Homosexuality Is NOT A Sin: What Christ Said And More

[linaloki]

Isaac488

linaloki

sweatdrop

Can we, y'know... calm down and not argue? I had some people think Baptists are crazy, and many people think Christians are idiots. Heck, one of my two majors, Philosophy, believes that almost as a tenet.

Personally, I learn to think "Ho hum, how silly." ninja

There was no argument until Gho started cussing out Temba unnecessarily.

That, I think, is probably carry over from several encounters... sweatdrop

[Isaac488]

linaloki

Isaac488

linaloki

sweatdrop

Can we, y'know... calm down and not argue? I had some people think Baptists are crazy, and many people think Christians are idiots. Heck, one of my two majors, Philosophy, believes that almost as a tenet.

Personally, I learn to think "Ho hum, how silly." ninja

There was no argument until Gho started cussing out Temba unnecessarily.

That, I think, is probably carry over from several encounters... sweatdrop

Even though I was somewhat bashed for disliking Christians for the same reason, several encounters. But I never cussed at them....I don't think -ponders-

[Gho the Girl]

Isaac488

Gho the Girl

Temba

Gho the Girl

Isaac488

[ Oh well, adventists are nuts anyway.

Hey, one of my very good friends is a 7th Day Adventist. Watch yer tone.

So you don't think that guys mother forcing him to break up with his friend was wrong?

I think that's a very loaded question, and completely irrelevant to my point.

Quote:

Or are you one of those types that condones such behaviour? it the actions of your congregation that makes people think your nuts.

Hey, Temba, in all seriousness, ******** off. You don't even know me, or my friend, yet make several incorrect generalisations about me and them.

For one that WAS relevant.

No, it wasn't.

The actions of one SDA does not represent the overall sanity of SDA's. I was specifically speaking to your comment that SDA's are nuts, as opposed to, "that SDA was nuts." That would have been fine.

However, instead of doing that, you decided to generalise.

Quote:

For two: a. It was uncalled for telling Temba to "******** off"

Your comment and his commment regarding my ethics and the ethics of all SDA's was completly uncalled for. Sure, mayhaps the words "******** off" weren't necessary, but you guys are right now defending your own asinine generalisations and bigotry.

Quote:

and b. We weren't making generalisations about you OR your friend.

Yeah, gee, no generalisations of me or adventists.

Temba

it the actions of your congregation that makes people think your nuts

Isaac488

Oh well, adventists are nuts anyway

Oh, wait, there they are.

[Gho the Girl]

Isaac488

Gho the Girl

Just so we're clear here:

I'm not here to say that SDA's are immune to assholery. I'm not here to argue that SDAism is the only path to God.

I'm here disputing some generalising remarks made by Isaac regarding SDA's general sanity, and some further remarks made by Temba regarding the validity of their approach to Christianity.

I am NOT SDA. I'm an Eclectic Christian Heretic, however I have dear friends of many different denominations, including Mormons, Catholics, and SDA's, all of whom not only accept my queer identity, but embrace and celebrate it. So to all of you who would spit upon them for how they find their Kingdom of Heaven, I call you hypocrite and/or bigot. If you think that a difference in practice authorizes you to make dismissive generalisations, you really missed the message Jesus hoped to spread.

Just so that we're clear here:
You aren't proving ANYTHING on your side.

So you say.

Quote:

All I said from MY POINT OF VIEW was that SDAs were crazy.

And that's bigotry.

It can be my point of view that gays are filthy disgusting people, or that Jews are bad people for not subscribing to my faith. That's bigotry.

Quote:

I believe YOU are the hypocrite for over-reacting and shoving our opinions down our throat.

Shoving your opinions down your throat? That might need re-wording.

And I don't see how telling you you're generalising and being dismissive of people based upon their form of practice is hypocritical. I'm not talking to you about your practice, I'm talking to you about your insensitive viewpoint. [quiote] I don't give a crap if they have their "oh I can't watch TV on Friday night" belief as long as they don't make me bow to their belief system WHICH THEY HAVE (or at least attempted to. Thank God I turned 18 and was allowed to make a choice which crazy religion to follow)As I said, SDA's are not free from assholery, and if the ones you knew were dominating assholes, my apologies, but to be frank, that still doesn't excuse you to generalise all SDA's. You are free to call the ones who were jerks to you nuts, or whatever, but when you brush in such broad strokes, you're name calling innocent people.

[Vashfan1600]

Brokenback Exodus

No.


You're wrong. The bible says that fags are bad and that we should beat the snot out of them every chance we get.

My father was right when he said that "makes sure the balls aren't touching."

