Catholic Church Now Accepts Gays

I am sorry you believe the Bible is a mystical book. The book itself is NOT my God. And locked into my Christian faith? YOU BETCHA! Have sweet dreams!

The bullshyt that homosexuality is a choice is so silly...I cannot fathom why intelligent people ever put it forth.

I know one thing....I could not be a homosexual on a bet. I could not be turned on by a man. Women turn me on.

Now....if some guy is turned on by men...what can I tell ya?

Why is this piece of shyt god of the Bible so bothered by it? Why does he watch? Why doesn't he just go sit on his throne and bother people on some other planet in some other galaxy....rather than suggesting that humans stone people to death whose only problem is that they happen to be sexually attracted to same sex partners.

And since this piece of shyt god supposedly made all of us....why make any of us with that sort or disposition?

I don't have a problem with you disagreeing about what I believe. However; I have a BIG problem with you calling God a "piece of shyt God."

I have often been told that people resort to name calling due to lack of creativity or vocabulary. But, Frank, can't say that is true with you.

I have tried in several different threads to put across my viewpoint and I have tried to do it in a way that did not criticize or make fun of anyone elses' beliefs. But, the phrase "Don't cast your pearls before swine," does come to mind. That phrase meaning, "If you tell someone about the Lord God and they reject, rebuke, or anger, then stop doing it because you can do more harm than good." It doesn't mean you are a pig. Just wanted to make that perfectly clear.

I will go to my grave praising Jesus and be very happy doing so.

See ya!

Good for you, Momma.

But to be honest, calling the god of the Bible a "piece of shyt"....is giving the god way too much credit.

The god is an abomination. One of the most reprehensible gods ever created by human minds. He is jealous, vindictive, quick-to-anger; slow to forgive, tyrannical, unreasonable, unjust, murderous, barbaric....and almost comically petty.

There is absolutely no reason to pretend love for this god...who is not even likeable...other than abject, unreasoning fear.

Now...to be sure I give the ancient Hebrews who invented this god their due....

...I admire them for doing so. They needed a jealous, vindictive, quick-to-anger; slow to forgive, tyrannical, unreasonable, unjust, murderous, barbaric, almost comically petty god to protect themselves from the
jealous, vindictive, quick-to-anger; slow to forgive, tyrannical, unreasonable, unjust, murderous, barbaric, petty gods of their enemies.

But for anyone today to still buy into this obvious gruesome fairytale...is beyond reason.

Pretend love for this god if you must. Don't expect people to respect you for it.

Don't for one second think that because I have some negative things to say about that comic book god featured in the Bible....that I am saying anything negative about any GOD that might exist.

I am not calling any GOD that might exist...a piece of shyt.

Just the one mentioned.

Like I said, I am praying for you.

I'm wishing the best for you too, Momma.

Anybody seen Thunder?

Oh, let me guess, he too tired of Frank's abuse and left.

Now, Frank'S MANNER can be abrasive, but here of late, at least, he's been critical of arguments, not the presenters of thos arguments. Knock his style if you will, or refute his challenges. Don't retreat from him, unless your object is to concede to him.

I have been sitting here reading this topic from the beginning. It is my opinion that Frank is only abusive to those that do not agree with him and, when pointed out where he has made a mistake, he ignores it. It's difficult to hold a conversation with someone who will not hold to the guidelines set forth or respect another's opinion. I have tried and tried to come to an amicable place with Frank but, as you can see, he wants no part of it.

What mistakes has Frank made - not differences of opinion, but clear errors? Its my impression - and of course I may be wrong - but none the less its my impression that Frank ridicules arguments, not the presenters of those arguments. Show me where I;m wrong. I'm willing to learn.

Momma, these threads have gone on for years, literally.

You've read this whole thread? There is a long line of threads before.

Every new person seems to land on perceived appointed new land.

I only wonder at Frank's energy.

You want examples? Ok, try these:

He has called my beliefs guessing and my faith silly insistence that my guess is right.

He has called the God of my understanding a "piece of shyt God" and an "idiotic" God.

He asks me when am I going to see the light? He has continually used God's name in vain when I have asked him not to.

I am not the only one he has done this to. I have been reading other forums where he has interjected his venom.

He accuses me of trying to force my religious beliefs on others and says I am judging them by using the term lost.

I have tried and tried and tried to get him to hold a conversation without putting down my personal beliefs, which it is clearly stated in the guidelines, but he has yet to even admit it's what he is doing. I noticed in another post in another forum, where he was attacking someone, that they caught him in a hypocritical statement and he totally ignores it.

And, when I stated that "Oh, I see how it is. It's do as Frank does or it's not right." He stated that in all honesty, that's how he feels most of the time.

I would still enjoy having a decent civil conversation with him, as I am very interested in why people turn from God (or just don't believe). That is why I engage in this forum. I am trying to learn.

The only thing I have learned from Frank is how to be pompous, belittling, and how to spell "shyt" so it doesn't get kicked out of a post.

That's his appraisal of your position, not of you.


Same deal.


And you say you feel sorry for him, that you pray for him, and at least imply you'd prefer he conform to your concept of what is "Rght" according to your religion. Same deal there - he thinks one way, you another.


