Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

wow... discrimination at its finest

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>
Author
procarbinefreak View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Budget Medical Procedures Available

Joined: 12 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 12751
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote procarbinefreak Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 8:33pm
this is a private school... but in no way a religious school...


Back to Top
AdmiralSenn View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 07 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2683
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AdmiralSenn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 8:45pm
On the original topic: The group, from the little excerpt posted, does not seem to be a hate group, they simply want members to not sin. As somebody said, there aren't exactly huge numbers of diehard Christian homosexuals anyway.

And for the rest of this thread, as silly as it has been, I'll make it short and sweet, and those who want one of my semi-famous lecture posts can PM me.

Romans 1.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.

   26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Before anyone starts the argument that God caused homosexuality, I advise doing some research.

Second: To those who want to know why we don't follow all the rules of the Old Testament:

Acts 15.

22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul– 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

Basically, Gentiles should follow the rules about food sacrificed to idols, about eating blood, about eating strangled animals and from sexual immorality.

Third, as for my opinion on the whole 'homosexuality would destroy humanity' and so on...

I believe that if an act, should it be practiced by every single person on earth, would result in the destruction of the human race, it should be VERY CAREFULLY considered before being allowed into law. I won't go into the nature vs whatever bit, because that always turns into a debate.

Back on topic: This group is allowed to do what they have done. I think, procarbinefreak, you're being a tiny bit too sensitive (don't take this as an attack, think of it as constructive criticism). It doesn't even mean that homosexually oriented people can't join, they just can't be having homosexual sex/any other sex prohibited by their rules. Remember that by those rules, the other members are also abstaining from having sex, something many students find baffling and unthinkable. They ask nothing of homosexuals that they do not ask of themselves. There are in fact college students who don't have sex.

And by the way, 'drunkenness' doesn't mean not having alcohol, it simply refers to not being totally smashed. The Bible ENCOURAGES drinking of wine and so on, just in moderation.
Is God real? You'll find out when you die.

Okay, I don't have a clever signature zinger. So sue me.
Back to Top
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 8:50pm
Reasearch Nature Vs. Nurture.
Back to Top
warlord88 View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 May 2003
Status: Offline
Points: 177
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote warlord88 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 8:56pm
bravo Adminal Senn.
A-5
E-grip
J&J 14 in. 2 piece ceramic
16 in. smart part progressive tough coat finish
8 in. lapco
centerflag 68/3000 HPA
AKA sidewinder
JCS adjustable blade trigger
Back to Top
Ejp414 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ejp414 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 9:22pm
Quote As somebody said, there aren't exactly huge numbers of diehard Christian homosexuals anyway.

Uh, no—there isn't exactly a large number of homosexuals period, AdmiralSenn. However, most that I do know are Christian, and the fact that they are still following a religion that treats them unfairly amazes me. It's pretty "hardcore," I'd say.

Quote On the original topic: The group, from the little excerpt posted, does not seem to be a hate group, they simply want members to not sin.

Further, it's not a sin according to Church doctrine to be a homosexual; it's a sin to take part in homosexual activities. It's funny how so many "diehard" Christians don't understand this about their own faith—too much AM radio, perhaps?

Quote Third, as for my opinion on the whole 'homosexuality would destroy humanity' and so on...

I believe that if an act, should it be practiced by every single person on earth, would result in the destruction of the human race, it should be VERY CAREFULLY considered before being allowed into law. I won't go into the nature vs whatever bit, because that always turns into a debate.

Sophistry at its finest! You probably shouldn't go into that very much because, honest to God, that's one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read from you, Senn.

Quote Back on topic: This group is allowed to do what they have done. I think, procarbinefreak, you're being a tiny bit too sensitive (don't take this as an attack, think of it as constructive criticism). It doesn't even mean that homosexually oriented people can't join, they just can't be having homosexual sex/any other sex prohibited by their rules. Remember that by those rules, the other members are also abstaining from having sex, something many students find baffling and unthinkable. They ask nothing of homosexuals that they do not ask of themselves. There are in fact college students who don't have sex.

