|
the hammer of homosexuality
|
 (October 12, 2015 at 12:29 am)ronedee Wrote: There is nothing wrong with same sex people loving each other! Its the sex part that is abnormal. Homosexuality is not natural, or procreative. And is a mental illness, and/or perversion. All sex outside of marriage is considered wrong according to the bible. Walking on water is not natural. Neither is turning water into wine. Believing in God is a mental illness. 
Your bible defines marriage in so many ways that homosexuality should not even be an issue. Grow the fuck up, bitch.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter  (October 12, 2015 at 12:05 am)Drich Wrote:(October 11, 2015 at 12:45 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Well, that explains all the crowds of Christians I've seen, carrying signs protesting premarital heterosexual sex! What the fuck are you talking about? It's sarcasm, genius. It's simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the current crusade (and by current, I mean roughly the last century, though of course the suppression, harassment, and murder of homosexuals in the name of God goes back much further than that) against the LGBT community by Christians in this country, when they're not going after people to whom the Bible dedicates quite a few more verses and prohibitions, such as fornicators like myself. All the scenarios above are not an "appeal to bigotry" but a highlighting of hypocrisy, since if those activist Christians were truly as serious about their Bible's prohibitions as they claim to be when screaming "GOD HATES YOU, FAGGOT!" at people, they would also be going after people like me, who are not gay but who nevertheless violate Biblical prohibitions. They should be knocking on my door, so to speak. Yet they're not there, because I'm a "normal" heterosexual, in their eyes, so while I might be a sinner, I'm not a target for victimization and harassment. Finally, what in the world is "Rather than look at what scripture actually says thus defining what a proper Christian response should be"? I don't give a fuck what your scriptures say your "proper Christian response should be". The proper response is leave everyone who isn't a member of your faith the fuck alone. Unfortunately, that seems to not be the way a number of y'all want to play it, so you're going to get my scorn and derision until you realize that you don't get the right to harass people for their sexuality or any other sin.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love. (October 12, 2015 at 12:29 am)ronedee Wrote: There is nothing wrong with same sex people loving each other! Its the sex part that is abnormal. Homosexuality is not natural, or procreative. And is a mental illness, and/or perversion. All sex outside of marriage is considered wrong according to the bible. And this is EXACTLY why I wrote what I wrote. He says that "all sex outside of marriage is considered wrong according to the Bible", but still calls the gays abnormal, not natural, mental illness, and perversion. Go. Fuck. Yourself. Ronedee. (That's not premarital sex, is it?)
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love. (October 12, 2015 at 12:05 am)Drich Wrote: What happened to you? Loose a few arguments, and you can be found scraping the bottom of the barrel for anything to hurl at religion and those who represent it. I just caught this... I'm assuming you meant "lose" a few arguments. What argument did I lose?
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.  (October 12, 2015 at 12:33 am)Cecelia Wrote: Walking on water is not natural. Neither is turning water into wine. Says you? As opposed to.... say.... 26,000 manuscripts? uh huh.
Quis ut Deus?
(October 12, 2015 at 12:41 am)ronedee Wrote: Says you? As opposed to.... say.... 26,000 manuscripts? uh huh. I think you mean 26,000 works of fiction.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter (October 12, 2015 at 12:42 am)Kitan Wrote:(October 12, 2015 at 12:41 am)ronedee Wrote: Says you? As opposed to.... say.... 26,000 manuscripts? uh huh. I just had an image of 26,000 copies of The Napkin, with the people who made the copies saying, "See?! You can't argue that it's not The Truth, now, can you?!" ![[Image: 6284218693_5ca86a9f6b.jpg]](https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6236/6284218693_5ca86a9f6b.jpg)
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love. (October 12, 2015 at 12:36 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:(October 12, 2015 at 12:29 am)ronedee Wrote: There is nothing wrong with same sex people loving each other! Its the sex part that is abnormal. Homosexuality is not natural, or procreative. And is a mental illness, and/or perversion. All sex outside of marriage is considered wrong according to the bible. Why get personal? Are you gay? My observations are correct according to the bible. My point is... IF sex was somehow considered permissible outside of marriage, gays would use it to their advantage. But sex to the bible is first and foremost for procreation in marriage.
Quis ut Deus?
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
