Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-29-2007, 10:31 AM #64
NicoleW
 
 
NicoleW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Buffalo, New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan RRPB2 View Post
Ok but what if two homosexuals got married is that a sin? and what if they participated in intercourse after?
I also have a whole article dealing with gay marriage that most definately would answer this question for you...its long though, maybe 2 or 3 posts worth. But this is your thread so tell me if you would either like me to post it here for all to see or just provide you with a link so you can view it at your leisure?
NicoleW is offline  
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 06-29-2007, 10:32 AM #65
Dylan RRPB2 (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by NicoleW View Post
Here, I will take the opportunity to post a few more things on this topic since it appears Dylan that you do happen to read alot...which says a great deal about you. Thanks for taking the time out to actually care about what people have to say
Haha. Well thanks for posting and giving answers! Ask a pastor should just be turned into ask Nicole. I find you know the Bible more well than anyone on PBN itself.

In response to:

Quote:
Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).
Well isn't that basically saying that they CHOSE to be homosexual.

"Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God."

So Paul is claiming that homosexuality is what happens when you do not praise God?
Dylan RRPB2 is offline  
Old 06-29-2007, 10:33 AM #66
Dylan RRPB2 (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by NicoleW View Post
I also have a whole article dealing with gay marriage that most definately would answer this question for you...its long though, maybe 2 or 3 posts worth. But this is your thread so tell me if you would either like me to post it here for all to see or just provide you with a link so you can view it at your leisure?
It would probably help to post on here, because I am sure a lot of people would love to see it.
Dylan RRPB2 is offline  
Old 06-29-2007, 10:42 AM #67
NicoleW
 
 
NicoleW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Buffalo, New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan RRPB2 View Post
It would probably help to post on here, because I am sure a lot of people would love to see it.
Alrighty then, here it goes

Quote:
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS




INTRODUCTION

1. In recent years, various questions relating to homosexuality have been addressed with some frequency by Pope John Paul II and by the relevant Dicasteries of the Holy See.(1) Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon, even in those countries where it does not present significant legal issues. It gives rise to greater concern in those countries that have granted or intend to grant – legal recognition to homosexual unions, which may include the possibility of adopting children. The present Considerations do not contain new doctrinal elements; they seek rather to reiterate the essential points on this question and provide arguments drawn from reason which could be used by Bishops in preparing more specific interventions, appropriate to the different situations throughout the world, aimed at protecting and promoting the dignity of marriage, the foundation of the family, and the stability of society, of which this institution is a constitutive element. The present Considerations are also intended to give direction to Catholic politicians by indicating the approaches to proposed legislation in this area which would be consistent with Christian conscience.(2) Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.


I. THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE
AND ITS INALIENABLE CHARACTERISTICS


2. The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.(3) No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.

3. The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator's plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – the personal level – where nature and spirit are united.

Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.

Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).


4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.(4)

Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered”(9) and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.(10)


II. POSITIONS ON THE PROBLEM
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS


5. Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.

Where the government's policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.
NicoleW is offline  
Old 06-29-2007, 10:43 AM #68
NicoleW
 
 
NicoleW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Buffalo, New York
continued...

Quote:
III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL
RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS


6. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.


From the order of right reason

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.


From the biological and anthropological order

7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.


From the social order

8. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.


From the legal order

9. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.

Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(17)


IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS
WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS


10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.


CONCLUSION

11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.
NicoleW is offline  
Old 06-29-2007, 10:47 AM #69
NicoleW
 
 
NicoleW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Buffalo, New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan RRPB2 View Post
Haha. Well thanks for posting and giving answers! Ask a pastor should just be turned into ask Nicole. I find you know the Bible more well than anyone on PBN itself.

Oh no, Joe is WAY smarter than I am and older and wiser and better versed in the bible. We believe slightly different things though as I am a Catholic christian and he is a christian, I believe, more with an evangelical flavor. And Brent a.k.a. Rambo preacher is really, really intelligent too. But I am just very passionate about anything that has to do with sexual morality as these teachings were ultimately what changed my life and enabled a true conversion of heart.

Well isn't that basically saying that they CHOSE to be homosexual.

"Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God."

So Paul is claiming that homosexuality is what happens when you do not praise God?
He says it is something that can happen to some as he says, "desires of some". So yes, even like I said, some desires can be chosen based on certain decisions one makes in their life. But don't take this to mean more than it does or apply it to everyone. It only applies to SOME.
NicoleW is offline  
Old 06-29-2007, 11:33 AM #70
Mike Sendker
Future Liberator
 
Mike Sendker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Florida
You're a good spin doctor Nicole.