Truthfully, you could have only typed this part, and the post would have been just dandy. Excusing the rhetoric from earlier, you're right on target.

And concerning various other locutions:

Isn't Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament?

And, since I'd rather not research, care to tell me how—if God created mankind—He did not create homosexuality.

Goodnight!



__________________
__________________

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 9:24pm

Originally posted by AdmiralSenn AdmiralSenn wrote:


Romans 1.

... sexual impurity ... shameful lusts...exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones...abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another...Men committed indecent acts with other men...

Except with the "lust for one another" part, this is so awfully vague.  I'm still not sure if this is about homosexuality or doggystyle.

What is a "shameful lust"?  "Indecent acts"?

This Biblical argument is becoming very circular...


Quote ... as for my opinion on the whole 'homosexuality would destroy humanity' and so on...

I believe that if an act, should it be practiced by every single person on earth, would result in the destruction of the human race, it should be VERY CAREFULLY considered before being allowed into law.

If you propose outlawing every act that would lead to the destruction of the human race if practiced by every single person on earth, nothing would be legal.

If everybody had steak for dinner, we would destroy the ecosystem.  If everybody had fish for dinner, we would destroy the ecosystem.  If everybody chopped down a tree, we would destroy the ecosystem.  If everybody took a crap at the same time, we would die from the stink.

That is an irrelevant standard.

Moreover, it is wrong.  Homosexuality doesn't make you sterile.  You just don't get pregnant from homosexual sex.  Plenty of homosexuals have natural children.

Speaking of which - if everybody always had sex with condoms, the race would die out.  Should condoms be illegal?

How about vasectomies - if everybody had one of those, we would also die out.

I don't buy this argument.  Not even a little bit.



Edited by Clark Kent
Back to Top
Ejp414 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ejp414 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 9:30pm
Originally posted by Ejp414 Ejp414 wrote:

Sophistry at its finest!

__________________
__________________

Back to Top
procarbinefreak View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Budget Medical Procedures Available

Joined: 12 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 12751
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote procarbinefreak Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 11:21pm
Senn,

I wouldn't have taken that as a personal attack anyway... this is a debate... throw out your opinion. 

I know i'm being a little too liberal about this, but its what i wanted to do.  I just think its kinda wierd that they say follow the rules of the scripture, and there are so many outrageous rules that would have to be followed.... but whatever!  the situation made the news

Back to Top
AdmiralSenn View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 07 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2683
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AdmiralSenn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2005 at 6:58pm
Originally posted by Ejp414 Ejp414 wrote:


Uh, no—there isn't exactly a large number of homosexuals period, AdmiralSenn. However, most that I do know are Christian,
and the fact that they are still following a religion that treats them
unfairly amazes me. It's pretty "hardcore," I'd say.

How many of them actually care what the Bible says, and/or have tried to stop being homosexual? Just curious.

If they're being treated unfairly, the ones doing the mistreatment should be smacked. Homosexuality is like any other sin, it deserves no special treatment either way.



Further, it's not a sin according to Church doctrine to be a homosexual; it's a sin to take part in homosexual activities. It's
funny how so many "diehard" Christians don't understand this about
their own faith—too much AM radio, perhaps?

Interestingly, I have thought over this before. The Bible actually encourages members of both sexes to love members of both sexes, it just says to only have sex with the opposite one.

Sophistry at its finest! You probably shouldn't go into that very much because, honest to God, that's one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read from you, Senn.

I didn't really explain what I meant very well. More on that on the response to Clark.

Isn't Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament?

Yes. Yes it is. I provided the references I did because of Acts 15, seeing as how a lot of people tend to disregard Old Testament laws.

And, since I'd rather not research, care to tell me how—if God created mankind—He did not create homosexuality.

Easily.

