[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Don’t live life in ignorance. As a former athiest, I want to tell you what Zeb posted above is the most important thing I have seen in this thread.
With all sincerity, I respectfully ask every person who reads this to check the above links. Ignorance is not bliss.[/quote]
You were never an atheist, you were an agnostic. An atheist is empty of belief in the supernatural. In order for you to “have gotten religion”, you would have to have an at least wavering belief in the possibility of the supernatural like an agnostic does.
PS With all sincerity, I respectfully ask every person who reads this to just look around themselves and see their life for what it is. Temporary… sorry. If you want to pretend that you don’t have to die when you die, then that’s just ducky with me. As long as you don’t use your illusions as a weapon against those who do not deserve your scorn, we will get along great.
[quote]spamme wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
You missed the point, but I’m not surprised. I have not intention of trying to change people. I don’t have the power to do that. Only God has that power.
Apparently I did. So could you explain to me how God can “not care what religion we belong to” yet “You accept the sacrifice of His son Jesus Christ …or you are dead in your sins.”
Doesn’t make sense to me. Many religions do not accept that Jesus Christ even existed, let alone accept the sacrifice.
So can you explain that contradiction. Or did you mean God is tolerant of all religions, as long as that religion is like yours.[/quote]
There is no contradiction that exists in my words. Jesus is not a religion. He is a person, and He is God’s son.
When Jesus died on the cross, he took paid the penalty for your sins, my sins, and all the sins of the world. And when Jesus rose from the dead, he conquered death. If you accept this sacrifice, you inherrit eternal life. If you do not accept this sacrifice, the wrath of God abides upon you.
You see, relgion has nothing to do with it. Jesus was not here to advocate religion, he was here to save people.
I know that my words will fall on deaf ears for nearly all my readers, but if one person out of this group hears what is said, and has his or her eyes open, heaven will rejoice.
Spamme, I have obviously offended you. For that I am not sorry. You need the truth as bad as everyone else. And, I am glad I could get it to you. Now, however, we should continue the gay marriage debate (if it is still on-going). If you would like to begin another debate, start another thread.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Don’t live life in ignorance. As a former athiest, I want to tell you what Zeb posted above is the most important thing I have seen in this thread.
With all sincerity, I respectfully ask every person who reads this to check the above links. Ignorance is not bliss.
You were never an atheist, you were an agnostic. An atheist is empty of belief in the supernatural. In order for you to “have gotten religion”, you would have to have an at least wavering belief in the possibility of the supernatural like an agnostic does.
PS With all sincerity, I respectfully ask every person who reads this to just look around themselves and see their life for what it is. Temporary… sorry. If you want to pretend that you don’t have to die when you die, then that’s just ducky with me. As long as you don’t use your illusions as a weapon against those who do not deserve your scorn, we will get along great.[/quote]
A very sad answer, lothario. But this answer also gives us a glimpse into why you think the way you do about gay marriage. After all, if nothing matters after you’re dead, the world you leave to our children is meaningless. Right?
BTW - how do you know if I was an aethiest or an agnostic? Do you have some clairvoyant ability that we are unaware of? Please share.
To all vistors of the gay marriage thread - this is a very common response from people who are pro-gay marriage. Many of these individuals do not care about the world in 10, 20, or 50 years. All they care about is satisfying themselves. They are shortsighted and selfish. They care only about what will make them happy now. Please review the facts of the thread.
The facts show that gay marriage will cause serious problems for our country in the future.
Readers: This is the part of the debate where WMD knows she has lost and is throwing in all sorts of unrelated material.
[quote]WMD wrote:
Beautiful. Just beautiful. It warms my heart to know that my time in the military was well spent, ensuring that my fellow Americans (who could not be bothered to defend themselves)[/quote]
WMD demeans anyone who has not served time in the military. She thinks that this elevates her status and lends credibility to her words.
While I admire anyone who is currently in the armed forces or who has served in the armed forces, that has nothing to do with the “gay marriage” debate.
Everyone realizes that statistics on homosexuality do not comprise every single gay person. Well everyone except WMD who has a unique relationship relative to the majority of homosexuals.
Also, if one looks back on this very long thread WMD has done most of the mocking and name calling. Certainly more than any other poster. Militancy once again…
When facts and statistics are used the militant homosexual calls it “bashing.” Using these sorts of words are supposed to prohibit anyone from even attempting to shed light on the very dark side of homosexuality. Which incidentally is most prevalent
Yes, indeed we have heard of “bisexuality.” But what it means to you might be something different than what it really means.
