Would your opinion of homosexuals change....

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This thread illustrates all that is wrong with religion. "No need to follow my conscience or apply reason or think for myself, for I'll do whatever the authorities say. Or, better yet, I will glean from the authorities' sayings and the scriptures whatever I need to justify my intolerance, even hatreds."

As opposed to only agreeing with the authorities when happenstance allows their views and your views to be the same on a given subject?

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This thread illustrates all that is wrong with religion. "No need to follow my conscience or apply reason or think for myself, for I'll do whatever the authorities say. Or, better yet, I will glean from the authorities' sayings and the scriptures whatever I need to justify my intolerance, even hatreds."

Or perhaps it illustrates some of what is wrong with humankind. Some of us select some rules, regulations, tenets, practices, etc. of a societal construct and apply and/or interpret them in way not intended by the construct, but that fulfill a specific purpose. Happens with governments, political parties, corporations, clubs, and yes, even religions. SU, I often times see you as just as guilty as those you condemn (this thread being a very good example). Perhaps you are doing this with intent, as an entertaining diversion from a mundane workday. Kind of like stirring the anthill. It's fun to watch the little guys scurry from here to there.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This thread illustrates all that is wrong with religion. "No need to follow my conscience or apply reason or think for myself, for I'll do whatever the authorities say. Or, better yet, I will glean from the authorities' sayings and the scriptures whatever I need to justify my intolerance, even hatreds."

Did it ever occur to you that some follow their conscience, apply reason or think for themselves and come up with the same conclusions as church authorities?

Neither does one not have to be religious to be intolerant.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by jay santos

What's so bad about the standard Sunday School answer?

God created Adam and Eve in a state of unawareness. They had no ability to sin because they didn't know right from wrong. They also had limited to grow and progress and no ability to procreate. They were commanded not to eat of the fruit, but yet God knew they had to do it in order to get the ball rolling. By disobeying and eating, everything changed--they became aware, started sinning, and thus a Savior became necessary.

Nothing is wrong with sunday school answers.
However, the Parable of the Fall is incredibly deep and profound.
If Sunday School answers were the end of it, I don't think it would be in the Temple where we are supposed to learn the mysteries of godliness.

Regards,
Brian

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Brian

Nothing is wrong with sunday school answers.
However, the Parable of the Fall is incredibly deep and profound.
If Sunday School answers were the end of it, I don't think it would be in the Temple where we are supposed to learn the mysteries of godliness.

Regards,
Brian

Yes, I understand looking for deeper significance within simple teachings and parables.

But this started by you asking Rocky why in the world did God tell Adam and Eve not to partake of the fruit, as if the only possible answer is your deep and profound answer of God teaching Adam and Eve not to judge, which answers Rocky's question about whether or not man can judge.

If a simple and correct explanation can suffice for the question "why did God tell Adam and Eve not to partake of the fruit" then you can't use it to prove your point about not judging.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This thread illustrates all that is wrong with religion. "No need to follow my conscience or apply reason or think for myself, for I'll do whatever the authorities say. Or, better yet, I will glean from the authorities' sayings and the scriptures whatever I need to justify my intolerance, even hatreds."

SU's approach is typical of terroist logic.

First, rather than calmly address a matter, discuss it on a step by step basis, you throw out an ad hominem, "homophobe, hatred, bigot", wait for the explosion and move amongst the crowd.

Second, SU will frequently retreat to the safety of the unspeaking masses, the "enlightened", the "educated", the patricians, when in actuality, he's doesn't have a logical defense of his position, but he is psychologically satisfied, emotionally okay with it, and doesn't wish to defend the position with rigorous logic.

SU and many others use this terroist logic, as a rhetorical device, to create "don't go there zones." In family relations, women are wont to do this by throwing temper tantrums if certain matters are discussed.

The politicos do this by making certain activities "discriminatory", a loaded non-analytical term if I'd ever heard one. The politicos desire semantical nuclear bombs to light off whenever a weakness in a position might be exposed.

I personally like exposing and discussing "don't-go-zones", even though it can piss people off.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

First, rather than calmly address a matter, discuss it on a step by step basis, you throw out an ad hominem, "homophobe, hatred, bigot", wait for the explosion and move amongst the crowd.

Bull crap. You don't want people to go through your posts point-by-point. When Faith did that to you, you exploded in a series of embarassing and shamefull responses that demonstrated homophobia, hatred and bigotry. You then deleted both your posts and Faith's post (because they were so intertwined), and called it a day. You can no longer make this claim, that you want to deal with issues on a 'step by step' basis and be taken seriously. You have proven that when people take you up on that, you will misbehave, feel shame, and DELETE! Covering up your dirty deeds had a price buddy, namely a big load of your credibility.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Robin

Bull crap. You don't want people to go through your posts point-by-point. When Faith did that to you, you exploded in a series of embarassing and shamefull responses that demonstrated homophobia, hatred and bigotry. You then deleted both your posts and Faith's post (because they were so intertwined), and called it a day. You can no longer make this claim, that you want to deal with issues on a 'step by step' basis and be taken seriously. You have proven that when people take you up on that, you will misbehave, feel shame, and DELETE! Covering up your dirty deeds had a price buddy, namely a big load of your credibility.

