Christian friends of gays and lesbians

[logical4u]

You are being dishonest as scripture never says anything about homosexuality in relation to S+G. I've also proven "all the people" showed up at Lot's door and you ignore that to try and claim they wanted homosexual sex you dishonest fucking bitch.

How does "men" demanding male visitors for sex, not have anything to do with homosexuality? If you say it has nothing to do with homosexuality, why is that mentioned. You claim it is written differently, and I ask for chapter and verse, yet, no post.
If "all the people" were there, and they were blinded by the "strangers", why would they need to "destroy" the rest of the city? Still no chapter and verse?

When you keep telling me that you provided evidence without evidence, sorry I will not fall in line. You must demonstrate your statements, otherwise, they are just OPINIONS.

You are a fucking joke. There is nothing saying only "men" showed up at Lot's door and I already posted five different translations in post #1044 showing this:

English Standard Version (©2001)
But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of
Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the
people from every quarter;

King James Bible
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

American King James Version
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

American Standard Version
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;

See how it says "all the people." That means not only "men" were at the door. Since you are really slow to comprehend we will take this in baby steps. When you admit scripture clearly says "all the people" we can move on to the next point.

In other events in the Bible, it is very clear if women were there. It is very clear if children were there. In some cases, the details include the animals, yet you are saying in this one instance, the author is unclear in their statements.

 

[Spoonman]

How does "men" demanding male visitors for sex, not have anything to do with homosexuality? If you say it has nothing to do with homosexuality, why is that mentioned. You claim it is written differently, and I ask for chapter and verse, yet, no post.
If "all the people" were there, and they were blinded by the "strangers", why would they need to "destroy" the rest of the city? Still no chapter and verse?

When you keep telling me that you provided evidence without evidence, sorry I will not fall in line. You must demonstrate your statements, otherwise, they are just OPINIONS.

You are a fucking joke. There is nothing saying only "men" showed up at Lot's door and I already posted five different translations in post #1044 showing this:

English Standard Version (©2001)
But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of
Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the
people from every quarter;

King James Bible
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

American King James Version
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

American Standard Version
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;

See how it says "all the people." That means not only "men" were at the door. Since you are really slow to comprehend we will take this in baby steps. When you admit scripture clearly says "all the people" we can move on to the next point.

In other events in the Bible, it is very clear if women were there. It is very clear if children were there. In some cases, the details include the animals, yet you are saying in this one instance, the author is unclear in their statements.

But the Bible was written by a bunch of people who Were Not there.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are a fucking joke. There is nothing saying only "men" showed up at Lot's door and I already posted five different translations in post #1044 showing this:

English Standard Version (©2001)
But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of
Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the
people from every quarter;

King James Bible
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

American King James Version
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

American Standard Version
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;

See how it says "all the people." That means not only "men" were at the door. Since you are really slow to comprehend we will take this in baby steps. When you admit scripture clearly says "all the people" we can move on to the next point.

In other events in the Bible, it is very clear if women were there. It is very clear if children were there. In some cases, the details include the animals, yet you are saying in this one instance, the author is unclear in their statements.

But the Bible was written by a bunch of people who Were Not there.

So was my history textbook in high school. What's your point?

 

[del]

In other events in the Bible, it is very clear if women were there. It is very clear if children were there. In some cases, the details include the animals, yet you are saying in this one instance, the author is unclear in their statements.

But the Bible was written by a bunch of people who Were Not there.

So was my history textbook in high school. What's your point?

no one is claiming your history text is the word of god.

duh

 

[Cecilie1200]

But the Bible was written by a bunch of people who Were Not there.

So was my history textbook in high school. What's your point?

no one is claiming your history text is the word of god.

duh

Actually, Spoonman is claiming that it's not TRUE because the writers weren't there. Duhh.

Try to keep up.

 

[Modbert]

no one is claiming your history text is the word of god.

duh

They left this out:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ]YouTube - Always Look On The Bright Side of Life[/ame]

 

[Hister]

Is there an extra clause in Prop 8 that requires LGBTs to live in a different community? Is there an order that requires them to stay 50 yards away from heterosexuals? Do they have to step off the sidewalk if a heterosexual is on the sidewalk? Do they have to go to different schools?

Prop 8 is about legalizing hate. What's next, Californians will vote to bring back slavery?

Where is "hate" mentioned? Where does it give permission to do any violence to LGBTs?

Hate isn't just about violence, it's also about singling people out for inferior treatment just because you outnumber them and you can. First it was blacks, now it's gays.

 

[Spoonman]

If I support Proposition 8 am I considered a good guy or a bad guy on this thread?

 

[CurveLight]

How does "men" demanding male visitors for sex, not have anything to do with homosexuality? If you say it has nothing to do with homosexuality, why is that mentioned. You claim it is written differently, and I ask for chapter and verse, yet, no post.
If "all the people" were there, and they were blinded by the "strangers", why would they need to "destroy" the rest of the city? Still no chapter and verse?

When you keep telling me that you provided evidence without evidence, sorry I will not fall in line. You must demonstrate your statements, otherwise, they are just OPINIONS.

You are a fucking joke. There is nothing saying only "men" showed up at Lot's door and I already posted five different translations in post #1044 showing this:

English Standard Version (©2001)
But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of
Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the
people from every quarter;

King James Bible
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

American King James Version
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

American Standard Version
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;

See how it says "all the people." That means not only "men" were at the door. Since you are really slow to comprehend we will take this in baby steps. When you admit scripture clearly says "all the people" we can move on to the next point.