Mankind has inherited sin from the beginning. I tend to think that God created humans as they were and decided not to do any changes as far as disposition to sin is concerned. People may be taller/smarter/longer lived/whatever, but that doesn't involve sin. Hard to explain, I really don't know how to put this, so if this makes no sense, let me know.

As for why God allowed sin in the first place.. I have no *satisfactory* idea. I have lots of half-baked ideas, but none are definitive. To use an old evasive cliche: God's ways are not ours. I don't have a ready answer to that question. The passage from Romans 1 does have an interesting start, though, in that God gave people over to sin as punishment, but I'm not going there.




Now then.

Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:


Except with the "lust for one another" part, this is so awfully vague. I'm still not sure if this is about homosexuality or doggystyle.
What is a "shameful lust"? "Indecent acts"?
This Biblical argument is becoming very circular...


*again with the sighing*

If you were as well-read in theology as you are in the law, you would recognize Old Testament references. There are only so many ways two men can degrade their bodies with each other sexually. It's not that hard to figure out, and if you have two guys having non-oral (or whatever) sex, it would pretty much have to be 'doggy style'. It's not that hard to figure out. Don't criticize my argument because the Bible doesn't say that they had hot passionate man-man lovemaking in graphic detail.

It's very hard to argue with somebody who's incapable or unwilling to do the slightest bit of inference from something. I think that if you can't figure out that they were having some kind of sex from the context, you need to sleep.

And how is it circular? The Bible is saying that these acts were sinful (if you can't follow that reasoning, look for 'sinful lusts' and every other instance of the word 'lust'. It should become very easy). People want references to the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality, I provide one. It's not circular as much as it is 'The Bible says so', and if you don't like to follow the Bible, I am not going to be able to make you, nor will I try.


If you propose outlawing every act that would lead to the destruction of the human race if practiced by every single person on earth, nothing would be legal.

I never said outlaw. I said it should be considered carefully. If you don't think our country should take care in making laws... where have you been?

If everybody had steak for dinner, we would destroy the ecosystem. If everybody had fish for dinner, we would destroy the ecosystem. If everybody chopped down a tree, we would destroy the ecosystem. If everybody took a crap at the same time, we would die from the stink.

No, we would not destroy the ecosystem. We might kill all the cows/fish/trees off, but those are not the human race. Excepting the trees, none of that would harm us as a race significantly. Notice also that there are ALREADY regulations in place on all three of those acts (hunting, fishing, deforesting). Somebody has already decided that it would not be good for us to allow complete destruction of certain things, and either outlawed or severely restricted the destruction of those things.

Remember that I never said anything WOULD be practiced worldwide (it is absurd to think of anything being done by EVERYONE on Earth, excepting basic bodily functions and so on). I said it should be considered.


That is an irrelevant standard.



Explain that to the people who regulate logging, commercial fishing, deer and other hunting, pollution, and so on. I believe that nearly all of our laws fit into that standard, regardless of if it was actually used to make the laws or not.

Moreover, it is wrong. Homosexuality doesn't make you sterile. You just don't get pregnant from homosexual sex. Plenty of homosexuals have natural children.

Speaking of which - if everybody always had sex with condoms, the race would die out. Should condoms be illegal?

Wait. How does a total lack of pregnancies worldwide not harm the human race? I never said homosexuality makes anyone sterile, I said that if everyone in the world was only a homosexual, the human race would die out with that generation.

And I believe that birth control shouldn't be around. I'm not going to argue for it, it's a personal belief. One of those 'I disagree with what the government allows but I'm not saying anything since this is a free country' situations. I also think the human race needs to just lose a huge chunk of its libido, rather than worrying about restricing sex all over the place, or trying to prevent babies. This idea of mine gets really confusing, and isn't really relevant here. Again, PM for details if anyone wants to know how that would work.


How about vasectomies - if everybody had one of those, we would also die out.



