(October 19, 2015 at 9:28 am)Drich Wrote: Because again if they were genetically hardwired to only find the same sex attractive their genetics would die with them in just a few generations, million of years ago. That would mean a pair of gay birds, or lions, wolves, ect are not examples of a species propagating the illusive 'gay gene', but the opposite. The prove that gay animals have sex because they chose to have gay sex for whatever reason. The same holds true with social creatures as well. Again, even if they help the group survive, they themselves would not be able to reproduce the prominent gene that makes a creature gay. Which again over time/Millions of years this trait would be bred out of the gene pool.

False dichotomy. There are more possibilities beyond it's genetically hardwired or it's a choice. Bzzzt. Fallacy.

Wait, did someone say we want Bibles "gone"?? WTF would that even mean?

We want the Bible shown for the magical charlatanism that it is, to be looked at the same way we see the Eneuma Elish, as an outdated collection of Bronze Age tribal shepherders' priest-stories about magic and superstition. There's a critical difference. We are no more bigoted against your faith than we are against Native Americans' "Great Spirit" or the animism of hunter-gatherer tribes in Africa. We find them all equally ridiculous and backward, in the light of modern knowledge.

And yes, you do have to hate someone in order to execute them for victimless crimes, or to banish them from their homes and families. Religion gives bigots the power to claim divine justification for such bigotries. It even gives the power (as established by the Bible) to wipe out your neighbors in the claim that God "gave you" this land... a process that is still going on over the same stupid verses, to this day, on the same pieces of land.

(October 19, 2015 at 9:30 am)Drich Wrote:

(October 18, 2015 at 2:00 pm)dyresand Wrote: Mermaid is right you know

concerning what? Again, empty unsupported attack means she/you are doing the very thing you claim I am doing.. Which means I am right... you know.

A woefully ignorant dick and may i add a woefully ignorant homophobic dick who bends the bible to his own will  and ignore the fact that the bible is a racist homophobic misogynistic  book  and not to mention people have used it as guide to child abuse.

(October 19, 2015 at 9:45 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote:

(October 19, 2015 at 9:28 am)Drich Wrote: This.. 'explanation' would only work is a social communal setting where the homosexuals creatures were still having hetrosexual sex. which deletes the idea of the 'pure homosexual' (who can not supposedly be aroused by the opposite sex) Otherwise the 'gay gene' (if it truly ever existed) would have been bred out of the gene pool (Per Darwin's theory not mine) a few dozen generations ago. Why? Because if the gay monkeys gay people descended from could not reproduce/Could not be aroused by the opposite sex) then their pure gay gene died with them, no matter how useful they were to the non gay monkey men. Which means that your 'explanation' then becomes a social/psychological Choice and not one genetically programed in. (Monkeys had gay sex because it was fun for that particular monkey, and not because it 'had to.')

A good example that dispels your explanation would be all the supposedly gay animals who do not commune in herds or packs/families (as your explanation demands for it's validation.)  The fact that non social creatures(One who does not live in any of the social structures you described) who still have homosexual tendencies proves that those animals simply chose to have sex with what they wanted, because it is pleasurable to them, yet could serve no purpose, or rather had no influence on the genetic make up of the species as a whole.

Because again if they were genetically hardwired to only find the same sex attractive their genetics would die with them in just a few generations, million of years ago. That would mean a pair of gay birds, or lions, wolves, ect are not examples of a species propagating the illusive 'gay gene', but the opposite. The prove that gay animals have sex because they chose to have gay sex for whatever reason. The same holds true with social creatures as well. Again, even if they help the group survive, they themselves would not be able to reproduce the prominent gene that makes a creature gay. Which again over time/Millions of years this trait would be bred out of the gene pool.

Maybe that is why genetic science make no claims to "Coming closer to finding the gay gene" And it maybe also why "psychologists/sociologists" seem to be the only ones making those claims. Or so goes my last 3 google searches

I really don't understand your argument here, just another example of the religious attempting to fit new scientific ideas to their prehistoric dogma.