He pulls no punches, sure. However, he sees "Faith", in the religious sense, as essentially undifferentiated from superstition, which, being by definition a belief in a thing or condition lacking empirical evidence, in fact, it is. No matter how fervently held, Faith is simply a guess wrapped in personal conviction - it is emotional, not rational.


I can understand why he might.


Anyone is perfectly welcome to challenge anyone else's beliefs, assertions, preferences, or choice of breakfast beverage, so long as its done civilly. When presented with challenge or rejection, rebut it, don't pout and play victim. You object to and disagree with Frank's position (which, BTW, essentially is the same as my own as regards the subject here at discussion; I see religion as bunk myself). Fine. Argue your point - show him he's wrong, prove your case, objectively, factually, and unemotionally. He thinks your position is as wrongheaded and indefensible as you perceive his to be. Are either of you more entitled than the other to hold and express personal points of view?



Got a link? I'd be happy to take a look and let you know what I think about it - not that that woud mean any more than what I think about it.


Sauce-goose-gander; you're not doing the same thing from the opposite perspective? Think about it.


You proceed, as religionists so characteristically are wont, from an illicit major premise. There is no rational, logical basis for there either to be or not to be a diety, whatever one cares to call it, however one cares to define it. I see the crux of your complaint to be that you don't like Frank's argument, and by extension, Frank's manner of argument because he continually points to the flaws in your argument. You don't have a case there; his allegations of logical flaws stand unrefuted, your manner of argument thereby conceding the argument to him. Your manner of argument plainly and simply makesFrank's case for him. Now, yeah, he could be nicer about it - gentler, if you would, but he need not be. It might even be better if he were nicer about it - but again, he need not be. Rhetoric and style aside, Frank challenges your argument, and you do not meet that challenge, you merely object to it.


Pot-Kettle-Black right there - you damn your own objection.


Well, at least, even if all the rest is bullshit, that would be something of a gain, but only if **** was something that would get "kicked out of a post" in the first place, so, it would appear there was nothing to be learned there, after all.

I ask for common courtesy and I am the one being asked to accept what is thrown at me.

IMHO, this is a lot of what is wrong in today's world. Not enough people standing up and just plainly saying, that is wrong. No one wants to rock the boat, so to speak.

And the only reason Frank (and I guess you) do not accept what I present in rebuttal is because you don't believe. I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT! If you don't, you don't.

I do; as stated many times; have a problem with cusswords. For pete's sake, all I ask for is a little common courtesty (I am a woman, and I was brought up in a time where men respected women and were respectful enough not to use foul language).

And, as for Frank's rebuttals to me? What rebuttals? He tries to use the Bible to refute the Bible. Can't be done. And I, myself, find that very hypocritical. If he doesn't believe in the Bible, why would he use it to back up his arguments? Why would anyone if they didn't believe in it?

You see it your way, others see it differently, all are welcome to discuss it. You're welcome to object to or criticize anything anyone else writes, and they're welcome to object to or criticize anything you write. As for "foul language", well thats pretty much a subjective thing. Gratuitous vulgarity is one thing, colloquial expletives scattered through one's writing is entirely another. One is proscribed, the other is a personal thing. Some folks do, some folks don't, some folks mind, some folks don't. This is, after all, essentially an adult forum, and though the aim is to keep it more or less no raunchier than PG-13, just about anything up to that point is fine by the rules as I read them. Maybe you read them differently.

For instance, as I read the rules, one may say of a member's post that it is ridiculous, or assinine, or wrong, or a stupid thing to say. On the other hand, directly verbally assaulting a member, calling that member stupid or assinine or whatever other perjorative have you, generally constitutes ad hominem, for which this website has very little tolerance. Beyond porn, hatespeech, spam, gratuitious vulgarity (yeah- a subjective judgement, but whatchya gonna do? Its the sorta thing that generally renders itself identifiable), and ad hominem-flaming/trolling, pretty much everything else is a go.

And can't refute the bible with the bible? That's a real eyebrow-lifter. Of course it can be done. Its done all the time. Some folks, however, choose to believe otherwise.

Who was it who said "lighten up"?

Granted. And anyone can justify anything. And denial is a wonderful thing, as long are you are in it.

I will entirely defer to Timber's comments on the rest of your post. For the record (this has been pointed out before)...Timber and I are on different sides of several hot issues in this forum...so don't think that he is mentioning the things he mentioned gratuitously.

As for the above quote....I can tell you that I would NEVER ignore anything directed my way. I have certainly had people call me a hypocrite on occasion...but I have defended against the charge...and I dare say that any supposed hypocrisy on my part is not very easily sustained.

As Timber suggested...get a link to the conversation at issue....and I will more than happily handle it right here.

As for the "foul language" nonsense....I will, during the next few days, start a new thread devoted to a op ed piece I had published as a guest columnist in a local newspaper on the subject. I feel very strongly that folks like you make way too much a big deal out of vulgar or coarse language....and I consider that conduct to be as objectionable as you find my language. But we will discuss that in the new thread....and I promise I will personally invite you to participate in it.

Momma, folks who have to continually resort to foul language and various invective simply demonstrate their moral, intellectual and spiritual bankruptcy. Remember what Paul said to the Pharisees in ACTS 13:46. :wink:

Very well put and I thank you.