#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
#FromWithinLogic
| Add New Argument |
|
0
points
0
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
0
points
1
point
3
points
1
point
1
point
0
points
1
point
0
points
0
points
-1
points
It is fact when I call you a bigot! You have made far too many disparaging remarks towards Christians. Oh I'm sure you have nothing bad to say about the new age Christians who think it is greeat having Gay pastors, Gay Sunday school teachers, etc. There's one problem with that. It totally goes against the Christian faith and what the Bible says. Those are false Churches ignoring God's laws and creating their own man made cult. You go right on judging people for expressing their beliefs and following their faith. You are not kidding anyone to your true colors. Bigotry is where you hate someone without knowing anything about them. He hates you because you are a religious zealot because religious zealots do the things he doesn't like. He already knows about you and hates you for that. It totally goes against the Christian faith and what the Bible says. It doesn't actually. The Bible says you are supposed to treat your neighbor like your brother. 1
point
You can not possibly be that ignorant to keep twisting what it is to be a Christian, can you? Yes for the 18th TRILLIONTH time, Christians love all people and should treat everyone as their brother. That includes Gays, Muslems and everyone else. What on Earth does that have to do with having Churches forced to allow Gay Sunday school teachers in a position of leadership over our children? Parents bring their children to church not to be politically correctly indoctrinated with things that are sins in the Bible. We would also not want a practicing adulterer, or any other sin that is being lifted up to the children as ok. Can you get that unbelievbly simple point? The Left and the Gay activists would change our Christian faith to a political correct cult where MAN will tell God what is a sin and what is not a sin. That is why Christians speak out aganst the Homosexual movement. It has nothing to do with any particular sin, it has everything to do with man trying to change our faith to fit his lifestyle. I can not explain it any more clear than that. Do you know how many times I have to explain this same simple point and why we will keep having to explain it? Because activists don't care! They know why we fight their agendas and they could care less about the Christian faith and what it stands for. What they care about is being sanctioned as normal and having all faiths transformed to say their lifestyle is not a sin. Calling someone a Zealot is an insult. It is not just some description of a person who cares deeply for his faith. 1
point
You can not possibly be that ignorant to keep twisting what it is to be a Christian, can you? Yes for the 18th TRILLIONTH time, Christians love all people and should treat everyone as their brother. That includes Gays, Muslems and everyone else. And you have demonstrated that you do not love all people. You call people you disagree with evil, monsters, inhuman, etc. What on Earth does that have to do with having Churches forced to allow Gay Sunday school teachers in a position of leadership over our children? Parents bring their children to church not to be politically correctly indoctrinated with things that are sins in the Bible. We would also not want a practicing adulterer, or any other sin that is being lifted up to the children as ok. I agree in principle, but why do Christians seem to ignore divorce for the most part? The Bible speaks on adultery far more than homosexuality, yet American Christians focus more on homosexuality than just about anything else (except abortion, understandably). The Left and the Gay activists would change our Christian faith to a political correct cult where MAN will tell God what is a sin and what is not a sin. No, they wouldn't. They adhere to their own faith. That is why Christians speak out aganst the Homosexual movement. It has nothing to do with any particular sin, it has everything to do with man trying to change our faith to fit his lifestyle. They really don't care about you though. Their movement has nothing to do with you, or people such as yourself. Calling someone a Zealot is an insult. It is not just some description of a person who cares deeply for his faith. A zealot, by definition, is someone who is utterly uncompromising in their religious beliefs. Do you deny that you are uncompromising in your religious beliefs? You can not possibly be that ignorant to keep twisting what it is to be a Christian, can you? The twisting is done by you Christians. Yes for the 18th TRILLIONTH time, Christians love all people and should treat everyone as their brother. That includes Gays, Muslems and everyone else. One day I hope to live in that world. What on Earth does that have to do with having Churches forced to allow Gay Sunday school teachers in a position of leadership over our children? Nothing. Why do you bring it up? You were talking about churches that voluntarily decided to allow gays, and you said they were not Christians. We aren't talking about forcing churches to do anything. Parents bring their children