Log Cabin Republicans

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Exactly, why are they Republicans when most of the Republican party hates them and thinks they're going to hell?

Scoonie, you’re a prime example of a purposely ignorant person.

You claim people like me “hate” them because I believe they’re living a sinful lifestyle, yet you can’t apply that same reasoning to my view of liars, adulterers, fornicators, thieves, etc, etc, etc…The GOP also consists of fornicators, yet you don’t believe I hate them.  The GOP also consists of liars, yet you don’t believe I hate them. The GOP also consists of adulterers, yet you don’t believe I hate them. 

The fact that people like you continue to label us “haters”, even though I have confronted you with your contradictory logic, proves that you are indeed being purposely stupid.

If you had a logical argument, you wouldn’t have to resort to labels.

So, all that being said…How does it feel to have the illogical nature of your mind exposed by such a “hater” as me? 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So, all that being said…How does it feel to have the illogical nature of your mind exposed by such a “hater” as me? 

You sound like Spock

I endeavor to be accurate...Nowhere am I so desperately needed as among a forum of illogical humans...Judging by the immoral content of this forum, I believe we have arrived at the early twenty-first century.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Actually a logical argument and one that refrains from using any religious texts and merely looks at science and reason would clearly see that homosexuality is neither wrong nor chosen.

That would be a factual argument.  You can make a logical argument out of almost anything.  (And, "logic" doesn't mean "correct" for those who need the clarification.)

Agreed. 

So what is the basis for labeling me a "hater" simply because I find their actions objectionable?  Or, do others on this forum agree with opedo's logic: that those who find certain actions objectionable basically hate everyone?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I think it is very clear that you hate these persons, and this absurd claim of the existence of 'objective morality' is your excuse for bashing something that you simply subjectively dislike. 

My bible is an object.  And it is objectively clear that my bible contains, for example, the book of Genesis.

Now, you can call my faith in the bible subjective (much like your subjective dislike of my subjective faith), but my adherence to the bible is objective.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I was referring to your claims that the book contains an objective morality, not questioning the existence of the nasty thing.

 

How is your label "nasty" not subjective?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Scoonie, you’re a prime example of a purposely ignorant person.

You claim people like me “hate” them because I believe they’re living a sinful lifestyle, yet you can’t apply that same reasoning to my view of liars, adulterers, fornicators, thieves, etc, etc, etc…

And I personally don't believe it is hatred that drives you.  I believe it is ignorance, guilt, and fear.  I believe that a large percentage of the advocates for anti-homosexual policies in the Republican party act that way because of latent homosexual feelings that scare the crap out of them...I think anyone who favors anti-homosexual policies should be hooked up to a lie detector and asked if they have in any way ever fantasized about other men.  I'd bet that 1 out of 3 would get caught lying. =)

So, why didn’t you continue your argument and apply my “hatred” to adulterers, fornicators, liars, thieves, etc, etc, etc?

If you had continued your train of thought, you would have discovered it is not rooted in logic, for even actions that I have engaged in, much less fantasized about, I still find objectionable:  I find lying objectionable, even though I have lied hundreds or thousands of times in the past.  I don’t “fear” that my flesh is corruptible, I know it is. 

And then there are the actions like worshipping Satan, which I have no desire to do and do not fear that I would ever engage in…yet I still find Satanism objectionable.

So the common denominator is NOT fear of my own actions (instead I readily admit that I have not only fantasized doing certain acts, but have also engaged in them); rather the common denominator is my adherence to the teachings of the bible.

So, just be honest with yourself: you’re not labeling me, but the bible.  You find the teachings of the bible “hateful” and those that adhere to its teachings you call “haters”.  Is that not the case? 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I've stopped arguing with jmfcst, I hold little respect for him or his views and I would hate to see how he would treat eitehr a friend or a member of his family who is gay. He is self righteous, someone who seeks shelter in his own shadow. So don't give him the time of day.

I'll repeat my argument also to you...

So, why didn’t you continue your argument and apply my “hatred” to adulterers, fornicators, liars, thieves, etc, etc, etc?

If you had continued your train of thought, you would have discovered it is not rooted in logic, for even actions that I have engaged in, much less fantasized about, I still find objectionable:  I find lying objectionable, even though I have lied hundreds or thousands of times in the past.  I don’t “fear” that my flesh is corruptible, I know it is. 

And then there are the actions like worshipping Satan, which I have no desire to do and do not fear that I would ever engage in…yet I still find Satanism objectionable.

So the common denominator is NOT fear of my own actions (instead I readily admit that I have not only fantasized doing certain acts, but have also engaged in them); rather the common denominator is my adherence to the teachings of the bible.

