Contributors

Friday, January 24, 2014

Guess Whose Bedroom This Is?

















It's Rush Limbaugh's.

Wow.

Really?

I thought it was Liberace's.

And he's taking the president to the mat for not letting his imaginary son play football?

38 comments:

Nikto said...

Come on, the fainting couch is a dead giveaway: his wife designed that room.

Or maybe all Rush's macho bluster is just a cover for an obsession with window treatments...

Mark Ward said...

Yeah, the fainting couch. No doubt a staple with today's conservative. They seem to need it as they are overcome with hysteria daily.

Anonymous said...

Nothing like building castles out of irrelevancies! "Yea, but his bedroom is 'pretty'. That means…"

Look, a pony!

Larry said...

I can't believe the narrow-mindedness of the person who thinks this means anything. Not to mention the lurking homophobic tendencies.

Mark Ward said...

But never mind the narrow mindedness of Rush Limbaugh who questioned the president's manliness simply because he wouldn't let a possible son play football.

And the Democrats aren't the party of homophobes, that's you assholes. See the irony of this bedroom then?

GuardDuck said...

Oh, so the person who isn't a homophobe took one look at this bedroom and immediately thought that this bedroom looked.....gay?

Way to expose your own bias' dude.

Mark Ward said...

There's a pretty easy way to assess who is homophobic here and who isn't. What do you think about homosexuality, GD?

GuardDuck said...

I don't have a problem with it, nor do I particularly care what two people do.


I most certainly don't look at a bedroom and think it 'looks' like something a gay man would sleep in and therefore somehow is somehow 'ironic' that a non-gay would sleep there.....that's something that is called...stereotyping. And you're guilty of it.

Mark Ward said...

You're missing the point, GD. I'm not the one questioning masculinity here. Rush is the one doing so. So the fact that he lives in a bedroom like this means that he's one to talk. Nice try on the redirect and avoidance of responsibility but Democrats have embraced their inner woman and gay and would have no problem chillin' in a bedroom like this.

GuardDuck said...

Ahhh, I see.


So you are now conflating being gay to lack of masculinity......

Do you even know any gay people Mark? Or is your impression of the normal gay man another stereotype such as your Liberace comment?


Keep digging.

Mark Ward said...

As long as you avoid responsibility for the homophobia and bigotry with your party, all is well:)

And the fact that you asked me if I knew any gay people means that you obviously don't. Redirect and project. Repeat.

GuardDuck said...

Every time you say 'redirect and project' all I hear is 'I know you are but what am I'.

Look at what you've said versus what I've said here.

Your comments are the ones that are stereotypes, prejudiced and bigoted.

Mine aren't.

Words speak for themself.


And I don't need to 'take responsibility' for 'my party' because

A: you don't know what my party is and

B: your perception on what constitutes these supposed homophobia and bigotry is as skewed with your own bias as your perception that you haven't been such just now.

GuardDuck said...

And the fact that you asked me if I knew any gay people means that you obviously don't.


Oh and - piss off.

My sister is gay.


Not that is matters, in any way.


But let us examine your argument in this post.


Your claim is that Rush's bedroom is ironic because he is 'questioning masculinity' yet has a bedroom that looks gay....

Here's what you are doing:

You are stereotyping that a bedroom could 'look' gay.

You are stereotyping gay=not masculine.


These are the things you are doing here and now.

I ask if you even know any gay people not because I don't know any - but because of your demeaning and insulting stereotype that gay=not masculine. I do know gay people and I do know that being gay does not equal a lack of masculinity. You apparently do not as your stereotyping of such appears to be based on what you've seen in Hollywood, not in real life.

Mark Ward said...

A: you don't know what my party is and

What is your party?

You are stereotyping gay=not masculine.

I have friends that are transexuals, cross dressers and trans gender, including one that is a former student. She does not want to be known as masculine. Two of my best friends are in a loving and committed marriage and constantly swap who gets to be the bottom, playacting with ladies clothes etc...again, not masculine. Dude, I live in Minneapolis. Get a fucking clue.

