Transgender Girl Scout cookie sales

[GMDino]

(02-25-2016, 12:14 AM)bfine32 Wrote:
....or he knows the left will turn this into Manny wants Gays to be killed.

If you read the wording he said people "pointing to mankind" and stated we are more flawed in our sexual morality than animals. I too think there are cases that can be made that animals are more moral in their sexual relationships than man in certain cases. 

Perhaps youu don't know whether or not Manny wants gays killed; however, there are those in this thread that do. But you can always leave it to a non-believer to understand the heart of a Christian.  

He apologized for the animal comments.

Maybe his faith isn't strong enough for him to stand up to the "left"?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-24-2016, 08:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He posted this

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."


Sounds like he's saying they should be killed.


Also, he's not Muslim, but if he were and cited that thing about cliffs, I'd respond the same way.

And like I said, he was quoting the bible.
He as an individual has no problems with gay people, just the act.

I don't know why you guy have such a hard time with that stance.

For example:
Person A murders Person B.
On a personal level, I don't hate Person A, however, I despise what Person A did to Person B, unless it's done in self defense.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-25-2016, 06:06 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And like I said, he was quoting the bible.
He as an individual has no problems with gay people, just the act.

I don't know why you guy have such a hard time with that stance.

For example:
Person A murders Person B.
On a personal level, I don't hate Person A, however, I despise what Person A did to Person B, unless it's done in self defense.

you're comparing homosexuality with murder now?  thats a new low.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-25-2016, 06:32 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: you're comparing homosexuality with murder now?  thats a new low.

Seriously, that's what you think I'm saying?

You should get a job working in the Media.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-25-2016, 07:01 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Seriously, that's what you think I'm saying?

You should get a job working in the Media.

Seriously.  That's what you said.  

[BmorePat87]

(02-25-2016, 06:06 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And like I said, he was quoting the bible.
He as an individual has no problems with gay people, just the act.

I don't know why you guy have such a hard time with that stance.

For example:
Person A murders Person B.
On a personal level, I don't hate Person A, however, I despise what Person A did to Person B, unless it's done in self defense.

So he doesn't believe the quotes he is posting?

Why is he posting them? 


It's like if I quoted a white supremacist after calling minorities "less than animals" and then saying "nah, I don't believe in that". 

[Vlad]

(02-25-2016, 06:32 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: you're comparing homosexuality with murder now?  thats a new low.

Yes, that's exactly what he was trying to get across.

[Vlad]

(02-25-2016, 11:42 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So he doesn't believe the quotes he is posting?

Why is he posting them? 

No, not in their literal sense. It's possible he believes homosexuality is wrong, and posts Bible scripture to prove it.

The same as others who believe homosexuality is a sin by referencing the Bible, but it doesn't imply they think gays should be put to death.

Only Muslims believe that.
Now if he was a Muslim quoting the Koran there's little doubt he believes gays should be put to death.

[Benton]

(02-25-2016, 06:06 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And like I said, he was quoting the bible.
He as an individual has no problems with gay people, just the act.

I don't know why you guy have such a hard time with that stance.

For example:
Person A murders Person B.
On a personal level, I don't hate Person A, however, I despise what Person A did to Person B, unless it's done in self defense.

person a killed somebody.

person c hooked up with someone of the same gender.

yup. Same thing.

[Vlad]

(02-26-2016, 01:10 AM)Benton Wrote: person a killed somebody.

person c hooked up with someone of the same gender.

yup. Same thing.

Are you that dense too?

For those that believe homosexuality is a sin, he was giving another example of "hate the sin, not the sinner"....not that a homosexual act is equivalent to murder.

He could have used stealing, adultery etc.
You people are too much.

[*bfine32*]

(02-25-2016, 06:06 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And like I said, he was quoting the bible.
He as an individual has no problems with gay people, just the act.

I don't know why you guy have such a hard time with that stance.

