The homophobic thread :>

[rstrong]

"God said homos are 'unclean', etc." is just a very short step from "God told me to smite the faggot" and "the Devil made me do it." Why do we give credence to the first statement, but not the other two?

I'd just like to hear why he considers one (1) biblical directive (against homosexuality) to be sacrosanct while simply ignoring others (against women speaking in church for example) from the same source.

Not that the answer isn't obvious.

[Seth Milner]

Whatever. I made my point.

The point being that you're a bigot misusing religion to justify your bigotry.
The point being that you're an idiot spouting your own brand of bigotry.

but what is pathetic is when people who profess a true Godly, Christian belief speaks up or quote scripture

No-one cares that he "speaks up or quotes scripture." He's free to do so. But when he uses a MEGAPHONE, he's forcing others to listen.
Are their feet nailed to the ground? They're also free to walk away.

And that's what bigots like you refuse to acknowledge: No-one is criticizing or opposing you for your beliefs. It's when you force your religious beliefs on others - through megaphones or violence or civil rights denying laws - that criticism and opposition becomes necessary. You also refuse to acknowledge is that it's not Christianity being criticized or opposed. It's your PERSONAL beliefs, which you've merely misuse religion to justify with a single cherry-picked quote.
"Bigots like me" . . . Look in the friggin' mirror, idiot! If I were a Christian, it's not OK for me to express my religious or PERSONAL beliefs, but it's OK for you and your kind to violate MY civil rights with your criticism and opposition to my beliefs? Got it.

Not that you even know the quote; you've just heard that it's there.
I said that once already; I'm not denying that.

You're an EULA Christian. A Christian for whom the Bible is like a software license. Not to be read or understood. Just assume that you know what it means, scroll down to the bottom, and click "I Agree."
I'm not even a Christian; but you are an idiot. Point proven here: I make a reference to something religious in nature, and you're all over my ass with your anti-Christian bullshit hoping you'll impress whoever might be reading this. Click here: I AGREE

quote scripture that condemns what their Bible has labeled unclean, they are labeled bigots, homophobics, and cherry pickers;

Because they ARE exactly that. Women speaking in church are equally forbidden according to the Bible, and yet bigots like you have no problem with that. That *IS* cherry picking whether you like it or not.
You sure got a hang-up on that one; take that damn dress and bra off and maybe someone will let you speak. I have no problem for or against where a woman speaks. Only religious bigots like you and your kind seem to have a shit'n fit over that anyway. You'll live.

Nor do you and they speak for Christianity. There are major branches of Christianity that support and perform same-sex marriage. The point being that you're a bigot misusing religion to justify your bigotry.. They're no less Christian; they've simply chosen differently.
I don't think that's a call you or I can make; but according to the Bible, a man that "lieth with another man as he would a woman is an abomination". The way I see it, I don't give a rat's ass, or care for that matter, that "major branches of Christianity (or Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Hindus, Muslims, Canadians, etc.)..support and perform same-sex marriage". The Bible, which has been around longer than they have, says it's a sin and unnatural; and man does whatever his depraved and carnal mind wants to do ... however, if you want to marry another man, whether it be in a "Christian" church or a sleazy bar, I don't give a damn! You don't have to answer to me; I didn't write the laws.

Now, what kind of cheese would you like with your whines?

I am beginning to see though, the name callers don't like being slapped with truth, and their name calling is to soothe their hurting little feelings. Bless your hearts.

[Seth Milner]

Well, you expressed your viewpoint, which isn't exactly the same as "making a point"
What I meant.

but you can still address the question if you choose to do so. It was, ...explain why anyone's "belief", no matter the source, should be given any credence or special standing by the rest of society without substantiating evidence.
"I'm from Missouri, show me"? I cannot explain nor question the faith that Christians have.

