Where have all the Christians gone?

That's like saying "being male correlates with rape, so being male is immoral".
The gay agenda has many facets. Whether you condone or commit homosexual acts, whether you are an advocate, a voter, a complainer or just a participator. you subscibe to this religious-political agenda controlled by antichrist [his number is 666].
 
The gay agenda has many facets.
Again, you equate being gay, with the gay agenda.
Whether you condone or commit homosexual acts, whether you are an advocate, a voter, a complainer or just a participator. you subscibe to this religious-political agenda controlled by antichrist
I will not hold my breath waiting for proof of that last part.

Do you have any non-religious objections to homosexuality (not your inferred "gay agenda")?
 
I never said that.

Fighting for rights you want, but don't have, is not, in general, persecution.
No such "rights" were ever granted by God to human beings. They are not innate. They amount to rights to persecute others for not adhering to your SATANIC beliefs. IOW, this is a manifestation of satanism.
 
Do you have any non-religious objections to homosexuality (not your inferred "gay agenda")?
I've already stated natural law gives the right of any society to counter homosexuality. Thus I would rate Ghengis Khan and Stalin as more righteous than you.
 
Certainly, when they had recourse to arson and criminality.
The people resorting to criminality are the Christian preachers you refer to who broke the law and hot arrested. Their actions were criminal, and hence immoral, according to you. Enforcing the law is neither criminal nor aggressive. Particularly when it is done by an attested police force.
 
The gay agenda has many facets. Whether you condone or commit homosexual acts, whether you are an advocate, a voter, a complainer or just a participator. you subscibe to this religious-political agenda controlled by antichrist [his number is 666].
Homosexuality is a form of sexual attraction. It isn't religious or political. It isn't an agenda. It's just two people who fancy each other who happen to be the same sex. The people making a religious-political agenda out of it, are those like yourself, who think that their peculiar moral proclivities should apply to everyone else as well. Wey, you are reaping the whirlwind. Far more people support the rights of homosexuals than oppose them. You have lost the argument, not just here, but everywhere.
 
No such "rights" were ever granted by God to human beings. They are not innate. They amount to rights to persecute others for not adhering to your SATANIC beliefs. IOW, this is a manifestation of satanism.
No rights were given to anyone by God. All rights are granted by and can be taken away by, human government. That is the function of government. You have no right to remove or withhold the legal rights of others. Preventing you from doing so is not aggressive persecution. Quite the reverse. Only Christians claim to be martyrs for being prosecuted for persecuting other people.
 
Have you read this thread?
Several post in a handful of pages, but not in its entirety. A few posts showed what I said true. Because of that, and the length of the thread (I prefer to get in early), I decided to be one of the ones who are "gone." Where discourse is reasonable and rational, polite and respectful I have engaged a secular thread. Others here will bear witness to that effect. When discourse evidences ideologues and trolls I move on, and even then I try the "three strikes" rule. Others here will testify to that, too.

Have you read this thread? Presumably you have since the opening post is yours. Take a look at posts #6 and #628. Do you think either conversation is going anywhere op-relevant? Do you find either exchange reasonable and rational? Want me to point out a few more (because they are here in the thread for all to read)?
 
Morality can be both societal and personal. Thus a whole society can be deeply immoral, or otherwise, depending on its traits.


I said it may do. I didn't say it always does. I only denied your contrary argument that law and morality are ALWAYS separate. So if there is a police force, it may be moral to punish people for taking the law into their own hands. But if there is no police force, such may be immoral. Thus the laws of a society will always affect what is moral. The bible accepts this as a principle also: it enjoins obedience to human laws (in general) as the moral thing to do.




Nonsense. Homosexual condoners who have gained positions of political power have decided it.


If homosexuals seek to enforce such rights they fall into the persecutor category.


Illegal in this case is not immoral (not everything that is illegal is immoral).


Yes, I appeal to a divine morality that supervenes your poxy human laws of antichrist (as did Jesus and the apostles also).
All morality is personal. If the majority of a society feels strongly about a moral question, it may enact a law. Society as a whole may be regarded as immoral by disgruntled individuals. That has no legal or objective bearing. I for example would hold that a society that banned abortion, used the death penalty and oppressed homosexuals, was deeply immoral. I would think the same of the benighted individuals who support those positions. However, that's just my point of view. Other views on morality are available.

Homosexual rights have been condoned by those in power, duly elected by a population that supports them. You lost.