But, of course, you are doing this again....

3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you're using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where antiracists are accused of racism, or in the climate-change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It's often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.

http://www.straight.com/news/dr-cynthia-boaz-14-propaganda-techniques-fox-news-uses-brainwash-americans

Rush is the one defining what is masculine, not me. In his world, a bedroom like this would be "gay" which is why he's one to talk. Where's the flat screen so he can watch football?

My sister is gay.

Is your sister going to hell? I don't think so because society has moved on from antiquated views of homosexuality:)


Juris Imprudent said...

What is your party?

There it is, pure unadulterated tribal identity.

GuardDuck said...

What is your party?

That's the point - you don't know yet you still presume to tell me I have to take responsibility....


Dude, I live in Minneapolis. Get a fucking clue.

Dude, I live in Portland - get a clue. Oh, and all that you just posted - completely irrelevant.

You really need to start learning about this thing called 'reading comprehension'.

You said Rush's bedroom looked like Liberace's. You made the comparison that is was not masculine. You are the one saying that gay=not masculine.

Now you try to tell me about a bunch of gay people you know that neither are or want to be masculine. So the fuck what? Not relevant.

Are these two sentences the same?

Gay people can not be masculine.

Not all gay people are masculine.


No they are not. You argument of the second sentence is arguing against my pointing out that you are a stereotyping when you said the first sentence.

Damn Mark - you are arguing against you own clueless self here.


Rush is the one defining what is masculine, not me. In his world, a bedroom like this would be "gay" which is why he's one to talk.

Where? The only one defining anything as 'gay' is YOU. And you are being a boorish bigot when doing so.


Is your sister going to hell? I don't think so because society has moved on from antiquated views of homosexuality:)


I notice you didn't bother to give God any part of that decision. You again place yourself and society as the one's who get to decide.

So, if society decided that rape and murder are OK, then does that mean it is OK?

Mark Ward said...

I think you should show your sister this thread and see what she thinks. I'd be especially interested to hear of what she thinks about you equating murder and rape with being gay.

It's funny because since our last go round about this I've realized a few things. Some societies have decided that murder and rape are OK. Take a look at what's going in the CAR or South Sudan. Interestingly, the countries in Africa that think that murder and rape are OK also have very anti gay laws that involve violent retribution. In these cases, it's clearly not OK. Yet, even our country decided that the death penalty is OK and some people think that makes it OK. I go back and forth on the death penalty issue but do think it's OK for states to decide what they want which makes murder OK.

Society can also decide that murder and rape are wrong and will stay that way but they can also decide that homosexual behavior is just fine. They don't have to approach all lawmaking in the exact same, rigid fashion as you appear to want them to. That's why we have qualitative analyses in this country in terms of the law. To put it simply, society can change some laws but not others. I'm glad we changed our view on rape over the last several thousand years because it used to be OK as women were viewed as cattle at the time of the Bible. Murder is a commandment from God that was reaffirmed by Jesus with further instruction to turn the other cheek. There is no mention of homosexuality in the 10 commandments nor by Jesus.

So, stop being so rigid in your views on law. I realize you are likely doing this to "prove me wrong" but I'd urge you to critically examine the nuances of how laws are made and changed.


GuardDuck said...

I think you should show your sister this thread and see what she thinks. I'd be especially interested to hear of what she thinks about you equating murder and rape with being gay.

Dude are you fucking fundamentally incapable of reading comprehension?

For fucks sake I did NO SUCH THING

GuardDuck said...

So, stop being so rigid in your views on law. I realize you are likely doing this to "prove me wrong" but I'd urge you to critically examine the nuances of how laws are made and changed.


Wow.

Look dude, you need to read, comprehend and understand what is said to you. Or you need to stop pretending to be intelligent and just accept that you are a fool.


The subject is Gods law of the Christian sect. You claim to be a Christian. You then claim that society can decide what is right or wrong in relation to what is a sin. Therefore you claim that society can decide what will cause one to 'go to hell'.

