Why Should Jesus Love Me?

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#561147 Jul 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
What image do you think that you are projecting here? Let me help you see it:
You are livid with rage at me for my comments about your church, which you seem to feel you need to retaliate for, as you were personally attacked.
You are supposed to be loving about it, and are not free to express your rage honestly. But you can't, so you try to fool your god with passive aggressive crap like the above in the hope that I will notice your stinger, but that your god won't, or that even if he does, your salvation is not at risk because you assume that you will get forgiveness on demand. If you didn't feel that you free to forgive yourself, or that you could compel your god to forgive you, you would never risk so much for so little.
How do I know? Come here for a hug and a question:
Why do you believe that you will get heaven if you didn't get the promised peace that passeth all understanding?
Battered spouse syndrome.

"But he really loves me!"

“~ Prince of Peace~”

Since: Apr 08

~ And the greatest is LOVE~

#561148 Jul 22, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>??you got all that from the Christian calling you a sweet man...LOL.
Christians here not raging or angry at you for what you say about the church writer, that is you using your imagination projections and delusions to feed your pre-exisitng notion that the Christians here are somehow angry at you or annoyed at you for what you say about the Church lol.
You're an insignificant little hombre that is as much a threat as a fly on a horse's azz. Christians here are either laughing at you or shrugging at you---put your guns down Yosemite Sam LOL
LOL......

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#561150 Jul 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Not really.
Of two definitions, the latter distinction is the more meaningful one. Everything is natural by the former definition - which Tide mentioned, and which you have glommed onto like a coyote with a pork chop - because nothing is supernatural. That distinction renders that definition useful only in theological and metaphysical discussions. This is not one of those, right? We're not discussing unseen realities when discussing homophobia, correct?
This is a discussion of daily life, of human culture, and of evolving moral standards. This is a discussion of how perceive and treat gay people. For that discussion, we need to understand the origin and basis of that hatred. The implications of it being biologically hard-wired are different from those of discovering that homophobia is a cultural adaptation. Right?
If you can understand that we are interested only in the distinction between whether homophobia is man made or biological, and not at all in whether it relates to unseen realities outside of our universe, then you will understand why we reject one of the definitions - the one you like best.
By the useful definition of natural, I do not accept your claim that homophobia is natural. It may be man made.
Incidentally, this is another great example of an equivocation error - giving two definitions to one word and flip-flopping between them. It has recently been done with two definitions of "natural" and with two definitions of "religion." Equivocation is an easy trap to set and to fall into.
Equivocation is logically classified among fallacies of ambiguity. Ambiguity serves those with an agenda that cannot be supported by reason and evidence. It opposite, clarity of thought, serves the opposite. Pick one. It may be one of the most important ethical decisions you ever make/made.
I don't understand what you're asking me to pick.

Since: May 11

UK

#561151 Jul 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for that.
"I stuck my powerword and all my docs on the site they call facefv(K and then I told everyone where they are ......and someone I didn't like looked at them and they told me they had looked!!!!.

...*thinks* wait a cotton pickin' minute, there's attention a'plenty to be had if I whine hard enough....

Help meeeee I'm being STALKED!"

I mean holy crap it's not like someone carried out a global histogramatic search on her picture, found all of her social media, generated a social tree of all of her closest friends, grouped them according to frequency and length of post, then ingratiated them so as to become their friend thereby becoming her friend, then did a credit check on her, then after having all of her financial and personal info is now watching her on the live feed from the traffic camera on the corner.....*and breathe*

What I'd like to know is how come she thinks she's actually interesting enough to qualify for that level of attention. LMAO

Since: May 11

UK

#561152 Jul 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
In what way could I possibly know if the men that executed Jesus went to heaven or not?
Well done...

now apply that logic to the rest of your fables.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#561153 Jul 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
...
I just know that homophobia is stupid, irrational and unnecessary.
But trying to genetically or medicinally remove it is equally as absurd.
Do you "know" the same about homosexuality ?

What if "religious belief" could be "cured" genetically or medicinally ?

