Conquer Club

unriggable wrote:

luns101 wrote:

Backglass wrote:Your book is not proof...it is a book, written by men.

...as are books written by critics of the Bible yet you have no problem putting your faith in their arguments.

What makes more sense: the reason for the story of Noah's ark is because the black sea was at one point a freshwater lake but a few thousand years after the ice age ended the meditteranean refilled and brought salt water to the lake, making a huge waterfall and flooding the nearby land.

OR

The earth stopped spinning because one human on it wanted to win a battle.

If you have half a brain youd know the first makes a lot more sense than the second. The bible just makes no sense. Half of it is an acid trip.

Especially when we take into account earlier Near Eastern mythology. Similar themes, similar stories...

luns101 wrote:

Backglass wrote:Many people from that time also witnessed alchemists turn lead into gold. Are you leaving that possibility open as well?

Now who's comparing apples to oranges?!!

The point which you missed (or ignored) is that the ancient, supertitious people whose words you cling to, believed it possible for men to do magical things. Your supposed miracles and someone claiming to turn lead into gold are both acts of deception...not reality.

luns101 wrote:...as are books written by critics of the Bible yet you have no problem putting your faith in their arguments.

Huh? What books? I said no such thing.

Luns101 wrote:This is only because you dismiss the miracle of changed lives, for one. They haven't all stopped. I have talked to people who have had cancer cured and no explanation by a doctor for it disappearing. I'm not talking about the phony faith healers who ask for your $$. I'm talking about average people who were prayed for and had diseases healed. Doctors & scientists had no explanation for what happened.

Immune response. The bodies healing properties. There are plenty of answers more reasonable than "A supernatural winged serpent cured me!".

I lost my keys the other day. We looked everywhere. Then they just appeared in a place I swore I had looked before. There is no explanation so it must have been a Leprechaun.

Luns101 wrote:

Backglass wrote:The same reason you direct all your posts to christianity. There aren't many "Logic dictates there is a Shiva" posts.

Should I start one?

Please don't.

Luns101 wrote:What about when secular humanists declare nature has divine power? Secular Humanism's theological basis is atheism (as admitted by numerous members). They also admit that they are religious.

I don't know...those people don't try to teach their superstitions in my kids classroom so they can do what they want. If they believe that gods inhabit the earth, then I think they are wrong as well.

Luns101 wrote:You can also actually talk to homosexuals who admit its a choice. They are sick and tired of people saying they were born that way and are finally starting a movement to dispel that myth. People who have been through reparative therapy for SSA could also be talked to, so why are their testimonies ignored?

Sounds like Stockholm Syndrome to me.

Luns101 wrote:I had one parent request a meeting and then got in my face accusing me of being a "faggot-loving S.O.B". I guess I can't win either way, can I?

Well, I hope you smiled and said "Well I love YOU don't I"? Sadly, it sounds like the father probably TOLD his kid to "go beat up a couple of fags". And what a great way to get your kids teacher to take a special interest in him. I will never understand parents who act that way.

Luns101 wrote:I've lost 2 friends to AIDS in the 90's. It was directly related to their homosexual behavior.

No. It was directly related to AIDS. The virus happened to initially find the path of least resistance in the gay population, but it is by no means a gay disease.

Luns101 wrote:I didn't see any homosexual activists there visiting them & encouraging them during their last months. I saw plenty of Christians doing whatever they could to make their time as dignified as possible. So yes, I take offense when someone says my beliefs are based in fear.

C'mon Luns...how did you know? Did you stop & survey every person who came by to visit these men in their last days? "Excuse me sir...are YOU GAY? Are you a MILITANT PROTESTER?".

Luns101 wrote:It redefines the institution of marriage and disrespects it.

Disrepects what?! A definition?! HOW DOES IT EFFECT YOUR MARRIAGE EXACTLY?

Luns101 wrote:This is what I'm talking about...we just let everyone do whatever is right in their own eyes. The pedophiles are right behind, waiting to have their behavior constitutionally recognized as well.

