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

wow... discrimination at its finest

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 456
Author
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 9:49am
Basically, Senn, what you're saying is that its a "Look, but don't touch" rule, right? As long as people don't actually have intercourse, they are ok.
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 9:51am
Originally posted by Tae Kwon Do Tae Kwon Do wrote:

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?



There are a couple different schools of thoght on this subject, some say the catholic religion was around as a cult before the time of christ, so in reality, catholics are not christians acording to this school of thoght, and some of our practices go directly against the ten comandments. Idols, false gods, praying to the saints. So one could make an argument catholics are not true christians.

But as it stands, i think that guy just had an idiot moment.
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 3:42pm

Originally posted by DBibeau855 DBibeau855 wrote:

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.

I am picking through it with a fine-toothed comb, yes - but not to "disprove", just to clarify.

And your explanation of what the Bible prohibits is very different from what I hear from so many others, goes back to my point:  It is vague.  More to the point, it is TOO vague to base any judgment upon it.  The Bible, within some parameters, means what you want it to mean.  What kind of rule is that?

My point is made further by the many different interpretations people give to the Bible - not just these verses, but the whole thing.  If the Bible were clear we would all agree, or at least most of us.  But because it isn't clear you get different opinions.  That leads me back to the vagueness.  If the Bible were passed by Congress, it would be thrown out by the courts as being too vague.  And if it is too vague to even send somebody to jail, how can we possibly condemn somebody's soul based on it?

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: 23 April 2005 at 4:08pm
Originally posted by Dazed Dazed wrote:

Basically, Senn, what you're saying is that its a "Look, but don't touch" rule, right? As long as people don't actually have intercourse, they are ok.


That's correct, and it's exactly what I said earlier. Unfortunately, he either misunderstood my statement or blatantly avoided it.

—probably the former.
__________________
__________________

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 456
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.