'Somebody must stand up to homosexual...

'Somebody must stand up to homosexuals' - Stewart

There are 491 comments on the The Gleaner story from Aug 25, 2013, titled 'Somebody must stand up to homosexuals' - Stewart. In it, The Gleaner reports that:

A member of the local clergy is charging that Jamaican churches are in religious and spiritual turmoil on the issue of homosexuality.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Gleaner.

Blacktigershark

Edmonton, Canada

#391 Oct 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Attacking others is all I can do. I don't have any real arguments, so I use abuse instead.
Ain't topix a great place for trolls?
LMFAO!

You sure you are not Rose_NoHo's alter ego?

:D
Blacktigershark

Edmonton, Canada

#392 Oct 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh the irony.
Ha ha ha!
Blacktigershark

Edmonton, Canada

#393 Oct 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
"You're a troll!" whines some troll on AOL. Priceless.
You see what Rose_NoHo has done here, Frankie? Since Rose_NoHo cannot answer my challenge, Rose has resorted to telling friends of his/hers to congregate to this thread, rate our posts, impersonate our usernames (like Frankie Rizzo from AOL...LOL!) and argue on his/her behalf.

Yep...THAT'S what a rational person, of whom has made the claim of our existence, which is that he/she has PROVEN that God does not exist, resorts to when someone with greater intelligence than him/her has decimated their petty opinions!

PRICELESS INDEED!

;)

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#394 Oct 2, 2013
Blacktigershark wrote:
<quoted text>
No worries...I have to laugh at a blowhard that believes that his own thoughts constitute FACT,
Stupid, it's a FACT we don't all know god's rules. We KNOW this is true because people hold *conflicting* views of that the rules are. So, either he can't tell them to us, or he doesn't care if we know them. In either case, he isn't god.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#395 Oct 2, 2013
Blacktigershark wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an atheist (a person that does not believe in God). You believe that you have proven that God does not exist, based on differing human translations of ancient texts and conflicting accounts from different groups where these 'rules' are concerned, that you are determined that God had to pass down to mankind, in order for man to follow. You also deem that God had to pass down laws to man, in order for God to exist, and one reason you state that God does not exist, is because of the fact that either God has conveyed different 'rules' to different groups of people to tell other people, like atheists like yourself, of whom make the claim that they don't know what God's 'rules' are, or that God did not pass down any rules for mankind, and if that is the case, then God would, in your opinion, turn out to be a heartless bastard, that doesn't care about mankind and what man does to his brother or sister, and thus could not be God, because...? Think I'm seven steps ahead of you...have you been able to come up with even ONE point to back up your belief that does not surround any of these monotonous arguments that you have continually brought up over and over again, or are you still stuck on stupid?
:D
<quoted text>
Read my past posts. I've told you what I meant by God. If you are not swift enough to keep up, then I can't help you, kid!
You don't see the difference between 'god' and 'God'? Come on!
No difference, stupid. In many languages they don't even have upper and lowercase characters.
Blacktigershark wrote:
The fact is that you are too stupid to realize that what you are projecting on this forum is your own theory AT BEST, not a FACT!
Again, it's a fact we don't all know god's rules.
So, there is no god.

Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#398 Oct 3, 2013
lolol wrote:
<quoted text>
.
hmmmmm, kind of sounds like the glbt agenda to force everyone to accept, idolize a perverted lifestyle and have special laws passed giving them more rights than the common public and abide by all the new gay laws like marriage, special hate crime law, special anti discrimination law, laws to let the pervs use opposite gender toilets, I see the rationale now, declare glbt as a religion unto itself which it acts like.
More rights than the common public? Really? What rights are we asking for that you don't already have?
Blacktigershark

Edmonton, Canada

#400 Oct 3, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Stupid, it's a FACT we don't all know god's rules. We KNOW this is true because people hold *conflicting* views of that the rules are. So, either he can't tell them to us, or he doesn't care if we know them. In either case, he isn't god.
Do you know all of MY rules? Hmmmm...since you, and BILLIONS of other people don't know MY rules, by your logic, it would mean that I am not who I am, because you, and BILLIONS of others, don't know MY rules, right?

Yeah...your logic is STUPID, and it what you are not seeing is that because you don't know some phenomenon's 'rules', of which AGAIN, is in dispute of whether God even conveyed any 'rules' for mankind to follow (as I have stated before, MAN LIES, in order to fulfill their own selfish agendas...probably a sticking point that flew over your head!), does not mean that said phenomenon does not exist!

