Gaybook

[Anonymous]

I think it's time you go sleep it off. Or better yet, stop typing your psychopathic drivel and irrational hatred at strangers on the net and get therapy.  You are NOT mentally stable.

[Frood]

I think it's time you go sleep it off. Or better yet, stop typing your psychopathic drivel and irrational hatred at strangers on the net and get therapy.  You are NOT mentally stable.

You believe in cloud gods.



I really don't care what you think, reality cop-out.  ac_biggrin

[RW]

They deserve it.

NO they don't. Enough with your far left bullying.



Your kind are all the same. You preach tolerance but only when it fits YOUR agenda. Once again we are witness to the left's special brand of hypocrisy.

I didn't know opposition to discrimination was a leftist issue.



Is it really religious intolerance if people warp the good word to suit their stupidity?

I'm curious, exactly what "good word" are these bigoted Christians warping? I'm no holy roller but I'll tell you right now, the Old Testament doesn't approve of buggery and to my knowledge neither did Christ or the Apostles. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

 

Christ couldn't even handle seeing money lenders in the temple, he practically started a riot getting rid of them. Do you really think he would of approved of men fucking other men in the ass? Get some perspective FFS. For you hypocrite nonbelievers everything in the Bible cannot be twisted to suit your political agenda, especially when you spit on it in the first place so fucking deal with it.



One thing I do know is bullying when I see it and you rabid gay agenda supporters are guilty of it in spades.

I already answered that Wulf and who said I was a "non-believer"?  I have never said I didn't believe in God or Jesus.



Jesus didn't like greed.  He didn't approve of the perversion of a holy place in the name of it either.



"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."



I don't believe for one second that Jesus would approve in the discrimination of gay people.  It's time to stop using religion as an excuse for treating others like shit.

[Wulf]

:2r4ml1j_th: is god cock  ac_wot

She's not right, don't question it.



When you sit in vigil at a death bed day in and day out it fucks with your head. For many people the trauma of such shit will cause them to either become a religious nut-job or they end up subscribing to nihilism.  It's not hard to see which way that puerile and arrogant cunt went.

[cc]

Good point but I have a feeling this one was born nasty.



One often sees this extent of  obsession in atheists that are unsure of themselves and have to keep running by putting down religion 24/7 using as much nastiness as is allowed. They are quite common and quite predictable



They can't stop themselves from doing it .... like as though the devil makes them do it  ac_smile



Cue Geraldine  .. the devil made me do it

[Frood]

Good point but I have a feeling this one was born nasty.



One often sees this extent of  obsession in atheists that are unsure of themselves and have to keep running by putting down religion 24/7 using as much nastiness as is allowed. They are quite common and quite predictable



They can't stop themselves from doing it .... like as though the devil makes them do it  ac_smile



Cue Geraldine  .. the devil made me do it

How can an atheist be unsure of themselves? An atheist by definition doesn't have any beliefs about life or the further afterlife (if it even exists).



However, religious nutters DO have beliefs about the afterlife before they even hit it.



Who can't stop themselves from doing it?  



You're just as sick in the head as Dove is, CC.

[cc]

When you have real arguments instead of  obsession driven runarounds followed by insult and  smiley cover (your repetitive unoriginal MO pattern),  get back to me





Yet another obsession-driven tired old lazy copout coming 1 .. 2.... 3....

[Frood]

Run away, little mind.



To be honest, it wasn't ever going to be a surprise to me.

[Wulf]

Run away, little mind.



To be honest, it wasn't ever going to be a surprise to me.

If you have nothing to really say then it's best to just STFU and save the energy.



I'm sure a faux intellectual such as yourself has been told that before by smarter people than me so what's all the noise?

[Wulf]

I already answered that Wulf and who said I was a "non-believer"?  I have never said I didn't believe in God or Jesus.



Jesus didn't like greed.  He didn't approve of the perversion of a holy place in the name of it either.



"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."



I don't believe for one second that Jesus would approve in the discrimination of gay people.  It's time to stop using religion as an excuse for treating others like shit.

I don't know how Christ felt about it. I wasn't there and I never met the guy. Neither did you I have to assume.



But one of his apostles (Paul) had this to say. That is if you believe the following are his actual words.  



"The apostle Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthians, wrote the verses most often quoted on this subject:"



"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6:9-11)"



"This verse has been translated in as many different ways as there are different versions of the Bible, so we have to look at the original Greek to see what Paul was really saying. The word translated here as "male prostitute" is the Greek word malakos which literally means "soft to the touch." However, it was used metaphorically to refer to a catamite (a boy kept for sexual relations with a man) or to a male prostitute in general. The word translated here as "homosexual offender" is the Greek word arsenokoites which means a sodomite, a person who engages in any kind of unnatural sex, but especially homosexual intercourse5. Some believe this use of arsenokoites referred specifically to the men who kept catamites6, but that is not certain."



"There are two other New Testament mentions of homosexual acts, in Romans 1:25-27 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10. In this passage from Romans, again in the context of idolatry, Paul mentions women who "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones." This is the only mention of lesbian acts:"



"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In 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. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)"

http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_homosexuality.htm">http://www.christianbiblereference.org/ ... uality.htm">http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_homosexuality.htm



Believe what you want, it's your interpretation. In light of the above passages I will form my opinion on the basis of logical deduction. When a supposed follower of Christ such as Paul refers to homosexual relations as unnatural I'm inclined to think JC would not have approved of it's practice. Call me crazy.



