Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19880
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
Odd that your mind would jump to think that anyone would say such a thing.
---> I was simply channeling Gr8Dad. He's really good at taking a person's response and then twisting it to mean something entirely different and then attacking it for it. And as you can tell by his response, he doesn't like it either.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30354
|
|
You know what, I have been NICE so far, but you are becoming a COMPLETE CVNT. I did not twist words, YOU took MY statement and twisted it, and, again, we face the impossible to answer question, are you REALLY that fvcking stupid, or are you just THAT ignorant? And AGAIN, I think its a little of both.
Of course, its pretty easy to play your little game when its just you and your little merry band of Super Christians, but when someone ELSE sees your bullsh!t, all of a sudden your on the defensive.
Well, OH GREAT GECKO, shut the fvck up and act like an adult, or stay the HELL off my threads.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19880
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
Yeah, thats was what I said, you have a fi rm grasp of ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING.
---> I'm glad that you finally looked in the mirror. Sucks when someone takes what you say and then twists it doesn't it?
The CHURCH thinks homosexuality is a sin, thus the CHURCH has labeled GAY CHILDREN to be SINNERS.
---> Not understanding your point here? Are you saying that it's okay to 'label' (your word, not mine) homosexual adults as sinners, but not homosexual children?
And THEIR OWN FVCKING RULES say that they are to hate the SIN, and SUPPORT the sinner.
---> Actually, it's not a "rule" per se. In 423AD, St Augustine wrote a letter (211) in which he said "Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum", which roughly translates roughly to "With love for mankind and hatred of sins." The more common version of "love the sinner but hate the sin" or "hate the sin and not the sinner" appeared in Gandhi's 1929 autobiography.
---> With that said, there is plenty of scripture that supports the premise of what both St Augustine and Gandhi were saying, but in NO WAY is there ANY suggestion that one is supposed to 'support' someone in their sin.
YOU are supporting a group that want to REJECT the kids.
---> Where are you getting your information from? In what post did I say this? Or is this just you once again making assumptions or twisting information?
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30354
|
|
"---> I'm glad that you finally looked in the mirror. Sucks when someone takes what you say and then twists it doesn't it?"
Are you smoking CRACK? Is there a GAS leak in your trailer? YOU came on THIS thread and accused ME of twisting YOUR words...now you are ADMITTING that YOU were twisting MY words?!?! WTF is wrong with you?
"---> Not understanding your point here? Are you saying that it's okay to 'label' (your word, not mine) homosexual adults as sinners, but not homosexual children?"
No, I was quite clear, but I guess that doesn't work for you, cause its WORK to twist clear words. By refusing to continue to sponsor BSA at their churches, BECAUSE the BSA now allow gay children to join, they have labelled the CHILDREN as unacceptable and unwanted (due to their belief that this is a SIN). It was clear as a bell.
"---> Actually, it's not a "rule" per se. In 423AD, St Augustine wrote a letter (211) in which he said "Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum", which roughly translates roughly to "With love for mankind and hatred of sins." The more common version of "love the sinner but hate the sin" or "hate the sin and not the sinner" appeared in Gandhi's 1929 autobiography."
Ah, sure, no TWISTING going on there, "Ha! Its NOT a RULE, its a FOUNDATION of the VERY THEOLOGY of the church...HA!" Damn you are a piece of sh!t.
"---> With that said, there is plenty of scripture that supports the premise of what both St Augustine and Gandhi were saying, but in NO WAY is there ANY suggestion that one is supposed to 'support' someone in their sin."
Ah, so the great NON twister now ADDS words. I did NOT say SUPPORT THE SINNER WITH THEIR SIN, I said SUPPORT THE SINNER. No one is suggesting the church is to offer KY and butt fvck rooms, just treat them like, well, I don't know, how to put this, OH YEAH, FVCKING CHRISTIANS!
"---> Where are you getting your information from? In what post did I say this? Or is this just you once again making assumptions or twisting information? "
OKAY THIS IS SARCASM.
Yeah, you haven't supported them at ALL, you have done nothing but criticize them, got it.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19880
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
You know what, I have been NICE so far.....
---> Really?!? Calling me a "creepy Christian" is 'nice'? (#803296) Saying "you and your ilk disgust me" is 'nice'? (#803344) Calling me "spineless" is 'nice'? (#803345) Calling me a "bigot" and a "bytch" is 'nice'? (#803379) Calling me a "moron" is 'nice'? (#803380)
I did not twist words....
---> Ummm...yes you did/do...all the time. I asked a question (#803288) and from that you twisted it into that I was defending them (#803296). You confirmed that twisting in #803344, #803350 and #803345. And that's just me, I can also provide examples of where you twisted Sherron and Red's words.