to church not to be politically correctly indoctrinated with things that are sins in the Bible. They go to church to be accepted for the sinner that they are and to be better. Like gays. We would also not want a practicing adulterer, or any other sin that is being lifted up to the children as ok. But, you don't check for that one. Can you get that unbelievbly simple point? Yep. The Left and the Gay activists would change our Christian faith to a political correct cult where MAN will tell God what is a sin and what is not a sin. I have some really bad news for you, but you don't want to hear it. That is why Christians speak out aganst the Homosexual movement. It has nothing to do with any particular sin, it has everything to do with man trying to change our faith to fit his lifestyle. But, it fundamentally falls short. Do you know how many times I have to explain this same simple point and why we will keep having to explain it? That's because you keep ignoring the even simpler point that the opposing side says. Because activists don't care! Yep, just the activists are at fault. They know why we fight their agendas and they could care less about the Christian faith and what it stands for. THEY WANT TO BE CHRISTIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What they care about is being sanctioned as normal and having all faiths transformed to say their lifestyle is not a sin. No, they want to be allowed to practice Christianity like every other sinner. Calling someone a Zealot is an insult. Insulting someone does not mean you are a bigot. It is not just some description of a person who cares deeply for his faith. Yes, you are not just someone cares deeply about your faith. You also care deeply about making sure other people hate you for caring about your faith. 1
point
You just said two things that are totally false... you said "They go to church to be accepted for the sinner that they are and to be better. Like gays." and you said "No, they want to be allowed to practice Christianity like every other sinner." THEY DON'T BELIEVE HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN! I have absolutely no problem with Gays going to Church when they are not openly tryng to tell everyone that it is not a sin. Of course Churches are filled with people who have sinned but they are not trying to tell everyone their sin is not a sin. The Gay movement trys to say exactly that! These new age Liberal Churches are not saying Homosexuality is a sin. They have Gay Pastors! Do you honestly think that these Gay Pastors are peaching that Homosexuality is a sin? GET REAL! We are not talking about churches who voluntarily decided to allow Gays. I am talking about Gay activists and the Left trying to sue Churches to allow Gay sunday school teachers as they have sued them in the past. They wil keep sueing churches until a Democrat appoints one more Liberal to the supreme court and FORCE ALL CHURCHES TO BOW TO POLITICAL CORRECTNESS! I am not talking about Gays who live their lives not trying to push the homosexual political agendas. I am talking about the activists and those on the Left pushing their agendas. I have absolutely no problem with Gays going to Church when they are not openly tryng to tell everyone that it is not a sin. You are also absolutely ok with banning gays who have taken no stance on this topic. These new age Liberal Churches are not saying Homosexuality is a sin. They have Gay Pastors! Do you honestly think that these Gay Pastors are peaching that Homosexuality is a sin? GET REAL! It is not your church. Everyone picks their church based on the churches interpretation of the Bible. Your argument is completely irrelevant. We are not talking about churches who voluntarily decided to allow Gays. False. Wrong. Nope. Incorrect. You specifically said that he had no problem with the new age Christians who accept gays. They are not being forced. I am talking about Gay activists and the Left trying to sue Churches to allow Gay sunday school teachers as they have sued them in the past. I don't care what you are talking about now. You brought it up after I talked about the churches that aren't being forced. Activists trying to change churches who don't want gays is bad, but it was not what we were talking about originally. They wil keep sueing churches until a Democrat appoints one more Liberal to the supreme court and FORCE ALL CHURCHES TO BOW TO POLITICAL CORRECTNESS! NO THEY WON'T. I am not talking about Gays who live their lives not trying to push the homosexual political agendas. Right, but you are talking about gays who are trying to ask for rights that don't have anything to do with you. I am talking about the activists and those on the Left pushing their agendas. But you specifically said that he has no problem with the new age Christians. We weren't talking about activists until you derailed the argument. 1
point
"Oh I'm sure you have nothing bad to say about the new age Christians who think it is greeat having Gay pastors, Gay Sunday school teachers, etc. There's one problem with that. It totally goes against the Christian faith and what the Bible says. Those are false Churches ignoring God's laws and creating their own man made cult." That is what you said. I challenged you by saying that it does fit into Christianity. You then deceptively brought up activists for absolutely no reason. Where in that original quote were you talking about activists? I know exactly what I said You couldn't even be bothered to reread your own argument. 1
