• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

ruffen

Active Member
To return to the original post:

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.


That doesn't explain God's existence, and you are no closer to knowing why everything exists.

Also, you say "Before anything, there was nothing" as you know this? How do you know this?

Current scientific theories say that time and space are inseparable, and that both came into existence in the Big Bang. Time itself started then, so technically there is no "before anything". Therefore no time when a cause could happen, be it God or anything else.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I am a he, and yes, I did say that, and it is true that the vast majority of homosexuals who give up homosexuality are religiously motivated, which leaves you with no valid secular arguments against homosexuals who are not religious, especially monogamous homosexuals, who have no need of practicing abstinence.
I applaud your honesty and memory here. Your stock went up a few points with (no that does not imply you may post a thousand pages on homosexuality for me to read). However this is a genetic fallacy. It does not matter why they gave it up, they did so. If it can be given up for any reason that it is not genetically mandated. They could have given it up because fruit loops taste better to straight people for all I care.

Some Christian health experts who oppose homosexuality admit that even the majority of religiously motivated homosexuals fail to give up homosexuality. That is quite natural since having sex is normal, and long term abstinence is abnormal.
You do realize that over 90% of the total humans who have lived in recorded history did not practice homosexuality. Probably more like 95% or higher. That is not indicative of normalcy of homosexuality. The fallibility of man is normal. Should we all just quit trying to not fail? Not that normal is justification of anything anyway.


Some recent research in epigenetics has provided excellent evidence, using mathematical models, that epigenetic factors in the womb are important factors that contribute to homosexuality. Consider the following:

Epigenetics may be a critical factor contributing to homosexuality, study suggests
I thought of a type of data that I can trust. If they can use their studies to predict with 90% plus accuracy who will be gay given genetics alone (before birth) I might consider that telling.


You once claimed that homosexuality is not partly caused by genetics. You were wrong.
I actually said over and over that genetics may in fact cause a person to lean one way or the other. My view has been that genetics can't mandate homosexuality. If just a single person gave it up (for any reason). I mean they have no longing whatever any more to practice it then could anyone claim it is all genetics?

Homosexuality can be defined as same-sex sexual identity, or as same-sex actions.
Redefining terms only makes things actually different in liberal fantasy land. No matter what you call our debt we will probably never over come it and have already destroyed ourselves. The only possible exception is for liberals to stop spending like drunken sailors to buy votes (good luck), or for liberals to allow us to access our vast natural resources that are currently off limits so some school of minnow is nor harmed by drilling.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
To return to the original post:

That doesn't explain God's existence, and you are no closer to knowing why everything exists.
Not that I support their argument exactly but there is not the slightest mandate to explain God's existence. It is an ignorant and absurd notion to demand a human explain how an eternal and uncaused being came to be. It shows an ignorance of what God is. That same argument was asked by Dawkin's and has been called the worst argument on God in the history of western thought by men who know.

Also, you say "Before anything, there was nothing" as you know this? How do you know this?
I do not know what he was saying but I am saying at no point in time or out of it did God not exist.

Current scientific theories say that time and space are inseparable, and that both came into existence in the Big Bang. Time itself started then, so technically there is no "before anything". Therefore no time when a cause could happen, be it God or anything else.
There is an outside of time. BTW what you said science says also was somehow know to ignorant bronze age men 4000 years ago and recorded in the first verse I the Bible.

In the beginning (time) God (necessary uncaused first cause) created the Earth (matter) and the heavens (space). Glad Bord Guth and Velankin finally caught up.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Message to 1robin: There is no point of us debating homosexuality in two threads, this one, and a thread that is titled "Is the U.S. a Christian Nation?" How about let's use only this thread? Better yet, how about a thread on homosexuality where we had a lot of discussions on homosexuality weeks or months ago? If you want to use this thread, then let's do that. Following is a post that I recently made in the thread that is titled "Is the U.S. a Christian Nation."

1robin said:
If you can guarantee that those who are monogamous will always be so then that might be important.