Of course, its pretty easy to play your little game when its just you and your little merry band of Super Christians, but when someone ELSE sees your bullsh!t, all of a sudden your on the defensive.
---> Huh? Super Christians? Bullsh!t! Defensive?
OH GREAT GECKO
---> At last, something I can agree with. :)
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20167
|
|
"If you don't know the answer, it's customary to not waste everyone's time by raising your hand to indicate that you have the answer, send us to a lengthy link that does not address the question at hand, and get snarky when it is correctly pointed out that we are still waiting for an answer to the question."
Well, finz, if as a practicing catholic you are looking to me for answers about Christianity, you have bigger issues than having wasted your time reading a link. Tell me where in the Bible anyone is supposed to accept unrepentant sinners, where in the Bible is a church expected to financially support an organization that openly condones sinning? So save your sanctimonious bull$hit, if you were really concerned you would explain your own hypocrisy... and you would also be just as curious as to why gr8 doesn't answer, and plays the race card, and on, and on, and on.
By the way... I didn't make a religious argument, but I guess you missed that. If you don't think they should have the right to support who they want to, that is your right as well, but save your individualized critique and judgment for others, it is not needed here. But your special attention to me as opposed to the issue is flattering. Then again, why waste your time on the issue, you don't follow your own rules, just like gr8 is talking about.
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20167
|
|
"The southern baptists can do what they want. I'm just calling them out for the douchebag's that they are. They're to be pointed and laughed at for their idiocy."
We agree then... they can practice their faith according to their beliefs, and people can respond to them as they choose to... are the boy scouts douchebags for banning adult gays? Is it hypocrisy or douchbaggery to call out the douchbaggery of the church, but not the boy scouts, and insist it is only the Christians? We can just call it douchepocrisy.
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 8000
|
|
Nope, it's still only christians. A bunch of christians losers getting mad because other chrisitians losers don't discriminate at the level they want based on what a book tells them to think.
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26787
|
|
douchepocrisy......perfect.....
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19880
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
Are you smoking CRACK? Is there a GAS leak in your trailer? YOU came on THIS thread and accused ME of twisting YOUR words...now you are ADMITTING that YOU were twisting MY words?!?! WTF is wrong with you?
---> Have never smoked crack in my life. I don't live in a trailer AND don't have gas. You DID twist my words. And yes, I did admit that I deliberately twisted your words...too bad you can't do the same. Nothing wrong with me, just wanted you to experience what it was like to have someone twist what you were saying; obviously you didn't get it.
No, I was quite clear.....
---> No. 1) I did a keyword search for "call boys" in multiple versions of the Bible and found nothing. I then Googled "call boys" and Bible and discovered that 'call boys' is a CURRENT term, so you're wrong there. And FYI, the reason it came up in the search was because of the title of the article which included "In Biblical Times In The Greco-Roman World".
---> No. 2) I did a search for 'sex slaves' in multiple versions of the Bible and found nothing. I then Googled the same and all I found were sites like one where this gal was trying to prove that the Bible supported 'sex slavery' and 'sex trafficking' and even gave instructions on how to do it. Like you, she was really good at taking things out of context or only highlighting what supported her view. She makes it sound like the Bible says that it was okay to capture a woman you desire and keep her for sexual purposes until you tired of her. But it says right there in the scripture she posted that the woman is desired as a WIFE, that she is NOT slave period.
---> No. 3) And when you tell be that there is a Biblical difference between homosexual children and adults, but you're not going to tell me...oh yeah, that is real clear (NOT).
Ah, sure, no TWISTING going on there, "Ha! Its NOT a RULE, its a FOUNDATION of the VERY THEOLOGY of the church...HA!"
---> What exactly am I twisting here? It's NOT a rule anymore than 'separation of church and state' is part of the Constitution; it's not like the "Golden Rule" aka Luke 6:31.
---> And I'm not sure how you can say that it's the 'foundation of the very theology of the church' since both Judaism and Christianity PREDATE both of these people.
Ah, so the great NON twister now ADDS words.
---> OMG...I added the words "with that said" so shoot me.
I did NOT say SUPPORT THE SINNER WITH THEIR SIN, I said SUPPORT THE SINNER.
---> And I did NOT SAY SUPPORT THE SINNER WITH THEIR SIN, I said support someone in their sin.
No one is suggesting the church is to offer KY and butt fvck rooms.....
---> I wasn't suggesting it either, so I have no idea where this comes from (or any of the other shyt you come up with).
OKAY THIS IS SARCASM. Yeah, you haven't supported them at ALL, you have done nothing but criticize them, got it.
---> And therein lies the problem, I haven't done either but according to you I have because I haven't. I was just commenting on your asinine comment.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