point
I didn't misinterpret you at all. You intentionally changed the subject to vent instead of conceding that you might be wrong. It is because you throw random things out that are irrelevant whenever you make your point. It is interesting that you refuse to agree with me on anything and you do it even worse than I do to you. I will directly tell you that I agree with you and you will say that if certain conditions are true you might be inclined to agree with me, but then you bring up unrelated topics. You never acknowledge when I agree with you, so your observation is worthless. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
He is indeed a bigot, but so are you. People in glass houses and what not. He has indeed made many disparaging remarks towards Christians (new age or otherwise) as well as Muslims and religion in general. But you have made just as many disparaging remarks towards a wide variety of groups of people. You are judging people for expressing their beliefs as well, so why do you believe you are justified when calling him out on it? 1
point
AS AWAYS PURE DECEPTION. I have NOT made disparging remarks towards a wide variety of groups of people. Must you always lie to try and prove some devil advocate's point? It's sad that as soon as I debate someone's else argument, I know the stalker will be right there to try and ridicule and judge me. Get a life! I wish could ban you from having any comments made to me no matter whose argument. I speak out against political ideoogies that try to force people of faith or anyone else to bow to the Left's PC agendas. I don't speak out against any prticular person unless they insult me first. If I have ever done so in the past, I apologise. Now get off your constant rhetoric and start debating in the today and now, not the past. When you can show me recently insulting someone first, please let me know. Otherwise keep your lieing mouth shut! 1
point
AS AWAYS PURE DECEPTION. I have NOT made disparging remarks towards a wide variety of groups of people. Must you always lie to try and prove some devil advocate's point? If you are going to deny it, then I will quote you: "Liberals hate the notion of accountability for irresponsible behavior". "It's a pure battle from the Left against God." "The Left could care less about PP selling Baby organs. They have no compassion! Period!" "There is no true heartfelt compassion in their collective. " "This once and for all shows the utter moral bankruptcy on the Left." "I will tell you what kind of person votes for these corrupt Democrats. PEOPLE WHO WANT TO LIVE OFF THE TAX PAYER!" " There are two types of mind numbingly stupidity. One that is just too pathetically dumb to see the truth before their eyes. And one that sees the truth yet STILL tries to spin it their way. "For you to deny the simple truth of what I just said about the Democrat party constantly fanning the flames of so called racism against the GOP makes you someone not worth debating!" Must I go on? That is only from debates within a few weeks time. It gets far worse if I go back further. It's sad that as soon as I debate someone's else argument, I know the stalker will be right there to try and ridicule and judge me. Get a life! I wish could ban you from having any comments made to me no matter whose argument. I really don't understand how, after being on this website for so long, you still don't understand what the Waterfall function is. I speak out against political ideoogies that try to force people of faith or anyone else to bow to the Left's PC agendas. I don't speak out against any prticular person unless they insult me first. That is factually untrue. You speak out against individuals who have not insulted you first all the time. As I have demonstrated, you insult groups of people in the majority of your debates, which means you are insulting the individuals who are parts of those groups. You do so often in the debate topic itself, which is obviously before anyone has a chance to respond to you. This means you instigate the insults. If I have ever done so in the past, I apologise. Now get off your constant rhetoric and start debating in the today and now, not the past. I tried doing this, yet you did nothing but bring up your perceptions of my past. Why is it okay for you to do so, but not me? When you can show me recently insulting someone first, please let me know. Otherwise keep your lieing mouth shut! I just did. Will you now admit I wasn't lying? 1
point
1
point
You showed me nothing! All you did was prove my point. I was insulting LIBERALS, PROGRESSIVES, for the agendas of forcing all Americans to bow to their politcal correctness. I named no one in your examples! It's funny how you just created an argument about me, to tell everyone to forget the past and start over with more civility towards each other. What have you done since that argument? You keep dwelling on the past and fanning the flames of insults. Listen to yourself and get over the past. Start fresh if that is even possible for you. 1