These are your claims.

My question, which DOES NOT impart either my views or beliefs, is if YOUR construct of a society that can DECIDE FOR ITSELF what is going to send people 'to hell' then why CAN THAT SAME SOCIETY NOT DECIDE THAT MURDER OR RAPE WON'T SEND PEOPLE TO HELL?

The question of rape or murder being OK is under the construct YOU CREATE by saying essentially that no matter what the Bible says, you or society have 'moved past that archaic thinking'.


If you can't understand what I've just said, what I've explained to you six ways from Sunday then you are too fucking stupid to breathe without a reminder. Seriously dude, either you are being an asshole and fucking with me, or you DO NOT comprehend SIMPLE FUCKING ENGLISH.


Mark Ward said...

For fucks sake I did NO SUCH THING

Show it to her and see what she thinks. Don't take my word for it (as if you would on anything anyway:))

And I'm not fucking with you, GD. You asked me a question and I answered honestly. That is what I think. Perhaps the problem is your question, not me.

GuardDuck said...

The problem is you did not answer the question I asked.

You answered a made up version of reality that I did not ask.


And show me- in logical progression, how my statement in any way EQUATED being gay with murder or rape.

It did not and you cannot do so.

GuardDuck said...

Oh fuck it.


Blahadlfjeth

aasl;dkfjal. adlfjalk/ tkaljkralke akdjrakl jakejral / alejrel;a
.


Go ahead and make up anything you want out of that. Like you do with everything else.

It would be nice once in a while if you actually tried to honestly converse.

Mark Ward said...

I'm trying to, GD, but you insist on living in a black and white world filled logical fallacies.

GuardDuck said...

Which doesn't make sense based upon what I actually said.

Question, how many times do I have to tell you that you are not comprehending what I am saying for you to actually try to do so?

When do you use some self-reflection and ask yourself where you are missing what I am saying? When will you ask questions that may clarify what I am saying so that you will understand rather than continuing to reach false conclusions based upon erroneous assumptions that despite knowing they are false, you continue to cling to?


I can't force you understand what I say - I can get you there, but you have to try.

Mark Ward said...

When will you ask questions

I ask you questions all the time and you answer them with questions.

Here's another way to look at what I wrote above...

The CAR decided, as a society, that it was OK to murder and rape people. That does not make it OK, though, in the eyes of the world or in God's eyes...Thou shall not kill, right? This would be an example of a society decided it was OK but it's not OK.

Yet murder and raping are acts of violence. Laws on homosexuality are not in the same category. So, changing them is just fine. They are laws that are of a different nature than laws against violence. That's where your comparison/leap is bullshit. You aren't qualitatively analyzing the laws that society can or can't change.

Further, the laws weren't OK to begin with and violated other laws, specifically the Constitution. That adds a whole other element to this. Some laws conflict with other laws and need to be changed by society. That is also OK and good, if a society wants to advance. And we are not really sure what God thought about homosexuality considering there is clear evidence of translation issues. Even in the context of the OT, old laws were changed by both God and society...laws that were in the same category as homosexuality.

So, society can change some laws that are OK and it isn't OK. They can change laws that are not OK and then it is OK. God changed laws that were not OK and then it was OK. We can come to understand God in a better way than our ancestors did as we have evolved and are now in a period of the Grace of Jesus. My point is that there is no set formula to all of this. Societies and cultures evolve and change and there is no neat little perfect order to everything.

The either/or you are bloviating about simply does not exist. Why you need it to is a question only you can answer. Again, though, don't take my word for it. Show your sister this thread and see what she thinks.

Larry said...

Re: all your gay, trans-gender friends, and cross-dressing friends, plus, "Dude, I live in Minneapolis," as if that's supposed to mean something to most people. What, is Minneapolis the Midwest combo of San Francisco and West Hollywood put together?

Besides which, TMI! TMI! TMMFI!!!

GuardDuck said...

Mark, all that talk about non God or constitution laws are not related to what is being talked about. That's an example of you not comprehending.


