We Must Reject LGBTQ Craziness Becoming America's Accepted Nor

[The Cysko Kid]

40 minutes ago, hoorta said:

On review, some further thought on the subject. I'll direct this to Woody.   

1) Say some guys come into that religious photographer's shop and ask him  "hey man, we're gonna do a real kinky porno shoot, you interested?" Suppose he shouldn't turn them down either. 

2) (the guy was probably too honest to tell the gay guys this) Sorry, I stopped photographing weddings, um- about two weeks ago. 

3) Pedo is different from homo because of consent- this photographer was being unwillingly forced into an activity he didn't want to be involved in because of supposed gay rights. By my POV from some militant gay activists with an agenda who had other options. 

Have no personal problems with the LBGT community- until they try to stuff their view down my throat, and tell me everything we stand for is just hunky-dory. 

1. Apparently youve not done much...uh, alternative photography. You don't just walk into Pete of Nazareth's studio, in the strip mall in Bainbridge.  If you wanted a pro you get a pro that does pro work. 

2. If I had an issue doing a gay wedding I would, personally, have said "hey sorry I've got a wedding already that weekend. I know this great guy though, that's not a dick, let me give you his number. 

3. There's any number of ways to politely decline without saying "sorry faggots, I don't do queer shit, see you in hell" and they most likely would have just said "ok, well thanks" and left. 

[The Cysko Kid]

My biggest absolute problem with this scenario is the complete lack of tact on the Christian part. They just can't seem to help themselves from passing crazy judgement. Just make an excuse and then later you can tell your churchin' friends your gay war story without making a big fuckin' scene.  

[Westside Steve]

49 minutes ago, The Cysko Kid said:

My biggest absolute problem with this scenario is the complete lack of tact on the Christian part. They just can't seem to help themselves from passing crazy judgement. Just make an excuse and then later you can tell your churchin' friends your gay war story without making a big fuckin' scene.  

Heh

So frankly I don't know how old your kids are or what sex. If we are talking about a male and you came home and found him making out with another male within a couple years of his age would it disturb you more, less or the same has making out with somebody of the opposite sex?

WSS

[The Cysko Kid]

Look it wouldn't make me jump for joy but you love your kids and you will still love them if they're gay. Ask Dick Cheney. 

[MLD Woody]

1 hour ago, OldBrownsFan said:

You answered it for me Woody. As a Christian we follow our consciences. The florist who was sued for not going to a gay wedding to set up the flower arrangement was actually friends with the gay couple, had sold them flowers many times before and had no problem selling them flowers for the wedding but having to attend the wedding was something that her conscience would not allow. You are saying that selling the flowers is not enough that if the gay couple demand the florist to attend the wedding she should not have a choice because that is discrimination if she doesn't, it doesn't matter about her conscience and and that is at least one area where gay marriage is an attack on our religious freedom.

 

How does gay marriage being legal attack your religious freedoms? Nothing about what some baker or florist somewhere may or may not do. Just gay marriage in itself. Just the fact f it being legal. How does that affect YOUR freedom?

That has still not been answered (except by Steve)

[MLD Woody]

oh sweet gay jesus there goes Steve again...

[calfoxwc]

3 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

 

How does gay marriage being legal attack your religious freedoms? Nothing about what some baker or florist somewhere may or may not do. Just gay marriage in itself. Just the fact f it being legal. How does that affect YOUR freedom?

That has still not been answered (except by Steve)

you know the answer, you just want to smart off.

The forcing of America to redefine their defined family value institution of marriage by one judge was tyranny. All they had to do was civil unions to have the same rights.

 but no, they forced the perversion of what even your obaMao said - was "Marriage is between a man and a woman" he lied, like you do.

haven't you learned how to learn anything from researching on the net?

David Axelrod: Obama lied when he claimed to oppose same-sex ...

https://www.vox.com/2015/2/10/8010871/obama-lying-gay-marriage

Feb 10, 2015 - "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman," Obama told pastor Rick Warren at an August 2008 event, as the audience ...

