selfinflikted
Under Deck
- Jul 13, 2006
- 11,441
- 786
- 46
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I'm willing to bet a large sum that his "obviously superior" citizens are white, christian men.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
I'm willing to bet a large sum that his "obviously superior" citizens are white, christian men.
There is no mis-spelling, one who makes bogus claims and has not the honor, dignity, nor integrity to retract them is sleezy in the opinion of most.
To see your cohorts rally around to defend you only soils their own credibility.
You have the links (post 41 or 51) you can clearly see what i copied and pasted was word for word what was posted. The list in question states that the page numbers are from the DSM, I urge you go back and read it although I know your pride will prevent you from taking any honorable actions. Until such time as you show a glimmer of integrity, you will be considered sleezie.
Upvote
0
C
ChaliceThunder
Guest
PENALTY!
You cannot "earn" much less "deserve" the love of God.
It is the love of God which surrounds each and every one of us. And because he first loved us, we are able to love.
Don't you DARE claim that somebody, anybody, needs to earn God's love. Paul clearly states that NOTHING will ever separate us from the love of God.
Upvote
0
are you promoting universal salvation or something? Paul was addressing believers, not the lovers of darkness.
And as to works, you may have a debate with Catholics and others....
Upvote
0
Are you honestly saying that you can not look out into the world and see that certain me are obviously better then others? Some men are given higher purposes while others waist away on drugs? Some men are successful while others can't even keep a job and are forced to sell drugs to others? Some men go on to a higher set of morals while others wallow away in crime and depravity killing babies for fun and others for profit?
And then you dare say that there are not superior men out there? These people deserve God's rights and love and only these people.
Upvote
0
Disgusting.Yes, people can honestly say that all human beings are equal. Who died and made you the "decider"?
Its obvious to anyone who decides to look without an evil bias.
Upvote
0
S
Steezie
Guest
I've managed to go this whole time without resorting to personal attacks, I think you can too.
You linked to Google, not to the page where you coppied and pasted it from. I found a site that was similar and said similar things, however it does not make that information right.
I HAVE read the DSM and it says NOTHING about homosexuality
Read it for yourself http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/dsm4TRclassification.htm
The information you posted is incorrect. Homosexuality is not in the DSM and hasnt been since 1973.
Upvote
0
IzzyPop
I wear my sunglasses at night...
What does IslamonLine have to do with this?you doubt the sincerity of IslamOnLine?
The CWA is an anti-gay group. When citing sources that have a declared agenda, it is advisable to double check the veracity of the claim. I wouldn't trust a report from crooksandliars.com concerning anything a Republican does without looking at their source info and any other sources I could find to make sure that what they are saying is the truth.On what do you base this claim of bias?
But you are ducking the question. You stated that the makers of that list were 'experts'. How many psychiatrists are on the board of CWA? How many psychiatrists are listed as contractors to the CWA? What claim do they have to the term 'expert' when dealing with human sexuality?
Upvote
0
SimplyMe
Senior Veteran
- Jul 19, 2003
- 10,667
- 10,416
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Perhaps you need to reread the parable of the Good Samaritan and ponder the meaning thereof, you seem to have misunderstood Christ's message. You might also want to look at Matthew 25:35.
Upvote
0
S
Steezie
Guest
Gipper and Co. can we stay on-topic? I dont want this thread de-railed and closed
I want Trips to account for why he posted fallacious information
I want Trips to account for why he posted fallacious information
Upvote
0
Robbie_James_Francis
May all beings have happiness and its causes
You've got to be kidding me.
That's like saying, 'seeing as how many instantly discredit anthing coming from the KKK, here's the same info about how evil the Jews are from Hamas.'
You may well have more than one source that has no desire to actually look at the issue, and bases its conclusions on fairy stories and not on science or reason. That doesn't make any of them right.
Upvote
0
Goatboy
Senior Member
- Feb 17, 2006
- 662
- 73
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
You did not, as requested, post the source of information which you called expert opinion. You posted a link to a google results page listing 23 results for a partial search.
You also linked to an Islam Online Article where that list formed an appendix to an article by Robert H. Knight (or are you claiming you took it from Islam Online, the formatting would tend to disagree with you).
Anyway, did Mr Knight (Bsc in political science and Ma) produce the list you called expert opinion?
So you here claim the source of that list is the APA?
If this is the case, you should not have any difficulty in providing actual evidence; not, I hasten to add, that parts of the list are taken from a publication of theirs, but that the list which you posted as expert opinion was put together by the APA as an index of sexual orientation.
Thank you, however, the article is not the issue in question, the list (which you claimed above that the APA put the together) is.
Did Mr Knight (Ma) put it together, or did the APA?
You claimed that list was what the experts say with regard to sexual orientation (Post 26), you claimed that The APA includes paraphilias as sexual orientations (Post 29), you said My post cited the sources of the information. (Post 49), you re-asserted that of the items on that list All are sexual orientations (Post 56).
These claims are largely unevidenced; myself, I would go so far as to call them false.
Finally, something you and I can agree about, but Im optimistic that, unlike your sexual orientation (hetero, right?), you might be able to change this.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