Start at square one:

Do you believe in God? Yes, you've admitted this. (stop me if I get one wrong)

Are you a Christian? Yes, you've admitted this.

Is there such a thing as sin, or something that God does not want you to do? Yes, you've also admitted this.

Is murder or rape counted among those things that God does not want you to do? Yes, you admitted this.

Is homosexuality among those things that God does not want you to do? Here is where you say no.....

So when it is put to you that there are places in the Bible that say that God does not want you do be homosexual, you reply with.....

'The Bible is wrong.'

So then the question is, how and why?

Then you say 'society does not believe in the same things that the Bible did'.

THAT, right there is you claiming that society decides whether the Bible is right or wrong.

Note that there is nothing here about whether society has passed laws or has a constitution or any other BS that you keep throwing out there.

YOUR reason for how and/or why the Bible is wrong is BECAUSE (this means it is the reason for, the cause of) society has deemed it wrong and chosen a different right or wrong.

Did you catch that? Bible wrong because society deemed it so.

That is your logic, and you cannot escape it.

That is why you keep blowing a valve when I ask if society DEEMED murder to be OK, would that overrule the Bible's judgement on the matter.

The logic IS THE EXACT SAME. The Bible is wrong because society deemed it so.

When I say this you start throwing out other BS about...well a bunch of BS.

One of the BS things you threw out in the other thread was that the particular things said in the Bible about homosexuality did not apply to Christians under the N.T.

Ok, that is decent starting place for a conversation about that.

But as I pointed out to you then, if the Bible says something doesn't apply to you then you can't claim the Bible is wrong about it can you?

When you look up above at the question:

Is homosexuality among those things that God does not want you to do? Here is where you say no.....

So when it is put to you that there are places in the Bible that say that God does not want you do be homosexual, you reply with.....

'The Bible is wrong.'
<---- This would not be the correct answer if the Bible's prohibitions on homosexuality do not apply because the Bible says they don't apply.

So, your claim that the Bible is wrong is what exactly?


A: Society has the power to overrule the Bible

or

B: The Bible exempts Christians from those 'wrong' things (so in reality the Bible isn't really wrong)



Mark Ward said...

.So when it is put to you that there are places in the Bible that say that God does not want you do be homosexual, you reply with.....

'The Bible is wrong.'

So then the question is, how and why?


It's not as simple as you are saying here. The issue of homosexuality is discussed within the context of other laws that have since been done away with. With murder, it's a different context. It's part of the 10 commandments. Further, we don't really understand fully what society at the time thought about homosexuality. The translation of the Bible has been called into question, particularly in the NT. And there, remember, that was Paul talking, not God. This is why you must do a qualitative analysis rather than the all or nothing approach you seem to be taking. Why do you think you must believe all of the Bible to be a Christian? As I have shown, most Christians do not follow all of the Bible. If you don't think this, then how does that play into your assertions about my "logic?" I expect answers to these questions since you bitched about me not asking you questions for clarifications.

The logic IS THE EXACT SAME. The Bible is wrong because society deemed it so.

No, it's not because the nature of the two issues is completely different. I get that you are tying to argue on a structural point here but let me illustrate why your assertion makes no sense.

So, your claim that the Bible is wrong is what exactly?


A: Society has the power to overrule the Bible

or

B: The Bible exempts Christians from those 'wrong' things (so in reality the Bible isn't really wrong)


The Bible tells us of the nature of our planet and the solar system in which it resides. This is what society understood at the time. But later discovery showed us that the Bible's description was scientifically inaccurate. So, society overruled the Bible. Today, we are "exempt" from those wrong things because they, like the rules on homosexuality and many other issues, are antiquated. Certainly, they thought they were right at the time so technically the Bible wasn't really wrong. Right?:)

So, it's not an either/or as I have been saying all along and your rigidity has ironically been most illogical.


GuardDuck said...

The issue of homosexuality is discussed within the context of other laws that have since been done away with.

