quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
It is HATEFUL of Christianity to expect gays to change, to Biblical laws of morality.

And yet it is NOT hateful for gays to expect Christianity to change, to conform to the gay concept of "morality".

That's quite a double standard.
With respect, that's a false distortion of the facts.

Gays will accept Christians. That's tolerance. Gays have no problem with Christians being gay.

Christians won't accept gays. Christians have a problem with gays being Christian. That's intolerance.
I love the way you try to reverse my own use of the word distortion, when it is your interpretation that is clearly liberally biased and distorted.

Gays, having no ideology beyond what rationalizes their lifestyle, can make that claim. But PROVE to me that homosexuality is inborn. YOUR OWN argument is based on a fallacious logic by consensus argument that blindly accepts the gay notion that their behavior is inborn, when there is not scientific evidence to back that up.
That, again, is bias.

Homosexuality is a belief system. With no scientific evidence to back it up. But you accept it whole as absolute fact in your argument.
Christianity is a belief system, with a number of characteristics that confirm its truth, despite the fact you keep trying to circumnavigate, dismiss or otherwise dodge my point about the Bible as the only valid cornersone for Christianity (a point VERY RELEVANT to your attempts to dismiss the validity of the Bible's verses about homosexuality being an enduring standard for Christians today) :
  • a Bible that (Old and New Testaments) were written over a 1500-year period, from the time of Moses to about 100 A.D., that have remarkably consistent themes, despite the wide range of men --rich and poor, highly educated and shepherds, soldiers, kings, rabbis, peasants, Jews and Gentiles, who wrote these books, "God breathed" inspired by God (as I already confirmed with scripture).
  • The fact that 40 different authors wrote 66 books of the Old and New Testaments (over a 1500-year period) with the thematic consistency that it has, the historical facts that cannot be disproven, fulfilled prophecies of ancient times (the destruction of the ancient capital of Babylon, for example, the many conditions foretold of the coming Messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus being the most cited fulfilled prophecies), as well as the foretold Babylonian captivity of the Jews, to more modern prophecies about the rebirth of Israel in modern times, and other prophecies that are being fulfilled in modern times.
  • a Bible where about 60,000 manuscripts exist for comparison, and as I said, is more verifiable than any other ancient document(the distortions of scripture in this topic by gays are obvious, but you choose to ignore them in your arguments, Dave )

If the Bible COULD be disproven, the secular humanists and other cynics would have done so by now. It is CRYSTAL clear that gays are attempting to warp scripture, to whitewash the gay lifestyle, despite what scripture clearly says in opposition to this.

Your having an opinion otherwise is fine, you don't have to agree with me. But you clearly are a liberal, and clearly dismiss the Bible as evidence, despite the overwhelming evidence of scripture I began posting on page 4 of this topic, that proves BEYOND ANY DOUBT that the Bible condemns homosexuality.

You allege that there are "other interpretations" but Bible scholars are in total agreement that THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY. Even most liberal churches (who do not follow scripture, I might add) will not deny that the Bible condemns homosexuality, but (against scripture) they will argue that it is time to "modernize" scripture to gel with the times (despite that the Bible repeatedly says never to change "a mark or a letter" of scripture, and evidence over millenia indicates tremendous care to preserve its accuracy).

I dislike how you throw out phrases like "slippery slope" argument, or "logic by consensus" or similar rhetorical labels, but beyond the high-sounding phrase, you frequently don't detail precisely HOW my argument is fallacious by these standards. So ultimately, again, they are just dismissive labels, that fail to address the issues I've raised. This is pseudo-objectivity. Dismissive labels, not clear arguments.

I could just as easily go through your arguments and slap dismissive labels on them, either using your own legal argument terms (one example in the above paragraph ) or other dismissive terms. But I've endeavored to more precisely address the issues.


I also dislike how you occasionally take a cheap shot at me, while maintaining a veneer of neutral objectivity and politeness.

With all due respect, you've clearly rejected the Bible as evidence out of hand, refused to acknowledge that the Bible CLEARLY condemns homosexuality.

And that based on Christian belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God (with considerable internal literary, historical, and prophetic evidence, and vast numbers of manuscripts to base that belief on), Christians have VALID REASON not to have that Bible scripture distorted, and to not allow marriage, as the Bible describes it, to be perverted.

Gays do NOT accept Christians' right to practice Christianity as it is Biblically written. Gays seek to undermine it, and as I've said repeatedly, pervert the Bible's very meaning. (If I felt the need, I could describe gay pressure to impose gay marriage on the church as contemptuous of Christianity, deliberately disruptive, and ultimately hateful. But I've preferred to simply say this is a double standard that gays and liberals have argued here. )

Your argument distorts the issue.
Bible-believing Christians are not hateful, they are truthful: True to the Bible as it is written and verifiable, even at the highest levels of Bible scholarship.
I resent this "hate" characterization, and fail to see it as anything other than a cheap shot based in your own liberal bias.

I've been polite, Dave, and I've only made sharp statements to you about liberal misrepresentation and bias after my words and arguments have been paraphrased and distorted over and over. It is not a charge I make lightly.

I feel you've consistently taken one side in this discussion, and while for the most part polite, I resent your arguing the liberal side, and then claiming to objectively evaluate my arguments, essentially appointing yourself the status of neutral judge in this topic.
Your "judgements", are not neutral. And even in your just arguing the liberal side, there have been too many points where I've been paraphrased, and my clear and valid points ignored by you.
Particularly on scripture related to homosexuality, and its indisputable literal meaning.
And your ignoring the fact that Christianity is open to all who believe, and that one who practices homosexuality is clearly not following Biblical teachings. And continuing to argue that Christian idiological objection to homosexuality is "hateful". What the hell kind of objective argument is that. "Hateful" is an emotional label, not an objective argument.

If we were debating the issues, okay, I'd be glad to discuss it in a friendly fashion, however much we might disagree, but for many pages, I've just been repeating myself, clarifying what I actually said, in the face of repeated distortions of my true arguments. And many of your comments have made it too personal. I'm sick of it.

I think we're done here.