Is Homosexuality A Sin?

[Death]

I do not disagree with that, but personally, I prefer people to prove something does exist before you should have to prove otherwise. This is because that you would otherwise be able to say that all of childrens' toys get up and play when they are not looking but zoom back to their positions as quick as a flash the moment that a child looks at them. You can never prove that this doesn't happen; it's the same principal.

[Kaleidoscope Eyes]

I thought it was over 2000 years ago, or am I going mad? :what:

2000 years ago is when Jesus came about, and thus around when Christianity got started. Some Christian beliefs and teachings, however, were originally Hebrew beliefs (the Torah contains the first five(I believe?) books of the Old Testament of the Bible, for example), and have thus been around much longer.

[ThatDude93]

I am a pretty devout Christian, and I am planning on going into ministry and becoming a youth pastor.....

I believe homosexuality is wrong. Personally, I myself am fine with gay people, as long as they don't bother me. Humans were designed for man and woman to reproduce....man and man just aren't made to be together....

[Ripplemagne]

Ripplemagne, the very fact that you keep pestering me like this even after I say 'drop it' countless times and keep trying to go back on topic is trolling in itself.

Someone has a faulty definition of trolling.

If you can't ever post without going off topic and insulting people (especially for that purpose only), kindly don't. And so for the last fucking time, drop it! Geez...

Except the fact that I'm bringing up valid points and just calling a spade a spade. No insults to be found. The same can't be said for you.

I am a pretty devout Christian, and I am planning on going into ministry and becoming a youth pastor.....

I believe homosexuality is wrong. Personally, I myself am fine with gay people, as long as they don't bother me. Humans were designed for man and woman to reproduce....man and man just aren't made to be together....

Why?

[Sage]

Humans were designed for man and woman to reproduce....man and man just aren't made to be together....

Duh. If everybody's reproducing it's only a matter of time before there are too many fucking people and plenty of folks that don't want to be parents but are. That's why there is homosexuality in nature- So that some couples can't reproduce and instead take in the young that don't have parents to look after them.

[Rutherford The Brave]

I am a pretty devout Christian, and I am planning on going into ministry and becoming a youth pastor.....

I believe homosexuality is wrong. Personally, I myself am fine with gay people, as long as they don't bother me. Humans were designed for man and woman to reproduce....man and man just aren't made to be together....

Doesn't sound like your so "Fine" with gay people if you don't want them to bother you. I had to point that out.

[Kaleidoscope Eyes]

Well, by bother I think he means the same way other people can bother you. Like, by getting in his face about why he thinks homosexuality is wrong, for example. As much as he disagrees with the way they live their lives, as people he has no problems with em. So as long as homosexuals don't criticize him for his beliefs, he doesn't criticize them for their lifestyle.

That's what I got from it.

[ThatDude93]

Why?

why what?

Duh. If everybody's reproducing it's only a matter of time before there are too many fucking people and plenty of folks that don't want to be parents but are. That's why there is homosexuality in nature- So that some couples can't reproduce and instead take in the young that don't have parents to look after them.

Well what you said makes some sense....but I still feel the same way

Doesn't sound like your so "Fine" with gay people if you don't want them to bother you. I had to point that out.

check out Kaleidoscope Eyes's take on what I said: Well, by bother I think he means
the same way other people can bother you. Like, by getting in his face about why he thinks homosexuality is wrong, for example. As much as he disagrees with the way they live their lives, as people he has no problems with em. So as long as homosexuals don't criticize him for his beliefs, he doesn't criticize them for their lifestyle.

That's what I got from it.

And what you got from it is correct :)

[Rutherford The Brave]

I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing it that way.

[ThatDude93]

Its ok, everyone is entitled to their own opinions

[Sage]

Its ok, everyone is entitled to their own opinions

No matter how unreasonable or grounded in logic they are, of course.

[ThatDude93]

correct everyone can have their opinion :)

and yeah I know that was a shot directed at me...but I don't care

[Kaleidoscope Eyes]

Why?
why what?

He wants you to explain why you believe the way you do. Like, go a little more in depth with it if you can. Why do you think we were made only to reproduce (where does love fit into it?), that kind of stuff. At least I know that's what I'm wondering (not just that specific question, though). xP I'm sure he was asking for the same kind of thing, an explanation of why you feel how you feel.

[ThatDude93]

I feel the way I feel because that is just how it all looks and seems to me. My faith probably has a lot to do with it.

About love, what do you mean by it. Yeah 2 people of the same sex can love each other, but I think it comes from bad past experiences....

[theOperaGhost]

Doesn't sound like your so "Fine" with gay people if you don't want them to bother you. I had to point that out.

why what?



Well what you said makes some sense....but I still feel the same way



check out Kaleidoscope Eyes's take on what I said:

And what you got from it is correct :)

I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing it that way.