YES! And if we let slaves learn to READ, next they will want to be FREE! And if we let women VOTE, next they will want to have JOBS! WE MUST NOT GO DOWN THIS SLIPPERY SLOPE!

This is just a smokescreen to keep the christian religious bias hidden and protected. Remember the OUTRAGE at in-vitro fertilization? The "Test Tube Baby"? "THEY ARE PLAYING GOD! This MUST be STOPPED!". "If we allow this, the next thing you know women will be giving birth to MONKEYS, DOGS and CATS! Children will be churned out in baby factories! STOP THIS MADNESS!"

luns101 wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Just because I don't see any reasonable evidence does not mean there is. Do you have this evidence?

Yeah, I'm still wondering whether I should post it or not now. I'm reading your other posts and it appears you are also willing to allow polygamy to receive constitutional protection. I don't think there's much you would be willing to consider. This is starting to remind me of another thread I argued in for absolute values and was told that 1 + 1 = 2 couldn't be proved. Not much use posting facts if it's not going to be taken seriously.

Just post it if it's any good. Saying I'm not openminded enough is no excuse. I mean, there was numerous evidence posted in the xtra-threads and if anyone is not openminded it's him.

Wow. This is a weird thread.

luns101 wrote:

V.I. wrote:Luns, your comparison of homosexuals to pedophiles is erroneous as well as offensive. This is the argument crafted by narrow-minded bigots who have been indoctrinated by bible-thumping, radical Christian dogma.

Your intolerance is disturbing and I pray you never have the opportunity to instill your beliefs onto impressionable children. Homosexuals are no more pedophiles than yourself.

Oohhh. Name calling! "You better agree with us, Luns or we'll call you a bigot".

Yep, you really took a long time to read through my quotes correctly. On second thought never mind. It's typical here on CC.

I read your quotes again, Luns, and I'm still struggling to determine how 1.) your assertion of validating homosexuality in U.S. courts by granting similar rights and privileges as heterosexual couples will somehow throw open the flood-gates of sin and inequity, in the form of legalized pedophilia or bestiality or other such nonsense,

and 2.) how your refusal to recognize homosexual couples as deserving of equal access to rights as enjoyed by heterosexual couples, in all respects of the law, does not qualify you as a bigot.

Calling you a bigot is no more an offense than calling you by your first name: a bigot is defined as someone who is partial to their own race, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc., and is intolerant of those who differ. Unless I'm missing something, you are against affording homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals, therefore you are intolerant, therefore you are a bigot.

Republican. No, wait - democrat.

im actuaclly what you would call a "conservative"... but republican will do...

in short i love guns, hate abortion,want low taxes,think the government should give us more freedom,hate terrorists and support the war(that we ARE winning)...love G.W.B. ECT

GAYS HAVE NO RIGHTS...THEY ARE AN ABOMINATION TO GOD AND MAN.

THEY CANT PRODUCE CHILDREN SO THEY WANT TO ADOPT AND TEACH MORE CHILDREN TO BE SICK PIGS...THEY SPREAD DISEASE AND HORRIBLE MORALS INTO THE WORLD AND THEY WANT RIGHTS!!! LOL YEAH RIGHT.

THEVE NEVER BEEN NORMAL THE FACT THAT THEY INSIST CONSTANTLY THAT THEY ARE PROVES THAT THEIR NOT...NATURAL INSTINCT IS NOT TO BE GAY IM NOT SORRY FOR MY BELIEFS AND THE GAYS WILL ALL BE JUDGED BY GOD

Guiscard wrote:

unriggable wrote:

luns101 wrote:

Backglass wrote:Your book is not proof...it is a book, written by men.

...as are books written by critics of the Bible yet you have no problem putting your faith in their arguments.

What makes more sense: the reason for the story of Noah's ark is because the black sea was at one point a freshwater lake but a few thousand years after the ice age ended the meditteranean refilled and brought salt water to the lake, making a huge waterfall and flooding the nearby land.

OR

The earth stopped spinning because one human on it wanted to win a battle.

If you have half a brain youd know the first makes a lot more sense than the second. The bible just makes no sense. Half of it is an acid trip.

Especially when we take into account earlier Near Eastern mythology. Similar themes, similar stories...