And? How common are vasectomies? Again, I never said something should be illegal because in some far-off fantasy of worldwide sameness it might harm someone, I said it should be considered before being put into law (one way or another. Obviously we don't have laws allowing everything we are allowed to do).



You guys are making yourselves work harder by making my argument more extreme than it needs to be. Don't put words in my mouth. It's funny, either people are too literal (Bible references) or too quick to infer (any of my thoughts).

Originally posted by procarbinefreak procarbinefreak wrote:

Senn,

I wouldn't have taken that as a personal attack anyway... this is a debate... throw out your opinion. I know i'm being a little too liberal about this, but its what i wanted
to do. I just think its kinda wierd that they say follow the
rules of the scripture, and there are so many outrageous rules that
would have to be followed.... but whatever! the situation made
the news




Read what I posted above, in Acts 15. It explains why non-Jews don't have to follow the Old Testament Laws excepting the ones listed.

Edited by AdmiralSenn
Is God real? You'll find out when you die.

Okay, I don't have a clever signature zinger. So sue me.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2005 at 7:06pm

Allow me to restate:

I will make inferences about the meanings of things, including the Bible.  Inferences are necessary and appropriate for most things.

BUT - we are not talking about "most things".  We are talking about declaring behavior/feelings/people/something EVIL and a SIN and an ABOMINATION.

For that, we ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

What if Congress passed a law:  "Shameful lusts are punishable by 10-15 year in prison."  You would have riots, because that is an incredibly vague standard.

When you are creating a law - Biblical or otherwise - there NEEDS to be clarity, otherwise it isn't a law at all.  If you have to guess at what it means, it is useless.  The Bible is so vague as to be useless. 

Can I take a stab at what it means?  Sure.  I also think that homosexuality is what Paul was discussing.  But is "think" or "pretty sure" good enough when you are going to condemn somebody to eternal damnation?  I would hope for something better than "pretty sure".

Back to Top
Hitman View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Why yes, I am JUST THAT cool, thx...

Joined: 14 January 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Status: Offline
Points: 5123
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hitman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2005 at 7:20pm
Originally posted by Ejp414 Ejp414 wrote:

And, since I'd rather not research, care to tell me how—if God created mankind—He did not create homosexuality.


That is the same thing I bring up when confronted with this arguement. Whenever I debate this with my friend who follows Christianity, he says that they choose to be that way, contrary to scientific study.

While he has faith in the bible, he lacks all faith in trained scientists.


Edited by Hitman
[IMG]http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/4874/stellatn8.jpg">

Back to Top
Bunkered View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
What AM I smoking?

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5691
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bunkered Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2005 at 7:27pm
I don't see what the problem is.

It seems simple enough to me... If you agree with the club's policies, you can join... If not, then don't join; I'm sure there are other Christian clubs on campus.

I'm sick of people feeling they are entitled to be allowed everywhere. Sometimes you're just required to STAY OUT. I can't go in a girls' restroom, but they have nicer mirrors! OH NOEZ! DISCRIMINATION!
Back to Top
Gatyr View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Strike 1 - Begging for strikes

Joined: 06 July 2003
Location: Austin, Tx
Status: Offline
Points: 10299
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gatyr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2005 at 8:03pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by warlord88 warlord88 wrote:

i base it on simple evolution. Here it goes MAN+MAN= the end of mankind. now the same is true when you take WOMAN+WOMAN= you know what the answer is? the same thing. it just goes against the natural order of life itself.

Evolution carries no moral imperative - it can't.  Evolution just IS - it has nothing to do with "should".  That is a meaningless connection.

Im gonna disagee with you there....mostly because I know very little about religion...and found something non-useless to post :)

Evolution IS, simply because it SHOULD be that way. Did certain species of birds gain longer beaks to reasch farther into trees and holes to get food, or trees in Africa begin making spikes to prevent getting eaten by the many herbivores there because thats the way luck, or some supreme being said it IS going to be like that? Or did those evolutions occur because if they had a desire to survive, they SHOULD adapt like they did?