Do you suppose that there is a “bisexual” gene? No I guess not, no one has suggested this sort of nonsense.
My guess is that the average person thinks that bisexuals are simply those who are oversexed and enjoy sex with either gender.
This used to be called perversion. But that’s just not a politically correct word. It is a perversion from the norm. So in a sense it is indeed perversion is it not?
There is no genetic basis for it. Somewhere along the line sexual identity problems occurred and when this happens all sorts of distortions from the norm (like that word better?) happen.
Not unlike homosexual behavior.
WMD once again uses the tired old term “homophobic.”
Does anyone have a phobia regarding homosexuals? Goodness no! Then why use the term? That is an easy one. When the social liberal has no argument they resort to name calling. And their favorite name for shutting people up is “homophobe.”
No one wants to be called a homophobe. But…there is a new breed of opposition out there. The new breed will cally on your foolish name calling everytime. The new breed will give you facts and continue to be just as “in your face” as your side has been for the past 20 years.
The truth is winning out over name calling. Better get another line!
Oh my we have been all over this time and again.
Why don’t you directly address the Center for Disease Control, (CDC) statistics (and Johns Hopkins) which demonstrate all of the sickness which arises from the gay act and lifestyle?
There is no bias in these figures:
"Risky Sexual Behavior on the Rise Among Homosexuals. Despite two decades of intensive efforts to educate homosexuals against the dangers of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and other stds, the incidence of unsafe sexual practices that often result in various diseases is on the rise.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from 1994 to 1997 the proportion of homosexuals reporting having had anal sex increased from 57.6 percent to 61.2 percent, while the percentage of those reporting “always” using condoms declined from 69.6 percent to 60 percent.[2]
The CDC reported that during the same period the proportion of men reporting having multiple sex partners and unprotected anal sex increased from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent. The largest increase in this category (from 22 percent to 33.3 percent) was reported by homosexuals twenty-five years old or younger.[3]
Homosexuals Failing to Disclose Their HIV Status to Sex Partners
?A study presented July 13, 2000 at the XIII International aids Conference in Durban, South Africa disclosed that a significant number of homosexual and bisexual men with hiv “continue to engage in unprotected sex with people who have no idea they could be contracting HIV.”[4] Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco found that thirty-six percent of homosexuals engaging in unprotected oral, anal, or vaginal sex failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to casual sex partners.[5]
A CDC report revealed that, in 1997, 45 percent of homosexuals reporting having had unprotected anal intercourse during the previous six months did not know the HIV serostatus of all their sex partners. Even more alarming, among those who reported having had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple partners, 68 percent did not know the HIV serostatus of their partners.[6]
Young Homosexuals are at Increased Risk. Following in the footsteps of the generation of homosexuals decimated by AIDS, younger homosexuals are engaging in dangerous sexual practices at an alarming rate.
A Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health study of three-hundred-sixty-one young men who have sex with men (MSM) aged fifteen to twenty-two found that around 40 percent of participants reported having had anal-insertive sex, and around 30 percent said they had had anal-receptive sex. Thirty-seven percent said they had not used a condom for anal sex during their last same-sex encounter. Twenty-one percent of the respondents reported using drugs or alcohol during their last same-sex encounter.[7]
A five-year CDC study of 3,492 homosexual males aged fifteen to twenty-two found that one-quarter had unprotected sex with both men and women. Another cdc study of 1,942 homosexual and bisexual men with HIV found that 19 percent had at least one episode of unprotected anal sex–the riskiest sexual behavior–in 1998 and 1997, a 50 percent increase from the previous two years.[8]
No actually we are not rapists WMD. We are normal healthy heterosexuals who want to help homosexuals, not enable them. (eye roll)
[quote]ZEB said: Did you know that good pollsters like Zogby can tell you who the next President will be by sampling under 1000 people?
The operative word being “good”. Let’s get Zogby to do a scientific sampling (let’s say 6000 people) of gay people, male and female, from all age groups and all walks of life.[/quote]
Basically WMD is saying that she does not trust the CDC or Johns Hopkins or any of the other credible writers who have written about the various disease that has sprung out of the gay act and the gay lifestyle.
They must all be “homophobic” huh? LOL
It always comes down to this sort of thing with you…(another zeb eye roll)
Are these Psychiatrists “homophobic?”
That would be as recent as 1995.
"MacIntosh, H. (1995) Attitudes and Experiences of Psychoanalysts in Analyzing Homosexual Patients. Journal of the American Psychiatric Association 1183.
