Athletes and religion

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion


    Guys, I'm not an atheist, but don't you think enough is enough?....geez
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Athletes and religion : 67 - no it won't, but you did not give me one real answer to my question. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. It is not a mental disorder, it is not a disease, it is not wrong  - it is what it is and you all need to get over it.
    Posted by jesseyeric[/QUOTE]

    Please let us agree to disagree.  I believe what I believe, nothing will change that so there simply is no way that I'll get over it.

    You believe what you believe, nothing I will say will change your mind.  At no time in this thread have I asked you or anyone else to join my side of the discussion.

    I have tried to answer honestly those who asked me questions.  Those who chose to insult me I have ignored.

    Again I ask for your prayers and I hope you don't mind if I keep you in mine.

    If I say something ugly about the yanks will that distract you from this topic?

    Here goes,  I don't like the new stadium. I think it's gaudy and not a real ball park like fenway.   Did that do the trick?Laughing

    I went to the old yankee stadium twice to see the sox play, had a great time.

    I made a friend with one of the yank fans.  I was there with my husband cheering for my boys when this big scary yank fan started coming towards my seat.

    He had a black leather vest and on his arm, which was the size of a tree trunk, he had a very large "NY" tattoo with lightning bolts coming out from it.  I was a bit nervous until he started talking to us.

    He was a really nice guy who said he was ok with me cheering for my boys.  As the game went on we chatted more.  He told my husband he liked me LOL! 

    Jessey, could that have possible been you? 

    The sox won that night so I had a great time!!!!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]Guys, I'm not an atheist, but don't you think enough is enough?....geez
    Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE]

    I agree! It's been lots of fun but it's time for me to say so long to this thread.

    GOOD NIGHT
    Now it's time to say good night
    good night sleep tight
    Now the sun turns out his light
    good night sleep tight
    Dream sweet dreams for me
    Dream sweet dreams for you

    Close your eyes and I'll close mine
    Good night sleep tight
    Now the moon begins to shine
    Good night sleep tight
    Dream sweet dreams for me
    Dream sweet dreams for you
    Mm, mm, mm

    Close your eyes and I'll close mine
    Good night sleep tight
    Now the sun turns out his light
    Good night sleep tight
    Dream sweet dreams for me
    Dream sweet dreams for you
    (Good night, good night everybody
    everybody everywhere, goodnight)
    BEATLES
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alan-inWA. Show Alan-inWA's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    It's amazing how folks try to spin a concept of God. They are in essence trying to make themselves the authority and to create God in their own image rather than acepting the Biblical evidence; no more, no less.

    You don't get to heaven on a points system. You can only get to heaven on the basis of having made Jesus Christ the Lord of your life, as the only begotten Son of God, having died for your sins. There is no other Biblical criteria. Such people have the Holy Spirit to convict them of right from wrong. Different denominational teachings can really mess you up. Some try to teach that you can't know if you are going to heaven or not and that the judgement has to do with weighing your good works against your bad works. They are ignorant of the Gospel of Salvation by Grace. Read the entire book of Romans.

    TO:  JesseyEric

    The Old Testament defines sin and gives many exampes.  The New Testament tells us that Jesus kept the Old Testment Law as his standard and that he was sinless.  He agreed with the Law.  Therefore, he could not have taken an advisarial position against the sins of adultery, fornication, or homosexuality.  It would be sin for him to do so... and the Apostles would not have preached anything different.  When Jesus preached about forsaking sin, the Jews knew what he was talking about and there was no excluding homosexuality. 

