Why Should Jesus Love Me?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#511046 Mar 28, 2013
Name appears on post wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think there's anything wrong with the loudness at gay parades. Why do gays have to suck up to the so-called "traditional" folks? I like the idea of gay parades PRECISELY because they're so flamboyant and embrace all forms of difference. The only problem is when "pride" is used as a defense mechanism in order to protect something, and inadvertently ends up trapping folks by making everything a reaction against oppressors and you no longer own yourself anymore. But, I think this is inevitable for nearly ANYONE who has been persecuted, or even just for those who are considered different in some way. And also, it's not REALLY "bad" to have a defense mechanism, but it's just, the point is that you shouldn't HAVE to have one, because being gay should just be like being left-handed, or having blonde hair, or blue eyes. And yet, it happens, because unlike having blonde hair, being gay is still persecuted for some reason. In some countries, being left-handed also still possesses stigma. And ultimately, this "pride as a reaction" thing HAS to happen when everyone everywhere is trying to bring each other down.
Left handed, blue eyes & blonde hair are genetic. Sexual identity isn't.

You're gonna have to convince me that gays are persecuted before we can continue or before I'll believe that the crap that goes on at gay parades is in any way justifiable.
Name appears on post

Kingston, PA

#511047 Mar 28, 2013
I think all animals have to exist, regardless of whichever species. Humans can't survive alone on this Earth. And animals WANT to exist. This Earth wasn't intended for humans only, or for humans to dominate. All species fill niches that humans could never fill, and can do things that humans could never do. And I think if those species could speak human language, we would see that those species value those things. I don't think non-humans are "lacking" anything. I think they are just different. And clearly they can all feel emotions and pain, as well. And they have personalities. And studies have even been done in fish to prove that fish have distinct personalities, in spite of all of the trout looking physically identical to one another from a human perspective. Even the smallest microbes have pain receptors. And even if some species are not at all like humans, they possess emotions of their own kind and express them in their own ways. And they can learn and process. Many can adapt to environmental changes. They possess self-awareness,(Though self-awareness ABSOLUTELY and MOST CERTAINLY doesn't ALWAYS have to equal intelligence) which is clearly demonstrated through mating, being that they know who to mate with and therefore must recognize themselves as being of that kind. And some can do mirror tests, though this isn't conclusive because there are many isolated human tribes that have never used mirrors or even know what they are, also. And all of these things are harder for scientists to prove without human language being spoken, but look at how they once viewed and treated Autistic humans for the very same reason. Scientists don't know EVERYTHING, or much of anything at all, in fact, but what they are figuring out looks quite promising when it comes to non-human animal qualities. Non-human animals are sentient beings. And there is so much variation just in humans alone, that I'm sure other species also have a wide range of variation just within their own species categories. Other species may very well possess neurological diversity, for instance. And perhaps there ARE certain ones that don't feel emotions or pain, or even certain SPECIES as a whole, but that doesn't mean depriving them of their life experiences, either. There are some humans who can't feel pain, but you wouldn't kill them off, and you know they experience life in their own way. Self-preservation is the main thing. And I think most scientists are going at it the wrong way when they DON'T anthropomorphize, because if they don't know something, it's better to assume that non-humans CAN feel emotion and pain, to avoid the possibility of inadvertently causing terrible and unnecessary suffering. And to say that the more social species are somehow more intelligent is just bullshit. It doesn't mean they're more intelligent; it just means they're more like Neurotypical humans. And that's worse than anthropomorphizing, because it's exhibiting an anthropocentric bias and skewing the scientific results.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#511048 Mar 28, 2013
lil whispers wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the clue projectile and slingshot.lol I stuck one in soil and it grew six feet tall.And to think I was using rocks for my projectiles wondered why the driveway looked so bare.hummm lol.
HA! No problem.

They work better if you let em dry out in the sun first :)

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#511049 Mar 28, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm guessing "restraining".
Closely followed by "order".
.. hi ya CJ ..

.. Adam wants me to be his Eve, less the fig leaf ..

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#511050 Mar 28, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
"California's second largest group next to Christianity is the non-religious, which consists of atheists, agnostics, and deists. It is one of the fastest growing groups in the state."
wiki
Don't be so quick to blame the religious, HL. Just because a person isn't religious doesn't mean they are pro gay marriage....
.. atheists share only one common denominator - a non-belief in a god ..

.. some atheists may find homosexual intimacy disgusting but the vast majority support equality for all. That's the very platform of secularism ..