Obama Gay Marriage Views - Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/obama.../gay-marriage-stance.html

Aug 16, 2016 - ... President Obama called plaintiff Jim Obergefell to congratulate him. ... an MTV audience: “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

[MLD Woody]

13 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

 

haven't you learned how to learn anything from researching on the net?

 

 

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH holy fuck you delusional old man. From the guy that gets everything spoon fed from one of three biased ass sources. 

Yeah I'll trust you on "internet research" as much as I'll trust you on explaining pre calc

how someone can be so led around be politicians I'll never know

 

 

btw, I don't give two fucks what Obama said. That has nothing to do with what I asked. I realize you've been potty trained over the last decade for him to be your boogey man but christ, try to stay on topic

[calfoxwc]

and that is what makes you such a sick bird, woodpecker.

You ask a question just to be a stupid ass to anybody who answers.

You really are profoundly ignorant on this forum, and never add anything to any conversation.

This entire forum has seen how you won't look up anything. Pick your own sources, birdpoop.

[hoorta]

3 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Yes, how dare that gay couple be such "a-holes" in expecting to be treated just like everyone else regardless of how they were born. 

You don't believe in the Bible? I don't believe from the very bottom of my being, that people are "born gay". Go join a Gay Pride Group, I sure as hell won't care. The alt couples I know are that way more due to social interaction with the opposite sex (or lack thereof) far more than any of your supposed genetic tendencies. 

OBF answered your objection. They weren't born black kiddo. Now if they're black\homosexual\Muslim we got a triple whammy of discrimination in your book.  Don't f'n equate race with sexual orientation- it's BS, but libs like to make the same correlation. Like we "need" to make reparations to black dudes because their great-great- grandpappy might have been a slave. Despite their "tendencies" they chose in the majority of instances to be gay- and want to force someone (make that everyone) to agree with them. It's the opposite side of the same coin. With 4,000 plus years of world history if everyone was gay- lesbian- YOU wouldn't exist to spout your views. Ever think about that one? 

 

[jbluhm86]

On 6/19/2019 at 9:39 AM, OldBrownsFan said:

I hope and pray the Catholic church remains strong on moral issues such as abortion and marriage between a man and a woman.

Yes, because they've clearly remained strong on the whole "suffer the little children not" part of their mission.  I'm sure Archbishop Bernard Law was just being the pillar of morality when he fled the US to hide out in Rome under the protection of the Vatican - who does not have an extradition treaty with the US - in order to evade facing his crimes in the court of justice; the only justice, btw, which his victims have on this earth and not some cockamayme final reckoning in some spiritual world.

 

"If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!" (Matthew 18:6–7, NIV)

 

Face the facts, the Vatican and Catholics abdicated what little moral authority they had a long time ago, and anyone who calls themselves Catholic today is knowingly and possibly financially supporting a religious pedo-mob.

On 6/19/2019 at 10:21 AM, OldBrownsFan said:

In general, there are several broad categories of arguments that gay revisionists are employing to cast doubt on God's Word concerning homosexual behavior:

1. Christians' prejudice against homosexuals leads them to misread biblical texts about homosexuality;
2. Scriptures that supposedly condemn homosexual behavior have actually been mistranslated;
3. Scriptures that supposedly condemn homosexual behavior have been taken out of context and do not apply to our present society.⁵

While it is not possible to offer an in-depth rebuttal to each of these sets of arguments in the scope of this article, a few general observations about revisionist theology can be made:

• The Bible is wholly reliable, trustworthy and true in all that it affirms. It clearly teaches the honor, dignity and value of the two sexes as created in God's image  – intentionally male and female – each bringing unique and complementary qualities to sexuality and relationships.
• It remains highly unlikely that Bible translators mistranslated five references to sexual ethics in two different testaments of Scripture. Even more unlikely is the possibility that they only mistranslated Scriptures regarding homosexual behavior.
• Scriptures that testify against homosexual behavior—including Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10—are so clear and specific that they defy reinterpretation. It is intellectually dishonest to say that conservative individuals and leaders "interpret" such clear verses as "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman" out of prejudice against homosexuals.