    Loving God?  You do not sin against Him.  Loving your neighbor also requires that you do not commit sin with them.  All this humanistic schmaltz about love does not make sin acceptable!!!  The opposite of love is selfishness.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]It's amazing how folks try to spin a concept of God. They are in essence trying to make themselves the authority and to create God in their own image rather than acepting the Biblical evidence; no more, no less. You don't get to heaven on a points system. You can only get to heaven on the basis of having made Jesus Christ the Lord of your life, as the only begotten Son of God, having died for your sins. There is no other Biblical criteria. Such people have the Holy Spirit to convict them of right from wrong. Different denominational teachings can really mess you up. Some try to teach that you can't know if you are going to heaven or not and that the judgement has to do with weighing your good works against your bad works. They are ignorant of the Gospel of Salvation by Grace. Read the entire book of Romans. TO:  JesseyEric The Old Testament defines sin and gives many exampes.  The New Testament tells us that Jesus kept the Old Testment Law as his standard and that he was sinless.  He agreed with the Law.  Therefore, he could not have taken an advisarial position against the sins of adultery, fornication, or homosexuality.  It would be sin for him to do so... and the Apostles would not have preached anything different.
    Posted by Alan-inWA[/QUOTE]

    Noteworthy post.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    Having read most of this thread, my impression is I wish the quality of the posts and the eloquent nature was expressed on the board on other topics i.e. any other topic.

    I'm a non-believer, if you will, and find it fascinating to see the posters I'm aligned with. I saw a post using Albert Einstein in a pro-religious stance, and I find that interesting as Einstein was a well-known atheist as are most, if not all, scientists. I'm not going to say anything negative in reference to the believers as I'm a "free to be you and me" kinda person. I actually envy you. I knew at a very early age it didn't make sense to me, possibly 12 or so. I would love to believe everything was in some "god's" hands. I just can't. I'll just say this. Why would somone believe another person, like themselves, who wrote their stories a hundred or more years after they supposedly happened? And they really are just stories. It's kinda like saying, "I'll believe what they believed all those years ago and ask no questions." What makes their judgement more important than your own?

    Having said that, I think I would draw the line at looking at homosexuals as deviants of some sort. I've already had this conversation with a poster on this thread at another time, and there's really no changing her mind. IMO this kind of thinking is actually killing people, children even, who are beaten to death over it. In some countries, you can be put to death. I don't even have the time to list the many things that are wrong with that picture. I'll just say that line of thinking is what is causing so much harm to so many innocent people. How do religious people justify it, after all they are, for the most part whether they realize it or not, promoting it?

    Btw, I can't believe a thread about religion has been up this long when a thread looking at the Yankees realistically probably didn't last more than a day. Someone had to complain about it.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    Btw, I can't believe a thread about religion has been up this long when a thread looking at the Yankees realistically probably didn't last more than a day. Someone had to complain about it. (KST)

    Kim - you write a very nice, respectful comment on the subject matter and then at the end you bring it back towards your hatred. Dottie has already stated that some outsourcing company did it. Get over it and move onto the next subject. And if someone did complain, there is nothing we can do about it.

    Alan inWa - then if Jesus held all in the Old Testament to be true and the word & Law of his father, then he must accept the fact that his Father was a sadistic and non-loving deity who had little regard for those he supposedly created in his own image. The Old Testament is basically a Snuff Movie!

    As 67 beautifully stated with the lyrics of the Beatles - Good night to this post.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]Having read most of this thread, my impression is I wish the quality of the posts and the eloquent nature was expressed on the board on other topics i.e. any other topic. I'm a non-believer, if you will, and find it fascinating to see the posters I'm aligned with. I saw a post using Albert Einstein in a pro-religious stance, and I find that interesting as Einstein was a well-known atheist as are most, if not all, scientists. I'm not going to say anything negative in reference to the believers as I'm a "free to be you and me" kinda person. I actually envy you. I knew at a very early age it didn't make sense to me, possibly 12 or so. I would love to believe everything was in some "god's" hands. I just can't. I'll just say this. Why would somone believe another person, like themselves, who wrote their stories a hundred or more years after they supposedly happened? And they really are just stories. It's kinda like saying, "I'll believe what they believed all those years ago and ask no questions." What makes their judgement more important than your own? Having said that, I think I would draw the line at looking at homosexuals as deviants of some sort. I've already had this conversation with a poster on this thread at another time, and there's really no changing her mind. IMO this kind of thinking is actually killing people, children even, who are beaten to death over it. In some countries, you can be put to death. I don't even have the time to list the many things that are wrong with that picture. I'll just say that line of thinking is what is causing so much harm to so many innocent people. How do religious people justify it, after all they are, for the most part whether they realize it or not, promoting it? Btw, I can't believe a thread about religion has been up this long when a thread looking at the Yankees realistically probably didn't last more than a day. Someone had to complain about it.
    Posted by kimsaysthis[/QUOTE]