422 psychiatrists were asked if they had successfully treated homosexuals, and did they agree that a homosexual can be changed to heterosexual. Of the 285 responses, which involved 1,215 homosexuals, the survey stated that 23% changed to heterosexuality. 84% benefited significantly by reducing their attraction to other members of the same gender, with a decrease in homosexual activity."
Here’s one from 1998. It mentions that 99% of homosexuals later said that “treatment can be effective.” Are they traitors to your cause? Or are they just people who want to lead a happier, healthier and better life?
"Nicolosi, J., Byrd, A., Potts, R. (1998) Towards the Ethical and Effective Treatment of Homosexuality. Encino CA:
Nicolosi surveyed 850 individuals and 200 therapists and counselors ? specifically seeking out individuals who claim to have made a degree of change in sexual orientation. Before counseling or therapy, 68% of respondents perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, with another 22% stating they were more homosexual than heterosexual. After treatment only 13% perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entire homosexuality, while 33% described themselves as either exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual, 99% of respondents said they now believe treatment to change homosexuality can be effective and valuable."
Throckmorton asks a very interesting question and one OF MANY that you have yet been unable to answer. And by the way this is from 1996:
"Throckmorton, W. (1996) Efforts to modify sexual orientation: A review of outcome literature and ethical issues. Journal of Mental Health and Counseling. 20, 4: 283-305.
?" submit that the case against conversion therapy requires opponents to demonstrate that no patients have benefited from such procedures or that any benefits are too costly in some objective way to be pursued even if they work. The available evidence supports the observation of many counselors ? that many individuals with same-gender sexual orientation have been able to change through a variety of counseling approaches." (p. 287)
And of course Dr. Spitzers landmark study from 2001:
"Dr. Robert Spitzer (2001)
Dr Spitzer is a psychiatry professor at Columbia University. He conducted a study of 143 ex-gays and 57 ex-lesbians who reported that they have become “straight.” 2 He reported his findings at a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association on 2001-MAY-9. He concluded, as a result of 45 minute interviews with each subject, that 66% of the males and 44% of the females had arrived at “good heterosexual functioning.”
According to Cnn.com, that term is defined as having been “in a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year, getting enough satisfaction from the emotional relationship with their partner to rate at least seven on a 10-point scale, having satisfying heterosexual sex at least monthly and never or rarely thinking of somebody of the same sex during heterosexual sex.”
Please tell me how can even one homosexual change if they are that way by genetics?
If it is not genetics then could it be that there could have been something, or a few things go wrong in their childhood which lead to their same sex attraction?
I think so, and some other folks who have studied the issue and are not afraid of the militant homosexual response just might have an answer. The following is from the web site that you found (you really should read it):
Regent University’s Law Review for Spring, 2002, is entirely devoted to a discussion of various aspects of homosexuality, including the origins and causes of homosexual behaviors. The Law Review includes a study, " Homosexuality: Innate and Immutable?" by Dr. A. Dean Byrd and Stony Olsen.
After discussing the lack of evidence on the genetic origins of homosexuality, Dr. Byrd and his associate detail the various environmental factors that can lead a person into a homosexual lifestyle.
Gender Confusion: Dr. George Rekers, an expert on Gender Identity Disorders, is author of dozens of scholarly research papers on homosexuality and wrote Growing Up Straight: What Every Family Should Know About Homosexuality in 1982. He is also editor of Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexual Problems, published in 1995. Dr. Rekers stated in 1995, that "Gender nonconformity in childhood may be the single common observable factor associated with homosexuality. Some of the typical childhood factors leading to homosexuality are: feeling of being different from other children; perception of father as being distant, uninvolved and unapproving; perception of mother being too close, too involved; diminished or distorted masculinity or femininity; premature introduction to sexuality; and gender confusion.
Failure To Internalize Maleness: Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality has written: “Homosexuality is a developmental problem that is almost always the result of problems in family relationships, particularly between father and son. As a result of failure with father, the boy does not fully internalize male gender identity, and develops homosexuality. This is the most commonly seen clinical model.”
Dr. George Rekers, writing in Growing Up Straight, observes: “Many studies of homosexual patients as well as of nonpatient homosexuals have established a classic pattern of background family relations. The most frequent family pattern reported from the male homosexuals includes a binding, intimate mother in combination with a hostile, detached father.”
Sexual Abuse By Same-Sex Predator: In studies conducted by Diana Shrier and Robert Johnson in 1985 and 1988, males who had been sexually abused as children were almost seven times as likely as non-molested boys to become homosexuals.
Dr. Gregory Dickson recently completed a doctoral dissertation on the pattern of relationships between mothers and their male homosexual sons. His paper is entitled: “An Empirical Study of the Mother/Son Dyad in Relation to the Development of Adult Male Homosexuality: An Object Relations Perspective.”