For example:
Person A murders Person B.
On a personal level, I don't hate Person A, however, I despise what Person A did to Person B, unless it's done in self defense.

This analogy is going to be impossible for the non-believer to grasp. They see murderer and gay and cannot comprehend that each could be judged the same. This is because they judge as a man judges; in degrees. God's holiness is perfect and he views any sin as act of disobedience. His desire for obedience is such that the only sin he considers greater than any other is blasphemy against him. 

I hesitate to state this because it doesn't "sell well", but it is actually something all Christians and those looking for Salvation can take solace in; because Christ's Salvation absolves us of the sin; regardless how "big or small" man judges it to be.    

[BmorePat87]

(02-26-2016, 12:56 AM)Vlad Wrote: No, not in their literal sense. It's possible he believes homosexuality is wrong, and posts Bible scripture to prove it.

The same as others who believe homosexuality is a sin by referencing the Bible, but it doesn't imply they think gays should be put to death.

Only Muslims believe that.
Now if he was a Muslim quoting the Koran there's little doubt he believes gays should be put to death.

"He doesn't really believe what he is saying"
hmmm

[GMDino]

(02-26-2016, 01:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: This analogy is going to be impossible for the non-believer to grasp. They see murderer and gay and cannot comprehend that each could be judged the same. This is because they judge as a man judges; in degrees. God's holiness is perfect and he views any sin as act of disobedience. His desire for obedience is such that the only sin he considers greater than any other is blasphemy against him. 

I hesitate to state this because it doesn't "sell well", but it is actually something all Christians and those looking for Salvation can take solace in; because Christ's Salvation absolves us of the sin; regardless how "big or small" man judges it to be.    

Sounds like most religious people I know too.

Hate the sin...love the sinner.  We all got it.  But rather than use just part of the scripture people like Manny quote the entire verse and then say "but I  didn't mean that last part literally". Because, love.  

IMHO if someone wants to cite their religious book as the reason they don't like something that means they believe the religious book.  Period.  The only reason a Christian has to dislike gays, blasphemy, whatever is that they have a list of rules in their book that they believe and want to follow.  And I think that is wonderful for them.  But then to turn around and quote the punishment part and say "but of course we don't believe THAT part" is disingenuous.  

Do you believe you will go to hell for taking the lord god's name in vain?  Or do you just believe blasphemy is wrong and not "the other part"?



Unless the sin is one that makes someone believe the sinner might do something else that has never happened....then we have to hate the sinner too.  

[BmorePat87]

(02-26-2016, 08:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: Sounds like most religious people I know too.

Hate the sin...love the sinner.  We all got it.  But rather than use just part of the scripture people like Manny quote the entire verse and then say "but I  didn't mean that last part literally". Because, love.  

IMHO if someone wants to cite their religious book as the reason they don't like something that means they believe the religious book.  Period.  The only reason a Christian has to dislike gays, blasphemy, whatever is that they have a list of rules in their book that they believe and want to follow.  And I think that is wonderful for them.  But then to turn around and quote the punishment part and say "but of course we don't believe THAT part" is disingenuous.  

Do you believe you will go to hell for taking the lord god's name in vain?  Or do you just believe blasphemy is wrong and not "the other part"?



Unless the sin is one that makes someone believe the sinner might do something else that has never happened....then we have to hate the sinner too.  

What's gets me is that if you believe in this omnipotent being and believe this book is his literal word, who are you as a mere mortal to say that part of his word isn't to be taken literally?

[Benton]

(02-26-2016, 01:25 AM)Vlad Wrote: Are you that dense too?

For those that believe homosexuality is a sin, he was giving another example of "hate the sin, not the sinner"....not that a homosexual act is equivalent to murder.

He could have used stealing, adultery etc.
You people are too much.

Then roll with something along similar lines. Adultery is along the same lines. So's eating shellfish. Some denominations, so's females wearing pants.

Goes with those.

When you compare a sin to something as grievous and criminal as murder, you're doing it for the shock effect. It's no different than a group who used to compare it to other deplorable acts, in the attempt to make it seem as bad.