    Einstein an atheist?  Wasn't it Einstein's quote "God doesn't play dice" describing quantum mechanics?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Roadrunner9234. Show Roadrunner9234's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    67,  I know you won’t see this but I’ll type it anyway.  You asked me a direct question and I gave you an answer. The fact that I don’t value the teachings of the catholic church is not tantamount to calling you a name. That you would ask me a question and put me on ignore because you don’t like my answer tells me you are ridiculously oversensitive, and completely intolerant of other people’s viewpoints. I haven’t engaged in name-calling thus far, but I will now.  

    You seem to meet that basic pre-requisite to being a good Christian- namely, being a terrible human being. If heaven does exist you don't get in.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Athletes and religion : Einstein an atheist?  Wasn't it Einstein's quote "God doesn't play dice" describing quantum mechanics?
    Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE]

    He also said, when queried about whether science had rendered God obsolete:  "There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle, or you can live as if everything is a miracle."
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]slomag a voice of reason
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    he does write eloquent responses.
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    I think it is abnormal, read: perverted, to care so much about who someone is sleeping with, as long as the parties are consenting and no one is being harmed.   I suspect this abnormal level of care is based in fear.  Hence, phobia

    Your comment "to care so much about who someone is sleeping with" is the comment of a droning intellectual midget. Obviously, people can sleep where they want to sleep. The issue of the morality of same-sexual relations conduct and it's basis as a separate personal identity has nothing to do with "sleeping together".

    It takes a true mental midget to adopt "two consenting adults (only on the issue of sexual conduct and a few other popular issues) not harming anyone else as I define not harming anyone else" as a moral and value standard. Sexual conduct as the basis of a political artificed group identity is conclusive de facto proof that mankind will always follow a large group of fools.  

    And for the arrogant "no evidence whatseoever" scholar:

     "Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.  (Matthew 5:17-18)"

    It is truly pitiful to go through childish mental gymnastic to try and reconcile same-sexual conduct with Judeo-Christian morals. "Jesus never said "being Gay" was wrong", dum de dum dum dum!. That man would seek Judeo-Christian moral legitimization of specified relationships and pleasures should come as no surprise. 

    I have more intellecutal respect for those who simply reject Judeo-Christian moral teaching under personal or religious freedom to do so, instead of making childish claims that "being Gay"  or "Gay marriage" is not specifically morally objectionable for Judeo-Christians.  
     
     
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    For those Leftists who call themselves "progressives", history will not be kind to those who endorse the following law:

    Abortion as birth control prevention for consensual sex

    There will come a time where men will look back on this time as one of the most brutal and barbaric times in World history!

    Most lives, today, were, under current law, subject to the right of a human being to uniliaterally decide that no such life will ever be lived. 

    Given the popularity of certain current values related to sexual conduct, to adopt those popular values is truly the province of a fool. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]I think it is abnormal, read: perverted, to care so much about who someone is sleeping with, as long as the parties are consenting and no one is being harmed.   I suspect this abnormal level of care is based in fear.  Hence, phobia Your comment "to care so much about who someone is sleeping with" is the comment of a droning intellectual midget. Obviously, people can sleep where they want to sleep. The issue of the morality of same-sexual relations conduct and it's basis as a separate personal identity has nothing to do with "sleeping together". It takes a true mental midget to adopt "two consenting adults (only on the issue of sexual conduct and a few other popular issues) not harming anyone else as I define not harming anyone else" as a moral and value standard. Sexual conduct as the basis of a political artificed group identity is conclusive de facto proof that mankind will always follow a large group of fools.   And for the arrogant "no evidence whatseoever" scholar:   "Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.  (Matthew 5:17-18) " It is truly pitiful to go through childish mental gymnastic to try and reconcile same-sexual conduct with Judeo-Christian morals. "Jesus never said "being Gay" was wrong", dum de dum dum dum!. That man would seek Judeo-Christian moral legitimization of specified relationships and pleasures should come as no surprise.  I have more intellecutal respect for those who simply reject Judeo-Christian moral teaching under personal or religious freedom to do so, instead of making childish claims that "being Gay"  or "Gay marriage" is not specifically morally objectionable for Judeo-Christians.      
    Posted by hankwilliamsjr[/QUOTE]