Done away by whom? If it's 'done away with' by context of changing laws within the Bible itself then you can't say the Bible is wrong with regards to this.

With murder, it's a different context. It's part of the 10 commandments

That's the point I've been trying to make. If the above is not 'done away with' by context of the Bible telling you it's not applicable, but rather as you keep saying 'society has moved on' then you are saying that society can decide what parts of the Bible are applicable, and therefore it doesn't matter if it's in the ten commandments or not.

That's why I keep asking about every time you say something is 'wrong' because 'society has moved on'.


we don't really understand fully what society at the time thought about homosexuality

And why does that matter? Either it is something that God does not want you to do or it isn't. What society then thought doesn't matter. What society now thinks doesn't matter. This is again why I keep asking you about your insistence about 'society moving on'.

You keep bringing up 'society' and what it thinks about something. What society thinks is not relevant to what God thinks.


The translation of the Bible has been called into question, particularly in the NT. And there, remember, that was Paul talking, not God

Which is another discussion entirely. And one, if you'll remember, that I and NMN brought up to you. This falls under the category of the reader being at fault in comprehension. Again, that does not make the Bible wrong - it makes ones comprehension of it wrong. And it also has nothing to do with what society thinks about an issue.

So, society overruled the Bible. Today, we are "exempt" from those wrong things because they, like the rules on homosexuality and many other issues, are antiquated. Certainly, they thought they were right at the time so technically the Bible wasn't really wrong. Right?:)

Ahhh, so now we're delving into territory where you are conflating 'wrong'=factually incorrect and 'wrong'=immoral.

You can't confuse the two.

If the Bible says the sun revolves around the earth that would be factually incorrect and provable by man.

If the Bible says homosexuality is wrong that is a moral judgement and cannot be proven wrong.

So here's a quandary. If the Bible contains things that are factually incorrect - how can one trust anything it says?

If one decides to follow the word of God while considering the factual errors to be something that can be ignored - what is left to follow? Only the moral and behavioural precepts contained within.

If one is following the moral and behavioural precepts what happens when it says 'do not be gay' and you do not agree with it?

If you don't agree with it, and claim it's 'wrong' - you are claiming that your guide to morality does not fit within your moral framework.

If, because it doesn't fit within your moral framework and you reject it - can you also do so for any other things contained that do not fit within your moral framework? Such as rape and murder?

And then, at which point, if you are simply picking and choosing what parts to follow and which parts not to, are you not really 'following' it, but rather just happen to have a bunch of moral precepts in common with it?

GuardDuck said...


Your questions are not really relevant, and will probably just serve to allow you to wander off topic, but I'll humour you.

Why do you think you must believe all of the Bible to be a Christian?

Because if you believe the Koran you're not a Christian. The Bible is the 'rule book' for Christianity. If you pick willy nilly what parts to believe and what parts not to then you are essentially making up something that is different than is contained. If it is different - then it is not the same. If it is not the same then it is something else, and the name Christian is already taken.


Does that mean that one has to believe every word is 100% accurate and factual? No. But any 'errors' have to be first assumed to be the fault of the reader not understanding them - not that God was mistaken.

As I have shown, most Christians do not follow all of the Bible

Actually, you haven't. You've shown things that do not, by the Bible's own words, apply to Christians. Hey look! Isn't that an example of the reader not comprehending what is said?

Mark Ward said...

What society thinks is not relevant to what God thinks.

Wow. I think that one needs to marinate a while. Think about what you just said here.

Ahhh, so now we're delving into territory where you are conflating 'wrong'=factually incorrect and 'wrong'=immoral.

You can't confuse the two.

If the Bible says the sun revolves around the earth that would be factually incorrect and provable by man.

If the Bible says homosexuality is wrong that is a moral judgement and cannot be proven wrong.


How do you know this? People used to think that homosexuals were deviant based on scientific studies, not moral ones. That may have been the basis for the taboo against homosexuals to begin with. Regarding the "science" of the Bible and moral judgments, I'd point you to the Church v Galileo. Religious leaders at the time thought that every scientist from Copernicus to Newton were immoral and heretics, right?