So, just be honest with yourself: you’re not labeling me, but the bible.  You find the teachings of the bible “hateful” and those that adhere to its teachings you call “haters”.  Is that not the case? 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

How is your label "nasty" not subjective?

Yes, it is.  And so are your claims about homosexuality.  

then why do you have a problem with my opinion if you admit both of our opinions are subjective?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I didnt call you a hater! It was Opebo a few posts back. So get 'who posted what' in order beofre you comment okay?

Well, if I have to actually replace the nouns I will...

I've stopped arguing with jmfcst, I hold little respect for him or his views and I would hate to see how he would treat eitehr a friend or a member of his family who is gay. He is self righteous, someone who seeks shelter in his own shadow. So don't give him the time of day.

Your share the same attitude towards the New Testament as you do towards me.  Basically, anyone who adheres to ALL the teachings of the New Testament, you have a problem with...Isn't that correct?!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It is clear that you are trying to cover up for the fact that you wrongly attributed what Opebo said to me.

I didn't confuse you with Opedo - I don't use that deep of arguments with him.  I try to limit my comments to him to one or two sentences.

I found your comments along the same lines as Progress', that is why I copied my reply to him and used it to reply to you.

---

My attitude to the New Testament is different to my attitude to you. I don't read the bible, I don't pretend I do, most Catholics you will find tend not to, the Church did not really encourage it ...Thirdly, I decided not to continue arguing with you becasue I believe that you judge me on my sexuality and not on my character so you treat my opinons and beliefs with disregard and disdain as a result. That is really all I have to say on the matter.

Even though I believe your logic is riddled with inconsistencies [1) you disagree with your own Church on the concept of sin, yet you still claim to be Catholic, 2) you disagree with your Church that the bible is the canon (standard) of the faith, 3) by believing the scripture can not be trusted, you basically have no standard to what you adhere, yet you believe the bible’s account that God put on flesh, died, and rose from the dead],...I am more than willing to leave you alone.

In return, I only ask one thing:  Don’t seek The People’s approval of your lifestyle unless you are willing to civilly accept the opinion of The People.

As for judging you by your character…you could have the charity of Mother Theresa and I still would NOT place my stamp of approval on your desire to marry your sibling…you could have the charity of Mother Theresa and I still would NOT place my stamp of approval on your desire to commit adultery …you could have the charity of Mother Theresa and I still would NOT place my stamp of approval on your desire to marry the same sex ….Excellence in a multitude of areas does NOT automatically justify acceptance of any and every behavior.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Who are 'The People'? The general public, or by people do you simply mean you? You do not speak for 'The People' you speak only for you so do not think you have the authority to decide what the general public want. Luckily I live in Scotland, where 'The People' here seem to be considerably more tolerant than you.

The general public is The People.  If homosexuals in this country want the approval of the 'The People', then they need to civilly accept the opinion of 'The People'.

---

You know I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt before but for once I actually agree with opebo, you do 'hate' and you revel in it like a pig in the mud. Actually considering I don't live in the USA it really doesn't matter what position you take. God Bless the Atlantic

And calling The People 'hateful' just because they are following the definition of sin of their religion, is not what I call being civil.

And as I have said, the label is illogical since I uphold without bias the same standard to adultery, fornication, lying, murder, stealing, etc, etc, etc.

And I am not like you, who childishly thinks religion is a cafeteria where you can accept only what makes you happy and make up the rules as you prefer, all the while being deceived that you can fudge your way to salvation.

2Tim 2:5 If anyone competes as an athlete, he does not receive the victor's crown unless he competes according to the rules.  

Gal 6:7-8 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And calling The People 'hateful' just because they are following the definition of sin of their religion, is not what I call being civil.

I didn't call the people hateful, I called you hateful. Neither you or I can say we speak for the people though you seem to like to think you can.

I never said I speak for The People; I am merely one voice.  But who can argue that I don’t represent the majority opinion in America on this subject?

---

As I have said before 'The People' in Scotland have given their consent through their elected officials to civil union and gay adoption. That is their choice and you should accept 'The People's' decision with regards to Scotland.

Besides some of the 'People' may not be Christian, they could be Jewish or Athiest for example, so how could you possibly ever speak for them?

You may very well represent the opinion of the majority in Scotland, just as your sexual perversion represents the opinion of Sodom and Gomorrah.  But what is your point?  Am I supposed to consider the opinion of Scotland when I go to a voting booth in America?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Uh, if you were capable of reading properly, you would note that the similarity between his views toward those people and homosexuals is that he hates their actions; not that he 'doesn't want to harm them.'

But does he equate the actions of a gay couple with that of a murderer regardless of whether he wishes them harm or not? That is my concern.