"God said homos are 'unclean', etc." is just a very short step from "God told me to smite the faggot" and "the Devil made me do it." Why do we give credence to the first statement, but not the other two?
I was unaware "we" did. God didn't say homos are unclean; the Bible states He said the homosexual act, along with bestiality is unclean. The argument is "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality"; well he said nothing about pedophiles either, but that doesn't mean it's an OK lifestyle either.I'm not equating homosexuality with pedophilia; I am saying that both are unnatural behaviors. I despise a low life pedophile; I harbor no ill feelings against homosexuals.

[Seth Milner]

I'd just like to hear why he considers one (1) biblical directive (against homosexuality) to be sacrosanct while simply ignoring others (against women speaking in church for example) from the same source.
Sacrosanct my ass. A woman speaking in a church is quite different from a man sucking another man's cock. Feel better now?
There; You wanted it spelled out in simple terms that you, a simpleton could understand; I did. Now, STFU, you sacrosanct idiot.

Not that the answer isn't obvious.
That's not obvious?

[rstrong]

I'd just like to hear why he considers one (1) biblical directive (against homosexuality) to be sacrosanct while simply ignoring others (against women speaking in church for example) from the same source.

Sacrosanct my ass. A woman speaking in a church is quite different from a man sucking another man's cock. Feel better now?

1 Corinthians is the source for both directives and treats both equally. You're picking based on your personal phobias and bigotry.

[Vrede too]

... Not that the answer isn't obvious.

Point proved. I think Seth Milner backs you up more often than I do.

[O Really]

...

"God said homos are 'unclean', etc." is just a very short step from "God told me to smite the faggot" and "the Devil made me do it." Why do we give credence to the first statement, but not the other two?
I was unaware "we" did. God didn't say homos are unclean; the Bible states He said the homosexual act, along with bestiality is unclean. The argument is "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality"; well he said nothing about pedophiles either, but that doesn't mean it's an OK lifestyle either.I'm not equating homosexuality with pedophilia; I am saying that both are unnatural behaviors. I despise a low life pedophile; I harbor no ill feelings against homosexuals.

Well of course "we" as a societal collective protect and give credence to a person's belief if s/he says it comes from his/her interpretation of parts of the Bible, and we don't protect or give credence to his/her claim that "God told me to smite the faggot." People say all the time things like, "God was looking out for me... God called me to [do something]...God wants you to ..." "We" (as in our society in general) accept those statements as somehow reasonable as long as they're tied to a majority traditional religion. But If no evidence is ever presented about what/how God spoke to you, then really "God called me to go save the sinners" isn't any different from "God told me to smite the faggots."

[O Really]

... Not that the answer isn't obvious.

Point proved. I think Seth Milner backs you up more often than I do.

So I know what meaning Seth gives the dancing Abbot and Costello, but I don't know why since I was never much of a fan, other than Who's on First, of course. Is there a story behind the gif about them dancing?

[Seth Milner]

I'd just like to hear why he considers one (1) biblical directive (against homosexuality) to be sacrosanct while simply ignoring others (against women speaking in church for example) from the same source.

Sacrosanct my ass. A woman speaking in a church is quite different from a man sucking another man's cock. Feel better now?

1 Corinthians is the source for both directives and treats both equally.
I'm sure it's expected that the reader would have enough common sense to differentiate between the two; but I guess it wasn't to be.

You're picking based on your personal phobias and bigotry.
No, you're cherry-picking scripture now based on your anti-Christian phobias and bigotry.

... Not that the answer isn't obvious.

Point proved. I think Seth Milner backs you up more often than I do.

So I know what meaning Seth gives the dancing Abbot and Costello, but I don't know why since I was never much of a fan, other than Who's on First, of course. Is there a story behind the gif about them dancing?

The dancers are Laurel and Hardy. The gif symbolizes Vrede and rstrong parroting each others comments and following each other from thread to thread in an effort to see who can out-do the other in their insults, i.e. "twinning" as Vrede so aptly put it.
Fortunately for them, at this time I'm the only one who disagrees with them or trolls them enough to get their drawers in a twist . . . I love to see them get their oh-so righteous drawers in a twist.