Can you explain how you are seeing it? I'm exactly the same way...I am fine with homosexuals unless they bother me.

[Kaleidoscope Eyes]

I feel the way I feel because that is just how it all looks and seems to me. My faith probably has a lot to do with it.

About love, what do you mean by it. Yeah 2 people of the same sex can love each other, but I think it comes from bad past experiences....

Not all homosexuals have suffered some sort of emotional trauma in their childhood. There's really no correlation proving that such trauma causes homosexuality at all. In fact, there's no evidence proving that anything environmental causes homosexuality (although the jury is still out on genetic factors). So, even if you might personally think that's the reason, actual fact says otherwise.

Does the reason why they love each other make their love any less valid than yours? Is there "right" love and "wrong" love?

As far as how one becomes homosexual, love isn't a factor. What I meant when I asked about love, is that sex is not just for procreation. Humans don't have sex just as a survival instinct so that our species can continue--we're one of the few animals to have sex purely because it feels good, and not just when we're making babies. We have sex for three reasons in my opinion, and at least one is always a factor, although not necessarily all at once: 1) In hopes of creating a child 2) Because it feels good 3) Because we're in love with the person, and sex is one of the ways that we try to show that. So gay people can't create a baby together. So what? Is having sex morally wrong unless it's to create a kid? If that's your reasoning, then we're all screwed because most people have sex for other reasons at some point in their lives.

I also don't know where in the Bible it might actually mention this as a reason for homosexuality being wrong.

Also, being gay does not prevent a person from being able to reproduce. There are such things as sperm donors and artificial insemination. A lesbian can produce a child with her own eggs and the semen from a donor, while a gay man's semen can be used to impregnate a surrogate mother. Eggs and sperm from gays and lesbians can also be donated to banks which will use them to help couples who cannot create their own child together, due to one of them having reproductive issues.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Can you explain how you are seeing it? I'm exactly the same way...I am fine with homosexuals unless they bother me.

It just seems like he doesn't want them around to bother him. Usually when someone bothers you, you aren't going to sit there and find all the reasons why you think said person is ok. Your probably going to be like, your really annoying leave me alone. Then its entirely possible that something can rise from this issue. Plus if you don't really think they should date, and you don't want them to bother you. I feel like you don't want them around you.

[Death]

2000 years ago is when Jesus came about, and thus around when Christianity got started. Some Christian beliefs and teachings, however, were originally Hebrew beliefs (the Torah contains the first five(I believe?) books of the Old Testament of the Bible, for example), and have thus been around much longer.

Oh yes, of course! I wasn't thinking, so thanks for reminding me.

Someone has a faulty definition of trolling.
Except the fact that I'm bringing up valid points and just calling a spade a spade. No insults to be found. The same can't be said for you.

Oh for fuck's sake! You are still pestering me! Your hypocrisy is astounding! Can you ever, ever let anything go without having to go on and on and on? If you arn't trolling, how come you started attacking me simply because I asked you a question? I don't want to continue with this pointless discussion, but unfortunately, you brought it up and are persistantly proceeding with it despite what I say.

So, will you drop it? Or are you going to troll by posting even more insults whilst dissmissing everything that you do and have done? You decide.

I am fine with homosexuals unless they bother me.

What do you mean by 'bother' in this context? And what is the fact that man isn't made for man (or woman for woman) got to do with anything? That's a pretty weak argument. It's like saying that exploring the sea is wrong because we arn't designed/supposed to.


About love, what do you mean by it. Yeah 2 people of the same sex can love each other, but I think it comes from bad past experiences...

Bad experiences? How can it come from bad experiences? Please explain.

[Kaleidoscope Eyes]

It just seems like he doesn't want them around to bother him. Usually when someone bothers you, you aren't going to sit there and find all the reasons why you think said person is ok. Your probably going to be like, your really annoying leave me alone. Then its entirely possible that something can rise from this issue. Plus if you don't really think they should date, and you don't want them to bother you. I feel like you don't want them around you.

I think he means that if he sees a gay person on the street, he has no problems with them just based on the fact that they're gay. If they bother him, the way any person could, he wouldn't necessarily like that individual. Also, like I suggested and he confirmed: as long as gay people don't bash him for his beliefs, he won't argue with them about how immoral he may think their lifestyle is.

That's all there is to it. He doesn't think homosexuality is morally right, but he won't treat them differently based on that fact alone.

[...] Can you ever, ever let anything go without having to go on and on and on? If you arn't trolling, how come you started attacking me simply because I asked you a question? [...]

To the first question: No, he can't. xD Unless he is irrefutably proven wrong, the RippleChris will sometimes drag things out for quite a while.