Dr. Dickson’s study is reviewed on the NARTH web site. His study sheds new light on the relationship between early childhood sexual abuse and a child’s later involvement in homosexual behaviors. According to Dickson, an alarming 49% of homosexuals surveyed had been molested compared to less than 2% of heterosexuals.
His study affirms previous findings of Dr. David Finkelhor (1984), which found that boys victimized by older men were four times more likely to be currently involved in homosexual behaviors than were non-victims. As Finkelhor observed: “It may be common for a boy who has been involved in an experience with an older man to label himself as homosexual (1) because he has had a homosexual experience and (2) because he was found to be sexually attractive by a man. Once he labels himself homosexual, the boy may begin to behave consistently with the role and gravitate toward homosexual activity.” (Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research, New York: The Free Press, 1984).
Dr. Dickson’s study suggests that sexual abuse should be considered in evaluating the factors that contribute to the development of adult homosexual behaviors. Dickson writes: “An experience of sexual abuse could possibly contribute to the sexualizing of the unmet needs for male affection, attention, and connection.”
Dr. Dickson continues: “Given the relational deficits [with his mother] experienced by the male child, it is also possible that the molestation, as devastating as it may have been emotionally, simultaneously may be experienced by some of the boys as their first form of adult male affection, as well as something relational that is not shared in common with his mother.”
Counselor Dr. Robert Hicks, author of The Masculine Journey, has written: “?In counseling gay men for twenty years, I have not had one yet whom I would say had a normative childhood or normative adolescent development in the sexual arena. More often than not I have found stories of abusive, alcoholic, or absent (physically and emotionally) fathers: stories of incest or first experiences of sex forced upon them by older brothers, neighborhood men, or even friends. I sometimes find these men have had early exposure to pornography?.”
Oh how easy it is to demean one mans work!
Dr. Spitzer did extensive interviews with these former homosexuals. He found that 66% of them have changed from homosexual to heterosexual! he then reported his findings at a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
Now tell me how could there be 132 men walking around who say they don’t even THINK of homosexual sex anymore, much less do it if they were not really changed?
Do you think these former homosexuals are “homophobic?” LOL
That’s what you have been doing my friend!
I think there are two main reasons for this:
The first and most dangerous is the myth that gay people are “born that way.” It is perpetuated by powerful gay lobbies and social liberals wanting to be politically correct. It is then swallowed by people like you and further perpetuated.
The second reason is that changing is difficult. No one has stated otherwise in the countless studies that I have looked at where the conversion rate is between 30% and 70%.
Why do some succeed and never look back while others fail? Probably the same reason why some can kick the drug habit or not take another drink of alcohol an never look back. Yet, others fail.
There has to be a burning desire to succeed! If this is truly sprang from childhood as much of the good research has shown us , it will not be easy to change, but as we can see by the many who have changed, it can be done!
Chris here is the underlying problem: It is dangerous for a man to place his penis inside of another mans rectum. It’s as simple as that! I have given the medical reasons on this a few times, need them again?
We were (and are) talking about homosexual behavior. Should I qualify every statement from this point forward in order to satisfy your illogical assumptions?
I have not made any sweeping generalizations about any gay person! There you go again with your faulty logic.
What I have done is report some very disturbing statistics which point to the gay act and the gay lifestyle contributing to poor health both physically and emotionally. And a much shorter life span.
WMD I know you are not a stupid person. I know that you are well educated and can understand facts, trends, statistics etc.
Let me give this to you one more time:
Gay men have sex by placing their penis in another mans rectum. That in and of itself is dangerous. The fact that gay men are more promiscuous adds to the horrible health stats. Gay sex is unnatural and unhealthy!
And yes if hetersexuals have anal sex that can be dangerous too. But the promiscuity of gay men adds greatly to this already dangerous act.
Now just buck up and admit this. Otherwise you have no more credibility!
One more time:
There is no group on earth (to my knowledge) that demonstrates a more risky sexual behavior than the gay population! PERIOD!
Yes, there many heterosexual people who use drugs and like anal sex. But according to the statistics this is incredibly prevalent in the gay community:
Just take a look at who is dying of AIDS faster than any other group-And no doubt who is spreading AIDS faster than any group as well by their promiscuity:
And not some right wing crazy propaganda this is from CDC STATISTICS
"Homosexual males, who make up less than 2% of the US population, account for 56% of the adult AIDS cases. As of January 1, 1997, 324,728 men who have sex with men have been diagnosed with AIDS.