SIMILAIR CAUSE THEY WERE TAKEN FROM THE BIBLE AND CORRUPTED!!!

THORNHEART wrote:GAYS HAVE NO RIGHTS...THEY ARE AN ABOMINATION TO GOD AND MAN.

THEY CANT PRODUCE CHILDREN SO THEY WANT TO ADOPT AND TEACH MORE CHILDREN TO BE SICK PIGS...THEY SPREAD DISEASE AND HORRIBLE MORALS INTO THE WORLD AND THEY WANT RIGHTS!!! LOL YEAH RIGHT.

THEVE NEVER BEEN NORMAL THE FACT THAT THEY INSIST CONSTANTLY THAT THEY ARE PROVES THAT THEIR NOT...NATURAL INSTINCT IS NOT TO BE GAY IM NOT SORRY FOR MY BELIEFS AND THE GAYS WILL ALL BE JUDGED BY GOD

Yay! one crazy leaves, another arrives... so it goes.

THORNHEART wrote:GAYS HAVE NO RIGHTS...THEY ARE AN ABOMINATION TO GOD AND MAN.

THEY CANT PRODUCE CHILDREN SO THEY WANT TO ADOPT AND TEACH MORE CHILDREN TO BE SICK PIGS...THEY SPREAD DISEASE AND HORRIBLE MORALS INTO THE WORLD AND THEY WANT RIGHTS!!! LOL YEAH RIGHT.

THEVE NEVER BEEN NORMAL THE FACT THAT THEY INSIST CONSTANTLY THAT THEY ARE PROVES THAT THEIR NOT...NATURAL INSTINCT IS NOT TO BE GAY IM NOT SORRY FOR MY BELIEFS AND THE GAYS WILL ALL BE JUDGED BY GOD

Gays have rights, just not rights to f*ck up a child's upbringing

Do you know, I think I can almost take Luns' point about calling homosexual unions 'marriage' being disrespectful to the Christian institution of 'marriage'; but only in a very qualified fashion.

'Marriage' as a word is a specific name for an inherently Christian tradition, it's a union between males and females that Christian's have based their lives around for centuries. Traditionally they don't let men and men, or women and women, indulge in it (I think that's wrong, but I'm not to Pope). Calling something which isn't permitted as a 'marriage' a 'marriage' might perhaps be percieved as disrespectful by Christians, as it's essentially a usurpation of an inherently Christian word. It'd be a bit like calling the 'Atkins Diet' the 'Atkins Sawm' or calling 'Bank Holidays' 'Bank Christmases' or something else bizarre.

That's not to say that I don't support legally recognised homosexual unions (I'm a great supporter of homosexual 'marriage', don't get me wrong), but perhaps they ought to be called by a moniker other than 'Marriages', as they're not actually Christian approved 'Marriages' in the traditional sense of the word. 'Civil Unions' might perhaps be a better term to recognise them by, as that's essentially what they are.

However that said, I can't go so far as to entertain the possibility that legally recognising, and officially permitting, Homosexual Unions is somehow disrespectful to the Christian faith, nor that it somehow mysteriously devalues the religiously-based marriages into which Christian's enter. That'd be like arguing that naming babies devalues the ceremony of Christening, or that Bar-Mitzvahs devalue the ceremony of Confirmation.

There, essay over, just thought I'd chip a couple of cents in while I was in the building.

Dancing Mustard wrote:Do you know, I think I can almost take Luns' point about calling homosexual unions 'marriage' being disrespectful to the Christian institution of 'marriage'; but only in a very qualified fashion.

'Marriage' as a word is a specific name for an inherently Christian tradition, it's a union between males and females that Christian's have based their lives around for centuries. Traditionally they don't let men and men, or women and women, indulge in it (I think that's wrong, but I'm not to Pope). Calling something which isn't permitted as a 'marriage' a 'marriage' might perhaps be percieved as disrespectful by Christians, as it's essentially a usurpation of an inherently Christian word. It'd be a bit like calling the 'Atkins Diet' the 'Atkins Sawm' or calling 'Bank Holidays' 'Bank Christmases' or something else bizarre.