 

• The argument that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality in the gospels is misleading and illogical for at least five reasons:

1. 1. The gospels are not more authoritative than those books of the Bible that condemn homosexual behavior. All authors of Scripture were inspired by God's Holy Spirit.⁷

The author is indebted to 

https://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/sexuality/homosexuality-theology-and-the-church/revisionist-gay-theology-did-god-really-say

So your response here states a few things (highlights/emphasis is from me)

• The Bible is infallibly true and unaltered in its entirety, i.e: "The Bible is wholly reliable, trustworthy and true in all that it affirms".  This establishes the idea that what is in the Bible, both good and bad, is the literal "truth" of things.

 

• One of these "truths" in the Bible is about homosexual acts and the prescriptions of what happens when you engage in homosexual behavior; "Scriptures that testify against homosexual behavior—including Leviticus 18:22 , 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10—are so clear and specific that they defy reinterpretation." This establishes the idea that God commands against homosexuality and homosexual acts, so we can logically assume that when God states that the punishment for homosexuality is death ("And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them". - Leviticus 20:13), it actually means that God does indeed commit homosexuals to death for being homosexuals, and desired for them to die because they were homosexuals.

 

• The prohibition of homosexuality and it's associated death penalty is not an allegory or misinterpretation of God's will on the matter;  "It remains highly unlikely that Bible translators mistranslated five references to sexual ethics in two different testaments of Scripture. Even more unlikely is the possibility that they only mistranslated Scriptures regarding homosexual behavior"  and "Scriptures that testify against homosexual behavior—including Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10—are so clear and specific that they defy reinterpretation" This means that the prohibition of homosexuality and the associated death penalty for committing homosexual acts are indeed what God willed and commanded, and are not up for interpretation any other way. God wills for homosexuals to die.

 

• The classic argument of "Well, that was the OT, Jesus in the NT would never condone such action" - or some variant of that, is not an out for you here either, because, quote: "The gospels are not more authoritative than those books of the Bible that condemn homosexual behavior. All authors of Scripture were inspired by God's Holy Spirit". This means that nothing in the NT gospels supersedes what God commanded in the OT; indeed, it even said that the absence of any remarks from Jesus on the topic of homosexuality is to be taken as confirmation of the OT prescriptions of homosexuality, which by extension, includes the death penalty.

 

So, I don't exactly know what you were trying to accomplish here as some sort of defense, because it clearly demonstrates what many on here have been saying about the Bible endorsing hatred and violence against homosexuals and how the persecutions and acts of violence committed against gays in the name of God and Jesus are completely justified by what is in the bible itself. 

 

[jbluhm86]

On 6/19/2019 at 12:14 PM, OldBrownsFan said:

Still a matter of conscience in both cases.

What utter bullshit. It's not a "matter of conscience" when the holy text these religious nutbags ascribe to clearly states that their God demands the death penalty for homosexuality. Once you use the presumptive moral authority persecute someone or kill someone for their sexual orientation solely based on religious diatribe, you cease to have a "conscience", because no rational human being would do such a thing as murder based on that.

[jbluhm86]

On 6/19/2019 at 12:21 PM, OldBrownsFan said:

I guess we are bigots too against people shacking up or committing adultery or any other number of sins. In that sense I guess we are just equal opportunity bigots.

Yes, except your "bigotry" against adultery seems to evaporate rather quickly when the one committing the deed happens to be the President you support. "

 

"Christians hate the sin, but we love the sinner when they support what I support"....smh.

[jbluhm86]

On 6/19/2019 at 1:10 PM, Westside Steve said:

Actually conservative doesn't equal Anarchy even though that's one way of looking at it. I guess. 

WSS

Being a regressive Leftist doesn't equal being a liberal either, but that distinction seems to have been pushed aside by many political conservatives as well. It's hard to begin to have a dialogue with people on the other side of the isle of you when you're automatically demonized as a "fuckin' libtard" right at the jump.

[hoorta]

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

oh sweet gay jesus there goes Steve again...

 

You tired of getting your ass whipped by guys who are actually objective? Jesus wasn't Gay, but are you?  It would explain a lot....  