Look, if your homosexual, and the only way for you to get off is to commit acts of homosexuality, why shouldn't you be allowed to do it? "Because the bible says so" isn't a good reason. Give me a good solid reason why homosexuality is sinful. Why does a homosexual have to live like a Monk to get to heaven? That in itself is intolerant. You said you are born with sexual attractions to men, and that doesn't excuse you from sleeping with everyone. True, but it does excuse you from sleeping with your husband. That analogy makes no sense.
__________________
We are people of this generation, bred in at least modest comfort, housed now in universities, looking uncomfortably to the world we inherit.
Mike Sendker is offline  
Old 06-29-2007, 11:36 AM #71
Mike Sendker
Future Liberator
 
Mike Sendker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Florida
And what about the 6000 Year Earth theory guys? You've disregarded it. It proves that the Christian Religion is impossible to live faithfully by in the modern day. No one in the 21st century can sound sane and say that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
__________________
We are people of this generation, bred in at least modest comfort, housed now in universities, looking uncomfortably to the world we inherit.
Mike Sendker is offline  
Old 06-29-2007, 12:07 PM #72
TESlight'emupTES
My username is stupid
 
TESlight'emupTES's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: VA
 has been a member for 10 years
TESlight'emupTES donated to help Peyton Trent
I think you use poor logic, don't understand Christianity, and misquote Scripture often.

However, this is ST:Religion and it is another "I DISPROVED CHRISTIANITY!!!" thread, so I guess it's par for the course.
TESlight'emupTES is offline  
Old 06-29-2007, 12:14 PM #73
Dylan RRPB2 (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Sendker View Post
You're a good spin doctor Nicole.

Look, if your homosexual, and the only way for you to get off is to commit acts of homosexuality, why shouldn't you be allowed to do it? "Because the bible says so" isn't a good reason. Give me a good solid reason why homosexuality is sinful. Why does a homosexual have to live like a Monk to get to heaven? That in itself is intolerant. You said you are born with sexual attractions to men, and that doesn't excuse you from sleeping with everyone. True, but it does excuse you from sleeping with your husband. That analogy makes no sense.
Your not suppose to masturbate in the first place. At all. And there is no sex until you are married.

Second, its unnatural. Thats why its wrong.

A homosexual can just not take participate in homosexual actions. Neither can the Pope. God would have much more honor for a homosexual fought his homosexuality with prayer and control then a normal heterosexual who did not have sex till marriage.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Sendker View Post
And what about the 6000 Year Earth theory guys? You've disregarded it. It proves that the Christian Religion is impossible to live faithfully by in the modern day. No one in the 21st century can sound sane and say that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
In REGARDS to the 6000 Earth history: You said

Quote:
No one in the 21st century can sound sane and say that the Earth is only 6000 years old
Who is saying that? I am surely not. Nor does it state that anywhere in the Bible. It is simply an observation that some people choose to believe and some do not.

And to Nicole, thank you for posting that. The definately clears things up a bit!
Dylan RRPB2 is offline  
Old 06-29-2007, 12:24 PM #74
NicoleW
 
 
NicoleW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Buffalo, New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Sendker View Post
And what about the 6000 Year Earth theory guys? You've disregarded it. It proves that the Christian Religion is impossible to live faithfully by in the modern day. No one in the 21st century can sound sane and say that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
Who believes this? Certainly not catholics! Take a look at this:

Quote:
Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.

The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact that "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4); that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created until the fourth day (cf. Gen. 1:3, 16); and that Adam was told he would die the same "day" as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (cf. Gen. 2:17; 5:5).

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (cf. Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "many scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (cf. ibid., 284, 2293–4).
The succession of six days isn't a set of literal time periods but a symbolic means of presenting what God did in creation. People in the ancient world knew that daylight comes from the sun, and early writers (e.g., Origen and Augustine) remarked on the fact that the sun was not created until the fourth day, sometimes citing it as a reason not to take these as ordinary, literal days. The creation of the sun on the fourth day is suggestive - as it would have been to the ancient audience - that the succession of days is not intended to be taken as a strict, chronological account and that something else is at work as an ordering principle in the text.
NicoleW is offline  
Old 06-29-2007, 12:30 PM #75
NicoleW
 
 
NicoleW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Buffalo, New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Sendker View Post
You're a good spin doctor Nicole.