That's not to say that I don't support legally recognised homosexual unions (I'm a great supporter of homosexual 'marriage', don't get me wrong), but perhaps they ought to be called by a moniker other than 'Marriages', as they're not actually Christian approved 'Marriages' in the traditional sense of the word. 'Civil Unions' might perhaps be a better term to recognise them by, as that's essentially what they are.

However that said, I can't go so far as to entertain the possibility that legally recognising, and officially permitting, Homosexual Unions is somehow disrespectful to the Christian faith, nor that it somehow mysteriously devalues the religiously-based marriages into which Christian's enter. That'd be like arguing that naming babies devalues the ceremony of Christening, or that Bar-Mitzvahs devalue the ceremony of Confirmation.

There, essay over, just thought I'd chip a couple of cents in while I was in the building.

i guess the simple issue i have with this is....marriage as a term has transcended any specifically Christian oriented message at this point in our socialization process. Though yes you could trace Christian ideals and many other things into one conception of the marriage process, it certainly no longer reflects the only socialization that occurs around marriage, or possibly even the most common one.

Its not very nice to appropriate terms so that other people cant use them when they have as much stake to the claim in the current society as anyone else. Having said that...if you granted all the rights you granted in marriage, to something termed differently, i suppose i wouldnt think it to be all that bad, though i feel if someone who was gay wanted a marriage and specifically a marriage, they have every right to do so.

Fair point. I'm married, had a civil ceremony with no mention of anything religious. In fact it's forbidden in the civil ceremony. Still marriage though. I am atheist, so's my wife, and we're married. Xians can get all het up if they want. They may as well rant about me celebratign xmas as well.

heavycola wrote:Fair point. I'm married, had a civil ceremony with no mention of anything religious. In fact it's forbidden in the civil ceremony. Still marriage though. I am atheist, so's my wife, and we're married. Xians can get all het up if they want. They may as well rant about me celebratign xmas as well.

Yeah we don't have to marry in a church or get a pastor/priest to say God said it was ok to have a marriage, so why would anyone classify marriage as religious.

THORNHEART wrote:GAYS HAVE NO RIGHTS...THEY ARE AN ABOMINATION TO GOD AND MAN.

THEY CANT PRODUCE CHILDREN SO THEY WANT TO ADOPT AND TEACH MORE CHILDREN TO BE SICK PIGS...THEY SPREAD DISEASE AND HORRIBLE MORALS INTO THE WORLD AND THEY WANT RIGHTS!!! LOL YEAH RIGHT.

THEVE NEVER BEEN NORMAL THE FACT THAT THEY INSIST CONSTANTLY THAT THEY ARE PROVES THAT THEIR NOT...NATURAL INSTINCT IS NOT TO BE GAY IM NOT SORRY FOR MY BELIEFS AND THE GAYS WILL ALL BE JUDGED BY GOD

The only thing sadder than your statements is that you felt the need to SHOUT them out at everyone. You honestly believe any reasonable deity would discriminate in similar fashion?

If anyone needs to be worried about the wrath of any god it should be you. Your hatred against your fellow humanity is far worse than homosexuality.

PM sent. Leave the gays alone please.

THORNHEART wrote:SIMILAIR CAUSE THEY WERE TAKEN FROM THE BIBLE AND CORRUPTED!!!

Singin', somebody's a dumbass, get out fer a spankin', somebody's a dumbass, time fera time-out.

Bible was fully compiled late 4th century. These tales are over a thousand years older.

got tonkaed wrote:if you granted all the rights you granted in marriage, to something termed differently, i suppose i wouldnt think it to be all that bad, though i feel if someone who was gay wanted a marriage and specifically a marriage, they have every right to do so.

I completely agree with the first part of that post.

But when you say a 'marriage', do you mean a marriage as conducted by a priest, or simply a union that would be called by the moniker 'marriage'?

Dancing Mustard wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:if you granted all the rights you granted in marriage, to something termed differently, i suppose i wouldnt think it to be all that bad, though i feel if someone who was gay wanted a marriage and specifically a marriage, they have every right to do so.

