Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Clearly it does not call the people abomination, it calls their actions abomination.
Did you know the Bible also calls the act of giving false witness an abomination
Okay, so if I say, "Being a Christian is an abomination", you would be cool with that? After all, I'm saying that ACT of being a Christian is an abomination, not you. If I say, "Having the name Finn is an abomination," you would be cool with that? After all, I am only saying the name Finn is an abomination, not you...
GTFO with that stupid nonsense. Just more wordgames from politician Finn_Jarber.
Edit: difference is, you can control your ignorance by actively learning. People are BORN gay. You are, quite literally, saying that they are an abomination unless they go against the orientation that God gave them. That is just stupid.
The Bible never calls people abominations, only the things they choose to do, like bearing false witness. It is mentioned 117 times in the bible, but for some reason the gay agenda crowd is angered by the mention of it in relation to gay sex than other abominable sins.
Some sins are referred to as just 'sin', while some others are referred to as 'abominations'.
The Bible never calls people abominations, only the things they choose to do, like bearing false witness. It is mentioned 117 times in the bible, but for some reason the gay agenda crowd is angered by the mention of it in relation to gay sex than other abominable sins.
Gay agenda - People who want gay people to be treated like everyone else, with the same rights and freedoms.
Fundamentalist agenda (for Finn, Jeff, et al)- People who want gay people to be freely discriminated against, denied services, called abominations, and think gay people should just "choose" to be straight.
You continue to accuse me of lying, when I simply quoted the law in the State we have been discussing. But you KNEW that. I also quoted the California law since it it the most strict, and happens to be the most liberal State in US. Someone asked me which State that was, and I said it was California.
It is what is it, and you seem horribly offended when people quote the facts to you.
So, your ad hominem is a loser tactic, and you'd look much better trying something else.
Besides, it is you who it misrepresenting the law, because Romeo and Juliet laws do not make it legal. They exist to reduce, or eliminate the punishment for the offense, not to make it legal.
Good. I will do the same with you for the same reason.
In Virginia it is lawful for underage persons to have sex amongst themselves. Lawful means legal. Same as in Canada , it is legal as in not illegal for underage persons to have sex amongst themselves. I had originally stated that California was one of the many states not to have this law. Google Romeo and Juliette laws Virginia and you can read for yourself that it states it is lawful.
You have claimed that people under a certain age cannot consent to having sex and therefore 8t is always statutory rape. I showed that in both Canada and in at least one state that is a false statement. You continue to deny that yours was a false ststement.
And you never answered if age of consent is Biblical when you asserted with no foundation that we would think that it were fundamentalists pushing for either higher or lower ages as I don't remember what you were speaking about.
And now you have called me a loser twice for disagreeing with you. I like facts that are complete and not cherry picked. I am not going to check out each state as this is not important to me, I am way past being underage. But your statement that under the age of consent sex is always statutory rape is false and you refuse to admit it. I never accused you of lying about Arizona and will admit that I don't remember that it was the state being discussed earlier. But until you read and either admit or correct the law about Virginia you are being untruthful about the law.
So you don't think it's nasty when Jerwade and your friends call us Nazis, cowards, stupid, hypocrites and liars? You don't think it's nasty when your buddy told me to burn in hell? You really think that is a good testimony of a Christian?
Face it, you have hitched your wagon to a wall of ugliness, and your refusal to criticize any of them makes me doubt your claims. Along with this backhanded insult to Finn. Pathetic and disgusting.
I have hitched my wagon to the full measure of scripture and the ministry of Jesus to a lost world. That I choose to love homosexuals and not condemn them and seek to make room for them in the church, and since that has aligned me in this particular argument with Christians of different stripes as well as non church going non Christians both gay and straight, who despite the diversity of beliefs (and even lack of belief) are exemplifying the love of Christ moreso than some who bear his name in their belief system.... well, yes, I am guilty.
So, that settled, and bearing in mind that I gave you an olive branch in my mention of you above that you weren't being nasty and mean like Finn.... Do you like Finn's slamming of Jerwade?
No, I don't like nasty confrontations. I don't like throwing the Nazi or Commie or an other broad label brush stroke accusations around. I haven't done that. I called Finn mean and nasty in the way he treated Jerwade, yes. Because it was mean and nasty. So. You coming alongside Finn here and want to agree that Jerwade should be on a sex offenders list at the least and in jail at the worst? Cause that is the maligning that's been done to him.