HIV/AIDS Among Homosexuals
The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is responsible for causing AIDS, for which there exists no cure. Homosexual men are the largest risk category. The CDC reports that homosexuals comprise the single largest exposure category of the more than 600,000 males with AIDS in the United States. As of December 1999, “men who have sex with men” and “men who have sex with men and inject drugs” together accounted for 64 percent of the cumulative total of male AIDS cases.39
There are currently an estimated 900,000 people in the United States that are infected with the HIV virus, or 1 in 300 Americans, and this disease has cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars. Although medical breakthroughs have decreased the rate of AIDS deaths annually, the rate of new infections per year has remained the same, at 40,000, despite the twenty-year “safe-sex” campaign.[6] New infections among homosexual men climbed 17% between 1999 and 2002 ? the largest jump of any exposure category.[7] AIDS remains the fifth leading cause of death among those aged 25-44, and 59.7 % of new cases are contracted by homosexual men. According to the Centers for Disease Control, homosexual men are a thousand times more likely to contract AIDS than heterosexuals.[8]
The list of other contagious diseases that homosexuals are at high-risk of acquiring is as long as your arm. The risk of anal cancer soars to an astounding 4000 % for those engaging in anal intercourse compared to those who don?t, and it doubles again for those who are HIV positive
AND THIS IS ONE REASON WHY AIDS IS SPREADING
"Promiscuity among Homosexual Couples. Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of “committed” typically means something radically different from marriage.
In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that in a study of a hundred-fifty-six males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years,
Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[13]
In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[14]
AND THIS:
Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime: A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that
43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners
with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.9 In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.10
Even a gay magazine admits the problem
A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners.11 In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."12
I have told you repeatedly that no one on this site has demonstrated any sort of “phobia” toward homosexuals. And furthermore, you are not qualified to determine a phobia via the Internet.
And if that is the case (and it is) then the word “homophobia” is simply a propaganda line used by the powerful gay lobbies and social liberals to silence those who do not want to embrace homosexual marriage.
Furthermore, you bring up the word homophobia as a dead last resort as you have clearly run out of arguments. As in they have all been refuted.
You have lost this debate not only on this thread but in America!
You have lost on:
Religion
Tradition
At the Polls
In surveys
In voluminous negative homosexual physical and mental health statistics.
In short you have not presented one logical justifiable (valid) argument for this society to allow gay marriage!
Then you must admit that the gay population is very much responsibly for promoting the AIDS virus in and out of their population!
Just as drug users and those promiscuous heterosexuals are guilty of doing.
I always spot one line in your posts which stands out above the others as being “out there.” This is the one for this particular post.
I have shown you countless statistics on the negative impact of the gay act and lifestyle. Take a good hard look at the gay AIDS population (not to mention the anxiety, depression, suicide and the many other statistics which are prevalent) and tell me that they do not need help and some sort of serious protection.
It’s time that you stop being an enabler and actually help them!
Hold it right there WMD!
According to the web site that YOU posted this is quite prevalent in the gay community:
“Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.”
33% of ALL sex crimes against children are committed by HOMOSEXUALS! YIKES!
Because you don’t see it does that mean you are not promoting it?
Everyone please note the faulty logic that WMD tries to defend homosexual pedophiles with.
Since pedo’s are not interested in adult sex they therefore cannot be homosexuals. LOL
How about the 33% of sex crimes perpetrated against children that are done by homosexuals who are also pedophiles? And remember homosexuals (both male and female) represent only about 3% of the population.
We know that ALL pedo’s are not homosexual. And that ALL homosexuals are not pedophiles. But what about the homosexuals who are indeed pedophiles and committ a disproportionally higher rate of sex crimes against children?
But I WILL point out that it was YOU who introduced this stie into the debate!
And I will further point out that all you have to do is refute the facts on this site in order to regain some crediblity. If you cannot then simply continue to say that “they are just anti-gay.” In fact you can call them homophobics as that is the last retort used by those on your side who have no facts to refute the very real negative impact of the gay act and the gay lifestyle!
WMD is doing it again!
She cannot debate on the current evidence of the day. She tries to link anyone who does not want gay marriage to someone like Adolph Hitler.
Her faulty logic reads like a textbook case for faulty logic:
Adolph Hitler did not like homosexuality. Therefore, anyone who opposes gay marriage is like Adolph Hitler.
LOL
Well gee WMD Adolph Hitler put his pants on one leg at a time. Therefore, all men in the USA who put there pants on one leg at at time must be like Adolph Hitler.
Liberal Logic At It’s Very Best!