point
1
point
1
point
0
points
You asked me to show examples of you insulting groups of people. You just admitted that you were insulting groups of people. So I showed you exactly what you asked me to show you. It's funny how you just created an argument about me, to tell everyone to forget the past and start over with more civility towards each other. What have you done since that argument? You keep dwelling on the past and fanning the flames of insults. You began, right off the bat, by talking about the past, with your first response. How can you decry me responding to your posts regarding the past? How is that dwelling or fanning any flames? I would rather ignore the past entirely and just have civil, respectable conversations in the future. If you would agree with that, we'd be set. Do you agree with that? Do you agree to stop banning and stop insulting or attacking and just hold civil, respectful conversations? 1
point
2
points
Please do point how he is hypocritical, also you insulted me for my age when I was having a completely civil conversation. It wasn't until after I had it with your looking down upon me just because of my age that I began insulting you back (As childish as that sounds). Do please tell us who is stalking you and how they are stalking you. 1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
0
points
1
point
I was referring to bigotry towards religion, which you certainly have. I don't think that is a necessarily negative thing. Your very apparent bigotry towards the left, as evidenced by your usage of the term "leftard" implying those on the left have mental retardation, is a negative thing, however. 1
point
I might have said some things about Christians that were unfair but what you have said about gays is 10 times worse. You have compared us to pedophiles for God's sake! FYI I have now nothing against Christians in general. I have met some lovely Christians who have not tried to make me feel bad about something about myself that I cannot help (my sexuality) as you have. The only people who I now disparage are fundamentalists like you. 1
point
What don't you get? This a debate site! Of course I am going to discuss homosexuality and how it relates to marriage and Church, as it has become a political issue. I work with Gays and NEVER have I even mentioned homosexuality nor do they. I treat them as nicely and kind as I do everyone. I have never said bad things about Gays on ths site other than the activists pushing their agenda's on the states and on the Church. I call homosexuality as not being a normal thing and therefore should not have been forced on every state to change their marriage laws. I have never compared you to pedophiles so quit saying such ludicrus things. I was using pedophiles as an analogy to other groups of people who say they are born that way. Saying how pedophiles and Gays both say they are born a certain way is NOT COMPARING YOU TO PEDOPHILES! It was making a point that just because some groups says they are born a certain way does not make it normal. Again with the insuts calling me a fundamentlist for merely believing my faith. It is you who has all the anger and all the insults! 1
point
Oh great you know it is a debate site, but why don't you use it as one? You ban/silence those who don't believe what you believe yet you hate being silenced by liberals (Not that they do silence people). Definition of compare=Estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between. Oxford Dictionary Of English 1
point
That is actually, by definition, comparing them. Compare: estimate, measure, or note the similarity between. Additionally, for someone who is homosexual, people like you saying that you do not believe states should be required to respect their Constitutional rights IS insulting. It is incredibly insulting to them. It also undermines your claims that you treat them as nicely and kind as you do everyone else. It doesn't mean much to someone if you respect everything except their civil and constitutional rights. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I have said that doctors used to call Homosexuality a mental issue before it was no longer politically correct to state their beliefs. I have no idea if people are born with these issues, whether they are created during childhood, whether they are mental or conditioned, etc. etc. No one has all the answers for sure, but what I do believe is that the right's of the people in each individual State should matter when it comes to changing their marriage laws. No group of people should have the right to just change laws in States where the majority of people don't want those laws changed. 1
point
I have said that doctors used to call Homosexuality a mental issue before it was no longer politically correct to state their beliefs. They also called Africans the lesser race before it was no longer politically correct. That argument is not logical. but what I do believe is that the right's of the people in each individual State should matter when it comes to changing their marriage laws Why should the states trump our Constitution? Why should the majority get to decide who gets what Constitutional rights? |