If the Bible contains things that are factually incorrect - how can one trust anything it says?

All or nothing, eh? Newton was factually incorrect about some of the things he studied (which Einstein later noted). Does that mean we should throw out the whole theory on gravity? Of course not. As to the rest of your questions, it's basically the slippery slope fallacy. It reminds me of those old films that said if you smoke pot, the next step is heroin. I've smoked pot. Never had the desire to do heroin. I'm sure there are plenty of people that are gay that have never had the desire to kill or rape anyone.

If you pick willy nilly what parts to believe and what parts not to then you are essentially making up something that is different than is contained.

The problem with this assertion is that most Christians are not then Christian. Further, how do you account for all of the different denominations of Christianity that "pick willy nilly" and constantly bicker about which version is "right" and which one is "wrong?"

Actually, you haven't.

You must have forgotten this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominations

All of those churches not Christian? Really?

The Presbyterian Church, of which I am a part? Them too?

GuardDuck said...

Wow. I think that one needs to marinate a while. Think about what you just said here.


Ok, let's do that.


Do you believe God exists? Is God a separate entity than mankind?

If you answered yes to those - then riddle me this - how would society's view on ANYTHING be relevant to God's view?



How do you know this?

BECAUSE A MORAL ISSUE CANNOT BE FACTUALLY PROVEN OR DISPROVEN. It is not a fact. This seems to be an issue with your conflation of the uses of the word 'wrong'.


I'd point you to the Church

The church is not God.....


I'm sure there are plenty of people that are gay that have never had the desire to kill or rape anyone.

Oh my....do you ever actually read what is said or do you just skim and pull bits and pieces out? For fuck's sake - that comment bears no relation to what I said.


how do you account for all of the different denominations of Christianity that "pick willy nilly" and constantly bicker about which version is "right" and which one is "wrong?"

Because they are not picking willy nilly - they are differing over how they comprehend what is written.

You however refuse to admit you could have a comprehension problem and instead insist God is wrong.

And I was right, you used the answer to your questions not to understand my point better, but to deflect and go off topic. Good job.

But to get back on topic -

Let's repeat this:

What society thinks is not relevant to what God thinks.

How could society's view on anything have any relevance to how God views it?

Mark Ward said...

Do you believe God exists? Is God a separate entity than mankind?

If you answered yes to those - then riddle me this - how would society's view on ANYTHING be relevant to God's view?


Yes. Yes. Because God loves his children (us). What kind of a being do you think God is? He's not a dictator and he's no longer vengeful because of Jesus. Conservatives their authority figures...sheesh...

Because they are not picking willy nilly - they are differing over how they comprehend what is written.

According to what you wrote above, they absolutely are. You wrote:

The Bible is the 'rule book' for Christianity. If you pick willy nilly what parts to believe and what parts not to then you are essentially making up something that is different than is contained. If it is different - then it is not the same. If it is not the same then it is something else, and the name Christian is already taken.

Like me, that entire list of denominations does not think that homosexuality is a sin. They get a pass and I don't. Why?

I think it's time you stated your beliefs. We've spent a lot of time analyzing mine and I think you need to actually detail your convictions. You are very quick to be critical of me but I'd like to hear how you reflect on these issues. Your last comment revealed quite a bit but you really didn't stand up for anything. What I don't want to hear is cowardly whining about how your views aren't relevant to the conversation. They obviously are because some of those views involved you being critical of me.

If you are "something else" (as you have defined above), then it should be no problem. You aren't a Christian so your assertions about me stand even with your convictions. Of course, that would mean that juris's line about non Christians criticizing Christians does indeed ring hollow. If you are a Christian, then unless are you are a Messianic Jew, you do the very thing you accuse me of...picking and choosing...being willy nilly. Because I can guarantee you that you don't follow all of the Bible.



Juris Imprudent said...

It's not as simple as you are saying here.

Of course it really is that simple and it just isn't fair that your simple-mindedness won't deal with it.

