prove that homosexuality is wrong.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#26825 May 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Ah, that's what I expected. An assertion of aliens, then a quick gay twirl backassed retreat when I present one of the most profound examples in history.
Not really. You said BEHIND the rock. The passage said ON the rock. However I can tell you unless that rock was of a size of SIGNIFICANT distance that it would in no way prevent nearby radiation at dangerous levels. Turning one's back won't prevent radiation. Putting your hand away won't prevent radiation. That is why the uneducated goat-herders you credit were not even aware of the concept of radiation in a modern scientific sense so they didn't even have it in mind when they wrote those passages.
KiMare wrote:
Simply because it occurs in the book you ignorantly disdained.
Not ignorantly no. It erroneously claims donkeys and lizards talk. It erroneously claims the Earth was flooded globally in 40 days and nights and survived the 6-12 month aftermath. It claims the Earth is a flat square circle which rests on foundations on pillars hanging on nothing fixed and unmoving at the center of a geocentric universe. I'm pretty sure that any respectable warp-capable alien civilizations would have reached the level of Einstein by know and realised this is not the case.

Those examples alone are FANTASTIC reasons to think that the book is neither divine nor extra-terrestrial in origin.
KiMare wrote:
First, who said it was a type of radiation we are familiar with
YOU did. When you called it radiation. Otherwise why even refer to it as radiation at all when it doesn't even act like radiation and you have no idea whatsoever what the heck it is or what the specific effects are? "It kills people." Big deal. So does the sun. So will ANY kind of radiation if in enough quantities.
KiMare wrote:
second, we then have an Alien presence guiding them from the sky, and the resultant culture being confirmed to this present day, just as the Alien asserted.
That's a start.
And coincidentally most of the world thinks you're a fruitcake. Obviously you need to work better at convincing people.
KiMare wrote:
Smile.
I am.

Since: Apr 13

Scappoose, Oregon USA

#26830 May 20, 2013
I think it's wrong not necessarily for any moral reasons, but from a purely design standpoint. Let's put it this way – it takes a nut and bolt to hold something together, you can't do it with two bolts! Or to nuts for that matter. It might be fun to try for a while, but in the long run it just won't work.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#26831 May 20, 2013
Jenji wrote:
I think it's wrong not necessarily for any moral reasons, but from a purely design standpoint. Let's put it this way – it takes a nut and bolt to hold something together, you can't do it with two bolts! Or to nuts for that matter. It might be fun to try for a while, but in the long run it just won't work.
Now you want to tell us how to use our hardware and tools?

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#26832 May 20, 2013
Jenji wrote:
I think it's wrong not necessarily for any moral reasons, but from a purely design standpoint. Let's put it this way – it takes a nut and bolt to hold something together, you can't do it with two bolts! Or to nuts for that matter. It might be fun to try for a while, but in the long run it just won't work.
That might make sense if people were nuts and bolts, but we're not. Maybe it "just doesn't work" for YOU, but it "works" just fine for millions of people, and they are not "wrong" for being that way.

What is REALLY "wrong" is people being so self-centered that they think something is "wrong" because they don't like it or understand it. If people are not like THEM, they must be "wrong." How shallow, conceited and narrow-minded one must be to use themselves as the standard for what is "right" and people not like them as "wrong."

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#26836 May 20, 2013
JesusMyLord wrote:
<quoted text>Why should we prove it using religion or science? Can you prove that rape is wrong keeping religion, morality and wrong out of it. Can you give scientific proof that rape is wrong?
I would agree the question was poorly worded, but so was your second sentence.

The notion that homosexuality is wrong implies it is an action or behavior. What makes an action or behavior wrong is very simple... it is harmful to someone. This is neither scientific or religious.

While there certainly are actions or behaviors that can be classified as homosexual, homosexuality itself is not a behavior, but an inherent trait like being left-handed or having blue eyes.

Although in the past there have been ignorant, superstitious people who considered being left-handed to be wrong, most halfway intelligent people in the 21st century realize there is nothing wrong with being left-handed or having blue eyes for that matter, or being gay or bisexual...