WMD continues her desparate, but ridiculous comparison to Hitler…lol you are killing me with this.
Now read your last paragraph over. I never once stated anywhere on this thread that I want to deny homosexuals the right to have sex with someone of the same sex. And of course YOU KNOW IT!
I do however agree with the overwhelming majority of people who want to deny gays the right to marry.
See the difference?
[quote]Now I must go eat some of my (hetero) mother’s prime rib roast. Happy Jesus’s nonBirthday.
[/quote]
And she ends with a negative comment about Jesus Christ on Christmas no less!
You are consistent WMD. And I do feel sorry for you.
Jesus could have avoided crucifixion if he had just left Jerusalem. [/quote]
He did not want to “avoid” it. That’s what salvation is all about. No death, no savior. No savior, no possibility of eternal life for sinnners like you and me
You must have missed the part where he came back and walked on this earth after three days. That’s what Easter is all about! And of course salvation…
Oh my you really don’t like Christianity or Christians do you? You have at least one thing in common there with one of the Angels who fell away…now what was his name?
And in the beginning they were not called “Christians.” The movement was called “the way.”
Over a period of time symbols and names can change. The important part is that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. And by accepting that one act your enternity can change!
It’s not really about symbols and it never was. Did you know that?
Yes, it’s unfortunate that many have committed some horrendous acts in the name of God. This does not mean that God or the Bible recommends this sort of activity. You wouldn’t happen to be applying some of that liberal logic now would you? It’s simply man doing what he does…sinning.
By the way, are you unfamiliar with the following people? They were not Christians yet were responsible for tens of millions of deaths collectively:
"Hitler, Stalin, Herod the Great, Genghis Khan, Shaka Zulu, mao Tse-Tung, Anastasio Somoza, Francois “Pap Doc” Duvalier, Kim Il SUng, Augusto Ugarte Pinochet, Nicolae Ceausescu, Pol Pot, Idi amin Robert Mugabe and Saddam hussein.
So, I wonder what your point is? Other than trying to demean Christianity.
I think it’s important to read all sorts of history books to understand the different time periods of history.
However, the Bible is a great source for historical fact (of that time period), especially the Old Testament. Did you know that not one historical point stated in the Old Testament has yet to be disproved?
Yes, you probably know this as you are some sort of Biblical researcher. No?
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
WMD wrote:
Jesus could have avoided crucifixion if he had just left Jerusalem.
Shhh… you’ll startle the sheep.
Let’s see, we have a delusional guy who is so arrogant/psycho to think that he is the perfect son of God… yeah, he’s gonna do the smart thing and go to Greece or something where teachers and philosophers are revered and venerated…NOT!
The poor guy was nuts.[/quote]
Or he was indeed the son of God as he claimed. I don’t know of any nutty folks who speak so kindly toward others. Or, feed them, heal them and raise them from the dead.
[quote]Here’s the GOOD NEWS:
Jesus has risen. I talk to a different one just about once a month. We post a security guard to watch them and put them in a special room where they can’t hurt themselves or anybody else before they are shipped off to a rehab center.[/quote]
That sounds like “scoffing” to me lothario. You are part of Biblical prophecy and don’t even know it. Ever read 2Peter 3:3:
“First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.”
You should read all of 2Peter 3. Read the verse right after 3;3
The interesting part is that I have seen it from your side of the fence. I was there my man. The whole nine yards!
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Temporary… sorry. If you want to pretend that you don’t have to die when you die, then that’s just ducky with me. As long as you don’t use your illusions as a weapon against those who do not deserve your scorn, we will get along great.[/quote]
This life is temporary. “What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes” (James 4:14).
However, we all live forever it’s just a matter of where:
“Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).
The Word of God describes eternity as being “for ever and ever” (Revelation 22:5).
[quote]ZEB wrote:
It’s odd how the Atheists continue to move this debate into the area of God. (I’m scratching my head).[/quote]
I’ve noticed the same thing. And it doesn’t help the pro-gay marriage cause much. The atheists here have done nothing more than demonstrate that they are selfishly-motivated, verbally abusive, and illogical. I am sure the many morally minded individuals who have read these pages have noticed the same thing, whether they have posted it or not.
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
spamme wrote:
Spamme, I have obviously offended you. For that I am not sorry. You need the truth as bad as everyone else. And, I am glad I could get it to you. Now, however, we should continue the gay marriage debate (if it is still on-going). If you would like to begin another debate, start another thread.[/quote]
Offending me via a discusion on the internet with someone I dont even know is going to take a lot more than that. I am healing from shoulder surgery and simply have nothing better to do. I could not make sense out of what you said, but I think I got it now.