I would be in hell otherwise.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Disprove or GTFO.

[Vashfan1600]

Gho the Girl

Isaac488

Gho the Girl

Just so we're clear here:

I'm not here to say that SDA's are immune to assholery. I'm not here to argue that SDAism is the only path to God.

I'm here disputing some generalising remarks made by Isaac regarding SDA's general sanity, and some further remarks made by Temba regarding the validity of their approach to Christianity.

I am NOT SDA. I'm an Eclectic Christian Heretic, however I have dear friends of many different denominations, including Mormons, Catholics, and SDA's, all of whom not only accept my queer identity, but embrace and celebrate it. So to all of you who would spit upon them for how they find their Kingdom of Heaven, I call you hypocrite and/or bigot. If you think that a difference in practice authorizes you to make dismissive generalisations, you really missed the message Jesus hoped to spread.

Just so that we're clear here:
You aren't proving ANYTHING on your side.

So you say.

Quote:

All I said from MY POINT OF VIEW was that SDAs were crazy.

And that's bigotry.

It can be my point of view that gays are filthy disgusting people, or that Jews are bad people for not subscribing to my faith. That's bigotry.

Quote:

I believe YOU are the hypocrite for over-reacting and shoving our opinions down our throat.

Shoving your opinions down your throat? That might need re-wording.

And I don't see how telling you you're generalising and being dismissive of people based upon their form of practice is hypocritical. I'm not talking to you about your practice, I'm talking to you about your insensitive viewpoint. [quiote] I don't give a crap if they have their "oh I can't watch TV on Friday night" belief as long as they don't make me bow to their belief system WHICH THEY HAVE (or at least attempted to. Thank God I turned 18 and was allowed to make a choice which crazy religion to follow)

As I said, SDA's are not free from assholery, and if the ones you knew were dominating assholes, my apologies, but to be frank, that still doesn't excuse you to generalise all SDA's. You are free to call the ones who were jerks to you nuts, or whatever, but when you brush in such broad strokes, you're name calling innocent people.

You know that Isaac was talking about the adventists that she knew, right? You decided to jump the gun and say she was talking about all of them, let alone your friend. Also, nobody said anything insulting to you, so the cursing was a little much (even if this was the straw that broke the camel's back.)

[Gho the Girl]

linaloki

Isaac488

linaloki

sweatdrop

Can we, y'know... calm down and not argue? I had some people think Baptists are crazy, and many people think Christians are idiots. Heck, one of my two majors, Philosophy, believes that almost as a tenet.

Personally, I learn to think "Ho hum, how silly." ninja

There was no argument until Gho started cussing out Temba unnecessarily.

That, I think, is probably carry over from several encounters... sweatdrop

Yeah. My apologies on the cussing out. I shouldn't have told him to "******** off." However, if you can get beyond my very curt vernacular, you'll find that the rest of my post was more on point.

@Isaac:

I am not here to defend the actions that certain SDA's have taken against you. I'm here, maybe not as nicely as I should be, to remind you of some lessons you may have forgotten:

That we, as Christians, are to forgive, are to not judge, to turn the other cheek when others wrong us. When we dismiss entire groups of people for no other reason than their approach to Christ, we entirely miss the point of Agape. It's a hard lesson to swallow, I should know. If an individual is nuts, then they are nuts, but it is un-Christian to group anyone who shares a characteristic with this individual with that individual and then dismiss them, as has been done.

For years, I had this very certain idea of Catholics, and Mormons, etc. As a queer person, I wrote them off as I felt they had written me off, or would do so. My life changed when I watched a documentary called "Anyone and Everyone." It was a movie about various coming out stories. One of the families was Catholic, and another were Mormon. Both those families accepted and celebrated their children's gay identity. The Mormon mother was very passionate about it, and spoke at length about how her religion's hierarchy needed to change their stance on this issue, and how she had not only found room in her faith for her gay son, but came to a better understanding of God, Jesus, and Agape. At the end, she said, "If I am going to make a mistake, even on this issue, I am boldly going to do so on the side of love."

This made me ashamed, as before I heard her full story, I had already decided in my mind how it would play out, and was proven 100 percent wrong.

You have committed the same flaw that I was guilty of myself. Sure, I should have been nicer about how I pointed it out, and for that, I apologise. But don't think that the substance of my posts, the directing and pointing out of very un-Christian and un-Christlike statements and views, which I do not because I dislike you, but because I feel it important. If I did dislike you, I would simply have told you to screw off, much as I did Temba, because in all honesty, I sincerely dislike him.