But the reality is......who gives a shit if he did or not approve, he died 2000 years ago. It's the modern dogma that Christians are more or less obligated to live by.

Hell, Christ wasn't even a Christian; he was a Jew. The Christian sect sprung up after his death and they adopted the teachings of Christ that suited their needs best. If homosexuality was left out in the cold, well......tough shit. Everyone doesn't get picked for the team because that's just how the ball rolls.



You can argue the point on both sides until the cows come home but who is right and who is wrong is simply a matter of opinion. The only thing I know it that here in the US the Constitution affords the INDIVIDUAL the right to religious expression and if he or she doesn't want to accept gay marriage on the basis of religious conviction, there is nothing you can do about it.



That's one of the areas where the recent SCOTUS ruling gets it wrong. It allows for religious organizations to abstain from sanctioning gay marriage but it forces it onto the individual. Unfortunately for our activist bench, the Constitution was expressly written to protect the rights of the individual. The wildly broad interpretation that claims that the 14th Amendment extends to state marriage laws is in direct conflict with the 1st Amendment which makes the ruling unconstitutional. Our supreme court has once again caved to political agenda and the dangers of social engineering. Simply put; 5 justices waved a magic wand and made up a law based on the whim of special interest groups and in the process, displaced and trampled constitutional law.



Now what does this have to do with what Christ believed?.......NOTHING. It's simply an illustration of how much of a dog and pony show the whole argument of legalized gay marriage actually is.



That's the last I will be saying on this subject because it's a idiot's argument.

[Frood]

Run away, little mind.



To be honest, it wasn't ever going to be a surprise to me.

If you have nothing to really say then it's best to just STFU and save the energy.



I'm sure a faux intellectual such as yourself has been told that before by smarter people than me so what's all the noise?

I believe the message was quite clear. You and your ilk are mindless religion zombies. You might not have gathered that since you're a mindless religion zombie.  



/whack/



(Stay down, buddy)

[RW]

Show me in the bible where Jesus himself discriminated against people.  Then show me how doing so is living the life of Christ.  I'll wait.



Your highest court should not bend to the will of the religious right past the defence of freedom of religion and in the case of gay marriage, it just that.  Discrimination based on sexual orientation was not warranted.  We saw it here in Canada as well.  Such a restriction of said freedom was not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.  I see it no differently than it in the U.S. Your Supreme Court finally caught up with the times.

[Wulf]

Run away, little mind.



To be honest, it wasn't ever going to be a surprise to me.

If you have nothing to really say then it's best to just STFU and save the energy.



I'm sure a faux intellectual such as yourself has been told that before by smarter people than me so what's all the noise?

I believe the message was quite clear. You and your ilk are mindless religion zombies. You might not have gathered that since you're a mindless religion zombie.  



/whack/



(Stay down, buddy)

I guess all that assumption comes from being stupid enough to assign character traits to people based on your worthless reading comprehension.



A word of advice; and I strongly suggest you take it. Don't fuck with people who are your intellectual superiors. You tried it with the chief inspector and got your ass handed to you so badly that you went crawling over to VF to lick your wounds. If you think you got your ass handed to you by the....kindly old gent, then you don't even want to tangle with me. You'll only end up crying like the weak ass pretender that I know you are.

[Wulf]

Show me in the bible where Jesus himself discriminated against people.  Then show me how doing so is living the life of Christ.  I'll wait.



Your highest court should not bend to the will of the religious right past the defence of freedom of religion and in the case of gay marriage, it just that.  Discrimination based on sexual orientation was not warranted.  We saw it here in Canada as well.  Such a restriction of said freedom was not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.  I see it no differently than it in the U.S. Your Supreme Court finally caught up with the times.

I know you are smarter than that. Don't be as dumb as dingus or Romero. You know damn well that Constitutional law has NOTHING to do with the "religious right". At least I hope you do.



BTW, asking for an example of Christs alleged discrimination against people based on religious doctrine or any other info we have on the man is a fools request. We don't even know how accurate the portrayal of Christ is in the Bible. It was written after his death by people with a religious and political agenda. For all intents and purposes it's a work of fiction that for various emotional and spiritual reasons some people chose to believe as truth. For all we really know the man could of had multiple wives, bad breath and had a habit of kicking his dog when he was pissed off. He could have been a total dick and his goodness could be nothing but a work of propaganda.  



The whole issue of Christs approval or disapproval is a circus performed for idiots.

[Romero]

Christ couldn't even handle seeing money lenders in the temple, he practically started a riot getting rid of them. Do you really think he would of approved of men fucking other men in the ass? Get some perspective FFS. For you hypocrite nonbelievers everything in the Bible cannot be twisted to suit your political agenda, especially when you spit on it in the first place so fucking deal with it.

We don't even know how accurate the portrayal of Christ is in the Bible. It was written after his death by people with a religious and political agenda. For all intents and purposes it's a work of fiction that for various emotional and spiritual reasons some people chose to believe as truth.

???