Archaea once said that gays' desire for full rights to get married was about "assholes and money." That's when I saw what this issue was all about for HIM, and that there was nothing to discuss with him. Archaea is right about one thing. I WON'T debate anything about gays with him. Like I'm going to debate civil rights with David Duke. No thanks. It's possible to have an honest discussion and disagreement about gay marriage, but not with an admitted homophobe.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Robin

Bull crap. You don't want people to go through your posts point-by-point. When Faith did that to you, you exploded in a series of embarassing and shamefull responses that demonstrated homophobia, hatred and bigotry. You then deleted both your posts and Faith's post (because they were so intertwined), and called it a day. You can no longer make this claim, that you want to deal with issues on a 'step by step' basis and be taken seriously. You have proven that when people take you up on that, you will misbehave, feel shame, and DELETE! Covering up your dirty deeds had a price buddy, namely a big load of your credibility.

She didn't go point by point, it was the usual liberal bullshit diatribe that I could get in any formula book.

And yeah, I did boil gay sex down to anal sex. Because what is gay sex, between men, two men with oral or anal sex? That's the mechanics.

That makes a homophobe, because I'm willing to boil down the mechanics to what it is? That's laughable Robin and Seattle ute. you both are more intelligent than you let on.

I eliminated the unnecessary emotional garbage to the mechanics, and you're afraid to expose your ignorance by discussing the bare mechanics.

I'm not afraid to discuss anything at all, even splice it away, piece by piece. I'm not afraid of intellect or of saying things that offends people, even if I don't believe it. Pure examination requires that one not be afraid. For that reason, I like Friedrich Nietsche, who was misquoted and abused by the Nazis.

Seattle Ute won't discuss gays because he's simply emotional about it and never thought about it intellectually.

My "emotional diatribe" Robin was to wake Faith out of her bullshit liberal doldrums. Nobody thinks any more. They just parrot what somebody else said.

I deleted the thread to piss you off.

I have never read, a reasoned, economic approach to anything gay. Economics is what drives me most of the time. Utilitarian arguments are fascinating. Good libertarian arguments are also interesting. Even pure Marxist theory.

I purposefully offend in order to open up new wounds, to examine new flesh, that's a forrm of examination.

Seattle Ute just withdraws to his patrician world of insults when his emotional status is laid bare, devoid of intellectual approach.

So be it, we all have our weaknesses.

However, I am the furthest thing from a homophobe, if you only knew. Yet the defenders of the gay faith, are poor in their defense because they are unwilling to peel away every skin, every layer. Perhaps it's an undefensible position, perhaps not. Battles are waged, lost and won.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

She didn't go point by point, it was the usual liberal bullshit diatribe that I could get in any formula book.

And yeah, I did boil gay sex down to anal sex. Because what is gay sex, between men, two men with oral or anal sex? That's the mechanics.

That makes a homophobe, because I'm willing to boil down the mechanics to what it is? That's laughable Robin and Seattle ute. you both are more intelligent than you let on.

I eliminated the unnecessary emotional garbage to the mechanics, and you're afraid to expose your ignorance by discussing the bare mechanics.

I'm not afraid to discuss anything at all, even splice it away, piece by piece. I'm not afraid of intellect or of saying things that offends people, even if I don't believe it. Pure examination requires that one not be afraid. For that reason, I like Friedrich Nietsche, who was misquoted and abused by the Nazis.

Seattle Ute won't discuss gays because he's simply emotional about it and never thought about it intellectually.

My "emotional diatribe" Robin was to wake Faith out of her bullshit liberal doldrums. Nobody thinks any more. They just parrot what somebody else said.

I deleted the thread to piss you off.

I have never read, a reasoned, economic approach to anything gay. Economics is what drives me most of the time. Utilitarian arguments are fascinating. Good libertarian arguments are also interesting. Even pure Marxist theory.

I purposefully offend in order to open up new wounds, to examine new flesh, that's a forrm of examination.

Seattle Ute just withdraws to his patrician world of insults when his emotional status is laid bare, devoid of intellectual approach.

So be it, we all have our weaknesses.

However, I am the furthest thing from a homophobe, if you only knew. Yet the defenders of the gay faith, are poor in their defense because they are unwilling to peel away every skin, every layer. Perhaps it's an undefensible position, perhaps not. Battles are waged, lost and won.

Archaea,

My recollection is that you had your ass handed to you on a platter, by my wife, and that you showed yourself to be a hot-headed bigot. Now you have the moxie to refer to the posts that you freaking DELETED in shame as "bullshit liberal doldrums?"

And then you claim to have deleted my WIFE'S posts to piss ME off? You confess to being a man who would sleight a another man's wife to tick off a husband. You call yourself a mod? You call yourself a man?

BEYOND PATHETIC.

Once people pick up your fallen house of cards they will realize what I have known all along... that you were never playing with a full deck.