I was pointing out that according to some religions, Jesus Christ did not exist or was irrelevant. So if God tolerates all religions, he must tolerate some people not accepting Jesus’s sacrifice.
But I think what you are saying is that Jesus existed period, whether your religion says so or not. If you do not accept his sacrifice you are doomed. Which means that those people who have a different religion, and because of what they are taught and believe, they do not know of or believe in Jesus, and are therefore doomed. Is that correct?
By the way, I am not an atheist, I just think God is a little more tolerant than that.
As for the gay debate, no amount of rhetoric cut and pasted from biased research is going to sway anyone to believing you can change all the gays into heterosexuals, any more than I would believe you can change all the heterosexuals into gays.
Offending me via a discusion on the internet with someone I dont even know is going to take a lot more than that. I am healing from shoulder surgery and simply have nothing better to do. I could not make sense out of what you said, but I think I got it now.
I was pointing out that according to some religions, Jesus Christ did not exist or was irrelevant. So if God tolerates all religions, he must tolerate some people not accepting Jesus’s sacrifice. [/quote]
No - Again you missed the point. Religion is irrelevant. Jesus physically existed (few scholars would disagree). God intended us to follow Jesus, not religion. Hence, I am not a believer in Jesus because I am a Christian, I am a Christin becasue I believe in Jesus. True Christianity is a relationship with Jesus, not a religion.
The bible tells us in Romans 1 that all people have knowledge of God, and all people are held accountable for this knowledge.
[quote]
By the way, I am not an atheist, I just think God is a little more tolerant than that. [/quote]
Where did you get your ideas? Do you submit yourself to some authority, or do you make these ideas up yourself?
Evidence presented in this thread would suggest you are mistaken, and I would not consider factual evidence as being bias.
No - Again you missed the point. Religion is irrelevant. Jesus physically existed (few scholars would disagree). God intended us to follow Jesus, not religion. Hence, I am not a believer in Jesus because I am a Christian, I am a Christin becasue I believe in Jesus. True Christianity is a relationship with Jesus, not a religion.
[/quote]
I understand you fine. So we will just have to agree to disagree on the religous issue.
Yep, but some don’t believe the bible, any more than you believe the holy Qur’an. And if you were brought up in a different culture, you would likely believe something completely different.
My definition of factual evidence varies considerably from yours.
But regardless of that, even if it were possible to change some gays into heterosexual, it is a mute point anyway. You can not force homosexuals to be converted. Nor can you force parents (of homosexual children) to make their kids be converted.
Personally the thought of homosexual sex is nauseating. If many gays have the same feeling towards heterosexual sex, your just not going to get those to go for it, other than those that are willing.
The one thing those “studies” all had in common, they had willing participants. I would bet most would not be willing.
As for the gay debate, no amount of rhetoric cut and pasted from biased research is going to sway anyone to believing you can change all the gays into heterosexuals, any more than I would believe you can change all the heterosexuals into gays. [/quote]
Is there any research done regarding homosexuality that is not “biased” in some way? This is a very politically charged topic.
However, no where did I state (and no one else did either from my quotes) that you can turn “all the gays into heterosexuals.” I know you did not claim that I posted such material. But since I have been posting a great deal of material relative to “reparative therapy” and other forms of therapy for gays I didn’t want anyone to get the wrong idea.
In fact, I am sure that many cannot be “changed into heterosexuals.” I have found from the vast amount of reading that I have been doing since this thread began that change is a difficult process. However, as the statistics prove out, somewhere between 30% and 70% (depending on the therapy and the study) do in fact change to heterosexual!
Again, if even one person truly “changes” how can it be genetic?
Yep, but some don’t believe the bible, any more than you believe the holy Qur’an. And if you were brought up in a different culture, you would likely believe something completely different.
[/quote]
Matters not if some are ill informed on this point. The truth will always be the truth.
Junk food is still junk food even if someone doesn’t know the difference. Those eating twinkies are harming their health even if they are not aware of it.
Whether you believe that training with weights and eating “clean” is good for you or not, it still is!
Some are brought up not knowing the difference, but they are still harmed or helped by what they know or don’t know.
In other words, someone is right and someone is wrong regardless of what they “know” or think they know.
Yep, but some don’t believe the bible, any more than you believe the holy Qur’an. And if you were brought up in a different culture, you would likely believe something completely different.
Matters not if some are ill informed on this point. The truth will always be the truth.
Junk food is still junk food even if someone doesn’t know the difference. Those eating twinkies are harming their health even if they are not aware of it.