P.S. If you were able to comprehend many of the replies I have posted on this thread, you would understand that I have no debate about whether these 'rules' you claim must have been conveyed by God to mankind were interpreted by other people, that have the same belief that you do, that God must have conveyed some rules to mankind, were conflicting accounts. You able to move on from that, as that has no bearing on whether God exists or not. Come up with either a stronger theory, or credible proof that God does not exist...something you have failed to do throughout the whole time we have been talking about God's existence, Rose!

;)
Blacktigershark

Edmonton, Canada

#401 Oct 3, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
No difference, stupid. In many languages they don't even have upper and lowercase characters.
You state that there isn't a difference, then you happen to identify the difference. Sounds like you are having issues with conflicting statements!

:D

Weren't YOU the one that made the comment about how certain posters were CAPITALIZING some of their words in order to get their message across...and then things got funny when YOU started doing it?

;)

Remember, Rose...this isn't '...many languages...' that you are referring to here...this is ENGLISH, something that we both comprehend, and that we use to communicate with each other during this conversation, where I am soundly trumping all of your posts! English has upper case AND lower case characters...now, care to say AGAIN what the difference between 'god' and 'God' is?

(:
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Again, it's a fact we don't all know god's rules.
So, there is no god.
The ONLY fact you have come up with in this statement of yours is that everybody does not know God's 'rules', and whether God has even conveyed any 'rules' for mankind to follow.

What you are unable to grasp is that one fact does not equate to validating your belief that God does not exist, Rose_NoHo! Again, you don't know all of MY rules, and I exist, as you are witness to that, from the way I swiftly trounce all of your posts! You don't know God's 'rules'...fair enough, however, that does not mean that God does not exist!

I don't know ALL the 'rules' and amendments of the American constitution...does that mean that George Washington does not exist, since I never seen George Washington in my lifetime, and MEN LIE???

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#402 Oct 4, 2013
Blacktigershark wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know all of MY rules? Hmmmm...since you, and BILLIONS of other people don't know MY rules, by your logic, it would mean that I am not who I am, because you, and BILLIONS of others, don't know MY rules, right?
LOL! You are so dumb.
Blacktigershark wrote:
Yeah...your logic is STUPID,
That's not my logic, STUPID.
Unless you are claiming to be all powerful and all knowing.
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your crappy post.
Let's start from the beginning. In order to have any debate about god's existence, we have to at least explain what we mean by the term "god". If we don't, there is nothing to debate.
What do you mean by "god"? Put up, or STFU, deal?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#403 Oct 4, 2013
Blacktigershark wrote:
<quoted text>
You state that there isn't a difference, then you happen to identify the difference. Sounds like you are having issues with conflicting statements!
No, it sounds like you are so stupid, the point went over your head.
Blacktigershark wrote:
:D
Ignorance is bliss.
Blacktigershark wrote:
Weren't YOU the one that made the comment about how certain posters were CAPITALIZING some of their words in order to get their message across...and then things got funny when YOU started doing it?
;)
Remember, Rose...this isn't '...many languages...' that you are referring to here...this is ENGLISH, something that we both comprehend, and that we use to communicate with each other during this conversation, where I am soundly trumping all of your posts! English has upper case AND lower case characters...now, care to say AGAIN what the difference between 'god' and 'God' is?
(:
<quoted text>
The ONLY fact you have come up with in this statement of yours is that everybody does not know God's 'rules', and whether God has even conveyed any 'rules' for mankind to follow.
What you are unable to grasp is that one fact does not equate to validating your belief that God does not exist, Rose_NoHo! Again, you don't know all of MY rules, and I exist, as you are witness to that, from the way I swiftly trounce all of your posts! You don't know God's 'rules'...fair enough, however, that does not mean that God does not exist!
I don't know ALL the 'rules' and amendments of the American constitution...does that mean that George Washington does not exist, since I never seen George Washington in my lifetime, and MEN LIE???
Amazing.
You are just breathtakingly stupid.
George Washington wasn't all powerful, nor all knowing...
Blacktigershark

Edmonton, Canada

#404 Oct 4, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
LOL! You are so dumb.
Says the person that believes that his beliefs constitute facts...LMFAO! I vaguely remember the last idiot that thought his ideologies and beliefs translated into facts...First name initial, A, last name, Hitler! Remember how his end befell him, Rose? Good thing that people don't have any faith in your ideologies, otherwise America could be heading down quite a scary path, which likely would end in your retarded @$$ blowing your senseless brains out...ROFL!