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#26837 May 20, 2013
JesusMyLord wrote:
<quoted text>No, we are vaginas and penises. I have never seen a female insert a vagina into a vagina. I have seen a female insert a rubber penis into one however. Which would be the bolt.
How old are you?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#26838 May 20, 2013
Jenji wrote:
I think it's wrong not necessarily for any moral reasons, but from a purely design standpoint. Let's put it this way – it takes a nut and bolt to hold something together, you can't do it with two bolts! Or to nuts for that matter. It might be fun to try for a while, but in the long run it just won't work.
How is it our fault that you aren't bright enough to figure out how to have fun with the available hardware?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#26839 May 20, 2013
JesusMyLord wrote:
Why should we prove it using religion or science? Can you prove that rape is wrong keeping religion, morality and wrong out of it. Can you give scientific proof that rape is wrong?
Jesus, save us from some of your Christians. They clearly know not what they do.

Rape is an act of physical and psychological violence committed against another against their will, what more proof do you need? What that has anything to do with the subject of homosexuality and proving it "wrong", I doubt if even you have a clue.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#26841 May 20, 2013
Adolf, my favorite little pervert, you've already been told that when good Christians came up with the notions of "sodomy" and "sodomites", they were referring to ANY non-reproductive sexual act, regardless of the sex, number of participants or species involved and to those who would commit such non-reproductive sexual acts. You really should be taking notes, because in all probability, your "sex life" has been limited to solo "sodomy" by natural selection, so you too are a "sodomite", hon.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#26842 May 20, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Free will is an illusion under an omniscient all-knowing God. If it exists then free will does not. There is no scenario in which complete and total knowledge of all things past and present does not make free will utterly and totally redundant. Even God has no free will because it is completely impossible for God to surprise Himself as it already knows everything it has done, is doing, and will do, thus choice once again becomes irrelevant. God has no free will. Therefore God is not God. Therefore we have free will because God can't create a rock it cannot life and it can create a rock it cannot lift.
Now this is funny! GOD and/or an Extra Terrestrial civilization created man/woman-kind with the ability to choose/free will. GOD and/or an Extra Terrestrial civilization that created humanity has never took this ability away from man according to history. Besides it would be a violation of the law of non-contradiction if GOD and/or an Extra Terrestrial civilization would take away something that it biologically innately gave us.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyway Curt, are UFO's still dropping off new species every 1 million years in accordance with God's plan?
Second, I did not say the UFO’s that Extra Terrestrials created dropped off new species every one million years. I said they either create life on this planet in accordance with the strata/fossil layer and/or import life on this planet by means of UFO’s or some kind of space craft according to the strata/fossil layer. We got here some way and these are the two methods of importation that I use how life got/originated on this planet.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#26844 May 20, 2013
Adam wrote:
Homosexuals think they can fool god but they err tremendously.
Why would GOD take away something that he gave man/woman-kind called the ability to choose? If GOD does not take away any body ability to choose why should you use coercive means to do so by orchestrating your religious views as authentic and punishable to those who exercise their ability to choose between to consenting adults? It’s homosexuals’ choice to engage in relationships just as well as heterosexuals’ choice to engage in relationship. It’s wrong to use religions to coercively get people to behave to its ways.
This forum is all about choice and people should be able to make their own choices as long as they don't take away somebody else choice by coercive or physical force.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#26845 May 20, 2013
_0h-Rea11y_ wrote:
It's unnatural.
Save the "animal kingdom" rhetoric,
or I'll reply with the "eat their young" response.
You've NEVER had this conversation before?
Further proof that heterosexuality is in fact a learning disorder. Sweetie, natural means things which occur in nature and evidently you hadn't heard, but there are human beings that "eat their young" too and always have been.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#26847 May 20, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really. You said BEHIND the rock. The passage said ON the rock. However I can tell you unless that rock was of a size of SIGNIFICANT distance that it would in no way prevent nearby radiation at dangerous levels. Turning one's back won't prevent radiation. Putting your hand away won't prevent radiation. That is why the uneducated goat-herders you credit were not even aware of the concept of radiation in a modern scientific sense so they didn't even have it in mind when they wrote those passages.
<quoted text>
Not ignorantly no. It erroneously claims donkeys and lizards talk. It erroneously claims the Earth was flooded globally in 40 days and nights and survived the 6-12 month aftermath. It claims the Earth is a flat square circle which rests on foundations on pillars hanging on nothing fixed and unmoving at the center of a geocentric universe. I'm pretty sure that any respectable warp-capable alien civilizations would have reached the level of Einstein by know and realised this is not the case.
Those examples alone are FANTASTIC reasons to think that the book is neither divine nor extra-terrestrial in origin.
<quoted text>
YOU did. When you called it radiation. Otherwise why even refer to it as radiation at all when it doesn't even act like radiation and you have no idea whatsoever what the heck it is or what the specific effects are? "It kills people." Big deal. So does the sun. So will ANY kind of radiation if in enough quantities.
<quoted text>
And coincidentally most of the world thinks you're a fruitcake. Obviously you need to work better at convincing people.
<quoted text>
I am.
You are gay twirling honey.