Haldol can erase it and Scopalamine can cause it. Which should we use on everyone ?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#561154 Jul 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Please define what you mean by "natural" in this context in a way that removes the ambiguity addressed in the last post.
Why do you think that data supports a claim that homophobia appears to be at least in part inherited. That is your claim, is it not?
Yes, that's my claim.
And why would that matter even if that were true. Violence aggression is inherited, too. It's still unacceptable.
That depends on where the aggresion is targeted, doesn't it? I mean, football players, boxers, soldiers, etc are all trained to be aggresive and violent. If honed properly, aggression is a great thing to have in your box of tricks.
Are you hoping to excuse homophobia with a demonstration that it may be biological? That won't succeed. We wouldn't care.
Others have the opposite feeling towards homosexuality - that if it is indeed biologicl, they wouldn't care.

Why is your thoughts better than theirs?
So what is your bedrock position? Why are you making a point here, and exactly what is it? Do you not agree that homophobia is unjust and harmful to people, and that it should be suppressed whatever its biological and cultural basis?
If not, where do you depart form that, and why?
I don't agree that homophobia, in and of itself, is dangerous. I think that whe you couple discrimination with homophobia, that's incredibly dangerous - to both the gays AND to the mind of the person discriminating.

So no, I do not agree that homophobia is unjust. No more than I think hydrophobia is unjust.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#561156 Jul 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:

I misunderstood you. Sorry. I thought you were talking about gay men.
I'm amazed that as a heterosexual man, that you are not attracted to female bisexuality and homosexuality. That seems unnatural in both senses of the word, since even supernatural dudes are into it:
y
There it is!

Now take tht feeling of confusion you have towards me not liking to see two girls making out.

Got that feeling?

Good.

Now - tell me again that homophobia is unnatural and wrong. Because what you are feeling is heterophobia, in a sense. You don't understand why I'd feel that way (as a straight man).

Comprende?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#561157 Jul 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure it could be done, but not ethically.
It would not be ethical to either genetically force faith on someone or take away faith from someone.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#561161 Jul 22, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, I've seen some people claim RiversideRedneck could be Buck Crick.
There is no way Buck would try to introduce an argument like the one above.
RR is RR.

End of story.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#561162 Jul 22, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck is a great actor, and at times I have wondered whether he was behind other posters on these threads.
But he is NOT RR.
I guarantee it.
You are correct, sir.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#561163 Jul 22, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That would constitute diaphanous versitulitudiness.
Or something like that.
dia...

diaph...

diafa....

vers...

versit...

diaphram versility?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#561164 Jul 22, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
It does, but it is still a learned behaviour.
Possibly sometimes.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#561166 Jul 22, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
reduces every discussion to the simple meaning of words, everything exists until it doesn't...and 800 posts per week....no totally not him. LOL
You gotcher post it note almost filled up, ole chap? I'm almost at 30,000

:)

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#561167 Jul 22, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Because RR wants to think of homophobia as natural in some way.
Le_le wrote:
<quoted text>
lol.
Is that how we justify bigotry these days??
Why do you automatically link homophobia to bigotry?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#561168 Jul 22, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you "know" the same about homosexuality ?
What if "religious belief" could be "cured" genetically or medicinally ?
Haldol can erase it and Scopalamine can cause it. Which should we use on everyone ?
Where'd you get this spin-off from?

I never implied anything close to that.

You ok, G?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#561169 Jul 22, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<
Well done...
I know.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#561170 Jul 22, 2013
Dr shrink wrote:
<quoted text>
look at how tragic you are, shame of Society?
you poor d...head spreading only idle gossip,and hate red color
Hello, Dr shrink. How are you doing today?

How's the weather out there?

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#561171 Jul 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
It would not be ethical to either genetically force faith on someone or take away faith from someone.
Why not ?

Are you going to deny atheists the cure they need so badly and damn them to Hell ?

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#561172 Jul 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Where'd you get this spin-off from?
I never implied anything close to that.
You ok, G?
You make little distinction between homophobia and homosexuality then wrote, "I just know that homophobia is stupid, irrational and unnecessary. But trying to genetically or medicinally remove it is equally as absurd".

I am just asking if you "know" the same about homosexuality.

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
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 2 min God Blessed Holy ... 444,305
The Christian Atheist debate 10 min -Alan S Shole- 939
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 11 min Robert F 596,205
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 14 min It aint necessari... 854,668
9/11&bin 21 min REV CAROL 1
ktt transfers 53 min ctytfn 1
Elder Scrolls V Skyrim Game GUIDE Download [PDF] (Jul '13) 1 hr Logical 20
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 20 hr Charlie Sheen 272,082
More from around the web