Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Also, losing interest is not the same as evading a question.

Riiight... "interesting"....

Abba, my favorite!

(oh, Agnetha...)

:wink:

maliagar, I would wager the bulk of responses on this thread (and in a few others as well) indicate no one buys your particular bill of goods ... that to this audience at any rate, your arguments are baseless. You want a link, here ... and read forward from there the next several hundred responses, all the way to the present point in this thread : http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=301234#301234 I would submit that no acceptance of your assertions, allegations, and circumlocutions has been evidenced, that no agreement with your position has been voiced, that your interaction has been met with rejection, refutation, and polite dismissal. The only proponent of your argument here is you.

---

Are you sure that's the right link?

---

I'm sure you realize that the operative words are "this audience", and "here".

And I'm sure you realize that my opinion of my own opinions is not based on your opinions... :wink:

And the link? As irrelevant as it was when you perpetrated those lines. And I did say why (since you're going to the archives, you can re-read what I said).

---

Hey, Tim...

You had been quiet for a while.

Is it your policy to intervene when I'm getting too much of the upper hand?

Is this an expression of solidarity with a fallen comrade?

:wink:

Maliagar,

Bring back the old maliagar. You are reducing your position to a base level by just sniping.

I have, in mind, a discussion that I think you will appreciate:

"The things atheists leaned from the Bible". As an atheist who has memorized large pieces of the Bible I can say I have learned quite a bit.

Why don't you join some of the less fricticious discussions? I am sincere when I say it's a pity to see you reduced to this style.

maliagar,

timber didn't "intervene" at all. Moderator messages come from the accaount named "Moderator".

Why do you persist in empty sniping?

I guess irrelevance is in the mind of the beholder. As I said before, what works for you is fine ... for you. I'm just not into superstition, and I can't see any difference between religion and superstition ... but then, we're just going over the same ground we've been pounding for about six weeks now. I have no doubt you will remain wrapped in your comfortable superstitions, insulated from the need to question, and you may rest assured I will continue to search for answers, comfortably aware that some answers may not be available.

what's a debate room?

husker, Craven is now developing the Debate Room.

I think I wanna drag him in there myself.

Have you ever pulled teeth before? LOL

now think about what a football player would do

I've known several football players: they're all big and husky, but wouldn't hurt a fly.

Thank you, Timber.

As Maliagar well knows, I used the people he brought to that topic in defense of my position -- but he did what his church does when stuff like that happens -- he disregarded it.

If you remember, the discussion was about whether or not his church was a friend to science during its young days -- or whether it was an implacable enemy.

Even the main guy he brought to the discussion to aver that the church helped to "sustain" science during those early years indicated he was in the minority -- and that his views run counter to prevailing opinions. There was no more need to substantiate that most people regard the role of the early church vis-à-vis science to be one of antagonism and enmity than there is to substantiate that most people regard Santa Claus as fictional.

Maliagar's arguments are phonies.

He's a sad case.

And of course, when it comes to whether or not he argues ethically during debate, we have this indisputable fact:

He argued that his church DOES treat and interpret all difficult biblical passages in an holistic approach -- and suggested I could see that if I would just look at the Catholic Catechism on any issue.

The issue we had been discussing was slavery.

I furnished a passage from the OT indicating that the god of the Bible says that slavery is just fine with him - the god of the Bible indicates that he has no problem at all with owning and trafficking in slaves. And I furnished a half-dozen passages from the NT where St. Paul says that slavery is okay also. In fact, in one, St. Paul tells slaves that they should be content with their slavery even if they could be free because they should assume that GOD intended for them to be slaves.

Maliagar's Catholic Church completely ignored all of the relevant passages except one -- and they misquoted from that one in order to pretend it advocated doing away with slavery.

YET Maliagar accused me several times afterwards of offering no evidence to back up my contention that the god of the Bible condoned slavery.

His arguments have been shown to be a joke -- and since I enjoy jokes and a good laugh, I am grateful to him for the humor.

Best way to deal with him.

Although now, he is afraid to debate with me - so I have to laugh at things he says to other people instead of to me. No big loss. It's all still hilarious.

Those who consider themselves to be master baiters should observe that it may be against their religion.

Unless they convolute everything in the bible, using it is a lost cause. maliagar still hasn't realized that simple fact.

Of course he did, that's the beauty of his position. He demands that his religious beliefs are true a priori and anything which disagrees with them must, by definition, be false. In his worldview, anyone who questions him, his church or his beliefs must be wrong or at worst, evil. It makes debating him pointless because, in his own mind, he won before he even arrived and anything you say that he doesn't like will be disregarded out of hand.

Actually, maliagar has confirmed how his religious belief supercedes ethics, logic, and even the bible. He has claimed more than once, that the bible was written at a time and culture for the people of that time and culture. In other words, maliagar (and all catholics) is/are able to interpret the bible any way he wishes to support any scientific findings that may refute the messages in the bible. That is supported by the catholic priest that answered my query about god's creation of the world in six days (144 hours). He said catholics do not need to believe the world was created in six days (or 144 hours), even though a christian theologian said that the 144 hours is consistent with all the other mentions of days in the bible as being 24 hour days, and the word used for day is still true today. There is no consistency in their (catholics) inconsistent interpretations of the bible. What the catholics need to do is do a complete revision of the bible to make it consistent with their teachings. If they refute the bible as is, what are they basing their religion on?