    Again, mixing my words with others'.  I never said anything about what jesus did or didn't say on the subject of hom ... samesexattractiondisorder. Wrong droning intellectual midget I guess.  But, hey, I don't expect anything else from you.  So I won't quibble.

    However, please, forgive my mental midgetry and elucidate me on the one thing that I cannot pick up that is at the core of your point:  Who are the parties harmed by those that engage in samesexattrationdisorder-sex?  Seriously, who?  I am interested because my moral compass is The Golden Rule, and I just don't see what makes it a sin if it doesn't hurt anyone.  
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Athletes and religion : Who gets to decide if homosexuality is ok? Just because you say it is does that make it so? If so then why? Could it possibly be that you are wrong?  Could it possibly be God or nature, if you find that more palatable, made a man and woman's body to fit together perfectly so the two become one while a man's body with a man and a woman's body with a woman aren't made to have that intimate oneness.   Who gets to decide why taking religious freedom away from catholics is ok? Who gets to decide to take homosexuality off the mental health list without any statistics to prove it is not a mental health issue? Why is it that you are right and I am wrong?  Mercifully I live in a state that believes I am right and you are wrong.  We the people voted into state law that marriage is between one man and one women. We are one of many states to do so. Who decided that  gay marriage should be legal in Mass.  A judge!  How is it in a republic that a judge is allowed to make laws.  States that are allowed to vote have chosen the one man and one woman marriage law. Even in California the people through their vote tossed out the gay marriage law that was set up by a judge.  A judge went against the peoples will to put the law back in place. It seems a whole lot of people believe as I do. Obama said he would not enforce the defence of marriage act. So now the president has decided he is above the law.  If you are really afraid of losing your freedoms look into obamacare.  It's the catholics right now because we are an easy target as is evident on this board.  Eventually the rest of you will be affected.  You are so horrified catholics do not want to include elective surgery like sterilization and an elected form of abortion, the pill and morning after pill, in their health care plan. Again I ask you what insurance plan covers the removal of or mutilation of perfectly healthy organs? None, but please don't allow me to confuse you with the truth. It is pretty typical and kind of pedestrian to bring the pope into this. Every ant-catholic loves to jump on that bandwagon.
    Posted by 67redsox[/QUOTE]

    Summer, I find it more palatable for two people of the same gender who love each other and share a monogomous relationship together to enjoy the rights protected by marriage than people who marry and divorce at the drop of a hat.  By your own faith, both are sinners - why protect one and not the other? 

    I don't think the majority of the state believes that homosexuals are sinners.  I think that voters always represent an older sample of the community, and even among those who vote against gay marriage provisions, you would be hard-pressed to find people using the term 'Sinner'.

    But ultimately, if I am right and you are wrong, then you have disparaged a group of people who are living their lives as they see fit, as God has made them.  You have protested their funerals, blamed world events on their life-styles, denied them rights, and deeply hurt and offended their families.  You have made their lives more difficult than they have had to be.  

    If you are right and I am wrong, what have I done?  Suggested you either keep these views to yourself, or apply your same convictions evenly to sinners more directly in sphere of influence.  My guess is you don't have a lot of gay friends, but how many friends do you have who are serial marryers, or practice idolotry, or take the Lord's name in vain?  

    Regarding judicial activism, we never voted to end segregation either - it was ruled unconstitutional by judges.  It's why we have them.