 

[jbluhm86]

On 6/19/2019 at 12:45 PM, OldBrownsFan said:

It is a matter of conscience. As much as I like Trump if he came out tomorrow on the pro abortion side of the argument he would lose my vote.  I made up my mind years ago I would never vote for anyone who was pro choice, not even for a dog catcher. My conscience will not permit it.

Yet your conscience "permits" you to support an adulterer - simply because he advocates for positions you support -  while, at the same time, railing against adultery because "muh Bible". So, i'd say your conscience may be a little suspect, at the very least.

 

On 6/19/2019 at 1:46 PM, OldBrownsFan said:

And I would not disagree with that but I am not anti science either. I thank God for all the scientific discoveries that have improved our lives. As I posted before there are many scientists who are people of faith.

A quick question: if it was found that a scientific fact or principal went against what was written in the Bible, would you still accept that scientific principle or would you reject it - in the face of overwhelming evidence that supports it's being true - simply because the Bible said the opposite?

 

On 6/19/2019 at 2:17 PM, OldBrownsFan said:

In my faith Woody there are things that matter in the bible and things that do not matter. It doesn't matter if one believes the story of Jonah to be a true historical story  or an allegory. It doesn't matter of one believes or disbelieves the story of Noah...

We've already established from earlier that you believe the Bible to be the unequivocal truth of things, but yet here you are saying that some things in the Bible do not matter, might not be historically true, or an allegory. So, which is it?

[jbluhm86]

On 6/19/2019 at 3:37 PM, The Cysko Kid said:

Your insults are as laughable as your intelligence. Why don't you go swill down some root beer? Maybe it will make you smarter like some kind of Retarded Popeye. 

I legit laughed really fucking hard when I first read this. Kudos to you, good sir.

[OldBrownsFan]

33 minutes ago, jbluhm86 said:

What utter bullshit. It's not a "matter of conscience" when the holy text these religious nutbags ascribe to clearly states that their God demands the death penalty for homosexuality. Once you use the presumptive moral authority persecute someone or kill someone for their sexual orientation solely based on religious diatribe, you cease to have a "conscience", because no rational human being would do such a thing as murder based on that.

When the Pharisees wanted to stone the woman caught in the act of adultery I didn't see Jesus jumping in throwing a fastball ...He was the One who showed mercy. He Is the one I serve.

[OldBrownsFan]

24 minutes ago, jbluhm86 said:

Yet your conscience "permits" you to support an adulterer - simply because he advocates for positions you support -  while, at the same time, railing against adultery because "muh Bible". So, i'd say your conscience may be a little suspect, at the very least.

 

A quick question: if it was found that a scientific fact or principal went against what was written in the Bible, would you still accept that scientific principle or would you reject it - in the face of overwhelming evidence that supports it's being true - simply because the Bible said the opposite?

 

We've already established from earlier that you believe the Bible to be the unequivocal truth of things, but yet here you are saying that some things in the Bible do not matter, might not be historically true, or an allegory. So, which is it?

We've already established from earlier that you believe the Bible to be the unequivocal truth of things, but yet here you are saying that some things in the Bible do not matter, might not be historically true, or an allegory. So, which is it?

There are many Christians in different denominations with different doctrines. Some believe the bible to be literal and some believe some of the stories are allegory...it doesn't matter ...Jesus said you must be born again...that matters and is really the only thing that matters

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

A quick question: if it was found that a scientific fact or principal went against what was written in the Bible, would you still accept that scientific principle or would you reject it - in the face of overwhelming evidence that supports it's being true - simply because the Bible said the opposite?

Since there is no such thing as settled science I will stick with the bible.

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

Yet your conscience "permits" you to support an adulterer - simply because he advocates for positions you support -  while, at the same time, railing against adultery because "muh Bible". So, i'd say your conscience may be a little suspect, at the very least.

I voted for a president not a pastor. This president has accounted for himself very well in office. His affair with a porn star over 10 years was wrong and no Christian condones that but we also believe in forgiveness of sins because we all have sinned.

