Mormons march in gay pride parade

[Dr.Drock]

My bad, I'm sure his gay bashing is done in the most constructive way with a Jesus type of love message behind it, especially with his love of the word ***.

And that's Sir Dr. Dork to you.

So you can't actually substantiate your claim, but remain steadfast in refusing to acknowledge your error.

And you call mal a liar and a hypocrite! ****'n priceless.

Isn't saying "my bad" an acknowledgement of an error?

And his point about how mal throws around ****** is perfectly valid.

To be honest me using the term "my bad" was me being sarcastic. I didn't make an error.

Mal hates gays and is a blatant homophobe, a hypocrite and a liar. I don't care if people want to nit pick my words and pretend anything I said means something else.

 

[manifold]

My bad, I'm sure his gay bashing is done in the most constructive way with a Jesus type of love message behind it, especially with his love of the word ***.

And that's Sir Dr. Dork to you.

So you can't actually substantiate your claim, but remain steadfast in refusing to acknowledge your error.

And you call mal a liar and a hypocrite! ****'n priceless.

Isn't saying "my bad" an acknowledgement of an error?

And his point about how mal throws around ****** is perfectly valid.

My bad, I inferred that comment to be dripping with sarcasm.

 

[Ravi]

So you can't actually substantiate your claim, but remain steadfast in refusing to acknowledge your error.

And you call mal a liar and a hypocrite! ****'n priceless.

Isn't saying "my bad" an acknowledgement of an error?

And his point about how mal throws around ****** is perfectly valid.

To be honest me using the term "my bad" was me being sarcastic. I didn't make an error.

Mal hates gays and is a blatant homophobe, a hypocrite and a liar. I don't care if people want to nit pick my words and pretend anything I said means something else.

Fair enough.

I agree with your assessment and I don't need any links.

 

[Ravi]

So you can't actually substantiate your claim, but remain steadfast in refusing to acknowledge your error.

And you call mal a liar and a hypocrite! ****'n priceless.

Isn't saying "my bad" an acknowledgement of an error?

And his point about how mal throws around ****** is perfectly valid.

My bad, I inferred that comment to be dripping with sarcasm.

My bad, my sarcasm meter is faulty today.

 

[manifold]

What you actually said Mr. Dork...

No it makes Mal a liar and hypocrite if he can label others as horrible immoral sinners for not following leviticus but doesn't hold himself to the same standard.

Since you can't actually quote mal saying anything of the sort, perhaps you can provide an example or two of something he did say that infers something remotely of the sort.

(this should be good )

 

[Dr.Drock]

So you can't actually substantiate your claim, but remain steadfast in refusing to acknowledge your error.

And you call mal a liar and a hypocrite! ****'n priceless.

Using select excerpts and tossing around the word *** perfectly illustrates the exact description I gave. Word for word doens't have to be done in this case, or in any case frankly.

I called you a liar and a hypocrite? As you said earlier "link"?

You levied a very specific charge against mal. Your inability to substantiate it with an actual quote from him demonstrates that your charge is indeed false. You can either admit that you were mistaken (or at the very least making a poor attempt at hyperbole), or you can continue to lie about it.

And I never said you called 'me' a liar and a hypocrite.

He's using parts of the Bible that he doesn't abide by to show how homos are bad, and by constantly describing homos in generically negative way and tossing around homophobic remarks perfectly illustrates my exact claim. You're nit-picking words when you already know I'm right, why you're nitpicking I have no idea.

After re-reading what you siad, no you didn't say I called you that.

 

[Katzndogz]

As the prohibition against homosexuality is present in both the old and the New Testament, clearly homosexuality is still a sin. Nothing has changed that. The belief of every Christian in the world would not change that. Christianity is not a democracy. The people don't get to vote on what's a sin or what's not a sin. There might be Christians who, in their own minds, are able to rationalize away the sinfulness of homosexual acts. This doesn't mean Christianity has changed. It means those people aren't Christians any more. They may call themselves Christians but they aren't.

 

[Dr.Drock]

What you actually said Mr. Dork...

No it makes Mal a liar and hypocrite if he can label others as horrible immoral sinners for not following leviticus but doesn't hold himself to the same standard.

Since you can't actually quote mal saying anything of the sort, perhaps you can provide an example or two of something he did say that infers something remotely of the sort.

(this should be good )

He's on here bashing gays for not living by leviticus 18 (which he doesn't do himself, thus making him a hypocrite and a liar), he's characterized gay sex as a sin, and he's making judgements of those who have gay sex as faggots. Faggots in a negative context show's he views them as horrible and immoral.