And to the second: I know it's common for people to interpret his posts as attacks, when they aren't always. In these discussions, it can be frustrating when he's always questioning you and/or playing devil's advocate and really forcing you to defend your opinion... but it serves to further the discussion and to encourage you to really think about why you believe what you believe. I don't recall where this started and I'm not gonna go back to read it, but I know that what I just explained is often what sparks these back-and-forth things with him. People just take what he says the wrong way. That's not to say that he doesn't sometimes go a little too far and need to drop it already. xP If we all calmed down and just considered it like a data sharing meeting versus trying to prove ourselves, we'd get along better, though, I think. Always be open to what others say, and answer the best you can if they ask any questions. In the end we might just learn something from each other. *shrugs*

I'm not trying to speak for Chris, just giving sort of an outsider's perspective because the two of you clearly aren't getting anywhere with this.

[Rutherford The Brave]

I think he means that if he sees a gay person on the street, he has no problems with them just based on the fact that they're gay. If they bother him, the way any person could, he wouldn't necessarily like that individual. Also, like I suggested and he confirmed: as long as gay people don't bash him for his beliefs, he won't argue with them about how immoral he may think their lifestyle is.

That's all there is to it. He doesn't think homosexuality is morally right, but he won't treat them differently based on that fact alone.

I think thats all well and good, but I feel as though we aren't keyed in to reality. He may very well be ok with gay people for all we know, but how do we know if someone who also says this means the same thing? I don't know, something seems rather wrong about this. I'm not doubting him, he seems like a good guy and wants to make something good out of his life based on his beliefs. It's rather the statement that has me irked, because as you know not all people are honest and I feel as tough some words can be used as a cover.

[Kaleidoscope Eyes]

I know he means what I explained because that's what HE said when he explained it. I feel kinda feel like you're trying to find evidence that isn't there. There's no reason to distrust what he said when he explained himself, so why keep going on about it?

[Ripplemagne]

I feel the way I feel because that is just how it all looks and seems to me. My faith probably has a lot to do with it.

About love, what do you mean by it. Yeah 2 people of the same sex can love each other, but I think it comes from bad past experiences....

What does your faith have to do with it?

Oh for fuck's sake! You are still pestering me! Your hypocrisy is astounding! Can you ever, ever let anything go without having to go on and on and on? If you arn't trolling, how come you started attacking me simply because I asked you a question? I don't want to continue with this pointless discussion, but unfortunately, you brought it up and are persistantly proceeding with it despite what I say.

So, will you drop it? Or are you going to troll by posting even more insults whilst dissmissing everything that you do and have done? You decide.

POINT. OUT. WHERE. I. SAID. ANYTHING. HYPOCRITICAL. AND. I. WILL. LEAVE. YOU. ALONE. IF YOU ARE GOING TO PERSIST TO MAKE STATEMENTS ABOUT ME, THEN I AM GOING TO CONTINUE TO "PESTER" YOU UNTIL YOU VALIDATE WHY YOU SAID THEM.

Sorry for capitals, bold and red. The point obviously wasn't penetrating your thick skull despite the blunt force trauma of my e-penis striking you in the medulla oblongata like the mjolnir across the head of some French liberal pansy with a progressive agenda.

I'm going to make this lucid enough, so that fucking Barney Frank could comprehend this porcelain beaut' of bare logic:

I know you did, Greg. But seeing comments like "yes, it is" or "no, it's not" with no acknowledging of the points brought up is like "Wow, get an attention span." XD

This? This was me wondering why no one actually took the time to READ THE ARTICLE THAT THIS ENTIRE THREAD HAD A BASIS AROUND.

Can you ever argue without insulting those who disagree with you?

This? Was you trolling me because you're more butthurt than Kanye West at the VMAs after the severe textual raw anal pounding I handed to you last time you felt the need to fabricate an aura about me.

Pot, meet kettle. If I recall correctly, you were suspended. Not me. <3 kthx.

This? Was me pointing out the hypocrisy (OSNAP! It's your favorite word despite your complete lack of understanding for what its definition entails!) you were gurgling up in a haphazard attempt to imbue me with the attributes of Dick Dastardly in the Special Olympics. Ergo, using what we -- in the pretty blue planet in the Milky Way -- like to call "logic". You know, that thing that makes a debate work? When you actually use empirical data and observable data to establish your point on a subject?

I know that you're only insulting me because I'm atheist (like the other time you mentioned). Now, I think that we should end this 'sub discussion' because it's getting out of and, okay? Seriously.

This? You garnering that I somehow, someway insulted you. Where you deduce this from, I can only wonder. Especially considering that you can review the entire debate we had last time and I insulted you not once. Yet you were banned for not only flaming, flame baiting and trolling me, but wishing death upon me via personal message. Why? Because you couldn't bear the idea of getting showed up by a Christian because your big, bad, cool exterior that you've worked so hard to create in your 1.2 years of High School will go kaput when they find out that the cultural group you spend so much time chastising actually isn't explainable by your sagacious 14 year old, prepubescent ideals!

