Crowning Moment of Awesome Goldmine (NOT ABOUT BORING RELIGIOUS LECTURES)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A lot of stuff ends up in the Comedy Goldmine which rules but isn't exactly funny, so we need this.

I'll start it off with the obvious pick:

Here is my view of DADT

I happen to agree with this repeal. First let me say this, I'm a strong Christian, but I'm also politically-independent. I have a very weird view on this. First off, I HATE homosexuality, it goes against everything the Lord my God teaches. However, I have to agree with Hillary Clinton when she said "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight". I come at it from a defense point of view. We have lost many strategic and key people in our military because of DADT. For example, we have had several soldiers who could translate Arabic, the predominate language of the muslim terrorists, be discharged because of their sexual orientation.  I think this move actually does strengthen our defenses.  If you want to talk about our morality slipping, it flew out the window ages ago.  Plus, I don't think my God wants me to discriminate against anyone.  I am called to love people.  I love the sinner, but hate the sin.  Homosexuality is no more severe of a sin than telling a little white lie.  The consequences may be more severe, but in God's eyes, a sin is a sin is a sin and it doesn't matter whether you miss heaven by a half inch or 100,000 miles. The fact is, you still missed it.  If we banned homosexuality in the military, then to be fair, we'd have to ban everyone who has told a lie, which just about encompasses everybody.  So, that's my view on the situation.

This is not meant to offend anyone, just gives my views.

You go against everything I believe in quite frankly; in how you treat your working life, your family and your relationships. You are a model to the forum in how not to live your life.

Haha, Thanks for sharing!!  I know I do things a heck of a lot differently than most people, and I could stand to learn a few things in a few areas.  I'm not disappointed in myself or anything like that.  In fact, right now, I have a lot of joy in my life.  Joy unspeakable.

Did you even read what I wrote? You think you can stand on a high ground and say you 'HATE' homosexuality (and as it is in uncompromisable part of my being, by extension you are making claims against me as a person) and then throw in a 'haha' to someone calling you out on your own shambolic, ego driven greedy existance.

You are not a model of humanity Bushie; you are a sorry excuse for a man forever in a state of arrested development permanently attached to the tete of anyone around you for support and succour while being captivated by the shiny pennies of scammers and people who want to f-ck up your entire existance. And when things go wrong you fix on your innane grin and raise out your platitudes to an empty sky. And then have the gall to think you have the slighest clue, have the slightest iota of what human relationships in everything from sex to business are all about. You fail at just about everyone you forge or you jeopardise it for a quick path to marriage and sex or for a quick buck.

I don't give a gold plated, cherry flavoured f-ck what you think about anything you open your gullible mouth about.

[Keystone Phil]

It takes a really big person to go off on BushOK. It's like yelling at a blind person for not appreciating the Grand Canyon.

[Phony Moderate]

ter·ror·ist
   /ˈtɛrərɪst/ Show Spelled[ter-er-ist] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2.
a person who terrorizes or frightens others.


TSA agents do terrorize and frighten people at the airports. They literally are "terrorists" by definition.

I did not use it in a hyperbolic way; I calmly explained that their actions fit the definition.

Why was I given 5 infraction points by Lunar? (As usual, no explanation was provided by Lunar or whoever else issued the infraction.)



Every single day "excessive hyperbole" expands to prohibit more and more discussion, and enable more and more moderator abuse. Please get rid of it, for the sake of the forum.

You just don't get it.  You can argue that the TSA employees make people uncomfortable to various degrees, debate at length about privacy issues vs. collective security, but to equate employees that are checking for dangerous items to terror? like of death or dismemberment? you are again misusing the word to such exaggeration as to sound like a person calling a meteor shower as the approach of armageddon just to get people's attention... The point is that such exaggerations are so ridiculous as to mute serious debate over such important issues.

Note: I consider John Dibble's post exactly on point.

[Ban my account ffs!]

It takes a really big person to go off on BushOK. It's like yelling at a blind person for not appreciating the Grand Canyon.