If you like, we can take this to PM's, other than that, for the sake of the thread, this is all I'm going to say about it. Post as you will, but this is where my part ends.

[Gho the Girl]

Vashfan1600

You know that Isaac was talking about the adventists that she knew, right? You decided to jump the gun and say she was talking about all of them, let alone your friend. Also, nobody said anything insulting to you, so the cursing was a little much (even if this was the straw that broke the camel's back.)

Funny, but I don't see a quantifier in
"Oh well, adventists are nuts anyway."

Tell me, honestly, where in there does it say Isaac was specifically talking about the ones Isaac knew?

Please, point it out where Isaac specified that the ones Isaac said were nuts were the ones that Isaac specifically knew.

[Vashfan1600]

Gho the Girl

Vashfan1600

You know that Isaac was talking about the adventists that she knew, right? You decided to jump the gun and say she was talking about all of them, let alone your friend. Also, nobody said anything insulting to you, so the cursing was a little much (even if this was the straw that broke the camel's back.)

Funny, but I don't see a quantifier in
"Oh well, adventists are nuts anyway."

Tell me, honestly, where in there does it say Isaac was specifically talking about the ones Isaac knew?

Please, point it out where Isaac specified that the ones Isaac said were nuts were the ones that Isaac specifically knew.

I don't know how to quote in the middle of a post, so I'll do with what I can

"So what? I think I'd know something about them since I had the unfortunate experience of being one (in a way) for three years because of my dad. My friends are also SDA and I still think the lot of them are nuts."

From that point, let alone the beginning of that post, stating why she had that perspective, was showing that she was aiming it at the adventists she knew.

Plus, calling someone 'nuts' these days is like calling them silly, it's not serious enough to be taken as an insult, like crazy, or bat sh*t insane. ninja That was limited to being aimed directly at that mother. So please, quote in context, it means a lot to the meaning of words.

[Gho the Girl]

Vashfan1600

Gho the Girl

Vashfan1600

You know that Isaac was talking about the adventists that she knew, right? You decided to jump the gun and say she was talking about all of them, let alone your friend. Also, nobody said anything insulting to you, so the cursing was a little much (even if this was the straw that broke the camel's back.)

Funny, but I don't see a quantifier in
"Oh well, adventists are nuts anyway."

Tell me, honestly, where in there does it say Isaac was specifically talking about the ones Isaac knew?

Please, point it out where Isaac specified that the ones Isaac said were nuts were the ones that Isaac specifically knew.

I don't know how to quote in the middle of a post, so I'll do with what I can

"So what? I think I'd know something about them since I had the unfortunate experience of being one (in a way) for three years because of my dad. My friends are also SDA and I still think the lot of them are nuts."

From that point, let alone the beginning of that post, stating why she had that perspective, was showing that she was aiming it at the adventists she knew.

Yes, because it is NEVER the case that someone can start with a personal experience and then use that to justify a generalisation of a group.

People NEVER do that. Ever. In the History of Universe. Nope.

For instance, I couldn't, for example, say

"I knew this Jew once who shorted me on a tip. Jews are such misers."

Or could I?

Given that no specifier was given within the remark regardin SDA sanity, it grammatically applies to all SDA's, just as grammatically, my comment regarding Jewish miserliness applies to all Jews.

Quote:

Plus, calling someone 'nuts' these days is like calling them silly, it's not serious enough to be taken as an insult, like crazy, or bat sh*t insane. ninja That was limited to being aimed directly at that mother. So please, quote in context, it means a lot to the meaning of words.

The meaning and relative insultingness of a term depends on the context of how it's used, and who's listening. How you view the term "nuts" is not how I view it. Why do you think sexual harassment is based not so much upon what is being said as much as whether people find it offensive? The offensiveness of a term depends upon who's saying it and who's listening. For instance, the offensiveness of the N word not only matters for who's using it and how it's being used, but also on who's listening. Some people will universally find it offensive, while others will find it offensive only in certain circumstances.

Offense is relative to the audience.

[Vashfan1600]

Gho the Girl

Vashfan1600

Gho the Girl

Vashfan1600

You know that Isaac was talking about the adventists that she knew, right? You decided to jump the gun and say she was talking about all of them, let alone your friend. Also, nobody said anything insulting to you, so the cursing was a little much (even if this was the straw that broke the camel's back.)

Funny, but I don't see a quantifier in
"Oh well, adventists are nuts anyway."

Tell me, honestly, where in there does it say Isaac was specifically talking about the ones Isaac knew?

Please, point it out where Isaac specified that the ones Isaac said were nuts were the ones that Isaac specifically knew.

