medical condition can! Want more
by Myracle on 06 August 2010 - 20:08
Clearly, you have a reading comprehension problem.
I did not compare homosexuality with autism of cancer.
Which is explained, multiple times.
I did not compare homosexuality with autism of cancer.
Which is explained, multiple times.
by raymond on 06 August 2010 - 21:08
You said that you supported your arguements ! Neither did I compare homosexualtity with autism or cancer! You concluded that I compared decent people as child molesters and murderers! As taken from your post! You were and are in error! But in defiance you insult my reading skills! But label me as discriminatory! Are you acting the hypocrite? Then you reference autism and cancer victims to what end is beyond me! Homosexuality is not nor has it been conclusively proven to be a genetic disorder or illness! However homosexuality is not at issue her! So AARon what is you major issue ? Shall I start to insult and call you names?
by Myracle on 06 August 2010 - 21:08
Then you reference autism and cancer victims to what end is beyond me!Yes, its clear that its beyond you.
Apparently analogies elude you. Which is probably why you have such a difficult time with the Bible.
by Myracle on 06 August 2010 - 21:08
Did anyone else have a difficult time understanding my autism/cancer, homosexuality/murder analogy?
Am I being unclear?
Am I being unclear?
by Ruger1 on 06 August 2010 - 22:08
To whom it may concern ..... You would not have a leg to stand on biblically speaking if you were arguing with real Bible thumpers......In-spite of himself, Raymond has done a fair job...not saying I agree with everything he has said, because I absolutely DO NOT....but what he is trying to say regarding this topic is correct .....God's word is clear and I suggest that if you want to debate piece by piece God's word, that would be very profitable and I encourage you to do that with serious and knowledgeable Bible thumpers.....You will more than likely not find them on the PDB...There are Schutzhund dogs....then there are serious Schutzhund dogs....equally there are Bible thumpers....then there are serious and knowledgeable Bible thumpers....... I think if we are truly looking for wisdom on the topics being debated on this tread ,we would realize this is not the place nor the people to debate with........As we know there are correct representations of the breed and there are poor ones......theses are poor representations of Bible theologians....
JMHO......Ruger1
JMHO......Ruger1
by ShelleyR on 06 August 2010 - 22:08
NOW who has too much time on their hands?
Popping back out now. Sorry I popped in.
Popping back out now. Sorry I popped in.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
