[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You go grave digging once a week to see if the rapture came and you missed it.
[/quote]
LOL. Best one of the lot.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
Think of the most outlandish fundamentalist Christian your brain can muster and they are no less ignorant than an aggressive, vehement atheist. [/quote]
In some circles, that’s called “hitting the nail on the head”.
I’m a militant agnostic. “I don’t know, and you don’t know either!”
[quote]forlife wrote:
Top 10 danger signs (from evilbible.com):
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and “dehumanized” when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the “atrocities” attributed to Allah, but you don’t even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in “Exodus” and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in “Joshua” including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs - though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most “tolerant” and “loving.”
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in “tongues” may be all the evidence you need to “prove” Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a “high success rate” when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
[/quote]
Trolling becomes you. And what does this ^^^ have to do with P and WI?
I love good trolling but yours are pathetic, dude.
LOL! Good one. Nope I’ve already submitted plans for a residential/commercial complex in the county of Hell. I’m tight with Lucifer.
I lol’d.
Blasphemy, the victimless crime.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You believe god gave you reason, but think it?s a sin to use it.
[/quote]
I lol’d at the op and at this gem.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Top 10 danger signs (from evilbible.com):
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and “dehumanized” when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the “atrocities” attributed to Allah, but you don’t even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in “Exodus” and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in “Joshua” including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs - though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most “tolerant” and “loving.”
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in “tongues” may be all the evidence you need to “prove” Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a “high success rate” when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
[/quote]
feel better about yourself now? good for you . . .
At least my self-identity isn’t defined by another man’s a$$hole . . .
wow - I’ve been a cranky bastard lately . . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
At least my self-identity isn’t defined by another man’s a$$hole . . . [/quote]
Apparently it’s defined by a lukewarm hole in a woman.
It’s not like there’s anything else to life, right?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
At least my self-identity isn’t defined by another man’s a$$hole . . .
Apparently it’s defined by a lukewarm hole in a woman.
It’s not like there’s anything else to life, right?[/quote]
Luke warm? are you a necrophiliac?
And homosexuals do tend to identify themselves more for their sexual preference than straight individuals.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Makavali wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
At least my self-identity isn’t defined by another man’s a$$hole . . .
Apparently it’s defined by a lukewarm hole in a woman.
It’s not like there’s anything else to life, right?
Luke warm? are you a necrophiliac?
And homosexuals do tend to identify themselves more for their sexual preference than straight individuals.[/quote]
I don’t have any scorch marks or major burns on my cock, so I stand by that description.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And homosexuals do tend to identify themselves more for their sexual preference than straight individuals.[/quote]
Only when we first come out. It generally takes a while to get used to the idea of being gay, but eventually it settles into place as just one of many characteristics that define who you are as a person.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Makavali wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
At least my self-identity isn’t defined by another man’s a$$hole . . .
Apparently it’s defined by a lukewarm hole in a woman.
It’s not like there’s anything else to life, right?
Luke warm? are you a necrophiliac?
And homosexuals do tend to identify themselves more for their sexual preference than straight individuals.
I don’t have any scorch marks or major burns on my cock, so I stand by that description.[/quote]
98.6 is more than luke warm in my book. To each his own.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
And homosexuals do tend to identify themselves more for their sexual preference than straight individuals.
Only when we first come out. It generally takes a while to get used to the idea of being gay, but eventually it settles into place as just one of many characteristics that define who you are as a person.
[/quote]
I can see that. But how many straight pride parades and stickers do you see?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
I can see that. But how many straight pride parades and stickers do you see?[/quote]
I suspect you’ll find that the more integrated gays become in society, the less need people will feel to participate in pride parades and such. I haven’t seen any black parades/marches lately, although they were a lot more common during the civil rights movement.
In just the few years since I’ve been out, I’ve noticed this trend. For many people these days (gay or straight), sexual orientation is a nonissue.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
I can see that. But how many straight pride parades and stickers do you see?
I suspect you’ll find that the more integrated gays become in society, the less need people will feel to participate in pride parades and such. I haven’t seen any black parades/marches lately, although they were a lot more common during the civil rights movement.
In just the few years since I’ve been out, I’ve noticed this trend. For many people these days (gay or straight), sexual orientation is a nonissue.[/quote]
No, you don’t see many, but I don’t buy the race = homosexuality card. Where you stick your penis is entirely different than being born with a color of skin.
Whether homosexuality refers to just the attraction or the act itself, no baby is born homosexual. They do not have a sexual desire for the same sex, and they do not engage in any sex. Whether there are built in markers or not, it is a developed trait.
Second, I reject the notion that inherent pre-dispositions should automatically be accepted do to the tendency itself. Alcoholics may have a genetic tendency to their condition, but that doesnâ??t mean alcoholism should be accepted and condoned. So even if there is a genetic link, that in itself doesnâ??t qualify as a valid argument in my book for the justification of an action.
To me, the action needs to be weighed by itâ??s own merits under the acknowledgement of free will and personal responsibility.
But this is ruining an otherwise fun thread.
Someone else needs to come up with some fundamentalist Christian jokes.
Nobody suggested sexual orientation was identical to race. The common theme is that when people are denied civil rights, they tend to gather together in marches/parades. The more socially integrated those people become, the less likely they will feel the need to do this.
Babies don’t engage in sex, whether they are straight or gay. That doesn’t mean they lack a sexual orientation, only that they haven’t hit puberty yet, when sexual orientation is manifest.
I agree that a genetic predisposition for a trait doesn’t automatically require acceptance of that trait. It does, however, inform whether or not that trait is fully within the realm of choice.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Nobody suggested sexual orientation was identical to race. The common theme is that when people are denied civil rights, they tend to gather together in marches/parades. The more socially integrated those people become, the less likely they will feel the need to do this.
Babies don’t engage in sex, whether they are straight or gay. That doesn’t mean they lack a sexual orientation, only that they haven’t hit puberty yet, when sexual orientation is manifest.
I agree that a genetic predisposition for a trait doesn’t automatically require acceptance of that trait. It does, however, inform whether or not that trait is fully within the realm of choice.[/quote]
I completely disagree that a baby is straight or gay. Yes, they lack the desire known as sexual orientation. Period. Is a baby born an alcoholic that just hasnâ??t manifested those traits yet? I personally donâ??t believe in predestination. Anyways, Iâ??m done with the subject. We completely disagree, noted.