Bushie's choice to hate gays because he thinks it's a sin is why Afleitch went off on him. 

And I think every person who "disagrees" with homosexuality deserves the same treatment:  F**k you!

I don't have to respect a person for their beliefs if their belief is to hate who I am because they think the way I was born is a sin.

Fundie Christians think gays are sinners... I think fundie Christians are small minded, angry little people who use religion as a crutch because they can't stand on their own.  Simple as that.

[TeePee4Prez]

It takes a really big person to go off on BushOK. It's like yelling at a blind person for not appreciating the Grand Canyon.

Bushie's choice to hate gays because he thinks it's a sin is why Afleitch went off on him. 

And I think every person who "disagrees" with homosexuality deserves the same treatment:  F**k you!

I don't have to respect a person for their beliefs if their belief is to hate who I am because they think the way I was born is a sin.

Fundie Christians think gays are sinners... I think fundie Christians are small minded, angry little people who use religion as a crutch because they can't stand on their own.  Simple as that.

afleitch should engage and debate BushOK on the subject, but man lay off the personal attacks.  I don't agree with what BushOK has said either (or a lot out of his mouth), but kick a dead horse why don't ya!

[Keystone Phil]

It takes a really big person to go off on BushOK. It's like yelling at a blind person for not appreciating the Grand Canyon.

Bushie's choice to hate gays because he thinks it's a sin is why Afleitch went off on him. 

And I think every person who "disagrees" with homosexuality deserves the same treatment:  F**k you!

I don't have to respect a person for their beliefs if their belief is to hate who I am because they think the way I was born is a sin.

Fundie Christians think gays are sinners... I think fundie Christians are small minded, angry little people who use religion as a crutch because they can't stand on their own.  Simple as that.

Clearly you aren't getting the point about BushOK but that doesn't matter anymore. I think he's an elaborate act which makes afleitch's rant even more pathetic.

[Eraserhead]

Wow, Blubb's post got smashed real quick.

[King]

This thread is to Vander Blubb's posting history what Howard the Duck is to George Lucas' film career.

[Brittain33]

Clearly you aren't getting the point about BushOK but that doesn't matter anymore. I think he's an elaborate act which makes afleitch's rant even more pathetic.

If he's an elaborate act, which I don't think is true (why do people think there aren't real people out there like him?), then afleitch isn't offending or insulting anyone, so what's the problem?

[afleitch]

For the record, I similarly grilled Useful Idiot over a hypothetical situation involving his daughter and his attitudes to a future lesbian partner.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

For the record, I similarly grilled Useful Idiot over a hypothetical situation involving his daughter and his attitudes to a future lesbian partner.

Oh don't sweat it.......your "pathetic rant" was justified, genuine, and as respectful as anyone (almost anyone) could have expected.

[Franzl]

You can't escape a lecture from Phil usually..,so no worries.

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

It takes a really big person to go off on BushOK. It's like yelling at a blind person for not appreciating the Grand Canyon.

Bushie's choice to hate gays because he thinks it's a sin is why Afleitch went off on him. 

And I think every person who "disagrees" with homosexuality deserves the same treatment:  F**k you!

I don't have to respect a person for their beliefs if their belief is to hate who I am because they think the way I was born is a sin.

that's an intellectually dishonest representation of what BushOk explicitly stated - he hates the sin, not the sinner - and it is intellectually inconsistent with BushOk's similar views on other "sins".

but this has been pointed out dozens upon dozens of time, but people like you are not going to address the point because your position (to characterize all antihomosexuality as outright hatred of people) is indefensible.

[King]

It takes a really big person to go off on BushOK. It's like yelling at a blind person for not appreciating the Grand Canyon.

Bushie's choice to hate gays because he thinks it's a sin is why Afleitch went off on him. 

And I think every person who "disagrees" with homosexuality deserves the same treatment:  F**k you!

I don't have to respect a person for their beliefs if their belief is to hate who I am because they think the way I was born is a sin.

that's an intellectually dishonest representation of what BushOk explicitly stated - he hates the sin, not the sinner - and it is intellectually inconsistent with BushOk's similar views on other "sins".

but this has been pointed out dozens upon dozens of time, but people like you are not going to address the point because your position (to characterize all antihomosexuality as outright hatred of people) is indefensible.