.. again, most discrimination has its roots in the bible ..

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#511051 Mar 28, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>You owe me an apology.
.. I apologize. Next time I'll bring three scarves instead of only one ..

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#511052 Mar 28, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>**PORTIONS SNIPPED**
You make me believe that your story about you and your wife being "ex-gay" are a pack of lies. Probably just more fundie christer bullshit. Typical.
.. you forgot Mr. Clearwater's homosexual tendencies. They're the poster couple for Paul's conversation therapy ..

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#511053 Mar 28, 2013
LupyLu wrote:
<quoted text>
I want to know why it's ok for cyber bondage with cats to be posted here but kisses are suddenly 'cyber sax'... and they wonder why the lovely loving Christians
don't object to us??? Tell me D, is petrol sniffing popular there?
o_O
.. bonding between friends is important. Do you prefer silk or cotton scarves ??..

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#511054 Mar 28, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>*shrugs*

'twas an example, nuttin more.

Good, no more fighting.

Can't we all just....

...

...get along?
That would be nice but doesn't always happen unfortunately...

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#511055 Mar 28, 2013
LupyLu wrote:
<quoted text>
The fighting is over now. So... who's the whacky lesbian?
.. oh, that's easy! G_O_D ..

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#511056 Mar 28, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>.. bonding between friends is important. Do you prefer silk or cotton scarves ??..
Cotton... They stay on my head better :)

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#511057 Mar 28, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>.. oh, that's easy! G_O_D ..
Wouldn't he have to be a woman for that?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#511058 Mar 28, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Great.
I don't call out others.
When I provide proof I do, then I'm lying about those poster.
Well here it is -- Dusty:
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSHQAVD...
-- David Reagan:
http://lamblion.com/articles/articles_bible6....
Theft is theft.
Lying is lying.
You are good at both.
That's how you demonstrate plagiarism: two links from two authors each claiming to have authored the same material. Whoever published them second was the plagiarist. Did you say that they both plagiarized a third writer? Possibly. But certainly the second of these two plagiarized.

It's never enough just to make the claim. And those making the claim should be prepared to defend it or to be embarrassed and denounced for being unable to do so.

A similar situation arises when you are accused of taking somebody's words out of context. The implication is that that changed their apparent meaning to something that the author didn't mean. I generally also insist in these cases that the accuser post the passage with the missing context and post it beside the redacted version, such as, "... I hate my wife" and "I would never say that I hate my wife," with links to the before and after posts. That never happens.

And before you arrived, a poster accused me of lying saying that I has posted contradictory statements. I demanded that the poster making the accusation do just what you did: juxtapose the exact words of two posts with accompanying links that clearly show a contradiction, and then explain why they constitute a lie. It never happened, either.

==========

We see quite a bit of false witness and plagiarism from these religious people, and much, much less from the unbelievers, which causes me to conclude that church culture teaches lying, albeit indirectly and by example rather than explicitly. Lying for Jesus is alright. If it weren't, Jesus would stop it, right? Their most prominent leaders do it, whom they believe have been hand-picked by their god for the job.

"Pope Blames Atheists for Holocaust, Ignores Catholic Complicity"
http://atheism.about.com/b/2010/09/21/pope-bl...

"Pat Robertson:'Miserable' Atheists Are Trying to 'Steal' Christmas"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/19/pat-...

This kind of behavior is copied a million times over every day, often right here.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#511059 Mar 28, 2013
LupyLu wrote:
You excel at lying. Dusty did not claim the writings to be hers and you have no proof or evidence of theft
When you present the words of others without attribution, you are implying that you wrote them, except perhaps in cases such as when quoting Shakespeare, the bible, well known aphorisms, famous song lyrics, a classic line from a movie, and the like.

Not everybody who plagiarizes intended to misrepresent the plagiarized material as their own. Some just don't know the rules. But if you don't attribute them, or at a minimum, enclose them in quotation marks, that's what you've done. It's still plagiarism.

And it doesn't matter if any copyright law was violated. Plagiarizing from the public domain is still plagiarizing.

"Plagiarism vs. Public Domain"
http://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/generalco...

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#511060 Mar 28, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>That's how you demonstrate plagiarism: two links from two authors each claiming to have authored the same material. Whoever published them second was the plagiarist. Did you say that they both plagiarized a third writer? Possibly. But certainly the second of these two plagiarized.

It's never enough just to make the claim. And those making the claim should be prepared to defend it or to be embarrassed and denounced for being unable to do so.