Like I said, you're nit-picking words in some sad attempt to look smart.

 

[del]

As the prohibition against homosexuality is present in both the old and the New Testament, clearly homosexuality is still a sin. Nothing has changed that. The belief of every Christian in the world would not change that. Christianity is not a democracy. The people don't get to vote on what's a sin or what's not a sin. There might be Christians who, in their own minds, are able to rationalize away the sinfulness of homosexual acts. This doesn't mean Christianity has changed. It means those people aren't Christians any more. They may call themselves Christians but they aren't.

shouldn't you be fighting over the grille with a ******?

 

[mal]

Do you follow all the rules laid out in leviticus?

Do you expect gays to follow all the rules aid out in leviticus?

Leviticus 18 is Moral Law... There is not Fish references or any of that.

Please don't be Dishonest about this.

The Bible Consistently, from Old to New, calls Homosexuality Sin and Abomination.

Christ's Blood didn't make Homosexuality NOT Sin.



peace...

I see, so it's only leviticus 18 that should be taken seriously. (I'm sure the fact that it's anti-gay is totally a coincidence).

So if you agree with leviticus 18, than you would morally agree with killing every homosexual, yes?

Nope, not what I said...

I have clearly told you that Christ's Blood Cleanses the Sinner of the Sin but does not make Sin OK...

Christ's Blood doesn't make ******* Dogs OK, which is list with Homosexuality in 18...

But someone who ***** a Dog could be Forgiven for that Sin if they had Faith that Christ Died for thier Sins.



peace...

 

[mal]

My bad, I'm sure his gay bashing is done in the most constructive way with a Jesus type of love message behind it, especially with his love of the word ***.

And that's Sir Dr. Dork to you.

So you can't actually substantiate your claim, but remain steadfast in refusing to acknowledge your error.

And you call mal a liar and a hypocrite! ****'n priceless.

Isn't saying "my bad" an acknowledgement of an error?

And his point about how mal throws around ****** is perfectly valid.

Quote me calling a Homosexual a ******.



peace...

 

[manifold]

Using select excerpts and tossing around the word *** perfectly illustrates the exact description I gave. Word for word doens't have to be done in this case, or in any case frankly.

I called you a liar and a hypocrite? As you said earlier "link"?

You levied a very specific charge against mal. Your inability to substantiate it with an actual quote from him demonstrates that your charge is indeed false. You can either admit that you were mistaken (or at the very least making a poor attempt at hyperbole), or you can continue to lie about it.

And I never said you called 'me' a liar and a hypocrite.

He's using parts of the Bible that he doesn't abide by to show how homos are bad, and by constantly describing homos in generically negative way and tossing around homophobic remarks perfectly illustrates my exact claim. You're nit-picking words when you already know I'm right, why you're nitpicking I have no idea.

After re-reading what you siad, no you didn't say I called you that.

Obviously we are inferring a very different sentiment being expressed by mal.

All I see is him refuting the argument advanced by others that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. The fact that he's pushing a few buttons with colorful language in no way suggests that he views homosexuals as evil sinners. And I also see your confirmation bias vis-a-vis mal getting the better of you.

Is it your position that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Leviticus 18 is Moral Law... There is not Fish references or any of that.

Please don't be Dishonest about this.

The Bible Consistently, from Old to New, calls Homosexuality Sin and Abomination.

Christ's Blood didn't make Homosexuality NOT Sin.



peace...

I see, so it's only leviticus 18 that should be taken seriously. (I'm sure the fact that it's anti-gay is totally a coincidence).

So if you agree with leviticus 18, than you would morally agree with killing every homosexual, yes?

Nope, not what I said...

I have clearly told you that Christ's Blood Cleanses the Sinner of the Sin but does not make Sin OK...

Christ's Blood doesn't make ******* Dogs OK, which is list with Homosexuality in 18...

But someone who ***** a Dog could be Forgiven for that Sin if they had Faith that Christ Died for thier Sins.



peace...

Yes and with that stance you're being a hypocrite.

You break rules in leviticus, probably every day, but you bash homos for doing exactly what you do.

 

[Ravi]

Anyone interested in the translation issues in Leviticus can educate themselves by reading this thread:

Well actually....no...it's not. Leviticus 18:22 for example is written "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee." The literal translation is "And with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman"

Now...no one has any idea what it means to "lay layings" so using Midrash (that convenient tradition the Church uses to...ahem....interpret things that don't make sense or are missing) they just tossed in three little words "as with the" and translated it "And with a male you shall not lay (as with the) layings of a woman". Ok well now it makes sense but unfortunately that's not what is written.