[Seth Milner]

You know, the same way you dismiss facts that contradict your bigoted, homophobic, racist, misogynistic and otherwise just goddamned stupid claims.

[O Really]

The dancers are Laurel and Hardy. The gif symbolizes Vrede and rstrong parroting each others comments and following each other from thread to thread in an effort to see who can out-do the other in their insults, i.e. "twinning" as Vrede so aptly put it.
Fortunately for them, at this time I'm the only one who disagrees with them or trolls them enough to get their drawers in a twist . . . I love to see them get their oh-so righteous drawers in a twist.

OK, Laurel and Hardy. Turns out the dance is to "Dance of the Cuckoos" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gp8rBjXA4c
I figured if I have to look at it on thread after thread I might as well know something about it.

[Seth Milner]

OK, Laurel and Hardy. Turns out the dance is to "Dance of the Cuckoos"
Fitting for rstrong and Vrede, huh?

I figured if I have to look at it on thread after thread I might as well know something about it.
A lot of "twinning" going on, huh?

[O Really]

No, I don't think the song fits. And I don't think it's surprising that they would have a similar response to some of your contributions which by your own admission are often intended just to annoy. You may enjoy being the antagonist, but you might sometimes try to just participate in the discussion. You might like it.

[Vrede too]

After a year and a half he's clearly not capable of it. This is all there is to Seth Milner and all we're ever gonna get.

[rstrong]

You're picking based on your personal phobias and bigotry.

No, you're cherry-picking scripture now based on your anti-Christian phobias and bigotry.

Nice try.

The New Testament has only the one directive against homosexuality. And it's not Jesus's teachings; it's from Paul, who converted a few years after Jesus's death. Jesus had nothing to say on the matter. Which is probably why major branches of Christianity don't have a problem with it.

I'm not the one claiming to live according to the Bible. I support NEITHER of the two (anti-homosexuality, anti-woman) directives. Yes, there are certainly a few directives that I'd support. Yes, I do support Jesus's overall message of peace and kindness to one's fellow human beings (which you and Mr.B seem to have missed.)

That's a simple acknowledgement that while not religious, not treating it as orders from a god, there are parts that I like and parts that I don't. I have my own beliefs and ethics, and if some biblical teachings (or a given interpretation of biblical teachings), great. That's not faith, and it's not being a Christian.

But listen up: That's what Mr.B does too. He takes the parts (one specific directive, it seems), and dismisses the rest. He's not being a Christian. He's not living according to the Bible and his beliefs aren't based on the Bible. He's edited the Bible to match his beliefs.

Pointing that out doesn't make anyone anti-Christian.

[JTA]

... Not that the answer isn't obvious.

Point proved. I think Seth Milner backs you up more often than I do.

This gif is burned in my mind. It should be be the official BRD gif.

[Vrede too]

You've seen it a lot more than I have, awww.

Blue Ridge Dancing White Boys Debate?

[bannination]

I just figured Seth had a thing for dancing men.

Turns out, I was pretty close.

[Seth Milner]

I just figured Seth had a thing for dancing men.
Nope. I just like the gif. Keeps me reminded that reading one poster's comments is reading a mirrored copy of the other's.

Turns out, I was pretty close.
Not even close; pretty or ugly. Lay off the 'shrooms and weed.

[Seth Milner]

You're picking based on your personal phobias and bigotry.

No, you're cherry-picking scripture now based on your anti-Christian phobias and bigotry.

Nice try.
Now your denials begins. I figured that before I weighed in too heavily in this pissing contest that I am inexperienced in, I would do a bit of studying up on your Christophobic bigotry. (yeah that's a new word I learned) It seems your hatred towards religion has you doing a bit of cherry-picking on your own.