Because that explains why I've also criticized Christians and commended other atheists in this thread, right? Your generalizations and rampant stereotyping of Christianity is laughable in the face of your own hypocrisy.

This? More logic! Imagine that! Yet you conveniently go on to ignore it and spout more unobservable, unsustainable epithets against me. Moreover, you attempt to illustrate my honest questions as "mindless insults", when that couldn't be any further of the antithesis.

Either objectively respond to my point by point analysis or don't rattle your flappy gums while I'm performing my epic.

Not angry. Just needed to establish a wake up call in the form of an ASCII round house kick into your Sad Sam jaw.

This message has been brought to you by the letter A. A as in "asskickery". Defined as when Ripplemagne's size ten sneaker cuts through the air and barrels into the masses of obscene stupidity.

Tee why. Tee why.

[Kapitan Kokenbalz]

^

Clearly outplayed.

[Ripplemagne]

To those of you who are curious, this (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=51022&highlight=religion) is the thread where Death said I insulted him. I implore you to find anywhere where I did so.

[Kaleidoscope Eyes]

Let's not bring discussion of that other thread into this one. People can read it if they like, but let's not hijack this thread to revive that one.

[Kahn]

So here goes another one of my debates. Correct be, rebut me. Do anything you want with this.

Homosexuality is not, and should have never been classified as a sin. At the height of the Roman Empire we started seeing many Bi-sexual or homosexual Emperors. The only reason some of them had married women was to have children. The royal family must go on of course. Almost all of the Roman Emperors have had relations with other men. It has been recorded in data and writings. After the collapse of the Roman Empire it was frowned upon and thus banned from the church making it a sin.

During the 20th century World war II had occurred. An unfortunate event indeed but it happened. The Third Reich had risen again and in a matter of years had taken over Germany infesting it with Fascism. A form of Dictatorship. During World War II Adolf Hitler, leader of Nazi Germany, "Der Fuhrer" to his people, set up labour camps in the occupied countries he had invaded. One based in Germany, named Auschwitz, was in fact the largest Concentration camp and death camp in the third reich. It persecuted many of different origins. Jews, Africans, and Homosexuals were the main targets. Including political traitors and suspects.

I know much of that had nothing to do with the discussion but because of the past it is continued to be frowned upon. Even the A.) A corrupt religion (Not targeting any one) called it wrong. B.) An absolutely corrupt and blind Dictator called it wrong because he thought it was wrong because of the Church!

Now we can see that views on Homosexuality is changing. States in the U.S are beginning to pass laws allowing gay marriage, and for the first time since the collapse of the Roman Empire it is being evaluated and considered in the religion. It is actually being tolerated by many priests and ministers I have met. And believe me I have met many.

So in my opinion. No it is not a sin and never should have been considered one. But back then and still people think it is wrong because we were made to reproduce with the opposite sex, and because some religions refuse to accept the life style of some. Even politics messes with it. It is wrong to label someone and exclude someone from religious practices or from political parties because of they're lifestyle. Isn't that what Martin Luther King Jr. fought for in the 70's and 60's? The Civil Rights movement anyone?

Some of this may be inaccurate, or be incorrect all together, so critic with all of your might. =]

~Adam

[Ripplemagne]

I like you. Positive rep.

[Death]

To the first question: No, he can't. xD Unless he is irrefutably proven wrong, the RippleChris will sometimes drag things out for quite a while.

But I wasn't trying to prove him wrong though, I was actually only trying to get him to just drop it because I was sick of his pestering.

And to the second: I know it's common for people to interpret his posts as attacks, when they aren't always.

I know they arn't always, but there has been a lot of attacks from him here.

In these discussions, it can be frustrating when he's always questioning you and/or playing devil's advocate and really forcing you to defend your opinion... but it serves to further the discussion and to encourage you to really think about why you believe what you believe.

I understand that and that's not always a bad thing, but my 'belief' was that the off-topic should be stopped and yet he continued it.

People just take what he says the wrong way.

Have you seen some of the things he said in both this forum and the other? He's insulted me in every way possible and has alwasy become vulgar first even if I say leave it.

What does your faith have to do with it?

POINT. OUT. WHERE. I. SAID. ANYTHING. HYPOCRITICAL. AND. I. WILL. LEAVE. YOU. ALONE. IF YOU ARE GOING TO PERSIST TO MAKE STATEMENTS ABOUT ME, THEN I AM GOING TO CONTINUE TO "PESTER" YOU UNTIL YOU VALIDATE WHY YOU SAID THEM.

Quoted from the rules:

Please do not post in red constantly, as that is the most common color with which moderators edit posts.