I don't know how to quote in the middle of a post, so I'll do with what I can

"So what? I think I'd know something about them since I had the unfortunate experience of being one (in a way) for three years because of my dad. My friends are also SDA and I still think the lot of them are nuts."

From that point, let alone the beginning of that post, stating why she had that perspective, was showing that she was aiming it at the adventists she knew.

Yes, because it is NEVER the case that someone can start with a personal experience and then use that to justify a generalisation of a group.

People NEVER do that. Ever. In the History of Universe. Nope.

For instance, I couldn't, for example, say

"I knew this Jew once who shorted me on a tip. Jews are such misers."

Or could I?

Given that no specifier was given within the remark regardin SDA sanity, it grammatically applies to all SDA's, just as grammatically, my comment regarding Jewish miserliness applies to all Jews.

Quote:

Plus, calling someone 'nuts' these days is like calling them silly, it's not serious enough to be taken as an insult, like crazy, or bat sh*t insane. ninja That was limited to being aimed directly at that mother. So please, quote in context, it means a lot to the meaning of words.

The meaning and relative insultingness of a term depends on the context of how it's used, and who's listening. How you view the term "nuts" is not how I view it. Why do you think sexual harassment is based not so much upon what is being said as much as whether people find it offensive? The offensiveness of a term depends upon who's saying it and who's listening. For instance, the offensiveness of the N word not only matters for who's using it and how it's being used, but also on who's listening. Some people will universally find it offensive, while others will find it offensive only in certain circumstances.

Offense is relative to the audience.

Of course it was your choice to assume that she was generalizing the entire group instead of talking about the people that she had been previously in her post, because context never has any importance, right?

And the last part was kinda just a joke, hence the ninja face.

[Gho the Girl]

Vashfan1600

Gho the Girl

Vashfan1600

Gho the Girl

Vashfan1600

You know that Isaac was talking about the adventists that she knew, right? You decided to jump the gun and say she was talking about all of them, let alone your friend. Also, nobody said anything insulting to you, so the cursing was a little much (even if this was the straw that broke the camel's back.)

Funny, but I don't see a quantifier in
"Oh well, adventists are nuts anyway."

Tell me, honestly, where in there does it say Isaac was specifically talking about the ones Isaac knew?

Please, point it out where Isaac specified that the ones Isaac said were nuts were the ones that Isaac specifically knew.

I don't know how to quote in the middle of a post, so I'll do with what I can

"So what? I think I'd know something about them since I had the unfortunate experience of being one (in a way) for three years because of my dad. My friends are also SDA and I still think the lot of them are nuts."

From that point, let alone the beginning of that post, stating why she had that perspective, was showing that she was aiming it at the adventists she knew.

Yes, because it is NEVER the case that someone can start with a personal experience and then use that to justify a generalisation of a group.

People NEVER do that. Ever. In the History of Universe. Nope.

For instance, I couldn't, for example, say

"I knew this Jew once who shorted me on a tip. Jews are such misers."

Or could I?

Given that no specifier was given within the remark regardin SDA sanity, it grammatically applies to all SDA's, just as grammatically, my comment regarding Jewish miserliness applies to all Jews.

Quote:

Plus, calling someone 'nuts' these days is like calling them silly, it's not serious enough to be taken as an insult, like crazy, or bat sh*t insane. ninja That was limited to being aimed directly at that mother. So please, quote in context, it means a lot to the meaning of words.

The meaning and relative insultingness of a term depends on the context of how it's used, and who's listening. How you view the term "nuts" is not how I view it. Why do you think sexual harassment is based not so much upon what is being said as much as whether people find it offensive? The offensiveness of a term depends upon who's saying it and who's listening. For instance, the offensiveness of the N word not only matters for who's using it and how it's being used, but also on who's listening. Some people will universally find it offensive, while others will find it offensive only in certain circumstances.

Offense is relative to the audience.

Of course it was your choice to assume that she was generalizing the entire group instead of talking about the people that she had been previously in her post, because context never has any importance, right?

Grammatically and contextually, there is nothing to indicate that the statement "Oh well, Adventists are nuts" was directed specifically at the ones she knew, just as my analogy with Jews contextually nor grammatically indicates I am only speaking of the Jew who shorted me on the tip.

Quote:

And the last part was kinda just a joke, hence the ninja face.

Nonetheless, you posted it, and I responded. Just because I don't laugh doesn't mean I don't recognize the joke, it probably just means I didn't find it funny.

[Gho the Girl]

On topic:

Has anyone else read the Gospel of the Infancy of Thomas? If so, why do you all think it wasn't included within the orthodoxy?