Seeking rights equivalent to the rights of others, is not persecution. Besides, homosexuals HAVE rights. Trying to take those rights away, would be persecution. That's what you are advocating, the persecution of people based on their sexuality. That's both illegal and immoral.

You appeal in vain. You lost.
 
Several post in a handful of pages, but not in its entirety. A few posts showed what I said true. Because of that, and the length of the thread (I prefer to get in early), I decided to be one of the ones who are "gone." Where discourse is reasonable and rational, polite and respectful I have engaged a secular thread. Others here will bear witness to that effect. When discourse evidences ideologues and trolls I move on, and even then I try the "three strikes" rule. Others here will testify to that, too.

Have you read this thread? Presumably you have since the opening post is yours. Take a look at posts #6 and #628. Do you think either conversation is going anywhere op-relevant? Do you find either exchange reasonable and rational? Want me to point out a few more (because they are here in the thread for all to read)?
A reasonable but biased statement was made to the OP.

"Maybe because they find no need to defend it to atheists. Perhaps they feel it's a pearls before swine thing"
Stigs

...and a very unreasonable atheist disagreed, in his normal, acidic way.

Not even normal conversational decorum is followed here.

People around here strangely think believers care about "apologetics", they just don't. Decades of knowing and fellowship with other believers bears this out. I can count on one hand the number of people who are interested in utilizing apologetics with atheists

Now your experience may vary, but that's on the individual believer to show its importance and persuade others it is what God calls men to do in this way.


I've always thought you'll get a different kind of believer in here, not the faint of heart and not afraid to pick up a bat when needed because you are not going to get my sweet grandma or wife in here, they'll shake the dust off immediately.
 
A reasonable but biased statement was made to the OP.

"Maybe because they find no need to defend it to atheists. Perhaps they feel it's a pearls before swine thing"
Stigs

...and a very unreasonable atheist disagreed, in his normal, acidic way.
Yep.
Not even normal conversational decorum is followed here.
That is often, but not always the case.
People around here strangely think believers care about "apologetics", they just don't.
I disagree.
I can count on one hand the number of people who are interested in utilizing apologetics with atheists.
That sentence contradicts the previous one. If there are a few interested believers, then there are also believers who care.
Now your experience may vary, but that's on the individual believer to show its importance and persuade others it is what God calls men to do in this way.
It does, and that is the point.
I've always thought you'll get a different kind of believer in here, not the faint of heart and not afraid to pick up a bat when needed because you are not going to get my sweet grandma or wife in here, they'll shake the dust off immediately.
Let me encourage you to try something and commit to it daily for at least a month. Go to Craigslist's religion forum (they call it "refo") and post your religious views there. Compare your experience there with that in CARM.


I stand by what I originally posted. The sec boards have a lot of ideologues and trolls hiding behind the facade of discussion and discourse is often impolite, disrespectful, insincere, irrational, and off-topic. Cogent conversation should be rewarded with more of the same. The opposite is a waste of resources.
 
Several post in a handful of pages, but not in its entirety. A few posts showed what I said true. Because of that, and the length of the thread (I prefer to get in early), I decided to be one of the ones who are "gone." Where discourse is reasonable and rational, polite and respectful I have engaged a secular thread. Others here will bear witness to that effect. When discourse evidences ideologues and trolls I move on, and even then I try the "three strikes" rule. Others here will testify to that, too.

Have you read this thread? Presumably you have since the opening post is yours. Take a look at posts #6 and #628. Do you think either conversation is going anywhere op-relevant? Do you find either exchange reasonable and rational? Want me to point out a few more (because they are here in the thread for all to read)?
I think it went off the rails early on but it wasn't only caused by nonChristians. I've been following it because I started it. I haven't read it fully because I would be arguing with Christians as well. Some of it is relevant to the OP but the rest isn't. Thanks for your comments.
 
Last edited:
Stop putting words into my mouth.
You seem to be arguing that any activity that is harmful is immoral. At least, that is what I understod you to mean when you said:

Consideration of the consequences of homosexuality (which are perfectly predictable in every society) can be used by societies to invoke natural law to suppress it, simply by reason of the predicted and known consequences (plenty of biblical and historical examples). This is why even atheist / shamanist countries have had strong laws against homosexuality.

Is that the case? Do you think driving a car for leisure is immoral? How about skiiing, horse riding and rock climbing?

Or have I misunderstood your argument? If so, please clarify.
 
Back
Top