Look, if your homosexual, and the only way for you to get off is to commit acts of homosexuality, why shouldn't you be allowed to do it? "Because the bible says so" isn't a good reason. Give me a good solid reason why homosexuality is sinful. Why does a homosexual have to live like a Monk to get to heaven? That in itself is intolerant. You said you are born with sexual attractions to men, and that doesn't excuse you from sleeping with everyone. True, but it does excuse you from sleeping with your husband. That analogy makes no sense.
Because living a life that is pleasing to God is never about selfishness or just "getting off" as you so aptly put it. And this applies to people with heterosexual tendencies just as much as it does to people with homosexual tendencies. Being a married woman, I can not just do anything I want with my husband. Sex always has to have 2 components: openness to life and sharing love between the spouses. So a good reason why homosexual actions are always sinful, and mind you, the same goes with heterosexual actions where the couple uses contraception, is that it is not open to life which is one of the 2 main purposes of sex. My husband and I, even though we are married, would be committing a sin just as much as same-sex intercourse if we were to use a condom, mutually gratify each other aside from the act of intercourse, or do any other action sexually that was not ordered towards life. How is that being intolerant? I hold myself up to the exact same standards that I do with everyone, including those with homosexual tendencies.

I mean, we have to be careful when we claim intolerance. Am I intolerant when I say unmarried people should remain abstinent as well (remember, chastity is a different thing which we are all called to no matter our state in life)? Am I intolerant when I say that I think people with attractions to children should remain abstinent? Am I intolerant if I even say that I should remain abstinent if I cannot be open to life at that time? I am practicing periods of abstinence right now because I just had a baby and need a little time to recoup before I get preganant again. Am I being intolerant there?

Last edited by NicoleW : 06-29-2007 at 12:35 PM.
NicoleW is offline  
Old 06-29-2007, 01:00 PM #76
skpaintball
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: so cal <O.C.>
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Sendker View Post
Dude, the Science may still not be completely in, but before sentencing gays to death because you think its a "choice", then why not give them the benefit of the doubt, something american philosophy is supposed to teach us. Until you can prove them guilty of choosing, theyre innocent. And even if it is a choice, How the **** does that hurt you? I mean seriously. Sorry to swear, but it just pisses me off.
I would have let this post go as it seems to be a response to my post... except you make many assumptions about me that really pisses me off. Please stick to the discussion instead of going off tangents of sentencing gays to death? WTF? Where did we mention capital punishment for gays all ofa sudden?
__________________
feedback
skpaintball is offline  
Old 06-29-2007, 01:02 PM #77
Dylan RRPB2 (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 727
A quote from Mike Sendker

Quote:
One of my biggest personal philosophies is somewhat anarchic in it's basis. No matter who the person is, or what the concept, idea, or law is, I question it's basis
Yeah, well the problem is, you only question the side that you don't believe. You automatically assume that all information that is on your side of the arguement is always correct. Where is your timeline Michael? Where is YOUR timeline?
Dylan RRPB2 is offline  
Old 06-29-2007, 01:32 PM #78
DYE baller FOR life
 
 
DYE baller FOR life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
The irony here is incredible. Science had its beginings in religion. Men of religion were the first people to start scientific inquiry. If anything, science if the fault of fundamental religious attitudes. Atheism came from scientific endeavor; the result of a long historical necessity to prove god. Put into context, fundamental belief in a deity plus the natural evolutionary trait of curiosity in humans gave rise to scientific endeavor. As science progressed and humanity became more intelligent, scientific thought gave rise to atheism - the natural course of human mental evolution. Give it another thousand years and we will regard your Bible on the same level as the plays of Shakespeare and Christianity with the likes of Greco-Roman theology.

Taken with water, ibuprofin will have anti-inflamatory effects.
in regards to you saying the Bible will become as the plays of shakespeare, how can you say that?
the Bible has been around for thousands of years, and thousands of years to come, christianity is one of the oldest religions ever, the belief in God has been around since the beginning of the earth.
you act as if you're talking about some comic book, well you're not, you're talking about the largest religion ever.

and you talk about athiesim as if it is proof of evolution.
show me one spot where anyone has proven a single fact of evolution.
and i could give you pages and pages of how many times they've failed.
umm.
nebraska man anyone?


then if you can prove any fact in the Bible wrong, i would like to see you do it.
without twisting it's words please.

and have you ever heard of the story where two scientists(i can't remember their names, i just remembered this story from hearing it awhile back, but it is true by all means) wen't across the country trying to disprove the Bible, and when they came back to meet eachother a few years later, they both had gotten saved?

you cannot disprove the word of God without twisting it to you're benefit in some way.