Sorry for capitals, bold and red. The point obviously wasn't penetrating your thick skull despite the blunt force trauma of my e-penis striking you in the medulla oblongata like the mjolnir across the head of some French liberal pansy with a progressive agenda.

Maybe the reason as to why I'm not accepting it is not because I am too unintelligent, but because I simply don't give a fuck. Ever considered that?

And I'm not going to bother reading the rest because all you're doing is going back and grabbing quotes and I am no longer interested (who the hell am I kidding? I never was!) in speaking with you because instead of responding with civility (and civility can be disagreement or refutal which I do welcome you know), you just attack the person. Sometimes you have to understand that people simply do no agree with you and tou musn't start bashing them. If you want to progress in a debate, you must be accepting and looking at the other side too.

Now, I know that I've said this countless times, but shall we continue arguing the toss or shall we finish this? What would you prefer Ripplemagne? Grabbing other topics (which reminds me; I don't remember saying that you started attacking me in that topic in particualar) and posts in the past and start bashing with them or simply admit that we are never going to agree and leave it at that? I know which I want, but I need it from you as well. Please, for once, help me out here.


Homosexuality is not, and should have never been classified as a sin.

But isn't as sin something that goes against the Christian God? And one of those things being homosexuality? I know that you may be trying to be tolerant, and I like that, but strictly speaking, surely it must be?

At the height of the Roman Empire we started seeing many Bi-sexual or homosexual Emperors. The only reason some of them had married women was to have children. The royal family must go on of course. Almost all of the Roman Emperors have had relations with other men. It has been recorded in data and writings. After the collapse of the Roman Empire it was frowned upon and thus banned from the church making it a sin.

That's interesting, I never knew that so thanks for posting it. Were the roman empire Christians though? If they wern't, I wouldn't say that, that counted. Besides, it's in the bible.

It persecuted many of different origins. Jews, Africans, and Homosexuals were the main targets. Including political traitors and suspects.

I know much of that had nothing to do with the discussion but because of the past it is continued to be frowned upon. Even the A.) A corrupt religion (Not targeting any one) called it wrong. B.) An absolutely corrupt and blind Dictator called it wrong because he thought it was wrong because of the Church!

And people say that religion is harmless...

and for the first time since the collapse of the Roman Empire it is being evaluated and considered in the religion. It is actually being tolerated by many priests and ministers I have met. And believe me I have met many.

Isn't that going against the foundations of their religion though? Still, I suppose it's a good thing.

[Kaleidoscope Eyes]

Just for the record, posting one sentence in red letters doesn't qualify as doing so "constantly"; it's fine.

Good to see some people do read the rules, though.

[Death]

Oh I see, thanks for pointing that out.

[Kahn]

At the height of the Empire, no it was not Christian. In fact, Jesus had just begun to make a name for himself in the Empire. The official religion I believe was Roman Paganism. Emperor Constantine I was the first Roman Emperor babtized officially and was the first to fully convert the Roman state to Christianity.

Who says it was against God in the first place? I know it is the Bible that it states that Homosexuality is a sin but what is the reason? People like to explore and if God is the ultimate being he should know that. So who says people didn't create this set of laws so they could create Society the way they wanted?

[Death]

Who says it was against God in the first place? I know it is the Bible that it states that Homosexuality is a sin but what is the reason?

Thing is though, sin only exists because the bible exists (otherwise the term 'sin' would be redundant) and so what the bible says is sin must be. Although, I suppose you could argue that if God did not exist, sin cannot exist either and so in that sense, homosexuality would not be a sin, so I actually think both sides are plausible enough (I hope Ripplemagne is learning how we're debating here).

People like to explore and if God is the ultimate being he should know that.

God could be 'an ultimate being' but not be omniscient (all-knowing) and so might be oblivious to these things. But then again, that goes against the bible's teaching though and so if anything, that would be suggesting that the bible is false and that God does not exist. If God were to exist though, it might be possible that God is omniscient but is not omni-benevolent (all-loving) and so he makes homosexuality exist and knows it and yet he condemns people because of it.

So who says people didn't create this set of laws so they could create Society the way they wanted?

This is what I think happened. But remember, people wrote the bible, and so people made up 'sin', which goes against their own God. And so homosexuality could still be a sin, but against a non-existant God. This way, homosexuality does not have to be immoral. Of course, you could always say that if the God does not exist, sin can't either. I'm not really sure about which to believe to be honest.

[Ripplemagne]

I know they arn't always, but there has been a lot of attacks from him here.

Quote it. I dare you.

Quoted from the rules:

Please do not post in red constantly, as that is the most common color with which moderators edit posts.

Constantly. Learn to read everything in a sentence.

Maybe the reason as to why I'm not accepting it is not because I am too unintelligent, but because I simply don't give a fuck. Ever considered that?