 

 

 

[jbluhm86]

On 6/19/2019 at 2:47 PM, hoorta said:

As one of my friends often said when that came up- "If you're right, and I'm wrong, what have I lost? But if I'm right and you're wrong- what have you lost?"  

You'r friend was quoting Pacal's wager. There are several problems to this.

First and foremost, there's over 4200 extant religions/spiritual belief systems, etc. in the world today, with numerous more extinct ones practiced in the past, so just from a probabilistic standpoint, it would be absurd to throw-in with such a specific religion such as Christianity in the hopes that, out of all the existing and extinct religions humans have practiced throughout history, that that would be the single correct religion to practice. In layman's terms, its a form of spiritual Russian-roulette, in which the many various chambers in the barrel are religious beliefs and all but the one true religion are loaded, so you have to hope that when you spin the barrel and pull the trigger on Christianity, that you chose the right one.

Secondly, acceptance of Pascal's wager is basically an admission of insincere belief in the first place, since one is presumably choosing Christianity to hedge their bets against implied eternal damnation instead of practicing Christianity because they sincerely believe in Christianity's tenets. One can assume that a hypothesized omnipotent and omniscient God would be able to tell the difference between sincere belief and belief as a means to hedge against damnation.

[OldBrownsFan]

48 minutes ago, jbluhm86 said:

Yes, except your "bigotry" against adultery seems to evaporate rather quickly when the one committing the deed happens to be the President you support. "

 

"Christians hate the sin, but we love the sinner when they support what I support"....smh.

Neither adultery or homosexuality are the unpardonable sin. I haven't seen a Christian yet condone adultery in Trump's past. The key word here is past. There is no evidence of him committing that sin today.. The bible also condemns sex outside of marriage and I committed that sin in the past. Should that forever by held against me? You know a big part of the gospel is about forgiveness.

[jbluhm86]

14 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

When the Pharisees wanted to stone the woman caught in the act of adultery I didn't see Jesus jumping in throwing a fastball ...He was the One who showed mercy. He Is the one I serve.

Yes, and this is the same "merciful" Jesus who, according to you, will commit the souls of people to everlasting torment and damnation because they didn't believe in him on little to no tangible evidence that he or God actually exists, or because two people of the same sex love each other, presumably in some part due to biological and genetic predispositions that he created them with...I could go on. Humans created sick in God's eyes - in the image of God, the Bible says - and are ordered to be well by the very same God, on the pain of eternal torture and damnation. Some mercy, there.

[jbluhm86]

25 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

There are many Christians in different denominations with different doctrines. Some believe the bible to be literal and some believe some of the stories are allegory...it doesn't matter ...

It does matter, and therein lies the crux of the argument of Christianity, or any religion for that matter. You get wildly different interpretations of religious doctrine -doctrine, by the way, that you must form your moral actions and life around at the risk of eternal damnation - all based on the same source material. Some of these interpretations are mild and peaceful as milquetoast, yet others are extremely ridged and dogmatic in their proscriptions, yet the common thread is that they all claim authority from the same sources: God, Jesus, the Bible, etc, and they all have some basis in what is actually written down in the Bible.

To be frank, it's quite presumptive of you to claim that YOUR specific (presumably peaceful) practice of Christianity is the correct way to practice it, while all the more violent and Old Testament-heavy interpretations with all the joyful horrors that that entails is "not the correct interpretation" of your religion. It's no different than what the Muslims do with their religion as well.  

So it may not matter to you, but I bet it sure as shit that it's in the forefront of many homosexual's minds on which type of Christian beliefs is trying to be imposed on them, because they can't afford to hope that its the "hate the sin, love the sinner" variety and not the more violent interpretations.

[OldBrownsFan]

1 minute ago, jbluhm86 said:

Yes, and this is the same "merciful" Jesus who, according to you, will commit the souls of people to everlasting torment and damnation because they didn't believe in him on little to no tangible evidence that he or God actually exists, or because two people of the same sex love each other, presumably in some part due to biological and genetic predispositions that he created them with...I could go on. Humans created sick in God's eyes - in the image of God, the Bible says - and are ordered to be well by the very same God, on the pain of eternal torture and damnation. Some mercy, there.