[Vlad]

(02-26-2016, 11:43 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What's gets me is that if you believe in this omnipotent being and believe this book is his literal word, who are you as a mere mortal to say that part of his word isn't to be taken literally?

Good point.

Maybe they don't mean it literally when they say this book is His literal word.

[*bfine32*]

(02-26-2016, 08:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: Sounds like most religious people I know too.

Hate the sin...love the sinner.  We all got it.  But rather than use just part of the scripture people like Manny quote the entire verse and then say "but I  didn't mean that last part literally". Because, love.  

IMHO if someone wants to cite their religious book as the reason they don't like something that means they believe the religious book.  Period.  The only reason a Christian has to dislike gays, blasphemy, whatever is that they have a list of rules in their book that they believe and want to follow.  And I think that is wonderful for them.  But then to turn around and quote the punishment part and say "but of course we don't believe THAT part" is disingenuous.  

Do you believe you will go to hell for taking the lord god's name in vain?  Or do you just believe blasphemy is wrong and not "the other part"?



Unless the sin is one that makes someone believe the sinner might do something else that has never happened....then we have to hate the sinner too.  

(02-26-2016, 11:43 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What's gets me is that if you believe in this omnipotent being and believe this book is his literal word, who are you as a mere mortal to say that part of his word isn't to be taken literally?

I do believe the Old testiment; however, I am no longer bound by the Laws of the Old testiment. This really is nothing new. If I were Jewish or Muslim you might want to query me further on the Old Testiment. I can allow assume (or as Fred said: lie) that manny quoted the passage to show why he takes such a hard stance agaisnt homosexuality.

As to Dino's question(s): Do I beleive someone will go to hell for this or that; that is a very indepth question. I do believe some will go to Hell and some will simply cease to exist. I do believe you will not have eternal if you do not accept Jesus. Will folks have a last chance to do that if they have been a "good' person? My hope is yes.

[GMDino]

(02-26-2016, 05:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do believe the Old testiment; however, I am no longer bound by the Laws of the Old testiment. This really is nothing new. If I were Jewish or Muslim you might want to query me further on the Old Testiment. I can allow assume (or as Fred said: lie) that manny quoted the passage to show why he takes such a hard stance agaisnt homosexuality.

As to Dino's question(s): Do I beleive someone will go to hell for this or that; that is a very indepth question. I do believe some will go to Hell and some will simply cease to exist. I do believe you will not have eternal if you do not accept Jesus. Will folks have a last chance to do that if they have been a "good' person? My hope is yes.

Then you can see how posting the entire verse just say he thinks homosexuality is wrong based on the bible would be misleading.

Actually, just saying he thinks it is wrong because of his religion is enough.  Posting the entire verse isn't necessary if he doesn't accept the punishment part of it because it is OT.

[BmorePat87]

(02-26-2016, 05:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do believe the Old testiment; however, I am no longer bound by the Laws of the Old testiment. This really is nothing new. If I were Jewish or Muslim you might want to query me further on the Old Testiment. I can allow assume (or as Fred said: lie) that manny quoted the passage to show why he takes such a hard stance agaisnt homosexuality.

Wouldn't Leviticus 18:22 work just as well without the putting people to death part?

[*bfine32*]

(02-26-2016, 06:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: Then you can see how posting the entire verse just say he thinks homosexuality is wrong based on the bible would be misleading.

Actually, just saying he thinks it is wrong because of his religion is enough.  Posting the entire verse isn't necessary if he doesn't accept the punishment part of it because it is OT.

It is a verse. He didn't do like many here and just pull out the part he wants to focus on. The verse shows God is not a big fan of folks of the same sex lying together.  

Was posting the entire verse necessary? No, but what is. Would folks have been more understanding and not labeled him a "shitty person" if he would have just posted the title of chapter/verse? I doubt it; because folks are doubling down on the hate because he apologized.