If you didn't give a fuck, you wouldn't keep responding with pot shots subtly lavishing your straw men babble.

nd I'm not going to bother reading the rest because all you're doing is going back and grabbing quotes and I am no longer interested (who the hell am I kidding? I never was!) in speaking with you because instead of responding with civility (and civility can be disagreement or refutal which I do welcome you know), you just attack the person. Sometimes you have to understand that people simply do no agree with you and tou musn't start bashing them. If you want to progress in a debate, you must be accepting and looking at the other side too.

Except here's the thing. I wasn't attacking you the whole time. Neither in this thread or the one that preceded it. You, continually, took pot shots at me. There's only so much stupidity I can take before a Falcon Punch the size of Chuck Norris's beard has to be thrust into the person' face.

IF I SAID ANYTHING THAT WAS NOT CIVIL BEFORE THE POST YOU ARE QUOTING, THEN QUOTE IT AND EXPLAIN HOW IT WAS NOT CIVIL. OTHERWISE, YOU ARE TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS.

I've been willing to accept your beliefs and discuss them. You, however, continually insult me. And what makes it worse? You don't even acknowledge that you're doing it in the face of direct quotes!

Now, I know that I've said this countless times, but shall we continue arguing the toss or shall we finish this? What would you prefer Ripplemagne? Grabbing other topics (which reminds me; I don't remember saying that you started attacking me in that topic in particualar) and posts in the past and start bashing with them or simply admit that we are never going to agree and leave it at that? I know which I want, but I need it from you as well. Please, for once, help me out here.

Did you read the red, bolded part? I said I'd leave you alone if you stopped making provocative statements and taking cheap shots at me.

I know it is the Bible that it states that Homosexuality is a sin but what is the reason?

Did you read my article? It'll answer that question.

(I hope Ripplemagne is learning how we're debating here).

And you continue to take pot shots at me. Either put up or shut up. If you don't do either, I'm going to continue to erase your face into the forums by whipping you with my left testicle.

The only reason you're being civil with Knight is because he's not a Christian. If he were, you'd have acted just as condescending and snobby to him as you did to me when I was answering simple questions.

[sebbie]

Hmmmmm

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270911970_db35fdd4ca.jpg

[Kale]

What does your faith have to do with it?



POINT. OUT. WHERE. I. SAID. ANYTHING. HYPOCRITICAL. AND. I. WILL. LEAVE. YOU. ALONE. IF YOU ARE GOING TO PERSIST TO MAKE STATEMENTS ABOUT ME, THEN I AM GOING TO CONTINUE TO "PESTER" YOU UNTIL YOU VALIDATE WHY YOU SAID THEM.

Sorry for capitals, bold and red. The point obviously wasn't penetrating your thick skull despite the blunt force trauma of my e-penis striking you in the medulla oblongata like the mjolnir across the head of some French liberal pansy with a progressive agenda.

I'm going to make this lucid enough, so that fucking Barney Frank could comprehend this porcelain beaut' of bare logic:



This? This was me wondering why no one actually took the time to READ THE ARTICLE THAT THIS ENTIRE THREAD HAD A BASIS AROUND.



This? Was you trolling me because you're more butthurt than Kanye West at the VMAs after the severe textual raw anal pounding I handed to you last time you felt the need to fabricate an aura about me.



This? Was me pointing out the hypocrisy (OSNAP! It's your favorite word despite your complete lack of understanding for what its definition entails!) you were gurgling up in a haphazard attempt to imbue me with the attributes of Dick Dastardly in the Special Olympics. Ergo, using what we -- in the pretty blue planet in the Milky Way -- like to call "logic". You know, that thing that makes a debate work? When you actually use empirical data and observable data to establish your point on a subject?



This? You garnering that I somehow, someway insulted you. Where you deduce this from, I can only wonder. Especially considering that you can review the entire debate we had last time and I insulted you not once. Yet you were banned for not only flaming, flame baiting and trolling me, but wishing death upon me via personal message. Why? Because you couldn't bear the idea of getting showed up by a Christian because your big, bad, cool exterior that you've worked so hard to create in your 1.2 years of High School will go kaput when they find out that the cultural group you spend so much time chastising actually isn't explainable by your sagacious 14 year old, prepubescent ideals!



This? More logic! Imagine that! Yet you conveniently go on to ignore it and spout more unobservable, unsustainable epithets against me. Moreover, you attempt to illustrate my honest questions as "mindless insults", when that couldn't be any further of the antithesis.

Either objectively respond to my point by point analysis or don't rattle your flappy gums while I'm performing my epic.

Not angry. Just needed to establish a wake up call in the form of an ASCII round house kick into your Sad Sam jaw.