Secondly the word used to describe the alleged sin is "toeyvah" which can mean abomination. When used in the context of ritual, however, it is more accurately translated as "unclean"...."ritually improper", "ceremonially impure", etc. When you consider that at Leviticus 18:21 it begins discussing rituals practiced to Moloch and you put 18:22 in context with 18:21 (as fundamentalists generally refuse to do) then whatever act 18:22 is warning against, it is in reference to pagan ritual and as such the transgression would not be considered an "abomination" but would simply be "ritually improper". Sexual activity in pagan ritual including orgies, homosexual acts male or female, etc were pretty common in those days. In fact the temples kept prostitutes in their employ so people could properly fulfill their ritual obligations to the gods. Rituals to Moloch frequently involved this kind of stuff.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/226317-jesus-on-marriage-21.html#post5392340

 

[Dr.Drock]

So you can't actually substantiate your claim, but remain steadfast in refusing to acknowledge your error.

And you call mal a liar and a hypocrite! ****'n priceless.

Isn't saying "my bad" an acknowledgement of an error?

And his point about how mal throws around ****** is perfectly valid.

Quote me calling a Homosexual a ******.



peace...

Didn't say you did, said you toss the term around.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You levied a very specific charge against mal. Your inability to substantiate it with an actual quote from him demonstrates that your charge is indeed false. You can either admit that you were mistaken (or at the very least making a poor attempt at hyperbole), or you can continue to lie about it.

And I never said you called 'me' a liar and a hypocrite.

He's using parts of the Bible that he doesn't abide by to show how homos are bad, and by constantly describing homos in generically negative way and tossing around homophobic remarks perfectly illustrates my exact claim. You're nit-picking words when you already know I'm right, why you're nitpicking I have no idea.

After re-reading what you siad, no you didn't say I called you that.

Obviously we are inferring a very different sentiment being expressed by mal.

All I see is him refuting the argument advanced by others that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. The fact that he's pushing a few buttons with colorful language in no way suggests that he views homosexuals as evil sinners. And I also see your confirmation bias vis-a-vis mal getting the better of you.

Is it your position that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality?

It's not confirmation bias, it's knowing mal based on reading many of his posts over an extended period of time.

The Old Testament most likely condemns homosexuality, along with condemning many other things that most every christian ignores (and should ignore).

 

[Katzndogz]

As the prohibition against homosexuality is present in both the old and the New Testament, clearly homosexuality is still a sin. Nothing has changed that. The belief of every Christian in the world would not change that. Christianity is not a democracy. The people don't get to vote on what's a sin or what's not a sin. There might be Christians who, in their own minds, are able to rationalize away the sinfulness of homosexual acts. This doesn't mean Christianity has changed. It means those people aren't Christians any more. They may call themselves Christians but they aren't.

shouldn't you be fighting over the grille with a ******?

I'm not the racist you are so I don't call people names.

If you choose to believe that homosexuality is not a sin it is up to you, you can't be a Christian but pick something else. It's a big world with lots of religions. Try islam.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why do you guys focused on the Old Testament when there are scriptures that equally state homosexul practices are wrong in the New Testament?

 

[manifold]

The Old Testament most likely condemns homosexuality, along with condemning many other things that most every christian ignores (and should ignore).

Agreed (except for wussy 'most likely' disclaimer).

Now mal, looking for a little common ground here... Do you agree that the Old Testament is a horrible basis for modern legislation? Yes or no.

 

[Katzndogz]

He's using parts of the Bible that he doesn't abide by to show how homos are bad, and by constantly describing homos in generically negative way and tossing around homophobic remarks perfectly illustrates my exact claim. You're nit-picking words when you already know I'm right, why you're nitpicking I have no idea.

After re-reading what you siad, no you didn't say I called you that.

Obviously we are inferring a very different sentiment being expressed by mal.

All I see is him refuting the argument advanced by others that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. The fact that he's pushing a few buttons with colorful language in no way suggests that he views homosexuals as evil sinners. And I also see your confirmation bias vis-a-vis mal getting the better of you.

Is it your position that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality?

It's not confirmation bias, it's knowing mal based on reading many of his posts over an extended period of time.

The Old Testament most likely condemns homosexuality, along with condemning many other things that most every christian ignores (and should ignore).

The New Testament also condemns homosexuality. While even at the time of Jesus, the laws (which made perfect sense at the time) were considered archaic, there is nothing in any part of the Bible that removed the sinfulness of homosexuality. What Jesus did say was that people were not to judge the sin of others. They were not to commit sins themselves nor embrace sinfulness as their own, but not judge whether someone else was committing a sin.