    Again, I'm with you on Obamacare - it needs a lot of help and as a small business owner, it's complicating my life, but the status quo was killing people and putting sick people out of their homes, so I'll support any honest efforts of improvement.

    You're casting a wide net when it comes to contraceptive services - you're far more likely to be providing pills or devices than surgical operations.  And the surgical operations are much more likely in older women, whose risks are far greater in pregnancy.  Are there instances where healthy organs are removed to prevent potential risks or even just discomfort?  I'm guessing there are.

    In fairness, the Catholic position on birth control stems from Papal decree, so it's hard to leave the Pope out of this.  And again, in fairness, is anything more pedestrian than directing righteous indignation at Obama and homosexuals?


     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    However, please, forgive my mental midgetry and elucidate me on the one thing that I cannot pick up that is at the core of your point:  Who are the parties harmed by those that engage in samesexattrationdisorder-sex?  Seriously, who?  I am interested because my moral compass is The Golden Rule, and I just don't see what makes it a sin if it doesn't hurt anyone.  

    You frame the issue in a superficial way. But let me play along. Who are the parties harmed by those who engage in bisexattractiondisorder-sex? Who are the parties harmed by those who engage in sexual conduct that only two consenting adults know about? Who are the parties harmed by those who identify themselves as members of a group of people who publicly proclaim to engage in bi-sexual conduct? Who are the parties harmed by those who engage in consensual adults polygamous unions?

    "2 consenting adults not harming others" most certainly is not a basis for any current value system. Nor should it be. We will disagree as to what constitutes "harming others", not that this should ever the litmus test for moral values. But the issue is not what personal sexual pleasures people seek. And it should be noted that most consensual sexual pleasures are not allowed in public, under the reasoning that it is offensive to others who should not have to witness it. The State, in it's attempt to accomadate contemporary popular human desires and rewrite religiously based moral codes it once adopted for it's own moral code, has been and will continue to be unable to codify a coherent moral code. The State, as man's contemporary God, will continue to engineer a debt ridden indolent decadent society without personal responsiblity. 

    Though no manmade system is perfect, the virtue of The United States was grounded in the Judeo-Christian tenets that once served as it's polar star to guide it away from the arrogance that is man. That is no longer the case, as current leaders seek popular support from an ever increasing entitlement class of de facto Wards of the State, with no respect whatsoever for personal responsiblity and the impact of personal deicisons on a civil society whose orderly function depends upon the institution of Marriage and the responsiblities of the family.       
     
    The issue isn't about the reason behind personal publicly proclaimed or actual personal or sexual relationships, it is about the absurdity of using self-proclaimed sexual relationships as the basis for the political artifice of a group identity, and the attempt to legitmize and instituionalize, by artifice, this identity.

    There are men and women. Marriage, by definition, is the sacred rite that forms the moral basis for creating the rights and responsbilities of the family.

    The entertainment business is worshiped by popular preference. And to that end has created a ship of irresponsible pleasure obscessing fools, bored with and tired of the demands of outdated old family values and a simple self-disciplined and self-respected daily life's work. My generation has adopted and is now fully at ease with a value system reflected in the current entertainment business, discarding the virtues of mothers and fathers who taught self-respect and self-discipline and a respect for God, and embracing the perversions and disfunctions of broken families. 

    The prime directive (Thank you Mr. Spock) calling card value of the largest ship of generational decadent fools in American history is as follows:

