Prove me wrong Phobes, a challenge, I'm calling you OUT.

[Trevorocity]

LAME EXCUSES AND EQUIVOCATING.
(Galatians 6:11)

Once again you show an incredible lack of understanding of basic christian beliefs. God will know if your motives. So it isn't just a matter of conviently forgetting like you suggest. Forgiveness is only given if one truly repents of the sin. Truly repenting means you want to try not to commit the same sin. The type of sin is not relevant. If it is a hateful thought or murder it will be forgiven if there is repentance. (just on a side note forgiveness does not mean there are no consequences for your actions)


you call it irony I call it taking a hypocritical stance and having double standards. You want people to do something you can't or won't do. It just goes to show that even if someone did take up your challenge you would find a way to dismiss it anyway

 

[TheDag]

That's not an accurate description of forgiveness. Jesus told us what to say when we pray and he made it clear forgiveness is conditional and not endemic to self-repentence.

Moreover, there isn't a single second that goes by that we are free from sin. We are sinners, period.

Well I've obviously prayed some very unbiblical prayers and had God answer them during my life. So what exactly are you talking about when you say Jesus told us what to say when we pray. if you mean the lords prayer then there is more than that to christian teaching. There is teaching about all other things no covered by the Lords prayer. if you mean something else perhaps you could let me know what the passage is.

 

[TheDag]

I think he makes a strong point, one that the Pharisees made.
They had a tendency to brag about their holiness, while condemning others.
Does it make sense to condemn homosexuals while being forgiving only of yourself?

As one his has experienced his number of Ted Haggarts looking at the camera, saying, "I know what YOU did last night," everyone found out what he did. I have seen Jerry Falwell condemn others, only to be shown to be an adulterer, and Jim Bakker to be a thief.

And these are the famous ones. The problem in Modern Christianity, which is why I practice Buddhism, is that while the bible clearly tells you to search your own soul, to take out the plank from your eye before removing the speck from your neighbor, the former is usually neglected, and most of the focus is on everyone else. All that does is make you falsely holier than thou, as with the Pharisee and the Tax Collector.

On another board, several of the Christians explained that they can focus on the sin of others if they don't do it themselves. They can focus on homosexuality, for example, if they don't practice it. But, is a plank a speck? It doesn't say, remove the plank from your eye before you remove the plank from another. It says to remove the plank from yours before you remove the speck from another.

And I'm a Buddhist, and had to explain it to people that supposedly follow the religion and read the Scripture.

A couple of points. Can you prove it is all modern christianity who act like pharisees and tax collectors or are you simply saying it is a vocal minority who does that. I personally out of all the christians I've met in my life have only come across a small amount who do that. If homosexuality is a sin then I would say it is no worse than telling a lie or murdering someone..

No it doesn't make sense to condemn homosexuals while being forgiving of youself. I guess that is why I don't condem anyone even if I do believe what they are doing is wrong note i am not making a comment on homosexuality and if it is a sin or not here.

I've forgotten the other point and the football is about to start so I'll finish here

You have to understand, however, what his point was.

Maybe we should wait for chalice thunder to clarify the point. I did not read the post as saying what you said it was.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Well I've obviously prayed some very unbiblical prayers and had God answer them during my life. So what exactly are you talking about when you say Jesus told us what to say when we pray. if you mean the lords prayer then there is more than that to christian teaching. There is teaching about all other things no covered by the Lords prayer. if you mean something else perhaps you could let me know what the passage is.

Never said you made unbiblical prayers. You say God has answered your prayers. How do you know it was God? Because you got what you prayed for?

This is what I was specifically referencing from your post:

Forgiveness is only given if one truly repents of the sin.

That is a demonstrably false claim. In the Lord's prayer Jesus specifically said "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us." So, one can repent till his eyes bleed, but if one doesn't follow the clear instruction from Christ what good does it do? Imao, this is the root cause of all the self-righteous judgments in Christianity. Too many have simply bought the bad theology of "Just accept Christ and all is forgiven." That is not supported by scripture and it is proven incorrect.

