Log Cabin Republicans

[opebo]

Stealing a pack of gum is sin. So is murder. I don't think anyone's equating the two, other than saying they both fall into this broad category.

There is no such thing as 'sin' - objective morality.  All you are saying is 'I don't like gum stealers', and 'I don't like murderers', and 'But I dislike murderers more than I dislike gum-stealers'. 

[A18]

A word can be defined as anything you want it to, so long as you are consistent in its application. And actually, it can mean more than one thing, so long as you don't confuse the two.

'Sin,' for purposes of this conversation, is quite clearly defined as a violation of the Bible.

[Democratic Hawk]

Can't say but it puzzles me that they are part of a GOP in which the extreme reactionary Religious Right, with their inherent bigotry and intolerance, plays a significant role

Dave

[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?

[A18]

Can't say but it puzzles me that they are part of a GOP in which the extreme reactionary Religious Right, with their inherent bigotry and intolerance, plays a significant role

Dave

Not all members of the "Religious Right" are 'extreme reactionaries,' though I'll concede that some are. Really, the word 'reactionary' is not well defined.

[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.

[afleitch]

Jmfcst, I see that once again you have chosen to reply to my post rather than those that preceded. It is nice to know that you acknowlege your own 'sin' as you seem to have decided to speek for society as you see it, not for yourself up until this point.

This thread is about Log Cabin Republicans and I think you should bring the thread back to this point 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. To me, and I speak only for myself, I view you as hateful and misguided. That is my belief and I am entitled to it. You can hate me and I can hate you but others can love us both, that is how it works. So do not claim to speak for 'The People' as you and I are only speaking for ourselves.

[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…

[afleitch]

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.

You say I claimed to have studied the Bible well; I said no such thing if you remember. It was not part of my religious Catholic upbringing to read the Bible as I have stated before.  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. Once again you are claiming I have said things when I have not. I see no need in arguing with a liar as a result.

So rant away. I will not respond do you anymore as you do not show any respect to me or anyone else who disagrees with on this forum. Enjoy the empty room.

[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?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Misguided.  Its like a black person trying to join the Democratic Party in Alabama in 1900.

Maybe it was.  As early as 1935, black democrats were being elected to Congress - still well within the era of the dixiecrat influence.

The influence of the "Religious Right" will wane and things will change yet again.  Maybe someday 90% of gays will vote Republican

Blacks liked FDR, who was not a dixiecrat.

Exactly, and a lot of gays like certain Republican officials and identify with the GOP because of them.

[opebo]

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’?

-bold added-

That is the whole point - all you are talking about is how you 'see yourself', or how you see others.  You're just braying on about your subjective opinions, which is fine though no one cares what you think.  The part that is inaccurate is your idiotic claim that your subjective preferences - or those of a group of similar haters in your hating-cult - are objective.

jmfcst, you might as well face it, there is no such thing as sin, just your own hate and intolerance.

[KEmperor]

A-18 calls himself a Republican.He is obviously some R-Lib ,like the worthless Arlen Specter, who is scrawny both physicaly and mentaly and would get laughed out of the weight room. I am both beastly in my brute strength and my immense intelect.

Wow, I've never seen Phillip called a fake republican before.

[afleitch]

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

[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.

[afleitch]

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

Probably just another homosexual.

Oh and you wouldn't want another one of those now would you jmfcst

[Emsworth]

Freedom fighters. Their fight against bigotry and intolerance in government is definitely laudable.

[Richard]

A-18 calls himself a Republican.He is obviously some R-Lib ,like the worthless Arlen Specter, who is scrawny both physicaly and mentaly and would get laughed out of the weight room. I am both beastly in my brute strength and my immense intelect.

DUDE POST A PICTURE.  Are you hot?

[Alcon]

A-18 calls himself a Republican.He is obviously some R-Lib ,like the worthless Arlen Specter, who is scrawny both physicaly and mentaly and would get laughed out of the weight room. I am both beastly in my brute strength and my immense intelect.

HAWKEYE SMASH

[Everett]

This thread is seriously a comedy goldmine. Keep it up, boys.

[John Dibble]

A-18 calls himself a Republican.He is obviously some R-Lib ,like the worthless Arlen Specter, who is scrawny both physicaly and mentaly and would get laughed out of the weight room. I am both beastly in my brute strength and my immense intelect.

DUDE POST A PICTURE.  Are you hot?

Richius, his boasting is most likely a cover to compensate for his small penis.

[Richard]

You are one of those homos they talk about, aren't you. Repent from your sin.

No I am not.  But still, are you a cute guy?  Post a piccie.


John: I don't care about penis size I'm a top mostly.


Hmm...  Hawkeye, I take it you don't like guy couples?

Pornographic content removed. -Alcon

[afleitch]

Yeah, post a picture. Let us oggle your supposed immense strength and masculinity

[Richard]

Pornographic content removed. -Alcon

Um, excuse me, that wasn't pornographic.  If people can have the signatures they have, and if people can post pictures of straight couples kissing, why not homosexual couples?  Get a life.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

A-18 calls himself a Republican.He is obviously some R-Lib ,like the worthless Arlen Specter, who is scrawny both physicaly and mentaly and would get laughed out of the weight room. I am both beastly in my brute strength and my immense intelect.

Wow, I've never seen Phillip called a fake republican before.

I've probably called him that once or twice