Am I going to hear the Godwin law's argument now from you, as a way of you trying to say that just because I likened you to Hitler, that now your beliefs and thought about God have been thoroughly proven?

q:
Rose_NoHo wrote:
That's not my logic, STUPID.
Unless you are claiming to be all powerful and all knowing.
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your crappy post.
Let's start from the beginning. In order to have any debate about god's existence, we have to at least explain what we mean by the term "god". If we don't, there is nothing to debate.
What do you mean by "god"? Put up, or STFU, deal?
Actually, that IS your logic, idiot!

One of your strongest points in your argument where you maintain that you have PROVEN that God doesn't exist, rests on your claim that in order for something or someone to exist (in this case, God), one would have to be able to define said something or someone, and then be able to know said something or someone's rules, in order for them to exist!

FACT is that I don't know George Washington, I have never seen George Washington, and I don't know all of George Washington's 'rules'! Whether George Washington was omnipotent and omniscient is beside the point, Rose_NoHo...Using YOUR logic, let you and I explain what we mean by 'George Washington', and remember, we have to AGREE on the description of 'George Washington', otherwise, according to YOUR logic,'George Washington' NEVER existed!

AGAIN...you have MY definition of God. It is similar to your definition of the formation of the universe...what was that again? Right...let me try to paraphrase your definition of the universe, Rose...it goes something like this...'...the universe is there...I can't see the WHOLE universe...however, it is there, and I believe that it is there, because I see a piece of the universe, that I'm proud to say that I lime amongst...'...That happen to be close to the definition of the universe, that you have, Rose_NoHo? If your definition of the universe, that you haven't seen the entirety of, is different and more detailed, THEN you may be on the path to furthering your THEORY of God's non-existence to being that of a stronger theory.

But until you are able to fully describe a phenomena that you ADMIT you cannot define, Rose_NoHo, you are far from proving that God does not exist...got it? GOOD!

Basically, only an individual that can define ALL previously undefined phenomena can lay claim to knowing with absolute certainty that a phenomena like God does not exist. Since you have ADMITTED that you cannot define all phenomena, then that would NOT be you! Thus, that means you have not PROVEN that God does not exist, and I have successfully put an end point on this senseless argument of yours...though you can continue to debate the undebatable, Rose, and I can continue to make you look like the illiterate degenerate you are, alright muffin?

:D

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#407 Oct 4, 2013
Blacktigershark wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the person that believes that his beliefs constitute facts...LMFAO!
I'm not saying that at all, but you aren't smart enough to see that.
I even often ask, "What shape was the earth when most people believed it to be flat?".
Blacktigershark wrote:
I vaguely remember the last idiot that thought his ideologies and beliefs translated into facts...First name initial, A, last name, Hitler!
...
Am I going to hear the Godwin law's argument now from you, as a way of you trying to say that just because I likened you to Hitler, that now your beliefs and thought about God have been thoroughly proven?
q:
Your post is a perfect illustration of Godwin's Law.
Comparing me to Hitler.
LOL!
:P((^))
Blacktigershark wrote:
Actually, that IS your logic, idiot!
One of your strongest points in your argument where you maintain that you have PROVEN that God doesn't exist,
I have.
Blacktigershark wrote:
rests on your claim that in order for something or someone to exist (in this case, God), one would have to be able to define said something or someone, and then be able to know said something or someone's rules, in order for them to exist!
Sorry, stupid, that's not my argument.
Take notes this time. Then have someone explain this to you:
I'm saying that in order to have a (meaningful) debate about whether or not something (in this case god) exists, you need to have some sort of definition/description of what that something (in this case, god) is.
Blacktigershark wrote:
FACT is that I don't know George Washington, I have never seen George Washington, and I don't know all of George Washington's 'rules'! Whether George Washington was omnipotent and omniscient is beside the point,
No, dummy, that is THE point.
Since Washington was neither omnipotent nor omniscient, there is no reason to believe he had the ability to communicate his rules to every human there ever was, is, and ever will be.
Blacktigershark wrote:
Rose_NoHo...Using YOUR logic, let you and I explain what we mean by 'George Washington', and remember, we have to AGREE on the description of 'George Washington', otherwise, according to YOUR logic,'George Washington' NEVER existed!
Again, stupid, that's not what I'm saying. In this analogy, I'd be saying that without a description of who George Washington was, we can't debate if he existed or not.
Blacktigershark wrote:
AGAIN...you have MY definition of God. It is similar to your definition of the formation of the universe...what was that again?(Blacktigershark's incoherent rambling snipped.)
IOW, I don't have your definition of god. Why not just tell us instead of rambling incoherently?
Without a definition, there is nothing to debate.
Blacktigershark wrote:
:D
Ignorance is bliss.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#411 Oct 4, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not saying that at all, but you aren't smart enough to see that.
I even often ask, "What shape was the earth when most people believed it to be flat?".
<quoted text>
Your post is a perfect illustration of Godwin's Law.
Comparing me to Hitler.
LOL!
:P((^))
<quoted text>
I have.
<quoted text>
Sorry, stupid, that's not my argument.
Take notes this time. Then have someone explain this to you:
I'm saying that in order to have a (meaningful) debate about whether or not something (in this case god) exists, you need to have some sort of definition/description of what that something (in this case, god) is.
<quoted text>
No, dummy, that is THE point.
Since Washington was neither omnipotent nor omniscient, there is no reason to believe he had the ability to communicate his rules to every human there ever was, is, and ever will be.
<quoted text>
Again, stupid, that's not what I'm saying. In this analogy, I'd be saying that without a description of who George Washington was, we can't debate if he existed or not.
<quoted text>
IOW, I don't have your definition of god. Why not just tell us instead of rambling incoherently?
Without a definition, there is nothing to debate.
<quoted text>
Ignorance is bliss.
Even if that were true, it would be a non-issue.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#412 Oct 4, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! You are so dumb.
<quoted text>
That's not my logic, STUPID.
Unless you are claiming to be all powerful and all knowing.
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your crappy post.
Let's start from the beginning. In order to have any debate about god's existence, we have to at least explain what we mean by the term "god". If we don't, there is nothing to debate.
What do you mean by "god"? Put up, or STFU, deal?
That's a red herring.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#413 Oct 5, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
More rights than the common public? Really? What rights are we asking for that you don't already have?
The right to marry someone of the same sex. Duh.
Blacktigershark

