Re: 'Gayby boom': Children of gay couples speak out

by ziggy Thu Jul 02, 2009 2:51 pm

Because, Emperor Constantine's authority notwithstanding, that has not yet been established.

by Aaron Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:49 pm

According to you it's not been established but considering it's the number one selling book in the world that would put you on the short end of the argument thus I'd have to question your judgment.

Besides, you quote wiki so you're hardly an authority on what is and isn't a credible source for quoting.

by ziggy Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:43 pm

Aaron wrote:According to you it's not been established but considering it's the number one selling book in the world that would put you on the short end of the argument thus I'd have to question your judgment.

Popularity does not establish factual evidence. It could be argued that popularity establishes just the opposite.

Besides, you quote Wiki so you're hardly an authority on what is and isn't a credible source for quoting.

I don't claim to be an authority. I leave such claims up to preachers and other self-annointed authoritarians.

A "credible source for quoting" is not the same as proving something factual- which is what you said Keli could do with his bible.

But now you are putting Keli in a box. I don't think he has ever claimed that his bible is factually credible or is proof of anything. He has suggested, however, that he accepts it on faith. And there is nothing wrong with that as long as he does not insist that his faith represents actuality and factuality, and /or that it should represent everyone else's faith too.

by Aaron Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:07 pm

Using your reasoning, as it was you who made the affirmative statement that the Bible has not been established, it's up to you to prove it.

So prove it.

by ziggy Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:25 pm

Aaron wrote:Using your reasoning, as it was you who made the affirmative statement that the Bible has not been established, it's up to you to prove it.

So prove it.

The absence of tangible evidence to support its supernatural claims leads to its credibility as factual not having been established. And that its adherents, including Keli, admit that they accept it on faith and not on evidentiary proof grounds- and that they tell others that they, too, should accept it on faith and not on a basis of established evidentiary truth- tells us that even they do not consider it as factually established.

by Aaron Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:43 pm

I disagree.

You haven't proven anything yet.

by ziggy Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:01 pm

I am not claiming to have proven anything.

I am saying that even those who accept the bible on faith will usually admit that its proven factualness has not been established. What do you know that they don't know?

by Aaron Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:19 pm

In the words of our long lost pal Sherm, “most” and “usually” sound an awful lot like an anecdotal statement.

by ziggy Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:39 pm

Aaron wrote:In the words of our long lost pal Sherm, “most” and “usually” sound an awful lot like an anecdotal statement.

OK. So ask Keli. It was has post that spawned the immediate discussion. Keli has never claimed, as far as I know, that the bible has ever been established as factual by empiricallly evident proof. And he often defends his Christianity by defending reliance upon faith, not proof.

That is why religion is often referred to as "faith"- because believers of its doctrines are guided by their faith rather than by empirical doctrinal or Biblical proofs.

by TerryRC Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:06 am

First, grouping homos with rapists, murderers and pedophiles is asinine and wrong, Willy.

Rapists, murderers and pedophiles infringe upon the rights and safety of others.

Gays do not.

Also, I'd like to meet the ass that decided sex is "sinful". That person deserves to be shot. Sex is no more sinful or unnatural than defecating.

by Cato Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:19 am

ziggy wrote:
Cato wrote:
ziggy wrote:
Cato wrote:
ziggy wrote:But it was not Mirror on the Wall that said, "Everyone is born with a sinful nature capable of any sin."

Nope, God said it.

No, Keli said it. Is Keli now to be considered God?

And he answered "Yes" when I asked if sinful is what a person is.

Keliu just repeated what God said. If you repeat what George Bush said does that make you George Bush?

George Bush is not an invention of Ziggy. But Keli's God is an invention of Keli. So if Keli quotes his God, then Keli is quoting himself.

That's interesting Ziggy. You tell us you are a christian, and yet you are stating here that God is a myth (a creation of Keli). It seems silly to call yourself a Christian and yet state God is a myth.

by Cato Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:30 am

TerryRC wrote:First, grouping homos with rapists, murderers and pedophiles is asinine and wrong, Willy.

Rapists, murderers and pedophiles infringe upon the rights and safety of others.

Gays do not.

Also, I'd like to meet the ass that decided sex is "sinful". That person deserves to be shot. Sex is no more sinful or unnatural than defecating.

As I said in my post, people make choices. They choose to be rapists, murderers, theives, pedophiles, homosexuals, or whatever. The genetic fairy doesn't come down and wave her magic wand to make a person any of these things. Whether you agree or not, people choose to be what they are. Point being, people bear responsibility for their actions.

As far as your last statement goes, there are limits to everything we do. It is of course, our choice whether we follow those limits or not. Hand in hand with that is that we reap the rewards and suffer the consequences of our actions.

As far as meeting the "ass" that said sex was sinful, you will get the oppertunity one of these days, then you can tell him face to face what you think. However, you believe he's the pixie in the sky, a myth, which is your choice. Just remember you and you alone reap the rewards and suffer the consequences of the choices you make.

by **SheikBen** Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:32 am

TerryRC wrote:First, grouping homos with rapists, murderers and pedophiles is asinine and wrong, Willy.

Rapists, murderers and pedophiles infringe upon the rights and safety of others.

Gays do not.

Also, I'd like to meet the ass that decided sex is "sinful". That person deserves to be shot. Sex is no more sinful or unnatural than defecating.

"Also, I'd like to meet the ass that decided sex is "sinful". That person deserves to be shot"--TerryRC

For someone who claims to care about people's rights, you sure display a gross level of intolerance towards a position that you do not hold.

by **SheikBen** Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:33 am

And I concur with Cato that taking God lightly is unwise.

by TerryRC Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:38 am

For someone who claims to care about people's rights, you sure display a gross level of intolerance towards a position that you do not hold.

So, nothing about my actual observation?

The whole "sex is sinful" philosophy has caused huge social and health-related problems. It has divided families and driven people to suicide. For what? Control of the masses? The right to be self-righteous and judgmental?

Spare me. If anything, I'm not intolerant enough. If I say a person deserves to be shot, what right have I stepped on?

Go be dramatic somewhere it is warranted.

by ziggy Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:44 am

That's interesting Ziggy. You tell us you are a christian, and yet you are stating here that God is a myth (a creation of Keli). It seems silly to call yourself a Christian and yet state God is a myth.

It is no sillier than you telling us that you are a Christian and yet a bigot.

by Cato Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:32 pm

ziggy wrote:
That's interesting Ziggy. You tell us you are a christian, and yet you are stating here that God is a myth (a creation of Keli). It seems silly to call yourself a Christian and yet state God is a myth.

It is no sillier than you telling us that you are a Christian and yet a bigot.

I'm a bigot because I happen to believe in right and wrong and I don't compromise my beliefs to satisfy another's views? If that makes me a bigot, I'll wear the name proudly!!!!

And yes, your view is still silly.

by Aaron Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:47 pm

Who said sex was sinful?

by ziggy Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:59 pm

I'm a bigot because I happen to believe in right and wrong and I don't compromise my beliefs to satisfy another's views? If that makes me a bigot, I'll wear the name proudly!!!!

No. You are a bigot because your posts seethe with hatred of those whose beliefs system you disagree.

Big"ot\, n. [F. bigot a bigot or hypocrite, a name once given to the Normans in France. Of unknown origin; possibly akin to Sp. bigote a whisker; hombre de bigote a man of spirit and vigor; cf. It. s-bigottire to terrify, to appall. Wedgwood and others maintain that bigot is from the same source as Beguine, Beghard.]

1. A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite. [Obs.]

2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot

by Cato Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:09 pm

ziggy wrote:
I'm a bigot because I happen to believe in right and wrong and I don't compromise my beliefs to satisfy another's views? If that makes me a bigot, I'll wear the name proudly!!!!

No. You are a bigot because your posts seethe with hatred of those whose beliefs system you disagree.

Big"ot\, n. [F. bigot a bigot or hypocrite, a name once given to the Normans in France. Of unknown origin; possibly akin to Sp. bigote a whisker; hombre de bigote a man of spirit and vigor; cf. It. s-bigottire to terrify, to appall. Wedgwood and others maintain that bigot is from the same source as Beguine, Beghard.]

1. A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite. [Obs.]

2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

[/quote]

Well is that special Ziggy found an online dictionary.

I will tell you this, I want little to do with homosexuals. I believe thier lifestyle to be wrong and evil. However, and here is something you and your pal TerryRC never mention, I feel the same about those who commit adultry and those who live together out of wedlock. I don't want anything to do with them or their lifestyle, just as I'm certain they want little to do with mine. Does that mean I hate them? Nope it doesn't. It means I hate the choices they have made.

Now, I'm certain you will still label me a bigot and that's fine, it is your choice afterall. However, it is of little consequence to me what you or anyone else thinks in regard to what I am or am not. I don't answer to you.

Cato: Number of posts : 2010
Location : Behind my desk
Registration date : 2007-12-28