~It doesn't say 'on the rock'. You might want to look at the Hebrew.

~You are demanding language (hand/back) that would not be comprehended for thousands of years. You might as well demand that it use current scientific terms. It was recorded in a way that could be understood for centuries, but all of a sudden makes scientific sense in the context of radiation.

Another example would be Mary, the mother of Jesus. It was not unusual at the time to claim impregnation by a god. But the claim of the Bible was that a VIRGIN is impregnated by God. Something science only established in the 1940's. We call it in vitro.

~Once again you are trying to divert to other issues in an attempt to discard the whole. I'm asking you to explain the profound elements of this ancient Alien visit, especially since you brought up alien visits!

Man up, otherwise the world will think you are an idiot sissy.

Smile.

By the way, these people LIVED in the desert sun. According to you they were surprised by it's effect. Are you serious?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#26848 May 20, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>How is it our fault that you aren't bright enough to figure out how to have fun with the available hardware?
I'm trying to figure out how an adult mistakes a septic system for a playground...

Snicker.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#26849 May 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
I'm trying to figure out how an adult mistakes a septic system for a playground...
Snicker.
Ask your little Mrs, she'd be the expert on that.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#26850 May 20, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Ask your little Mrs, she'd be the expert on that.
Why so pissy about a simple question? Not just pissy, rude and hateful.

Snicker.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#26853 May 20, 2013
Ask a pissy question, you earn a pissy answer and besides, even you have to be bright enough to have figured out by now that there are folk here who view you as the human equivalent of a septic system.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#26854 May 20, 2013
Adam wrote:
Smirk
Adolf, bunny, I realize you get confused about this from time to time, quite often, regularly and repeatedly, but you are not God, nor a particularly good representative for Him.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#26855 May 20, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Ask a pissy question, you earn a pissy answer and besides, even you have to be bright enough to have figured out by now that there are folk here who view you as the human equivalent of a septic system.
Here you go again with getting all pissed off when I simply state reality.

Some poor kid is trying to understand how duplicate sex organs fit together, but has no problem understanding the 'nuts and bolts' of normal natural sex, the way God designed it. You turn around and get pissy with the kid too!

You really don't play fair. I guess that is all you have left when you get stuck denying reality with one thing after another.

Even more ironic, here is someone who violently analizes another person, calling me the human equivalent of a septic system.

Don't you get embarrassed sometimes about how your denial drags you down to dumb and disgrace???

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#26856 May 20, 2013
Hon, if you are an example of what God intended.....

I'll just let minds wander to what I just took out of there.

Snicker

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 Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 6 min Lifelover 619,168
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 16 min AussieBobby 284,451
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 27 min lightbeamrider 447
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 33 min Seentheotherside 45,788
Poll does anyone want to exchange nude pics? (Oct '13) 36 min Lukewad 47
The Future of Politics in America 44 min Johnny 131
Israel End is Near (Feb '15) 44 min Neville Thompson 950
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr kent 665,093
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 hr nanoanomaly 87,858
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 hr nanoanomaly 977,205
More from around the web