Job is the oldest book in the bible. Job was about of righteous man as a human can be yet when he was dying he said he knew he could not stand in God's presence and no matter what he did he could never make himself clean enough. He said he needed a mediator, one who  had standing with God yet could relate to human beings. He was speaking about someone like Jesus. That is the gospel right there. We needed a mediator because we can never measure up but Jesus does and today He is our mediator.

The reason we cannot stand in God's presence is because we are spiritually dead. This is what Jesus meant when we he said we must be born again. Our spirits get reborn. That is our key to heaven (and what is heaven anyway but the presence of God). Jesus came to bring us spiritual life. 

 

[OldBrownsFan]

6 minutes ago, jbluhm86 said:

It does matter, and therein lies the crux of the argument of Christianity, or any religion for that matter. You get wildly different interpretations of religious doctrine -doctrine, by the way, that you must form your moral actions and life around at the risk of eternal damnation - all based on the same source material. Some of these interpretations are mild and peaceful as milquetoast, yet others are extremely ridged and dogmatic in their proscriptions, yet the common thread is that they all claim authority from the same sources: God, Jesus, the Bible, etc, and they all have some basis in what is actually written down in the Bible.

To be frank, it's quite presumptive of you to claim that YOUR specific (presumably peaceful) practice of Christianity is the correct way to practice it, while all the more violent and Old Testament-heavy interpretations with all the joyful horrors that that entails is "not the correct interpretation" of your religion. It's no different than what the Muslims do with their religion as well.  

So it may not matter to you, but I bet it sure as shit that it's in the forefront of many homosexual's minds on which type of Christian beliefs is trying to be imposed on them, because they can't afford to hope that its the "hate the sin, love the sinner" variety and not the more violent interpretations.

I urge people to read the bible. Our faith in many ways is an individual faith with God. If you know what the bible teaches you will more easily know those who may be preaching a different gospel. 

[jbluhm86]

7 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

I urge people to read the bible. Our faith in many ways is an individual faith with God.

Then perhaps it should remain that way - an individual faith - and not try to be imposed on others through government interference/legislation, no?

[OldBrownsFan]

Just now, jbluhm86 said:

Then perhaps it should remain that way and not try to be imposed on others through government interference/legislation, no?

I see what your are saying. There are some though who want Christians to be silent in public and keep our faith inside the four walls of our church when the bible says we are to take the message to the world. That message though is always only presented for people to accept or reject and never to be forced or imposed.

[jbluhm86]

On 6/19/2019 at 2:42 PM, hoorta said:

And I can regale you with stories of Jupiter and his wife Juno. If you're into myths.  Some of us happen to feel religion isn't a myth.   

And some of us go that one extra step further and feel that all religions in general are myths. 

[jbluhm86]

10 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

I see what your are saying. There are some though who want Christians to be silent in public and keep our faith inside the four walls of our church when the bible says we are to take the message to the world.

 

10 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

That message though is always only presented for people to accept or reject and never to be forced or imposed.

All one has to do is read any history book to know how utterly absurd this statement is, i'm sorry to say.

[jbluhm86]

To be more specific, as an American, I actually believe you have every right to espouse your religious beliefs in the public forum if you so desire, that's the gist of freedom of speech, warts and all.

However...

To me, it seems that the religious want to have their proverbial cake and to eat it to, meaning that they want the right to talk about and practice their religious beliefs in the public arena, yet they don't seem as big on me joining them in the same public arena to exercise my right to freedom of speech to tell them what nonsense their beliefs are, and they want to be protected from my speech while in public. 

By all means, feel free to say and believe whatever fantastical ideas you want to in the privacy of your own home or house of worship, i'm not some jack-booted thug who'd kick the door down to your church to tell you how I think your religion is nonsense, and it would be abhorrent to me if someone else tried to do so. But once you step into the proverbial octagon of the public sphere, any and all ideas that you proclaim there are open to debate, critique, mockery, etc.