If I said I hated Christianity, would you feel that I hated you?

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

It takes a really big person to go off on BushOK. It's like yelling at a blind person for not appreciating the Grand Canyon.

Bushie's choice to hate gays because he thinks it's a sin is why Afleitch went off on him. 

And I think every person who "disagrees" with homosexuality deserves the same treatment:  F**k you!

I don't have to respect a person for their beliefs if their belief is to hate who I am because they think the way I was born is a sin.

that's an intellectually dishonest representation of what BushOk explicitly stated - he hates the sin, not the sinner - and it is intellectually inconsistent with BushOk's similar views on other "sins".

but this has been pointed out dozens upon dozens of time, but people like you are not going to address the point because your position (to characterize all antihomosexuality as outright hatred of people) is indefensible.

If I said I hated Christianity, would you feel that I hated you?

Since I wasn’t born a Christian, that is a bad analogy.  A better one would be, “If I said I hated greed, would you feel that I hated you?”

And my answer would be, “No, of course not.  I understand you just hate that character flaw.”

The Gordon Gekko types, those who try to pass their character flaws off as “good”, would be the ones that would scream, “If you hate greed, then you hate me, for I was born greedy.  I was greedy from my earliest childhood memories! You can’t change me.  God can’t change me.  God’s not powerful enough to remake me.  I won’t let him.  I like the way I am.  Leave me alone or I will attack you and call you mean names!”

[Insula Dei]

You're saying homosexuality is more of a lifestyle you can choose than your religion?
Doesn't that mean that, since you did not choose your christianity, it's a mindless and unfounded attitude which is probably wrong. That would mean you're set to burn in hell for all eternity without hope of repenting since your sin is born into you. You start to see the problem with your line of reasoning?

[Gustaf]

You're saying homosexuality is more of a lifestyle you can choose than your religion?
Doesn't that mean that, since you did not choose your christianity, it's a mindless and unfounded attitude which is probably wrong. That would mean you're set to burn in hell for all eternity without hope of repenting since your sin is born into you. You start to see the problem with your line of reasoning?

He said the exact opposite of that. You start to see the problem with your line of reasoning?

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

You're saying homosexuality is more of a lifestyle you can choose than your religion?

never said that…. Christianity was not an innate character trait, I simply substituted something else in its place so that I could compare one innate character trait with another (homosexuality with greed)....

--

Doesn't that mean that, since you did not choose your christianity, it's a mindless and unfounded attitude which is probably wrong

And I never said all innate desires were evil

---

That would mean you're set to burn in hell for all eternity without hope of repenting since your sin is born into you.

All sins are engrained into human nature.  (the desire to lie, cheat, steal, etc, etc, etc)


---

You start to see the problem with your line of reasoning?

No, but I can see through your mischaracterization of my line of reasoning.

[Brittain33]

never said that…. Christianity was not an innate character trait, I simply substituted something else in its place so that I could compare one innate character trait with another (homosexuality with greed)....

All sins are engrained into human nature.  (the desire to lie, cheat, steal, etc, etc, etc)

Is there any reason why all the sins you choose are those that do harm to other people? Why not something about working on the Sabbath, etc. as an analogy for homosexuality?

[Insula Dei]

Oh right.

Sorry about that [fades into background]

Though the way I (mis)read what you said, it was quite enraging.

Also, to stay on the offensive, how can homosexuality be a sin when you're, as you yourself implicitely avow, born with it? Isn't the point of the whole good-evil opposition that one has a choice between the two? Wouldn't considering homosexuality a sin then mean that there can be no God since we would have to consider a world where some people were doomed before they even made any choice, which is impossible if God is true, good and beautifull? And should that not mean that the absence of a divine PoV would make all our acts contingent, hence rendering homosexuality perfectly acceptable?

_{You start to see the problem with your line of reasoning?}

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed, indeed. Carry on.

