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.
I am not. I don't condemn people, because I do not think I am authorized to do so. I do call people out who use their religion, particularly quotes from the Bible, to oppress others, especially when they claim to be of the same faith as me. I've said this several times now
I've also given you reasonable, thought-out responses to your assessment of my judgmentalism, particularly in posts 503 and 554, and you have not responded to what I said but rather pull a few words or phrases out and try to make it seem as if I am saying something other than what I did for reasons other than I do. As a matter of fact, this is also what fundamentalists do with the Bible that other Christians have a problem with, isn't it?
I did not say I could not find a post wherein a fundie condemns another. (Again with the dishonesty!) I said I was not going to search the forum. Anyone who has been on these boards for any length of time has read the posts that some fundamentalists make condemning others with apparent anticipation. Why on earth would I make up something like that?
You just want to argue, it seems, repeating the same statements over and over even after they've been addressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
Aren't you clever. You know full well I was using the word condemn in the sense the fundies do, sentencing to death. Or hell, as is usually the case.
And again, since you seem to be experiencing memory problems, I don't come here for any reason but to discuss religion and spirituality. My criticisms are in response to what people say on here.
Lame. I already addressed that in previous posts, but you continue to ignore them.
Not playing your game Finn. Shame on me for thinking it was possible to have a rational discussion with you.
Nah, no shame. Your side of the exchange was a rational discussion.
Nah, no shame. Your side of the exchange was a rational discussion.
It will do no good to lie to mq in order to comfort
There is nothing rational about bringing personal feelings to a discussion where self control is going to be needed with a sensitive subject.
"When someone like twin looks at me, all they see is sin. They don't look beyond the caricature. That is so far from the truth."
Correct ... That is so far from the truth.
I see what all of what Scriptures teach, not the hopscotch approach that you \ Mightyqueen801 and others conveniently employ.
I see when God's Word the Scripture is quoted that:
1) judges the LGBT+ premise as rebellious sin ... the same hopscotch crowd recoils but then claims being a Christian.
2) declares the LGBT+ premise as being deceived ... the same hopscotch crowd recoils but then claims being a Christian.
3) refutes the LGBT+ premiseas being non-removable \ non sexually immoral ... the same hopscotch crowd recoils but then claims being a Christian.
I see when God's Word the Scripture is quoted that God desires the LGBT+ to turn from such sin and deception ... the same hopscotch crowd recoils but then claims being a Christian.
It's pretty simple.
We don't think the scriptures = God.
What you call recoiling is people horrified that someone who says they follow Christ uses words written by other men to disparage and reject people who are of a different sexual orientation from you and those who stand up for them.
It is YOU who feels this way, not God. Anyone can see that.
What about, for example, a married person who has an affair with another married person and leaves his or her spouse for that person? How can they be forgiven if they remain in the new marriage?
And how could a Christian condone this and yet refuse to condone a non-adulterous same-sex union?
It makes no rational sense, it is motivated purely by hatred of homosexuals and has no basis in the Bible or other established Christian texts.
It will do no good to lie to mq in order to comfort
There is nothing rational about bringing personal feelings to a discussion where self control is going to be needed with a sensitive subject.
To be very honest with you, Pin, I don't think you'd recognize a rational discussion if it bit you on the bum or even just came up and introduced itself to you.
To be very honest with you, Pin, I don't think you'd recognize a rational discussion if it bit you on the bum or even just came up and introduced itself to you.
I would have to disagree with you. Although much of my discussion with Pinacled has seemed that I was responding to a wacky conspiracy theory nut job, other exchanges have been with a civil thoughtful and rational minded person.
Why the two totally opposite types of posts? I have no clue but those are my observations. Civil and rational or uncivil and irrational and that is without a change in topic.
I would have to disagree with you. Although much of my discussion with Pinacled has seemed that I was responding to a wacky conspiracy theory nut job, other exchanges have been with a civil thoughtful and rational minded person.
Why the two totally opposite types of posts? I have no clue but those are my observations. Civil and rational or uncivil and irrational and that is without a change in topic.
I agree that there is some sort of a disconnect, and the fact that he doesn't seem to be aware of it, I believe, bears out what I said ... he doesn't know what is rational and what is not.
I would have to disagree with you. Although much of my discussion with Pinacled has seemed that I was responding to a wacky conspiracy theory nut job, other exchanges have been with a civil thoughtful and rational minded person.
Why the two totally opposite types of posts? I have no clue but those are my observations. Civil and rational or uncivil and irrational and that is without a change in topic.
Yeah, that's my take too. I think sometimes he makes a connection with a certain scripture or phrase and assumes we will see it too when he tells us the scripture. The problem is we all don't make the same connections and then we don't know what he's talking about.
Yeah, that's my take too. I think sometimes he makes a connection with a certain scripture or phrase and assumes we will see it too when he tells us the scripture. The problem is we all don't make the same connections and then we don't know what he's talking about.
I always appreciate your generosity of spirit, L8, but I'm going to disagree with you here. He has been told too many times that he is not being understood. IF he understood what rational is, he would not keep assuming that people will make the same connections. So, either he doesn't understand/isn't rational (which is what I'm choosing to believe at this point) or he is purposefully trying to confuse.
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.
Lame. I already addressed that in previous posts, but you continue to ignore them. 