This is the springboard for homophobia. Peeps bash gays on the premise gays have not :truly: repented therefore they are in need of hearing the "gospel." Ironically, those doing the bashing with the gospel don't know the gospel as well as they want others to believe.

We are all in this together. If we don't love each other (Christians and non-Christians alike) as commanded by Christ then why be a Christian?

 

[InigoMontoja]

That's using a false conclusion to support the premise we are hardwired heteros. All living organisms are hardwired for perpetuation but that isn't the same as being hardwired for heterosexual relationships.

What do you think a heterosexual relationship is?

Penguins form lifetime homosexual relationships but they still reproduce.

I'm calling quack science on this.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

What do you think a heterosexual relationship is?

A relationship.

I'm calling quack science on this.

http://www.tierramerica.net/2005/0226/iacentos2.shtml

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Well, in biology 'heterosexual' and 'sexual' are in practice synonymous. What I mean is that there are two forms of reproduction: sexual and asexual. Sexual basically means you have male mating with female. That is how we reproduce. So we are physically heterosexual, and designed that way. Now you may be referring to 'attraction', meaning the mating instinct, in which case homosexuality, whatever its cause, is just a case of the mating instinct gone wrong.

I hope you and your spouse are very happy with your mating insticts. Please do not use the physical act to grow closer to one another, do not enjoy yourself, and definitely do not honor God in the process.

 

[InigoMontoja]

A relationship.

That is true, but does not answer my question.

http://www.tierramerica.net/2005/0226/iacentos2.shtml

Wow. So no wonder they're going extinct. This whole article is one big circus act. I guess if spiders eat each other after copulation then we should too. Seriously, what is your intention behind this, beside showing that one species is messed up and in danger of extinction?

 

[LightHorseman]

So we are physically heterosexual, and designed that way.

a. You are assuming we are "designed"
b. You are assuming that reproduction is the ONLY function of human sexuality.

Consider, if you will, that just possibly, homosexuality may confer a beneficial trait on individuals or populations containing homosexuals that is utterly unrelated to individual reproduction?

 

[TheManeki]

I'm calling quack science on this.

Are you calling "quack science" because you don't agree with it, or "quack science" because you can provide scientific evidence that he is incorrect?

If it is the latter, show us the evidence. I'd love to look at it.

If it is the former, then perhaps you should learn more about science.

 

[LightHorseman]

Seriously, what is your intention behind this, beside showing that one species is messed up and in danger of extinction?

Apparently, the intention is to highlight the flaw in your implication that homosexuality is somehow "unnatural"

 

[DieHappy]

I hope you and your spouse are very happy with your mating insticts. Please do not use the physical act to grow closer to one another, do not enjoy yourself, and definitely do not honor God in the process.

But those things are not biologically driven in us. Sex is to reproduce. Sure, it can also be for fun and for connection but those things go against our amygdala. The point is solid, we are hard wired to reproduce. Wanting sex for any reason other than to reproduce goes against that basic, ancient instinct. That doesn't make it wrong, but it does make the point that we are basically genetically heterosexual a sound one.

And if we are supposed to accept homosexuality because the penguins do it, I'm going to eat my babies so my wife will want to have more sex with me, after all, mallard ducks and lions both do that.

Apparently, the intention is to highlight the flaw in your implication that homosexuality is somehow "unnatural"

I didn't see unnatural. The implication was that reproduction is what our genetic code states, you editorialized with the unnatural.

 

[selfinflikted]

Well, in biology 'heterosexual' and 'sexual' are in practice synonymous. What I mean is that there are two forms of reproduction: sexual and asexual. Sexual basically means you have male mating with female. That is how we reproduce. So we are physically heterosexual, and designed that way.

You have stated that we are "designed" that way. "deisgned" implies a designer, for which you must show evidence, if we are to give any credence to what you say. So far, none have been able to do so.

Now you may be referring to 'attraction', meaning the mating instinct, in which case homosexuality, whatever its cause, is just a case of the mating instinct gone wrong.