    "2 Consenting Adults not harming others"   
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]However, please, forgive my mental midgetry and elucidate me on the one thing that I cannot pick up that is at the core of your point:  Who are the parties harmed by those that engage in samesexattrationdisorder-sex?  Seriously, who?  I am interested because my moral compass is The Golden Rule, and I just don't see what makes it a sin if it doesn't hurt anyone.   You frame the issue in a superficial way. But let me play along. Who are the parties harmed by those who engage in bisexattractiondisorder-sex? Who are the parties harmed by those who engage in sexual conduct that only two consenting adults know about? Who are the parties harmed by those who identify themselves as members of a group of people who publicly proclaim to engage in bi-sexual conduct? Who are the parties harmed by those who engage in consensual adults polygamous unions? "2 consenting adults not harming others" most certainly is not a basis for any current value system. Nor should it be. We will disagree as to what constitutes " harming others ", not that this should ever the litmus test for moral values. But the issue is not what personal sexual pleasures people seek. And it should be noted that most consensual sexual pleasures are not allowed in public, under the reasoning that it is offensive to others who should not have to witness it. The State, in it's attempt to accomadate contemporary popular human desires and rewrite religiously based moral codes it once adopted for it's own moral code, has been and will continue to be unable to codify a coherent moral code. The State, as man's contemporary God, will continue to engineer a debt ridden indolent decadent society without personal responsiblity.  Though no manmade system is perfect, the virtue of The United States was grounded in the Judeo-Christian tenets that once served as it's polar star to guide it away from the arrogance that is man. That is no longer the case, as current leaders seek popular support from an ever increasing entitlement class of de facto Wards of the State, with no respect whatsoever for personal responsiblity and the impact of personal deicisons on a civil society whose orderly function depends upon the institution of Marriage and the responsiblities of the family.          The issue isn't about the reason behind personal publicly proclaimed or actual personal or sexual relationships, it is about the absurdity of using self-proclaimed sexual relationships as the basis for the political artifice of a group identity, and the attempt to legitmize and instituionalize, by artifice, this identity. There are men and women. Marriage, by definition, is the sacred rite that forms the moral basis for creating the rights and responsbilities of the family. The entertainment business is worshiped by popular preference. And to that end has created a ship of irresponsible pleasure obscessing fools, bored with and tired of the demands of outdated old family values and a simple self-disciplined and self-respected daily life's work. My generation has adopted and is now fully at ease with a value system reflected in the current entertainment business, discarding the virtues of mothers and fathers who taught self-respect and self-discipline and a respect for God, and embracing the perversions and disfunctions of broken families.  The prime directive (Thank you Mr. Spock) calling card value of the largest ship of generational decadent fools in American history is as follows: "2 Consenting Adults not harming others"   
    Posted by hankwilliamsjr[/QUOTE]

    Ok, but you didn't play along like you said you would, did you?  You did not answer who is harmed by the carnal union of two humans of the same sex.  
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

     I find it more palatable for two people of the same gender who love each other and share a monogomous relationship together to enjoy the rights protected by marriage than people who marry and divorce at the drop of a hat.  By your own faith, both are sinners - why protect one and not the other? 

    Aside from the silly notion of "2", you superficially propound a non-sequitur as the basis for redefining marriage. Of course, two people of the same gender will be allowed to divorce, and will do so at the same rate as any group of people. 

    Marriage isn't "protection for a sinner". The belief that divorce is a sin has nothing to do with protecting the sins of those who marry and later divorce. 

    I want to direct you progressives to the number 3, or perhaps, 4 or more "loving people". 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE] I find it more palatable for two people of the same gender who love each other and share a monogomous relationship together to enjoy the rights protected by marriage than people who marry and divorce at the drop of a hat.   By your own faith, both are sinners - why protect one and not the other?   Aside from the silly notion of "2", you superficially propound a non-sequitur as the basis for redefining marriage. Of course, two people of the same gender will be allowed to divorce, and will do so at the same rate as any group of people.  Marriage isn't "protection for a sinner". The belief that divorce is a sin has nothing to do with protecting the sins of those who marry and later divorce.  I want to direct you progressives to the number 3, or perhaps, 4 or more "loving people". 
    Posted by hankwilliamsjr[/QUOTE]

    I'm sure your blanket statements equating homosexuality with promiscuity will be  history's final say.  Maybe that history book will be written by a Kardashian.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    Ok, but you didn't play along like you said you would, did you?  You did not answer who is harmed by the carnal union of two humans of the same sex.