You forgot to mention that I also lumped adulterers and fornicators into the lot…

Do you find it at all odd that I see myself no better than any of the groups I have mentioned, yet you’re the one claiming moral superiority over other sinners while at the same time calling me a ‘hater’?

1 Timothy 1:15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmfcst, I see that once again you have chosen to reply to my post rather than those that preceded.

Huh?  I am using your argument as an example to communicate to all those reading this thread.  For, unlike Bush, I always remember who my audience is.

---

you seem to have decided to speek for society as you see it, not for yourself up until this point.

I am simply saying my view is shared with those that vote against your kind of marriage.  If you disagree that my view is representative, then fine, the point is irrelevant to my argument, for it wasn’t like I was trying to say that I was right simply because I am in the majority.  My argument can stand alone even if I am the only one in America with my opinion.

---

This thread is about Log Cabin Republicans and I think you should bring the thread back to this point

You and the LCR share the same view: those opposing your lifestyle are “hateful”.

but on a final note you have to accept that morality is not a solid concept, it is fluid and changeable depending on the person.   Likewise the concept of 'hate' is also fluid.

Well, isn’t that the point to my entire line of queries?  I point to my basis, the New Testament…and I only ask that you point to your basis of beliefs…yet you have failed to produce the basis of your beliefs!

That was has been my question for three years on this forum.  That is why when James42 claimed that “Paul was wrong”, I responded with the question “So, then, are you saying you also disagree with Peter’s opinion with Paul in 2Pet 3:16?”…and there was silence!

The reason why people like you and James42 have to resort to labels is that you have no basis for your beliefs.  You have simply invented your own religion, and when someone like me tests the logical stability of it, you’re left with only the labels and name calling you started with.

If you would simply claim “I believe in the Koran” or even “I got my beliefs off the back of a box of Cheerios”, I wouldn’t label you “hateful”, I would give you the benefit of the doubt that you are sincerely trying to follow the prescription of your faith.

So, the question remains:  Can you place your finger on the basis of your beliefs and demonstrate an origin for it other than your own imagination? 

Or, are you saying that God has spoken to you and given you a unique insight?  Wouldn’t that would be odd coming for someone accusing ME of preaching “The Gospel According to JMF”?

---

You say that you are a Christian who believes parts of the New Testament have been corrupted.  Which parts?  Surely you know since you have studied it so well.

Do you also believe the Old Testament is corrupted?  If so, which parts?

I’ll make a deal with you.  I have a brand new bible at home.  Tell me which passages have been corrupted and I will take a magic-marker and blot them out.  And when I am finished blotting out all the passages you believe are corrupted, I will add any text you feel should be included.

And when we are finished creating a bible in the form of which you believe it should be, we will have a basis from which to judge my beliefs as well as yours!

Fair enough?

So let’s begin by you telling me which passages of the New Testament have been corrupted and how they should actually read…

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

No, no deal. I'm sick of arguing with you and I don't feel or see the need in quoting bits of the Bible becasue it merely plays into your hands and massages your egotism.

To the contrary, not reading the bible plays into your self-deception of thinking repentance is not necessary for salvation.   

---

You say I claimed to have studied the Bible well; I said no such thing if you remember.

I believe you wrote…

As a student of history I know very well that what is found in the New Testament is nothing more than an edited collection of books or sayings collected around 100-200 years after the death of Christ. Much of what did not make the 'cut' was destroyed or lost but some of it remains and used to be considered heresy as it often contradicted what the NT said.

So, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept without argument your claim that you’re a historical student of the formation of the New Testament and that you “know very well” what it actually is.

Therefore, are you saying, for example, you have evidence that 1Peter and 2Peter were NOT written by the Apostle Peter, who was an eyewitness to the ministry, death, and ascension of Jesus?  Are you claiming to have proof that 1Peter and 2Peter are fraudulent documents?

---

I have no need to prove my beliefs, my beliefs are my own and I have stated them repeatedly, but you have chosen to ignore them.

I have not asked you to “prove” your beliefs.  Rather I am simply asking you to state their origin.  Because it is my contention, lacking evidence to the contrary, that your believes are simply an ad-hoc collection of non-related sayings and opinions which match the reality painted by your imagination.

If your beliefs aren’t simply a product of your imagination, THEN CITE THE SOURCE, whether it be a religious book (e.g. bible, Koran, etc), or a speech made by someone you consider a prophet, or your own vision, or the back of a cereal box.

I’m simply asking you to name the source…

…or are you ready to confront your own beliefs and admit that they are nothing more than your own invention and that you really have no foundation upon which to base where you’re going to spend eternity?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Hawkeye is incredibly funny as well as false. I wonder who he really is?

Probably just another homosexual.