This message has been brought to you by the letter A. A as in "asskickery". Defined as when Ripplemagne's size ten sneaker cuts through the air and barrels into the masses of obscene stupidity.

Tee why. Tee why.

Domin8ed.

[Death]

Quote it. I dare you.

And here I was, just starting to get to a nice reasonable debate, before you have to go in and ruin everything, again. So you choose to continue trolling... Now why am I not surprised by this? But you want quotes, you have them:


The point obviously wasn't penetrating your thick skull despite the blunt force trauma of my e-penis striking you in the medulla oblongata like the mjolnir across the head of some French liberal pansy with a progressive agenda.


This? Was me pointing out the hypocrisy (OSNAP! It's your favorite word despite your complete lack of understanding for what its definition entails!) you were gurgling up in a haphazard attempt to imbue me with the attributes of Dick Dastardly in the Special Olympics. Ergo, using what we -- in the pretty blue planet in the Milky Way -- like to call "logic". You know, that thing that makes a debate work? When you actually use empirical data and observable data to establish your point on a subject?



Where you deduce this from, I can only wonder. Especially considering that you can review the entire debate we had last time and I insulted you not once.

Why? Because you couldn't bear the idea of getting showed up by a Christian because your big, bad, cool exterior that you've worked so hard to create in your 1.2 years of High School will go kaput when they find out that the cultural group you spend so much time chastising actually isn't explainable by your sagacious 14 year old, prepubescent ideals!


Either objectively respond to my point by point analysis or don't rattle your flappy gums while I'm performing my epic.

These are just a few examples. Ring any bells? Or do you not care anymore?

Why can't you accept our differences? Why can't you stop the insults despite several requests? Why are you incapable of restraining yourself when it comes to submitting trollish replies where no reply is even needed? Because you love trolling. And the saddest thing is, you don't even know that you're doing it.

The only reason you're being civil with Knight is because he's not a Christian. If he were, you'd have acted just as condescending and snobby to him as you did to me when I was answering simple questions.

I suppose that explains why I've been civil with religious people before (in PMs and out) even when the topic crawled into religion. The problem with you Ripplemagne is that somebody disagrees with you, you cannot think of anything with wich to refute them, so you start attacking them and you keep on going no matter how civil they are back. And again, it's sad how you are not aware of this.

[Ripplemagne]

And here I was, just starting to get to a nice reasonable debate, before you have to go in and ruin everything, again. So you choose to continue trolling... Now why am I not surprised by this? But you want quotes, you have them:

Define trolling because, obviously, you have a faulty understanding of the word.

And you're bringing up all points in the here and now. You said I attacked you in the past. Find a place where I attacked you previous to the red texted post. Are you that dense that you can't even follow your own formula of failure?

I suppose that explains why I've been civil with religious people before (in PMs and out) even when the topic crawled into religion. The problem with you Ripplemagne is that somebody disagrees with you, you cannot think of anything with wich to refute them, so you start attacking them and you keep on going no matter how civil they are back. And again, it's sad how you are not aware of this.

This has to be the biggest case of transference I've ever seen in my entire life. And believe you me, I've seen some pretty chronic cases.

Lets review facts.

Random guy posts a question about Christianity.
I respond to it.
You attack my beliefs.
I respond civilly.
You grow more and more aggressive.
I remain docile and take your points as they come along.
You wish death upon me and get yourself banned.
I post a thread about a topic relating to my article.
People ignore said article and post statements directly contradictory to it with no cross references or anything of note.
I point that out.
You attempt to paint me as ignorant, hypocritical, yadda yadda yadda.
I point out the irony of that.
You continue to take pot shots at me.
I keep my cool for several posts, asking for a direct explanation for your words.
You don't do so and continue to take pot shots.
I Falcon Punch you harder than Jane Jetson needs a wall mounted telephone across the side of her skull.

At what point did I attack you for having a different opinion? At what point did I attack anyone for having a different opinion? Go ahead and find it. Because, rest assure, I am a minority when it comes to my view points on this forum. And guess what? I have a number of friends and repped quite a bit of people already.

ONE OF WHICH IS THE PERSON YOU'RE DEBATING, WHO IS AGNOSTIC.

You are not civil. And I will prove it:

Can you ever argue without insulting those who disagree with you?

This? Unprovoked defamation of character, attempting to insinuate that I was some kind of monster putting everyone down, when in reality, I just wanted people to stick to the subject this thread was posted about. If you had read the entire thread, you'd know that.

I know that you're only insulting me because I'm atheist (like the other time you mentioned). Now, I think that we should end this 'sub discussion' because it's getting out of and, okay? Seriously.

Presumption that I was insulting you when I wasn't in addition to generalizing Christians as hate mongering assailants. Durf.