I completely agree with the first part of that post.

But when you say a 'marriage', do you mean a marriage as conducted by a priest, or simply a union that would be called by the moniker 'marriage'?

I think the second. Because that's what many marriages in my country are.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:if you granted all the rights you granted in marriage, to something termed differently, i suppose i wouldnt think it to be all that bad, though i feel if someone who was gay wanted a marriage and specifically a marriage, they have every right to do so.

I completely agree with the first part of that post.

But when you say a 'marriage', do you mean a marriage as conducted by a priest, or simply a union that would be called by the moniker 'marriage'?

Nonreligious marriage - a city sponsored person signs something saying that the two now have shared laws, et.c etc. etc.

THORNHEART wrote:want low taxes,think the government should give us more freedom,hate terrorists

Well thank GAWD! Nobody else wants THAT!

THORNHEART wrote: and support the war(that we ARE winning)..

Although this is for another thread, what exactly is "winning" in your tiny little mind?

THORNHEART wrote:love G.W.B. ECT

Wow. Anyone who still says that today is just a blind fool. Open your eyes and look around. $472,331,047,550.00 and counting on your "war", more Americans dead than killed in 9-11 and an economy in the shitter. All squarely on your bufoon presidents shoulders. "Mission Accomplished" indeed.

Honestly, I am so looking forward to this election...not so that any particular party gets in, but so that the Bush family retard can get OUT.

THORNHEART wrote:GAYS HAVE NO RIGHTS...THEY ARE AN ABOMINATION TO GOD AND MAN. Blah Blah Blah <SNIP> Idiotic Ranting.

You know who else talked exactly like you? Ted Haggard...leader of the National Association of Evangelicals. Fire, Brimstone and the same angry yelling. Then he got caught giving blowjobs at a rest stop with a pocketful of Methamphetamine. Of course he claims it was all the work of Satan...not his lust for another mans cock.

Like him, you sound very gay and in denial to me. You shouldn't try so hard to fight your true feelings. Just let it go, head down to the truckstop and say "HI" to all the christians in the restroom.

Backglass wrote:

THORNHEART wrote:GAYS HAVE NO RIGHTS...THEY ARE AN ABOMINATION TO GOD AND MAN. Blah Blah Blah <SNIP> Idiotic Ranting.

You know who else talked exactly like you? Ted Haggard...leader of the National Association of Evangelicals. Fire, Brimstone and the same angry yelling. Then he got caught giving blowjobs at a rest stop with a pocketful of Methamphetamine. Of course he claims it was all the work of Satan...not his lust for another mans cock.

Like him, you sound very gay and in denial to me. You shouldn't try so hard to fight your true feelings. Just let it go, head down to the truckstop and say "HI" to all the christians in the restroom.

Good observation. Wasn't there another guy caught having sex with a male prostitute in an airport bathroom? One of those 'pro-family' fuckers?

These threads never tend to go very far but its great fun reading the ramblings of the lunatics

unriggable wrote:

Backglass wrote:

THORNHEART wrote:GAYS HAVE NO RIGHTS...THEY ARE AN ABOMINATION TO GOD AND MAN. Blah Blah Blah <SNIP> Idiotic Ranting.

You know who else talked exactly like you? Ted Haggard...leader of the National Association of Evangelicals. Fire, Brimstone and the same angry yelling. Then he got caught giving blowjobs at a rest stop with a pocketful of Methamphetamine. Of course he claims it was all the work of Satan...not his lust for another mans cock.

Like him, you sound very gay and in denial to me. You shouldn't try so hard to fight your true feelings. Just let it go, head down to the truckstop and say "HI" to all the christians in the restroom.

Good observation. Wasn't there another guy caught having sex with a male prostitute in an airport bathroom? One of those 'pro-family' fuckers?

Well, there was Senator Craig from Idaho, he never technically had sex with anybody in any bathroom, just solicting. Even then the case was kinda weak, but he pled guilty, so I guess it was true. Even so, no prostitutes, no actual sex. And semantics (literally?) but I believe Haggard was receving blow jobs, not giving them.