A similar situation arises when you are accused of taking somebody's words out of context. The implication is that that changed their apparent meaning to something that the author didn't mean. I generally also insist in these cases that the accuser post the passage with the missing context and post it beside the redacted version, such as, "... I hate my wife" and "I would never say that I hate my wife," with links to the before and after posts. That never happens.

And before you arrived, a poster accused me of lying saying that I has posted contradictory statements. I demanded that the poster making the accusation do just what you did: juxtapose the exact words of two posts with accompanying links that clearly show a contradiction, and then explain why they constitute a lie. It never happened, either.

==========

We see quite a bit of false witness and plagiarism from these religious people, and much, much less from the unbelievers, which causes me to conclude that church culture teaches lying, albeit indirectly and by example rather than explicitly. Lying for Jesus is alright. If it weren't, Jesus would stop it, right? Their most prominent leaders do it, whom they believe have been hand-picked by their god for the job.

"Pope Blames Atheists for Holocaust, Ignores Catholic Complicity"
http://atheism.about.com/b/2010/09/21/pope-bl...

"Pat Robertson:'Miserable' Atheists Are Trying to 'Steal' Christmas"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/19/pat-...

This kind of behavior is copied a million times over every day, often right here.
Where is the claim made by the alleged plagiarist to have authored the material? Do you have something other than your opinion to provide in this matter? What does Jesus have to do with it? It has been clearly demonstrated in this thread and others that atheists are also skilled liars, straw men, deflectors and hypocrites. I'd say these behaviours are more a human thing than a religious one. This is seen throughout the world as well. You are now in this post blaming religion for something that most people do, even atheists. Do you consider that honest?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#511061 Mar 28, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. atheists share only one common denominator - a non-belief in a god ..
.. some atheists may find homosexual intimacy disgusting but the vast majority support equality for all. That's the very platform of secularism ..
.. again, most discrimination has its roots in the bible ..
Right, so don't go blaming religious people *only* for voting down gay marriage.

It was all of us, religious and non-religious alike.

Why do you think "most discrimination has its roots in the bible"?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#511062 Mar 28, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. I apologize. Next time I'll bring three scarves instead of only one ..
How dare you?!

Poor Catcher....

Ima send him a few scarfs, just in case.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#511063 Mar 28, 2013
LupyLu wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the claim made by the alleged plagiarist to have authored the material? Do you have something other than your opinion to provide in this matter? What does Jesus have to do with it? It has been clearly demonstrated in this thread and others that atheists are also skilled liars, straw men, deflectors and hypocrites. I'd say these behaviours are more a human thing than a religious one. This is seen throughout the world as well. You are now in this post blaming religion for something that most people do, even atheists. Do you consider that honest?
Stop fighting with IANS. It accomplishes nothing.

Be the better person, crack a joke.

What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 100?
Your Honor.

...

What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50
Senator.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#511064 Mar 28, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>When you present the words of others without attribution, you are implying that you wrote them, except perhaps in cases such as when quoting Shakespeare, the bible, well known aphorisms, famous song lyrics, a classic line from a movie, and the like.

Not everybody who plagiarizes intended to misrepresent the plagiarized material as their own. Some just don't know the rules. But if you don't attribute them, or at a minimum, enclose them in quotation marks, that's what you've done. It's still plagiarism.

And it doesn't matter if any copyright law was violated. Plagiarizing from the public domain is still plagiarizing.

"Plagiarism vs. Public Domain"
http://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/generalco...
All that seems to talk about is copyright laws. Look into it then see if you can prove I'm a thief and a liar. It's all available in winlac. So far there is no proof. As for plagiarism, the work I presented had nothing to do with deceit, plagiarism or CJ the abuser and false accuser.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#511065 Mar 28, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Right, so don't go blaming religious people *only* for voting down gay marriage.

It was all of us, religious and non-religious alike.

Why do you think "most discrimination has its roots in the bible"?
That's a good question as even Barbarians discriminated. Way before the Bible existed.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min June VanDerMark 603,644
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 2 min waaasssuuup 7,677
jawan bhanji ki chudai kaise karu (Apr '13) 4 min Sameer 110
Kathmandu Sex 4 min sxyguyktm28 1
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 4 min RiccardoFire 8,368
sex (May '13) 7 min sxyguyktm28 186
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 min Aerobatty 881,304
The Christian Atheist debate 29 min Freebird USA 4,090
More from around the web