Look, I said can we drop this!? I'm pretty sick of trying to post here with tou cutting in to mindlessly insult me like this! I've said nothing more about Christianity than you have about atheism (note that I have not said how much either of this is), and so, can we drop this now?

1. Attempting to paint basic premises as "mindless insulting", when it was neither mindless nor insulting.

2. I said nothing bad about atheism, whereas you did, so skewing facts to make me look less than I was behaving.

Ripplemagne, quit trolling. I've already said countless times that I want to drop this because this one-sided bashing is getting nowhere. You do realise that this only stated because I asked you a question. So, as I've said countless times before, lets just drop it, okay? Can you do that? Thankyou.

1. Attempting to imbue me with traits that I did not possess. Ergo, trolling.

2. Ignoring your subtle digs and attempting to make it look like I was attacking you when there is no conceivable way to deduce that I was.

Ripplemagne, the very fact that you keep pestering me like this even after I say 'drop it' countless times and keep trying to go back on topic is trolling in itself. If you can't ever post without going off topic and insulting people (especially for that purpose only), kindly don't. And so for the last fucking time, drop it! Geez...

Attempting to make it appear as though I came after you, when in reality, you quoted me first. Not the other way around.

Oh for fuck's sake! You are still pestering me! Your hypocrisy is astounding! Can you ever, ever let anything go without having to go on and on and on? If you arn't trolling, how come you started attacking me simply because I asked you a question? I don't want to continue with this pointless discussion, but unfortunately, you brought it up and are persistantly proceeding with it despite what I say.

So, will you drop it? Or are you going to troll by posting even more insults whilst dissmissing everything that you do and have done? You decide.


The majority of it has already been stated, but the bolded bit is a red flag. And that's when you got your ass kicked.

See, your logic that I'm only coming after you because I can't prove you wrong would make sense if it weren't for a few little relics that us old people like to call "sense".

1. We weren't debating any subject. You got snarky with me because I pointed out that people were being idiots by not paying attention to the theme of the thread.

2. You didn't prove me wrong on anything and there's no inherent subject for me to feel such.

3. I repped people I disagree with.

4. You have no idea what I even believe on this subject, so to assume that I am merely handling you because I can't refute you is asinine.

5. The only attacks I unleashed came after your repeated subtle digs.

But if it's so sad. Lets look around. How many people have agreed with you so far? It seems at least three have confirmed that I've rolled you through the manure fields like a cotton eyed joe at the hands of a few rogue slaves.

Tell me. How does my e-penis feel in your ear?

[Sachin]

In the end though, your sexuality is just who you like having sex with, isn't it? xDDDD

Murder's a sin. Rape is a sin. Even theft is a sin.
But homosexuality? Definitely not.

[Ripplemagne]

Murder's a sin. Rape is a sin. Even theft is a sin.
But homosexuality? Definitely not.

What are you using to conclude this?

[Death]

I don't know why I bother responding to you Ripplemagne; I'm talking to a brick wall. If you can't see that your very own posts contain insults, I see no point in talking any further. Of course, I've said that countless times before.

[Death]

In the end though, your sexuality is just who you like having sex with, isn't it?

As in which gender, yes.

Murder's a sin. Rape is a sin. Even theft is a sin.
But homosexuality? Definitely not.Actually, for homosexuality, it definetly is a sin. You need only open the bible to see all sorts of bigotry regarding homosexuality, and other things (such as transvestism or non-christianity for instance). But as for moral, I may have said this before, but anyone with a shred of morality would know that homosexuality is no less moral than heterosexuality or bisexuality. Morality and sin are two very different things.

[sebbie]

Actually, for homosexuality, it definetly is a sin. You need only open the bible to see all sorts of bigotry regarding homosexuality, and other things (such as transvestism or non-christianity for instance). But as for moral, I may have said this before, but anyone with a shred of morality would know that homosexuality is no less moral than heterosexuality or bisexuality. Morality and sin are two very different things.

Please provide some examples regarding homosexuality.

Also why do you think it is definitely a sin?

[Ripplemagne]

I don't know why I bother responding to you Ripplemagne; I'm talking to a brick wall. If you can't see that your very own posts contain insults, I see no point in talking any further. Of course, I've said that countless times before.

And if you can't take the big picture and see that you were flame baiting, then you're an idiot.

Actually, for homosexuality, it definetly is a sin. You need only open the bible to see all sorts of bigotry regarding homosexuality, and other things (such as transvestism or non-christianity for instance). But as for moral, I may have said this before, but anyone with a shred of morality would know that homosexuality is no less moral than heterosexuality or bisexuality. Morality and sin are two very different things.

And I only need to read your posts to see bigotry regarding Christianity. ^_^

[Tiberius]

Okay, let's not get out of hand with insults here. Keep the debate clean or it will be locked.

[Maverick]

This thread has gone on enough.