I'd have loved to have seen your take on this a few decades ago...you're an intelligent guy, clearly.  How you can see through your own bullshit astounds me.

what's not to understand?

Gay creatures can not reproduce. No reproduction= no gay genes in the gene pool.

(October 19, 2015 at 10:37 am)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(October 19, 2015 at 9:33 am)Drich Wrote: Wait a tick...

Your not one of those Stoo-ped Atheists who don't know that bible represents two completely different religions are you?

Or do you not know their are no more OT Jews?

IDK Sandy, maybe it's better if you put me back on "your list." I don't think youtube can help you much on this one.

You're not one of those stupid individuals who doesn't know that the bible represents far more than two completely different religions are you?
Case and point; every single denomination who interprets the Bible radically differently.
If you're going to be insulting could you at least do it properly? 
(FYI; You're using the laughing emote far too much at things that aren't that funny to the point its becoming meaningless.)

I would say the irony of the misspellings and misuse of the word 'your' was lost on you, yet ironically the use of the wasn't even if you claim the oppsite.

(October 20, 2015 at 9:36 am)Drich Wrote:

(October 19, 2015 at 9:45 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote: I really don't understand your argument here, just another example of the religious attempting to fit new scientific ideas to their prehistoric dogma.

I'd have loved to have seen your take on this a few decades ago...you're an intelligent guy, clearly.  How you can see through your own bullshit astounds me.

what's not to understand?

Gay creatures can not reproduce. No reproduction= no gay genes in the gene pool.

That's not how it works you ninny if that was the case wouldn't everyone be straight.

(October 20, 2015 at 9:36 am)Drich Wrote:

(October 19, 2015 at 9:45 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote: I really don't understand your argument here, just another example of the religious attempting to fit new scientific ideas to their prehistoric dogma.

I'd have loved to have seen your take on this a few decades ago...you're an intelligent guy, clearly.  How you can see through your own bullshit astounds me.

what's not to understand?

Gay creatures can not reproduce. No reproduction= no gay genes in the gene pool.

accidental double post delete this.

(October 19, 2015 at 11:09 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: Done, now you can stop deflecting with long walls of text dedicated to relatively minor points. No need to thank me. 
Another question I would ask, based on this definition, is that are you intolerant to the opinion that gay people have a right to be themselves without ridicule or any type of harassment?

Outside of the church or a Christian context I don't care what Gay people do. It's only when gay people want to assimilate Christian values and force acceptance and recognition of their newly assimilated values by everyone that I take issue.
Meaning I do not agree with the idea that Christianity should be made to accept or adopt a gay social value. Like Marriage, adoption ect. If it is in violation of our deeply held beliefs. It should be 'ok' for one group of society to identify a behavior in another group and say, we want to part of that behavior in any way shape or form, nor should one group be made to support or accept that behavior.

In the west, 'we' have a mandate to assimilate all cultures and homogenize them. when in fact it is/was our diversity that makes us as a world strong. All Homogenized soceities reek of tyranny.

Quote:I mean, you're declaring it a sin. You're saying God is going to send them to hell.

So? I believe all sexual sin gay or hetrosexuals will fall into Hell if unrepented.

Quote: You support God, you say hes right. About everything. Therefore you think its right for gay people to burn forever?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzVFugFcUto
(sorry could not resist, when ever anyone asks me if someone deserves Hell I think of that clip, because WE ALL deserve Hell) but to answer your specific question, yes I think it is right not only for the unrepentant gays but ALL Unrepentant sinners to burn in Hell. Why? Because an unrepentant sinner becomes Sin and given enough time sin manifests into Evil. (its like my Zombie analogy)

At the same time I also repentant gay people (even if they never gained mastery of their sin) will also find a home in Heaven.

Quote:And you have the gall to feign offence at being called intolerant? 