You will also need to show how homosexuality is a case of something gone "wrong". So far, you've made statements without anything to back them up.

Wow. So no wonder they're going extinct. This whole article is one big circus act. I guess if spiders eat each other after copulation then we should too. Seriously, what is your intention behind this, beside showing that one species is messed up and in danger of extinction?

It's not just one species. There are literally hundreds of species that have been observed that exhibit homosexual traits and tendancies. Humans are but only one of a myriad of other animal species who have observed homosexuality within it's population.

 

[Trevorocity]

What do you think a heterosexual relationship is?

An ill-conceived social relationship in which the male partner attempts to mate repeatedly with many female partners and then run away while leaving the female with the responsibilty for raising the offspring. For one.

Because males and females are so radically different from each other they often have little in common other than the act of mating. Because heterosexual relationships are so unbalanced in this way it often leads to such consequences as infidelity in "marriage", promiscuity, disunity in the home, and in extreme cases: spouse abuse.

In contrast homosexual relationships are superior in almost ever way. Partners in a same-sex couple have an inheirent understanding of each others' physiology, emotional needs and wants, and are more likely to share interests outside of the bedroom. Ultimately this leads to greater stability in the relationship. As a result spouse abuse is less common occurence in homosexual relationships. Males have a reputation for aggression so one would naturally assume male-male couples would be more violent. Actually the opposite is true in the superior male-male coupling. This is because of the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and neither partner would risk physical conflict with the other.

I'm calling quack science on this.

Its called 'fact' you wouldn't understand.

 

[LightHorseman]

I didn't see unnatural. The implication was that reproduction is what our genetic code states, you editorialized with the unnatural.

Indeed, he didn't say unnatural, but that certainly seems to be what he is implying, hence my use of that word.

 

[LightHorseman]

Originally Posted by InigoMontoja

I'm calling quack science on this.
​

Its called 'fact' you wouldn't understand.

Is it quack science because penguins quack?

 

[DieHappy]

Ultimately this leads to greater stability in the relationship. As a result spouse abuse is less common occurence in homosexual relationships. Males have a reputation for aggression so one would naturally assume male-male couples would be more violent. Actually the opposite is true in the superior male-male coupling. This is because of the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and neither partner would risk physical conflict with the other.

Do you have any evidence of this? I am under the impression that homosexuals have many more extra-relationship encounters than heterosexuals do.

 

[selfinflikted]

And if we are supposed to accept homosexuality because the penguins do it, I'm going to eat my babies so my wife will want to have more sex with me, after all, mallard ducks and lions both do that.

Nonsense. You eat your babies, and you'll probably be locked up for murder and/or severe mental illness. Pointing out that homosexuality occurs in nature is usually a defense against those people who say that homosexuality isn't natural, point one. It is natural, by definition, because it occurs in nature, and has been observed in hundreds of species, including humans. Point two, is that homosexuality isn't inherently harmful. Eating babies obviously is harmful. Your last statement is here balony.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Well, in biology 'heterosexual' and 'sexual' are in practice synonymous. What I mean is that there are two forms of reproduction: sexual and asexual. Sexual basically means you have male mating with female. That is how we reproduce. So we are physically heterosexual, and designed that way.

I'm guessing you failed high school biology

Now you may be referring to 'attraction', meaning the mating instinct, in which case homosexuality, whatever its cause, is just a case of the mating instinct gone wrong.

Obviously the ONLY reason your parents married was because they have this mating instinct. I’m guessing your mother was in heat or something and needed to satisfy her urges…That is according to you the only reason why two people would form a relationship

 

[LightHorseman]

Do you have any evidence of this? I am under the impression that homosexuals have many more extra-relationship encounters than heterosexuals do.

In another thread recently, someone posted data that suggested otherwise, I don't recall the specifics, but the upshot was that homosexual men on average only have 1 or 2 more sexual partners in a lifetime than heterosexual men, and homosexual women, on average, have 1 or 2 fewer than heterosexual women