    Define "carnal union". If you mean "same-sex State licensed unions", it harms society on a number of levels. First and foremost is the example it sets for children in their formative years. My sister is a social worker and a moderate who flippantly uses childish terms like "homophobic". She has studied the issue extensively, "in the trenches".  She said that her study of the studies conclude that the self-professed same-sexual conduct preferenced group is less than 1% of the population, and that a substantial majority of this 1% identifies themselves as "bi-sexual". Children do not need a message that extra-marital sexual and experimentation relationships and same-sexual "experimentation" relationships are acceptable.
     
    Obviously, I am one of those old fools who believes that the purpose of "carnal" relations is acting upon the naturally created physical characterstics to procreate, which doesn't require the current ability to do so, and that Marriage is the sacred institution to define the rights and responsiblities of the family that results from these relationship.
     
    And Space, don't be scared of actually reading with an eye towards the potential for rejecting, on moral grounds, what is currently popular with your generation. I know how much ridicule, censorship and abuse one will take on by virtue of rejecting and denouncing the current generational values, but it shows character.
     
    This issue, for me, is an easy issue for the few who claim it is a difficult one. Aside from the clear cut admonitons, Old and New Testament, it is naturally an abomination of what men and women were created for.

    And the most pitiful intellectual advancement from the Leftists, as they bravely risk life and limb in their battle for the rights of those helpless minorities who engage in loving relationships of two consenting adults, is the one that lumps self-proclaimed same-sexual conduct relationship class members as the equivalent to the American history equal protection plight of those of African ancestry. It's puny, pitiful, and a few other P words for those feeble minded ship of fools.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Roadrunner9234. Show Roadrunner9234's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    So, the real problems are promiscuity and se x for pleasure. And, of course, only gay people do those kinds of things.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]So, the real problems are promiscuity and se x for pleasure. And, of course, only gay people do those kinds of things.
    Posted by Roadrunner9234[/QUOTE]

    Of course.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]Ok, but you didn't play along like you said you would, did you?  You did not answer who is harmed by the carnal union of two humans of the same sex. Define "carnal union". If you mean "same-sex State licensed unions", it harms society on a number of levels. First and foremost is the example it sets for children in their formative years. My sister is a social worker and a moderate who flippantly uses childish terms like "homophobic". She has studied the issue extensively, "in the trenches".  She said that her study of the studies conclude that the self-professed same-sexual conduct preferenced group is less than 1% of the population, and that a substantial majority of this 1% identifies themselves as "bi-sexual". Children do not need a message that extra-marital sexual and experimentation relationships and same-sexual "experimentation" relationships are acceptable.   Obviously, I am one of those old fools who believes that the purpose of "carnal" relations is acting upon the naturally created physical characterstics to procreate, which doesn't require the current ability to do so, and that Marriage is the sacred institution to define the rights and responsiblities of the family that results from these relationship.   And Space, don't be scared of actually reading with an eye towards the potential for rejecting, on moral grounds, what is currently popular with your generation. I know how much ridicule, censorship and abuse one will take on by virtue of rejecting and denouncing the current generational values, but it shows character.   This issue, for me, is an easy issue for the few who claim it is a difficult one. Aside from the clear cut admonitons, Old and New Testament, it is naturally an abomination of what men and women were created for. And the most pitiful intellectual advancement from the Leftists, as they bravely risk life and limb in their battle for the rights of those helpless minorities who engage in loving relationships of two consenting adults, is the one that lumps self-proclaimed same-sexual conduct relationship class members as the equivalent to the American history equal protection plight of those of African ancestry. It's puny, pitiful, and a few other P words for those feeble minded ship of fools.
    Posted by hankwilliamsjr[/QUOTE]

    Black Power.  Woman Power.  Gay Power.  Power to the People.  You got it.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Athletes and religion : Of course.
    Posted by SpacemanEephus[/QUOTE]

    I fear what I would be considered, so i will show restraint and shut up. But I will admit to playing in a Rock Band in the 70's & 80's brought me such wonderful experiences.

    And SpaceAce, admit, you are a bad man. Tongue out
    As penance, go home and listen to the Village People's Greatest Hits continually for 4 hours or until your ears bleed.
     

Share