On an on topic note, I must say that Dazed seemed to have pwned the hardcore christians with that post. I foud it to be quite amusing.

Back to Top
ForceRedeemer View Drop Down
Member
Member

Mouth needs Clorox cleansing.

Joined: 04 June 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 31
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ForceRedeemer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2005 at 9:32pm
Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

Originally posted by *Stealth* *Stealth* wrote:

Dont like it, Dont join their Club.... Seems pretty simple to me. Your not a hardcore christian if your homosexual anyway, So I dont see where the problem is...


There are plenty of hardcore christians that are homosexuals. Just like thare are plenty of hardcore christians that eat meat on Fridays of lent.



That’s Catholics not christians!
Back to Top
ForceRedeemer View Drop Down
Member
Member

Mouth needs Clorox cleansing.

Joined: 04 June 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 31
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ForceRedeemer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2005 at 9:39pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by warlord88 warlord88 wrote:

LEVITICUS 18-22 " Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind:it is abomintion.


That is certainly the most commonly cited reference. Here are my questions:


1. "lie with" - How do you know this means sex? Maybe it means sleepover? And if it means sex, what kind of sex (there are different kinds...)? And if it means sex, what about kissing and holding hands? If kissing isn't adultery, then perhaps two men kissing isn't "lieing with"? Is it an abomination to hug your buddy? Seems like there is a lot of extrapolation going on here...


2. What about lesbians?



Hey Bill Clinton what is the meaning of is?

Wait everyone....... I got it now Clark Kent made me see the light. If you lie in the same area as another man you will burn in hell!!!!!!
You may not be a follower of Christ but don't play stupid you know what it means.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 April 2005 at 9:14am
Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:

Evolution IS, simply because it SHOULD be that way. Did certain species of birds gain longer beaks to reasch farther into trees and holes to get food, or trees in Africa begin making spikes to prevent getting eaten by the many herbivores there because thats the way luck, or some supreme being said it IS going to be like that? Or did those evolutions occur because if they had a desire to survive, they SHOULD adapt like they did?

This is only true if you assume that evolution is guided, which is a circular argument...

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 April 2005 at 9:16am

Originally posted by ForceRedeemer ForceRedeemer wrote:

You may not be a follower of Christ but don't play stupid you know what it means.

In am not playing stupid, and I don't know what it means.  I tend to agree that it probably doesn't mean simply sharing a bed, but I am entirely unclear as to whether it includes kissing, oral sex, loving gazes...

Where is the line?  The Bible is too vague, and doens't provide a line.  Therefore, it is a meaningless rule.

Back to Top
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 April 2005 at 9:22am
It means no relation ships beyond that of a normal productive relationship between two men. Lie together, means have sex, indulge in inpure acts. Of course its vaugue when you pick through it with a fine toothed comb with the objective of disproving it. These passages are prohibiting homosexuality, not the acts. You are getting hung up on the acts, thats not what is important. Its the lifestyle that is being prohibited.

Edited by DBibeau855
Back to Top
Tae Kwon Do View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Best Forumer of the Year 2006

Joined: 30 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tae Kwon Do Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 April 2005 at 9:36am
Originally posted by ForceRedeemer ForceRedeemer wrote:

Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

Originally posted by *Stealth* *Stealth* wrote:

Dont like it, Dont join their Club.... Seems pretty simple to me. Your not a hardcore christian if your homosexual anyway, So I dont see where the problem is...


There are plenty of hardcore christians that are homosexuals. Just like thare are plenty of hardcore christians that eat meat on Fridays of lent.



That’s Catholics not christians!

 Exactilly what do you think Catholics are?


Back to Top
Dazed View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Romped around naked in thorn bushes

Joined: 13 February 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3876
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dazed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 April 2005 at 9:47am
Originally posted by ForceRedeemer ForceRedeemer wrote:

That’s Catholics not christians!


And comments like this are why I fear the average "christian".
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.223 seconds.