Being 'gay' is not the sole qualifier for hell here, therefore 'hate/intollerance' is not being directed at any one person or people. Being 'gay' is the same as being straight in this instance, which is the essence of true equality. The qualifier for the need of separation eternal (Heaven/Hell) is unrepentant sin

Quote:Just stop, its demonstrably false, demeaning and detracting from your main points.

Actually it's not. One can only assume my 'side bar' is demonstrably false if they assume that Gay people are the sole target of a 'let ship 'em off to Hell' campaign. Again not the case. Why? Because we are all in that same 'off to hell, boat.' for those who rather stay on the boat rather than repent of whatever sin they have trouble with, are the ones who deserve to see that boat to it's final destination.

Quote:If a community targeted you by screaming abuse at you, calling you an abomination and saying you deserve to burn in hell regularly I dare say it might contribute slightly to you being "unhappy". Again, this is demeaning. 
To deny that the regular abuse they suffer does not play a role undermines any credibility you have. 
Its dishonest and you know it.

Maybe 30 years ago! now the tables have been turned. You can not watch TV, open a magazine, got to sunday brunch, without being saturated in gay-ie culture stuff. Now (as per this very thread) Hate is directed toward the Christian or anyone else who does not willingly accept "gay culture stuff" with out reservation. You argument that Gay people commit suicide because culture does not accept them should have been retired a decade ago. So again, if Gay people are still commiting suicide in the same or greater numbers with all the social acceptance we have now, then again perhaps Homosexuality either attracts or produces a soul crushing unhappiness that causes people to commit suicide.

(October 19, 2015 at 10:22 am)Drich Wrote: You didn't even look at the link I provided to positive Christianity did you?

"Positive Christiianity" was Hitler's own version. Meaning He completely cut Himself and those in Germany off of the R/C Church and ALL other non state sponcered/propaganda filled bibles and denominations.

So yes Hitler did indeed use the term 'God' but as I said (Before you strawmanned off into this completely uninformed/ignorant of basic history tangent) Hitler saw the bible and Christianity as prescribed by the bible as a 'problem' to the Germany he was creating. He deemed all non Nazi State versions of Christianity is Negitive, and issued edicts forbidding it's practice. In His version he was the prophet/pope to God, and his word was akin to the words of God. This subsequently is why he also forbade Atheism.

ralphie Wrote:If you have evidence important to your argument copy and paste the specific sentence or paragraph important to it. Nobody should have to search through a webpage to find your point for you.

The WHOLE PAGE is the evidence when people are COMPLETELY Ignorant of a whole period of history they are 'teaching' about. In order for that person to disregaurd their version of history, they must emerse themselves in the complete truth of the matter. The problem with most of you is you look for sound bites or one or two paragraph summaries to tell you what to think. The problem with that? it is way to easy to manipulate those summaries or sound bites which inturn allows the manipulator to control how you think. When searching for truth, one must look past the easy quick answer and educate themselves on everything they can get their hands on or otherwise risk looking foolish when the challenging someone who knows the truth of their sound bite education.

Quote:Anyway. He was a leader of a different denomination so that means Christianity isn't responsible.
Seriously. When has that line of reasoning ever worked for you?

When a man takes the authority to surpass the deity and teachings of Christ (The one who Christianity is named)as outlined in Scripture, then that "new doctrine" ceases being "Christianity."

Would Islam be considered a "new denomination" of Christianity for you as well?

(October 19, 2015 at 10:22 am)Drich Wrote: Again, no. I ask you go back and read what I posted on "Positive Christianity." Educate yourself, before you speak. Don't make it so easy for me to make you look foolish. it makes everything you stand for also look ill informed and foolish.

Quote:So your house is pretty much just shards of glass at this point huh?

Even if my "house" were to ever fall, my foundation shall not move.

Can't pick and choose. Jesus said, "I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it". If he didn't come to abolish it then you better start following it all or figure out that you believe he fulfilled it and died for ALL sins and none are worthy of being judged. You have one other option... Figure out it is BS