In other events in the Bible, it is very clear if women were there. It is very clear if children were there. In some cases, the details include the animals, yet you are saying in this one instance, the author is unclear in their statements.

Holy

Fuck

Dude.

Does it say "all the people" or not? Don't bother answering because you've proven yourself to be a dishonest bitch. I didn't say the author is "unclear" but keep on lying because it makes me feel better to know bible thumping bigots like you are a fucking pathetic excuse for existence.

 

[CurveLight]

You are a fucking joke. There is nothing saying only "men" showed up at Lot's door and I already posted five different translations in post #1044 showing this:

English Standard Version (©2001)
But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of
Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the
people from every quarter;

King James Bible
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

American King James Version
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

American Standard Version
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;

See how it says "all the people." That means not only "men" were at the door. Since you are really slow to comprehend we will take this in baby steps. When you admit scripture clearly says "all the people" we can move on to the next point.

In other events in the Bible, it is very clear if women were there. It is very clear if children were there. In some cases, the details include the animals, yet you are saying in this one instance, the author is unclear in their statements.

But the Bible was written by a bunch of people who Were Not there.

You know, it sucks really bad when you try to take a shot at the bible and still fuck it up.

 

[del]

So was my history textbook in high school. What's your point?

no one is claiming your history text is the word of god.

duh

Actually, Spoonman is claiming that it's not TRUE because the writers weren't there. Duhh.

Try to keep up.

oh, that's silly. it's not true because it's fiction; where the writers were has nothing to do with it.

glad i could help

 

[Cecilie1200]

no one is claiming your history text is the word of god.

duh

Actually, Spoonman is claiming that it's not TRUE because the writers weren't there. Duhh.

Try to keep up.

oh, that's silly. it's not true because it's fiction; where the writers were has nothing to do with it.

glad i could help

I already knew you were a hubristic dumbass. No help required there.

 

[CurveLight]

In other events in the Bible, it is very clear if women were there. It is very clear if children were there. In some cases, the details include the animals, yet you are saying in this one instance, the author is unclear in their statements.

But the Bible was written by a bunch of people who Were Not there.

So was my history textbook in high school. What's your point?

Some of the bible was written by people who were there. But I wouldn't expect a Jesus hating freak like you to know bible basics.

 

[del]

Actually, Spoonman is claiming that it's not TRUE because the writers weren't there. Duhh.

Try to keep up.

oh, that's silly. it's not true because it's fiction; where the writers were has nothing to do with it.

glad i could help

I already knew you were a hubristic dumbass. No help required there.

takes one to know one, sweetie.


now, pray continue your most interesting narrative.

 

[CurveLight]

no one is claiming your history text is the word of god.

duh

Actually, Spoonman is claiming that it's not TRUE because the writers weren't there. Duhh.

Try to keep up.

oh, that's silly. it's not true because it's fiction; where the writers were has nothing to do with it.

glad i could help

How can you suck this bad at trolling? You can't debate. You can't flame. You can't even bait and now you've completely failed at trolling. Lol!

 

[Cecilie1200]

oh, that's silly. it's not true because it's fiction; where the writers were has nothing to do with it.

glad i could help

I already knew you were a hubristic dumbass. No help required there.

takes one to know one, sweetie.


now, pray continue your most interesting narrative.

"Takes one to know one"? Seriously? Why not just tell me you're rubber and I'm glue while you're at it?

Pathetic.

 

[del]

Actually, Spoonman is claiming that it's not TRUE because the writers weren't there. Duhh.

Try to keep up.

oh, that's silly. it's not true because it's fiction; where the writers were has nothing to do with it.

glad i could help

How can you suck this bad at trolling? You can't debate. You can't flame. You can't even bait and now you've completely failed at trolling. Lol!

and yet here you are.

go figure, huh, einstein?

off topic, the purple shamrock? really?

loser.

 

[CurveLight]

no one is claiming your history text is the word of god.

duh

Actually, Spoonman is claiming that it's not TRUE because the writers weren't there. Duhh.

Try to keep up.

oh, that's silly. it's not true because it's fiction; where the writers were has nothing to do with it.

glad i could help

oh, that's silly. it's not true because it's fiction; where the writers were has nothing to do with it.

glad i could help

How can you suck this bad at trolling? You can't debate. You can't flame. You can't even bait and now you've completely failed at trolling. Lol!

and yet here you are.

go figure, huh, einstein?

off topic, the purple shamrock? really?

loser.

I'm here because I've been bitch slapping dumbasses that don't know bible basics.

Did you get those directions to the purple shamrock okay or do you need it repeated you whiny ****?

 

[logical4u]

Prop 8 is about legalizing hate. What's next, Californians will vote to bring back slavery?

Where is "hate" mentioned? Where does it give permission to do any violence to LGBTs?

Hate isn't just about violence, it's also about singling people out for inferior treatment just because you outnumber them and you can. First it was blacks, now it's gays.

Please list the ways LGBTs are given 'inferior treatment'. They have the same rights that I do.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Where is "hate" mentioned? Where does it give permission to do any violence to LGBTs?

Hate isn't just about violence, it's also about singling people out for inferior treatment just because you outnumber them and you can. First it was blacks, now it's gays.

Please list the ways LGBTs are given 'inferior treatment'. They have the same rights that I do.

Again?

Mike... Check...

Is this thing on?​

Not to repeat my self, but here's one: http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ends-of-gays-and-lesbians-73.html#post2618290