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

Is there any reason why all the sins you choose are those that do harm to other people? Why not something about working on the Sabbath, etc. as an analogy for homosexuality?

well, IMO, working on the Sabbath is not a NT sin, rather it is a ceremonial law of the Law of Moses and is symbolic of the coming kingdom of God which is fulfilled in Christ.  

but, if you’re looking for a sin that is only internal and doesn’t necessarily harm anyone else outside of yourself, then what about idolatry?  Idolatry doesn’t have to involve others and it is certainly innate and something we can all relate to.  Or how about drunkenness, laziness, or gluttony?

[Gustaf]

Oh right.

Sorry about that [fades into background]

Though the way I (mis)read what you said, it was quite enraging.

Also, to stay on the offensive, how can homosexuality be a sin when you're, as you yourself implicitely avow, born with it? Isn't the point of the whole good-evil opposition that one has a choice between the two? Wouldn't considering homosexuality a sin then mean that there can be no God since we would have to consider a world where some people were doomed before they even made any choice, which is impossible if God is true, good and beautifull? And should that not mean that the absence of a divine PoV would make all our acts contingent, hence rendering homosexuality perfectly acceptable?

_{You start to see the problem with your line of reasoning?}

I have to say, you took making a mistake much better than most people on here do.

I think the basic premise here is that being born with homosexuality is different from acting on it. The former you cannot help, the latter you have some sort of choice over. That would be analogous with being born with a desire to commit some other act that certain Christians might view as sins (such as cheating on your spouse).

I don't agree with that line of thinking myself, but it isn't logically faulty, imo.

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

how can homosexuality be a sin when you're, as you yourself implicitely avow, born with it? Isn't the point of the whole good-evil opposition that one has a choice between the two? Wouldn't considering homosexuality a sin then mean that there can be no God since we would have to consider a world where some people were doomed before they even made any choice, which is impossible if God is true, good and beautifull? And should that not mean that the absence of a divine PoV would make all our acts contingent, hence rendering homosexuality perfectly acceptable?

the bible clearly concedes the “born that way” argument in dozens upon dozens of verses, from both the OT and NT, and throws all sin into that category – a product of the flesh.  We can invent ways to carry out sin, but we don’t invent sin in our lives.

I really don’t know how and why many Christians have allowed themselves to get dragged into the “choice verses born that way” argument…it’s a false dichotomy for it’s not even a question of choice, rather it is a simple fact of human nature because “born that way” is a given in the bible and the question should be, “Does God have the power to remake your life and give you power over your sinful nature?”

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

Oh right.

Sorry about that [fades into background]

Though the way I (mis)read what you said, it was quite enraging.

Also, to stay on the offensive, how can homosexuality be a sin when you're, as you yourself implicitely avow, born with it? Isn't the point of the whole good-evil opposition that one has a choice between the two? Wouldn't considering homosexuality a sin then mean that there can be no God since we would have to consider a world where some people were doomed before they even made any choice, which is impossible if God is true, good and beautifull? And should that not mean that the absence of a divine PoV would make all our acts contingent, hence rendering homosexuality perfectly acceptable?

_{You start to see the problem with your line of reasoning?}

I have to say, you took making a mistake much better than most people on here do.

the problem stems for hearing and repeating false arguments.  he simply assumed I was making the same argument he has heard time and time again where many people try to blame homosexuals for their sexual desires.

---

I think the basic premise here is that being born with homosexuality is different from acting on it. The former you cannot help, the latter you have some sort of choice over. That would be analogous with being born with a desire to commit some other act that certain Christians might view as sins (such as cheating on your spouse).

I don't agree with that line of thinking myself, but it isn't logically faulty, imo.

Actually, I am not even saying that, for if I choose not to steal it doesn’t necessarily change my heart’s desire to steal.  So, if I deny my heart, I’m simply reforming my behavior, but my heart hasn’t been transformed.   So, I am NOT saying homosexuals should bite their tongue and endure a life of desires they must ignore without having any other recourse.  Rather I am saying God has the power to transform their nature.