Mark Ward said...

Hey juris, any thoughts on the list above? Makes me wonder how it's possible that you haven't heard of any of those denominations.

GuardDuck said...

Yes. Yes. Because God loves his children (us). What kind of a being do you think God is? He's not a dictator and he's no longer vengeful because of Jesus. Conservatives their authority figures...sheesh...


Ahh, I see. So God is a democratic deity? He says 'thou shall not kill', but society says 'nah, too much effort there buddy', so he says 'oh snap, guess I was out voted'?

BS Mark. Yes, when God says don't do something, that is being said from a position of authority. Of course you keep telling me that society can overrule rules from God that it doesn't like.....

So, like I keep asking, how is society's view on, say murder and rape relevant to God's view?


Like me, that entire list of denominations does not think that homosexuality is a sin. They get a pass and I don't. Why?

Because not a single one of those denominations is saying it isn't a sin because the Bible is wrong. They are saying it isn't a sin because of the way they read the Bible it isn't a sin. They are not picking and choosing, they are not saying society's view on something gets to overrule God's view. In short, their arguments are based upon what the Bible says, not a rejection of what the Bible says.



We've spent a lot of time analyzing mine and I think you need to actually detail your convictions.

And I keep telling you we aren't analysing your beliefs. We are discussing your logic with a smattering of philosophy.

What I don't want to hear is cowardly whining about how your views aren't relevant to the conversation. They obviously are because some of those views involved you being critical of me.

Well they aren't. And I'm not being critical of your beliefs, I'm being critical of the logic you are using to make conclusions. As I pointed out above, and was correct when doing so, the only thing that happened when I did so was that you used it to deflect and go off topic.

I didn't post my beliefs on the the internet unsolicited, and I didn't post a host of faulty logic in support of a controversial conclusion. These are things you did. Not me. Not only are my beliefs not relevant, but your only reason to hear them is so that you can find a way to smear and insult me with them.

But I'll tell you what, if you can make a coherent case how knowing what my convictions are would in any way have any impact on my arguments other than those brought about directly in response to your queries about my beliefs - I'll gladly tell you.

Mark Ward said...

They are saying it isn't a sin because of the way they read the Bible it isn't a sin.

Seriously, dude?! That's exactly what I have been saying all along and been ripped for it constantly (words have meaning etc). I wonder what NMN would think about this. What a cop out. And all because you can't admit fault. And I think you might want to spend a little more time researching how they came to their conclusions about homosexuality, in particular the Presbyterian Church.

I'm being critical of the logic you are using to make conclusions.

if you can make a coherent case how knowing what my convictions are would in any way have any impact on my arguments

One of your convictions is logic and, in particular, the buffoonery of the law of non contradiction which your hubris has trapped you in once again. What I want to see is how you use "logic" to reach your convictions about God and society. That's why not listing your beliefs is a cop out because you know you will be doing the very thing you accuse me of and then what?

GuardDuck said...

That's exactly what I have been saying all along and been ripped for it constantly

Bullshit. That's what we've been saying. You've been saying that the Bible is wrong. That position IS NOT compatible with the above. You've been saying that society can overrule the Bible. That position IS NOT compatible with the above.


What I want to see is how you use "logic" to reach your convictions about God and society.

So I was right, the only reason you have is that you want to insult and find fault. I didn't post my convictions on the internet, you did. You did so as a tool to further your own arguments. You did so as a hammer to bash opposing views. You put your beliefs out there and exposed them for inspection.

I did none of these things. And you have no other reason to hear mine except so that you can insult and demean. Not going to happen.


That's why not listing your beliefs is a cop out because you know you will be doing the very thing you accuse me of and then what?

The only way I would be doing the same as you is if I said the Bible was wrong, while giving as reasons variously as society can overrule it, or that it isn't really wrong, but it is, but it isn't, but it is, but it isn't......



how they came to their conclusions about homosexuality


Did they say the Bible is wrong? No? Then you and they aren't talking the same language.