Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Merged Threads Gay Talk


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 350
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Comin from a guy who is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. But I do research, and develop my own opinions,

 

unlike you - who I think licks Heck's toes and asks him to talk for you.

 

I hope heck helps you with your engineering....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He isn't saying put it all in one thread.

 

He's saying in one thread, to put Tupa and his conversation in one thread.

 

Hence, my objection stands - it's in several threads already.

 

What better way for them to weasel/avoid admitting that Obamao is a failing, dirty slimeball?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He isn't saying put it all in one thread.

 

He's saying in one thread, to put Tupa and his conversation in one thread.

 

Hence, my objection stands - it's in several threads already.

 

What better way for them to weasel/avoid admitting that Obamao is a failing, dirty slimeball?

Well that's not how it seemed to me, especially since anybody can join in.

Just a good idea to take it out of the budget thread IMO.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comin from a guy who is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. But I do research, and develop my own opinions,

 

unlike you - who I think licks Heck's toes and asks him to talk for you.

 

I hope heck helps you with your engineering....

 

Cal you're a moron. I'm not. Don't ever mistake that.

 

You do research and firm your own opinions? But you do "redearch" on websites that already agree with your opinion...

 

See the lack of logic there?

 

Who am I kidding, of course you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your "misunderstanding" is like you don't understand English when you read it, right?

 

You just got upset that I caught you on it. And emoted in anger.

 

YOu libs can't help it. It's like bark on a tree, it's always there, the tree can't

 

get rid of it.

 

You libs "FEEL" instead of thinking. Knee jerk reaction. Automatic.

 

Congrats! Ya got me! :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you do "redearch" on websites that already agree with your opinion...

 

woodpecker

***************************

I research all over the place. If I find valid info that makes me rethink my positions on stuff, I change my opinion.

 

That's how I've always done it - I test my beliefs with all sorts of information.

 

And nobody believes that I'm a moron, you lilly livered nitwilly pink fluffy sissy slipper wearing emotional wreck.

 

Here's some legit proof -

 

I spell "research" correctly.

 

You spell "research" like the above: "r-e-d-e-a-r-c-h"

 

Tell ya what, I'll give you time to find the one letter you foolishly make a mistake on..

 

LOL.

 

That's not smart. I think the "moron" is the one looking back at you in the mirror.

 

I mean, really... you aren't smart enough to use a spell checker?

 

Can you SPELL "spell checker" (dammit, I helped you right there. But you may not notice.@@)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, now?

 

Are you saying that heckwantstodoajobonBrownie has the ability to

 

skewer your mind with a mind meld or what?;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, woodpecker thinks that perversion is intelligent,

 

and he's superior.

 

Meanwhile, most of the rest of us, except for heck -

 

work for a living.

 

It's priceless to be a college student and pretend you are smart.

 

Those days don't last forever. Then college libs like woody

 

and heck find out they suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heck has a Woody vine up his leg?

 

Figures.

 

so that is what Woody and Heck do on friday nights in college.

 

blech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrongie, woodpecker.

 

You don't seem smart enough to have any kinid of legit opinion on any subject, with any legit reason for that opinion.

 

Knee-jerk. Emoting knee-jerk. Really not very smart emoting knee-jerk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>If you would, could you start by telling me the parts of the Bible that you believe are instructing your views regarding homosexual acts as sin. I'm not doubting they exist; they surely do. I'm just wondering if some are more important to you than others. Maybe this is a good place to start.

>>

 

Seems like answers to Heck's question got a little off track.

 

I have to get back to work and can't spend the time right now to pull out the chapter and verse.

 

However, I consider a passage in "Paul to The Romans" to be most telling. It's the one I used/use to shape my view.

 

Maybe somebody can do the digging for this particular passage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, I think perversion is intelligent, Wtf?

 

And cal, idc how arrogant this sounds but I'm smarter than you ever were or ever will be. You have life experience on me, and know a lot more about farming. But when it comes to common sense, book smarts, quantitative stuff, Rhee isn't a doubt in my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's separate out this conversation into a separate thread, Tupa.

 

If you would, could you start by telling me the parts of the Bible that you believe are instructing your views regarding homosexual acts as sin. I'm not doubting they exist; they surely do. I'm just wondering if some are more important to you than others. Maybe this is a good place to start.

I'll try the summary version, and we can dig down if there are parts you disagree with/find interesting:

 

I assume we can all agree that the old testament was pretty harsh on issues of sexuality. It reads to me as clearly reserving sex for marriage and threatening almost everything else with the punishment of a violent death. The New Testament, while changing things somewhat (I don't see Paul calling for anyone to be stoned for premarital sex) continues to take sexual purity seriously. Adultery and lust are explicitly described as sinful, using words that almost everyone agrees on the meaning of today. Listed alongside are things that are more difficult to translate. Traditionally, English Bibles have included the word "homosexuality" in the list, but I'm not sure that's right. There is a good case to be made that Paul is talking about pedophilia or forcible sex, and an even stronger case that he wasnt even considering lesbian sex at all in most places (the "gayest" translation is usually "sodomites"). But he also seems to be consistent in reserving sex for marriage. I would have a hard time finding a sentence that reads, "the only right way to have sex is within heterosexual marriage," but I also dont think there is a strong case that the New Testament holds any other view. Pre-marital and extra-marital appear to be big no-nos.

 

In short, I think you can read away the explicit condemnation of homosexual sex if you really try, but I dont think one can take the New Testament as a whole and read it to be approving of anything but intra-marital sex, and I dont think there is a serious case to be made that homosexuals can change the situation by getting a piece of paper that says theyre married.

 

The most glaring thing that I've left out, in my opinion, is OT polygamy. But I'm out of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrongie, woodpecker.

 

You don't seem smart enough to have any kinid of legit opinion on any subject, with any legit reason for that opinion.

 

Knee-jerk. Emoting knee-jerk. Really not very smart emoting knee-jerk.

 

Yes Cal, any opinion that disagrees with you isn't a real opinion, brilliant.

 

Wow...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we should be parsing what Paul said or didn't say about homosexuality 2000 years ago because....?

 

I don't mean this as snark. I'm just suggesting that Paul was a man, same as you and me. You, I would imagine, think he was visited by Christ, and therefore speaks for him. And this is the breach we come to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, yeah. Arguing why you should even listen to the Bible in the first place isn't going to go anywhere.

 

I like how the Bible doesn't say anything (according to this post) about being against lesbian sex.

 

Two guys do it and it's off to hell, but God's totally cool when two chick's get it on, haha.

 

 

But I like how you can post something I may not agree with, but do it in a logical way that explains your reasoning well. I don't really know who you are, but sir, this board needs you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we should be parsing what Paul said or didn't say about homosexuality 2000 years ago because....?

 

I don't mean this as snark. I'm just suggesting that Paul was a man, same as you and me. You, I would imagine, think he was visited by Christ, and therefore speaks for him. And this is the breach we come to.

Yeesh, you want to go back to why Christians believe the Bible is God's word? That's quite a digression. Not sure occassional 5 minute windows are going to allow us to make much progress at this rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...