I think you guys don't like me cause I am from your own branch of Christianity and know the scripture. And the words of Jesus pierce the callousness that legalism and adherence to the law has given you. Puts you at odds with the gospel of Christ. The leaven of the Pharisees... Jesus didn't like that. So you lump me with the rest to deaden the fact that the gospel is shining a light on darkness in you.
I have hitched my wagon to the full measure of scripture and the ministry of Jesus to a lost world. That I choose to love homosexuals and not condemn them and seek to make room for them in the church, and since that has aligned me in this particular argument with Christians of different stripes as well as non church going non Christians both gay and straight, who despite the diversity of beliefs (and even lack of belief) are exemplifying the love of Christ moreso than some who bear his name in their belief system.... well, yes, I am guilty.
So, that settled, and bearing in mind that I gave you an olive branch in my mention of you above that you weren't being nasty and mean like Finn.... Do you like Finn's slamming of Jerwade?
No, I don't like nasty confrontations. I don't like throwing the Nazi or Commie or an other broad label brush stroke accusations around. I haven't done that. I called Finn mean and nasty in the way he treated Jerwade, yes. Because it was mean and nasty. So. You coming alongside Finn here and want to agree that Jerwade should be on a sex offenders list at the least and in jail at the worst? Cause that is the maligning that's been done to him.
I think you guys don't like me cause I am from your own branch of Christianity and know the scripture. And the words of Jesus pierce the callousness that legalism and adherence to the law has given you. Puts you at odds with the gospel of Christ. The leaven of the Pharisees... Jesus didn't like that. So you lump me with the rest to deaden the fact that the gospel is shining a light on darkness in you.
In Virginia it is lawful for underage persons to have sex amongst themselves. Lawful means legal. Same as in Canada , it is legal as in not illegal for underage persons to have sex amongst themselves. I had originally stated that California was one of the many states not to have this law. Google Romeo and Juliette laws Virginia and you can read for yourself that it states it is lawful.
You have claimed that people under a certain age cannot consent to having sex and therefore 8t is always statutory rape. I showed that in both Canada and in at least one state that is a false statement. You continue to deny that yours was a false ststement.
And you never answered if age of consent is Biblical when you asserted with no foundation that we would think that it were fundamentalists pushing for either higher or lower ages as I don't remember what you were speaking about.
And now you have called me a loser twice for disagreeing with you. I like facts that are complete and not cherry picked. I am not going to check out each state as this is not important to me, I am way past being underage. But your statement that under the age of consent sex is always statutory rape is false and you refuse to admit it. I never accused you of lying about Arizona and will admit that I don't remember that it was the state being discussed earlier. But until you read and either admit or correct the law about Virginia you are being untruthful about the law.
For what reason then?
He said your debate tactic was loser, not you. See, we don't run down people personally like your side does like when you called me a liar.
"Hey, I don't make the rules! That's what the Bible says, don't blame me for my bigotry and ignorance!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude
"Ve vas yust following orders!"
While I don't really want to get into the Nazi discussion there ARE parallels between some conservative Christians and the 'not guilty of the charges as we were only following orders" defense as used by many of the defendants at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. As an example:
”I cannot recognize the verdict of guilty. . . . It was my misfortune to become entangled in these atrocities. But these misdeeds did not happen according to my wishes. It was not my wish to slay people. . . . Once again I would stress that I am guilty of having been obedient, having subordinated myself to my official duties and the obligations of war service and my oath of allegiance and my oath of office, and in addition, once the war started, there was also martial law. . . . I did not persecute Jews with avidity and passion. That is what the government did. . . . At that time obedience was demanded, just as in the future it will also be demanded of the subordinate."
Adolf Eichmann ...one of the most prominent Nazis to use this defense at his trial held in Israel in 1961.
I don't wish to derail the thread here ...only to make the comparison between those Christians who claim that it is not THEY who are condemning of gay people but are merely following the instruction of their Commander in Chief, God, to that of the Adolph Eichmanns who used the very same defense.
Would Jeff or Finn be able to offer some input with regard to this comparison ...not necessarily by them but certainly others within the 'Christian fundie' fold?
He said your debate tactic was loser, not you. See, we don't run down people personally like your side does like when you called me a liar.
No, you just compare gays to pedophiles and doggie-humpers.
The inside of your head is a scary place to glimpse. Sorry you have to live there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