and here's somthing that is more off topic then what i just said-
i wen't in you're Athiest thread and tried to save you're life and i got flammed and reported.
for trying to save you're life.
it shows just how ungreatful you are towards someones love.
you should be more open minded, mabye if a stranger cares enough about you to try and save you're life, they might have somthing worth saying?
__________________

If you pay for your own paintball stuff put this in your sig
95% of all ion owners think their 300 dollar "investment" is better than your 1400 dollar "p.o.s" if you want to bonus ball every ion owner that thinks this put this in your sig
a series of quotes by warbeak2099:"...You acted like a total immature jerk..." "...you were too immature to behave intelligently..." "Neener neener I win."
DYE baller FOR life is offline  
Old 06-29-2007, 02:02 PM #79
cryptic.paintball
blah blah blah
 
cryptic.paintball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Uniontown Pa
cryptic.paintball plays in the APPA D5 division
cryptic.paintball is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
cryptic.paintball is Legendary
cryptic.paintball is Boss
Quote:
Originally Posted by DYE baller FOR life View Post
in regards to you saying the Bible will become as the plays of shakespeare, how can you say that?
the Bible has been around for thousands of years, and thousands of years to come, christianity is one of the oldest religions ever, the belief in God has been around since the beginning of the earth.
you act as if you're talking about some comic book, well you're not, you're talking about the largest religion ever.

and you talk about athiesim as if it is proof of evolution.
show me one spot where anyone has proven a single fact of evolution.
and i could give you pages and pages of how many times they've failed.
umm.
nebraska man anyone?


then if you can prove any fact in the Bible wrong, i would like to see you do it.
without twisting it's words please.

and have you ever heard of the story where two scientists(i can't remember their names, i just remembered this story from hearing it awhile back, but it is true by all means) wen't across the country trying to disprove the Bible, and when they came back to meet eachother a few years later, they both had gotten saved?

you cannot disprove the word of God without twisting it to you're benefit in some way.




and here's somthing that is more off topic then what i just said-
i wen't in you're Athiest thread and tried to save you're life and i got flammed and reported.
for trying to save you're life.
it shows just how ungreatful you are towards someones love.
you should be more open minded, mabye if a stranger cares enough about you to try and save you're life, they might have somthing worth saying?
1. The bible as it is today is only a little over 1,000 years old.
2. Christianity is no where near one of the oldest, by comparision it is closer to one of the newest religions.
3. The belief in your god is newer than most other gods.

House sparrows have adapted to the climate of North America, mosquitoes have evolved in response to global warming, and insects have evolved resistance to our pesticides. These are all examples of microevolution—evolution on a small scale.

Now I will wait for your "pages" of counterproof.

How about the fact that your god got the square root of PI wrong? That proof enough for you that there are issues with your bible?

You went into the atheist thread acting a fool and got corrective action for it. You have zero proof that your god is anything but a figment of your imagination yet you want to spread said word to everyone else or they will burn in hell.
cryptic.paintball is offline  
Old 06-29-2007, 02:25 PM #80
skpaintball
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: so cal <O.C.>
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan RRPB2 View Post
A quote from Mike Sendker



Yeah, well the problem is, you only question the side that you don't believe. You automatically assume that all information that is on your side of the arguement is always correct. Where is your timeline Michael? Where is YOUR timeline?
Again wrong. You assume what I don't assume. I'd appreciate it if you would stop stuffing words into my mouth, or anyone else's for the matter.
__________________
feedback
skpaintball is offline  
Old 06-29-2007, 02:25 PM #81
Dylan RRPB2 (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 727
[quote=cryptic.paintball;37160708]
How about the fact that your god got the square root of PI wrong? That proof enough for you that there are issues with your bible?
QUOTE]

Where is that in the Bible?
Dylan RRPB2 is offline  
Old 06-29-2007, 02:26 PM #82
Dylan RRPB2 (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by skpaintball View Post
Again wrong. You assume what I don't assume. I'd appreciate it if you would stop stuffing words into my mouth, or anyone else's for the matter.
what?
Dylan RRPB2 is offline  
Old 06-29-2007, 02:28 PM #83
skpaintball
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: so cal <O.C.>
 has been a member for 10 years
If your post #77 was in reply to my post #76, it was another reply on my part.
__________________
feedback
skpaintball is offline  
Old 06-29-2007, 02:30 PM #84
Dylan RRPB2 (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by skpaintball View Post
If your post #77 was in reply to my post #76, it was another reply on my part.
my post was a reply to mike sendker
Dylan RRPB2 is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump