Homosexual Debate Forum age restrictions ?

[ReformedChapin]

They're worried we're going to turn them gay. Silly fools.

But everyone is gay already according to you. We are all just homos in denial.

 

[Kirilov]

Quote:
And so they should, if the ridiculous age restrictions you advocate were to come into place. If you could take a minute out from the lol-ing that you're always busy with in these replies, tell me what about defending homosexuality is a symptom of relativism?
Tell me how lying and violating forum rules is not a symptom of relativism.

You said that you set your denominational symbol to hide ? I saw it and regardless of what you set it to, the moderators still see it. Re-read the rules. It states that you cannot misrepresent your denomination through the symbol and you may not post in congregational areas. Now, you say that minors should lie about their ages to over-ride CF policies about age rules.

defending homosexuality is a form of Christian relativism, because in Christianity, theology and scripture, it is sinful behavior.

But you are not allowed to debate on the topic of Christian relatvism and group Christians:

Quote:
You and racists, Nazis, sexists.....all victims of the nasty ol' tolerance movement.
Now are you ?

You break all the rules and the commandment against lying, yet you preach to me about relativism ?

BAFRIEND, you don't seem to understand - I read the rules. And since when did I 'preach to you about relativism'? I advocate relativism, for pete's sake!

 

[HaloHope]

Gay Christian is an oxymoron, that's like saying a killer Christian. And I suggest you get nsync with scripture rather than promoting sin.

Gay Christian isn't an oxymoron. Or rather it shouldn't be.

You wouldnt perhaps be claiming Im not a Christian by that statement would you?

 

[ReformedChapin]

Gay Christian isn't an oxymoron. Or rather it shouldn't be.

Why? Because you said so?

You wouldnt perhaps be claiming Im not a Christian by that statement would you?

Members admitted to this website I cannot say whether they are Christian or not. But if you want to know ask me outside CF.

 

[HaloHope]

Why? Because you said so?

No, because it's a fact there are gay christians. Simple as that.

Members admitted to this website I cannot say whether they are Christian or not. But if you want to know ask me outside CF.

I think I know the answer anyway.

 

[ReformedChapin]

No, because it's a fact there are gay christians. Simple as that.

Excellent logic...wait no it isn't.

 

[Kirilov]

NewGuy101, I'm sorry, I can't hold off saying this any longer. You need to stop sounding off about 'logic', because your understanding of said discipline, from the evidence on this board, is far from perfect. The frequency with which you create and attack strawman arguments, pose false bifurcations, and read posts uncharitably strips you of any right to mention logic.

 

[ReformedChapin]

NewGuy101, I'm sorry, I can't hold off saying this any longer. You need to stop sounding off about 'logic', because your understanding of said discipline, from the evidence on this board, is far from perfect. The frequency with which you create and attack strawman arguments, pose false bifurcations, and read posts uncharitably strips you of any right to mention logic.

All you do is come here and make logical fallacies especially with your self-defeating world view. And yet you claim I have no understanding of logic. Either produce the evidence of my inconsistencies or don't post at all. Your rhetoric is useless. I still don't understand why you are posting here since you have already admitted you aren't a Christian and you are posting in the Christian section.

 

[Kirilov]

This is what I mean. What exactly do you think a 'logical fallacy' is? And where, in that post, did I use one single bit of rhetoric?

If you want evidence, I don't really want to get into some kind of situation where I'm trying to make you look dumb by posting things you've said, but I can if you really want.

If you don't understand why I am posting here, look at yourself.

 

[ReformedChapin]

This is what I mean. What exactly do you think a 'logical fallacy' is? And where, in that post, did I use one single bit of rhetoric?

If you want evidence, I don't really want to get into some kind of situation where I'm trying to make you look dumb by posting things you've said, but I can if you really want.

If you don't understand why I am posting here, look at yourself.

All of your posts are rhetoric. You never post any proof for what you say and yet you say I'm dogmatic.

Logical fallacy- self defeating statement which violates the law of non-contradiction. But it depends in the context the word illogical is use, what I mean by illogical is irrational which many people are here.

By the rules on this forum you cannot post here, you made a thread saying you were agnostic.

 

[Kirilov]

Logical fallacy- self defeating statement which violates the law of non-contradiction. But it depends in the context the word illogical is use, what I mean by illogical is irrational which many people are here.

Ok, well firstly, 'illogical' and 'irrational' are often very different things. For example, its highly irrational to believe that all mammals are blue. But, believing this, its highly logical to believe that all cows are blue. If you are willing to explain how my world view is either illogical or irrational, then I am willing to listen and reply.

By the rules on this forum you cannot post here, you made a thread saying you were agnostic.

For the last time, I know. But while people are saying things like they are, I'm not going to go away.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Ok, well firstly, 'illogical' and 'irrational' are often very different things. For example, its highly irrational to believe that all mammals are blue. But, believing this, its highly logical to believe that all cows are blue. If you are willing to explain how my world view is either illogical or irrational, then I am willing to listen and reply.

I explained to you a million times why your world view is self-defeating. You just don't want to accept it. And if you are illogical in the sense that you violate logic you are an irrational person. It depends on the context (as I stated already) in which the word is used. You are presenting the word irrationality as insane, but it can also mean a person who isn't consistant with logic.

For the last time, I know. But while people are saying things like they are, I'm not going to go away.

You are going to get kicked out if you don't listen and leave on your own.

 

[Brieuse]

But everyone is gay already according to you. We are all just homos in denial.

when did I say that?

 

[Kirilov]

I explained to you a million times why your world view is self-defeating. You just don't want to accept it. And if you are illogical in the sense that you violate logic you are an irrational person. It depends on the context (as I stated already) in which the word is used. You are presenting the word irrationality as insane, but it can also mean a person who isn't consistant with logic.

Being illogical is being irrational, but being irrational is not necessarily illogical. I don't understand why you say my world view is self-defeating. I would like to understand. Please?

You are going to get kicked out if you don't listen and leave on your own.

I.....nevermind.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Being illogical is being irrational, but being irrational is not necessarily illogical. I don't understand why you say my world view is self-defeating. I would like to understand. Please?

It doesn't pass the law of non-contradiction. How can you say we cannot know anything while I'm implying that you do know something? No one in their right mind can live that way. It invalidates it's self. That's like saying 2+3= 5 but 2 and 3 don't exist or atleast I'm not sure they exist.

 

[Kirilov]

It doesn't pass the law of non-contradiction. How can you say we cannot know anything while I'm implying that you do know something?

(I'm guessing you're not so confident that you mean the 'I'm' before 'implying' in that quote! )
I already answered that one. Respond to the reply below:

No, I'm not certain about that. No, I don't know for sure that we can't know anything. That's the point. I'm not claiming to know this, I am saying that (as far as I can see) all we can ever have is stronger and weaker beliefs. And this itself is a strong belief of mine. It could be wrong – maybe we can know some things for certain. But to the best of my estimation it seems that we can't, and that is why I hold this particular belief. (But I don't claim to know it, as, as you correctly point out, that would be a contradiction.)

No one in their right mind can live that way.

As I've already tried to point out, this not a genuine criticism of a descriptive theory. Whether it is easy to live by or not is not a plus or negative of a descriptive theory.

That's like saying 2+3= 5 but 2 and 3 don't exist or atleast I'm not sure they exist.

That's precisely what I am saying!

 

[Bianca87]

Yep, becuase if I wasn't a fundy I would go back to being an athiest. The "tolerence" movement kills the gosple.

actually, the fundies are the ones who drive struglling people away from Christianity.

Members admitted to this website I cannot say whether they are Christian or not. But if you want to know ask me outside CF.

don't worry, he just confuses Christianity with fundamentalism. pretty much like people who believe that all muslims hate us.

 

[david_x]

I am becoming more and more alarmed about the number of minors posting on sexual inuendo and controversial debates on this forum.

Some of the personal information and input they offer is really inappropriate.

I am going to add any under 18 who posts here on my ignore list and hope CF decides to look into this and revise the rules.

Judging them by their age is... bad, wrong actually.

 

[ReformedChapin]

(I'm guessing you're not so confident that you mean the 'I'm' before 'implying' in that quote! )
I already answered that one. Respond to the reply below:






As I've already tried to point out, this not a genuine criticism of a descriptive theory. Whether it is easy to live by or not is not a plus or negative of a descriptive theory.




That's precisely what I am saying!

Again, why would you try to live a world view that's illogical? Not only that but you use logic to argue when you say it's invalid. You are contradicting yourself.

 

[ReformedChapin]

actually, the fundies are the ones who drive struglling people away from Christianity.


don't worry, he just confuses Christianity with fundamentalism. pretty much like people who believe that all muslims hate us.

Sorry but "the tolerance movement" is no different than the world. And yes fundamentalism = Christianity, without it all Christianity is a tradition.