Whether you believe that training with weights and eating “clean” is good for you or not, it still is!
Some are brought up not knowing the difference, but they are still harmed or helped by what they know or don’t know.
In other words, someone is right and someone is wrong regardless of what they “know” or think they know.
My definition of factual evidence varies considerably from yours.
But regardless of that, even if it were possible to change some gays into heterosexual, it is a mute point anyway. You can not force homosexuals to be converted. Nor can you force parents (of homosexual children) to make their kids be converted.
[/quote]
Let’s relate this to the gay marriage issue. I am not attempting to force anyone to do anything. I simply believe that legalizing gay marriage will lead to increased homosexual activity. And, I believe, based on factual evidence, that increased homosexual activity is bad for society.
I posted a synopsis of a news story about the effect of homosexual activity on a local park in my community. I’ll post it again for you.
For Spamme - read below - I posted this little story a few pages back before you joined the thread.
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Since everyone around here likes personal stories so much, I’ve got one for you -
In the city I live there is a park. It’s a real nice park. It’s got slides and sand, fields and a bike path. And, it’s got a nice large forestry. It looks like the kind of place a family would take the kids for a relaxing afternoon. But, it’s not.
You see, this park has been overrun by homosexuals. It’s been going on for over 20 years, and it’s only getting worse. It used to be, that the gays would wait till night to do what they do at the park. But those days are gone. Now, they’ll do it in broad daylight.
Oh. You’re wondering what they do? I’ll tell you. They cruise the park looking for other gays. They make eyecontact. And then, they take a walk into the woods. Does that sound too bizzare to be true? Well, it is true.
A local newscrew decided to do a story on it a couple of months ago. In broad daylight they took a walk through the woods. And do you know what they found? Men with men! The men scattered like cockroaches, and left behind soiled pillows and lubricants. If memory serves me correctly, on one random day, in broad daylight, the crew found 3 groups of gay men doing what they do. IN BROAD DAYLIGHT!!!
One gay man stuck around to defend himself. When asked why, the gay man responded “I’m old and I’m lonely.”
Tell me…does this constitue risky sexual behavior? My contention is that it does. [/quote]
This story illustrates in part why I believe what I believe.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Matters not if some are ill informed on this point. The truth will always be the truth.
[/quote]
Exactly. The question though is who is ill informed. And what I believe or what you believe is irrelevant, unless it ends up being the truth.
My take on it is hell is going to have a lot more people than heaven. jehovas witness say if your not one of the chosen you are going to hell. Muslims have other beliefs that if you dont follow you are going to hell.
Anyone who doesn’t accept Jesus is going to hell. Hundreds of different religions, hundreds of interpretations. Sounds to me like getting in heaven is like playing the lottery, bad odds. Unless of course you know you are right, like the Muslims know they are right, and Jehovas know they are right, and etc.
And what about a six year old taught nothing but atheism and dies before he knows the difference. If you are right, not very compassionate for an omnipotent being.
But I digress, my sole reason for posting was the comments: “God does not care what religion you belong to”. And “he only cares that you accept Jesus Christ”.
I was pointing out that there are some who do not believe in Jesus Christ because of their religion, so it would follow that God must not be tolerant of all religions.
[quote]spamme wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Matters not if some are ill informed on this point. The truth will always be the truth.
Exactly. The question though is who is ill informed. And what I believe or what you believe is irrelevant, unless it ends up being the truth.
My take on it is hell is going to have a lot more people than heaven. jehovas witness say if your not one of the chosen you are going to hell. Muslims have other beliefs that if you dont follow you are going to hell.
Anyone who doesn’t accept Jesus is going to hell. Hundreds of different religions, hundreds of interpretations. Sounds to me like getting in heaven is like playing the lottery, bad odds. Unless of course you know you are right, like the Muslims know they are right, and Jehovas know they are right, and etc.
And what about a six year old taught nothing but atheism and dies before he knows the difference. If you are right, not very compassionate for an omnipotent being.
But I digress, my sole reason for posting was the comments: “God does not care what religion you belong to”. And “he only cares that you accept Jesus Christ”.
I was pointing out that there are some who do not believe in Jesus Christ because of their religion, so it would follow that God must not be tolerant of all religions.
[/quote]
Did you make up your ideas about God, or did you get them from somewhere?
For all the readers - God has given us all plenty of evidence. His compassion is shown in that He has not made is difficult to find the path. He has made it very easy. You don’t have to be smart. You don’t even have to be literite. But, you do need to have faith, and you do have to search with a sincere heart.