The New Testament has only the one directive against homosexuality. And it's not Jesus's teachings; it's from Paul, who converted a few years after Jesus's death. Jesus had nothing to say on the matter. Which is probably why major branches of Christianity don't have a problem with it.
Wait a minute!! The New Testament?? Back up! You're one who's been whining about beards, mixed fabrics, menstrual periods, etc. Where in the NT are those laws or directives covered?
If the churches condone homosexuality or "don't have a problem with it"; according to the Bible they preach and teach from, then they've got a bigger problem than "it", unless, of course, they're preaching and teaching LIES. I stated earlier that, again according to the Bible, Jesus IS God (the Holy Spirit, Ghost, or whatever) Therefore, God had already spoken concerning the depravity of homosexuality in the OT. Jesus was a NT character, and Paul preached Jesus' grace and forgiveness of sin for those WILLING to live a clean Godly life. The women speaking in church that you so adamantly cherry-pick, is to point out that a man is the head of his house, and the woman is not to take a leadership role over a Godly man. (I know I'm going to get hammered over that, so before y'all even start, I didn't write it and I don't give a damn how you interpret it or personally feel about.)

I'm not the one claiming to live according to the Bible.
You got that shit right; but then, neither am I. I'm only defending myself and my postings from a bigoted jerk.

I support NEITHER of the two (anti-homosexuality, anti-woman) directives.
Neither do other of the devil's demons and they don't cherry-pick which directives to not support. The Bible spoke of you when it stated: Romans 1:24-25
24 .. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25 .. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator

Yes, there are certainly a few directives that I'd support.
Sure you do. The ones you cherry-pick.

Yes, I do support Jesus's overall message of peace and kindness to one's fellow human beings (which you and Mr.B seem to have missed.)
Uh...about that "goddamned stupid" remark you're so famous for . . . did Jesus give you that as a message of "peace and kindness"?
In what I have read in many of Mr. B's posts, he's nothing like you (or any of the others that cursed and put him down.) Where he spoke of what he believed to be religious in nature, you, Vrede, Boatrocker, and Something Left were the most vocal. I suppose those actions too, was an "overall message of peace and kindness to one's fellow human being"? You're right; I missed that.

That's a simple acknowledgement that while not religious, not treating it as orders from a god, there are parts that I like and parts that I don't.
The parts you don't like are the one's that a God who supposedly is the Creator, that you don't believe in, laid down a set of Laws that condemned man's depravity, dishonesty, and dis-accord with one another, and the spoken consequences of their actions. You feel man should live anyway he likes as long as "it doesn't hurt anyone else"; to hell with how others are influenced by their actions.

The parts you like are . . . well, as an atheist, there are none.

I have my own beliefs and ethics,
Beliefs I can understand, Ethics? That a laugh.

and of some biblical teachings (or a given interpretation of biblical teachings), great.
Providing, of course, however they're interpreted, they suit YOU and what YOU want to believe, or however YOU choose to live.

That's not faith, and it's not being a Christian.
See there? That's YOUR interpretation and judgment. You've given YOUR interpretation, or opinion, on how YOU think a Christian should live, or follow Biblical Scripture. I don't know of anyone who's seen Jesus, God, or an angel; but they believe in them; that's FAITH. Keeping their faith and adhering to Biblical teachings is being a Christian. That's MY interpretation or opinion.

But listen up: That's what Mr.B does too.
...and Mr. B, from what little bit I've garnered from his postings, is a helluva sight better off than you or me.

He takes the parts (one specific directive, it seems), and dismisses the rest.
And you don't? You seem to have a hangup with OT Law, Paul's teachings, etc. You've whined about mixing fabrics, cutting beards, women in church, etc. while championing the "right" of a man or woman having sex with one of the same gender. Hypocrite much?

He's not being a Christian. He's not living according to the Bible and his beliefs aren't based on the Bible. He's edited the Bible to match his beliefs.
Not any that I've seen. What I've seen is his copy and pasting Biblical scriptures; that obviously didn't come from GQ or Newsweek. Gee whiz; I wonder where he got all that edited material? And you are a fine example of one to judge whether someone is or isn't a Christian just because they don't speak or write what you want to hear or see written.

Pointing that out doesn't make anyone anti-Christian.
You're right. It makes them a liar.