Edmonton, Canada

#414 Oct 5, 2013
Let's see if my comparing you to Hitler, before you start crying about Godwin's Law, as I figured you would when I likened your thought process to Hitler's...

First, let's see if you and Hitler have anything in common...

Hitler had baseless ideologies that he converted into fact through his own flawed thought process. Hitler then turned his baseless ideologies and thoughts into law, that he EXPECTED others to follow. This is the same thing that you are doing, Rose, wherein you are taking a belief of yours, inappropriately converting your beliefs into fact, without sufficient proof, and expecting others to either agree with your beliefs, or be chastised for not agreeing with you.

Rose_NoHo = Hitler...? CHECK!

Godwin's Law does not apply here, unless in this rare case, I am the victor of this debate, as I have PROVEN that you are the spawn of Hitler, as you both have the same thought process!

;)
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Your post is a perfect illustration of Godwin's Law.
Comparing me to Hitler.
LOL!
:P((^))
Blacktigershark

Edmonton, Canada

#415 Oct 5, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Ignorance is bliss.
That's why I keep laughing at you, kid!

:D

Only YOU would know about ignorance being bliss...you are still the only one in this debate that continues to validate your (at best) theory as a FACT, and that is truly blissful ignorance!
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#416 Oct 5, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if that were true, it would be a non-issue.
Sort of like your intellect?
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#417 Oct 5, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The right to marry someone of the same sex. Duh.
You don't have that right in California? Just how stupid are you?
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#418 Oct 5, 2013
Blacktigershark wrote:
Let's see if my comparing you to Hitler, before you start crying about Godwin's Law, as I figured you would when I likened your thought process to Hitler's...
First, let's see if you and Hitler have anything in common...
Hitler had baseless ideologies that he converted into fact through his own flawed thought process. Hitler then turned his baseless ideologies and thoughts into law, that he EXPECTED others to follow. This is the same thing that you are doing, Rose, wherein you are taking a belief of yours, inappropriately converting your beliefs into fact, without sufficient proof, and expecting others to either agree with your beliefs, or be chastised for not agreeing with you.
Rose_NoHo = Hitler...? CHECK!
Godwin's Law does not apply here, unless in this rare case, I am the victor of this debate, as I have PROVEN that you are the spawn of Hitler, as you both have the same thought process!
;)
<quoted text>
You are hilarious.... "...the victor of this debate..."

Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

The ONLY thing you proved is just how stupid you really are.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 min River Tam 57,968
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 10 min Concerned 14,188
gawdsmaked 30 min Frankie Rizzo 4
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 33 min Frankie Rizzo 26,522
God Schmuck Diary 37 min Frankie Rizzo 3
News This Thanksgiving, I'm thankful for being born gay 51 min Gooble Gooble 31
News Ten Commandments judge faces runoff in Alabama ... 1 hr ThomasA 205
Roy Moore.....Just Another Hypocrite 7 hr Say what 110
More from around the web