Can you reasonably prove that monogamous heterosexuals remain monogamous a good deal longer than monogamous homosexuals do?

Why should monogamous homosexuals who have been monogamous for decades practice abstinence?

If the STD rates of monogamous lesbians were similar to the STD rates of heterosexual males, would you object to monogamous lesbians?

The highest HIV rates for heterosexual men in the U.S. by far are by African American men. Do you recommend that all heterosexual African American men should practice abstinence?

About half of homosexuals are monogamous.

An article at http://www.howaboutwe.com/date-report/when-gay-couples-get-married-are-they-monogamous/# says:

"Chan and Hornedo, [two gay men] still happily married, believe monogamy is “the only healthy channel for a long-lasting, fulfilling relationship."

Why should homosexuals like them practice abstinence?

Some monogamous homosexuals who died lived their entire lives as monogamous homosexuals. Do you object to those homosexuals?

One study showed that in about 21 American cities, 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV. Quite naturally, if only monogamous homosexuals had been studied, well over 90'% of those homosexuals would not have had HIV, maybe over 95%. Surely the vast majority of STDs among homosexuals are caused by homosexuals who are not monogamous.

If cures for all STD's were found, would you still object to homosexuality?
 
Last edited:

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
1robin said:
I thought of a type of data that I can trust. If they can use their studies to predict with 90% plus accuracy who will be gay given genetics alone (before birth) I might consider that telling.

I do not know about that, but there is not any credible scientific evidence at all that environmental factors alone determine sexual orientation, and there is definitely a lot of evidence that shows that epigenetics factors inside of the womb are an important part of homosexuality.

Consider the following:

Scientists claim that homosexuality is not genetic

io9.com said:
Writing in The Quarterly Review of Biology, researchers William Rice, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Urban Friberg, a professor at Uppsala University in Sweden, believe that homosexuality can be explained by the presence of epi-marks — temporary switches that control how our genes are expressed during gestation and after we're born.

Epigenetic mechanisms can be seen as an added layer of information that clings to our DNA. Epi-marks regulate the expression of genes according to the strength of external cues. Genes are basically the instruction book, while epi-marks direct how those instructions get carried out. For example, they can determine when, where, and how much of a gene gets expressed.

Moreover, epi-marks are usually produced from scratch with each generation — but new evidence is showing that they can sometimes carryover from parent to child. It's this phenomenon that gives the impression of having shared genes with relatives.

To reach this conclusion, Rice and Friberg created a biological and mathematical model that charted the role of epigenetics in homosexuality. They did so by applying evolutionary theory to recent advances in the molecular regulation of gene expression and androgen-dependent sexual development.

This data was integrated with recent findings from the epigenetic control of gene expression, especially in embryonic stem cells. This allowed the researchers to develop and empirically support a mathematical model of epigenetic-based canalization of sexual development, or the tendency of heredity to restrict the development of some characteristics to just one or a few traits. Their model successfully predicted the evolution of homosexuality in both sexes when canalizing epi-marks carry over across generations with nonzero probability.

Please note "Their [mathematical] model successfully predicted the evolution of homosexuality in both sexes when canalizing epi-marks carry over across generations with nonzero probability."

The mathematical model could not have successfully predicted the evolution of homosexuality if homosexuality was primarily caused by environmental factors outside of the womb.

Months ago, in another thread, you said "I believe that genetics are not significantly influential concerning homosexuality." By all means, please provide whatever scientific evidence you have regarding the causes of sexual orientation. All of the major medical organizations disagree with you.

If you would like to discuss this with some experts, I can put you in touch with some. However, you will never do that because you do want to let people know how little you know about biology, and biochemistry. If would be laughable to see you address the National Academy of Sciences about the causes of biology and say "I thought of a type of data that I can trust. If they can use their studies to predict with 90% plus accuracy who will be gay given genetics alone (before birth) I might consider that telling." You know that that is an awful argument, and that the only reason that you used it is because you know that all of your audience are laymen. You are not fooling anyone. You always choose your opponents very carefully, and always avoid discussing issues with experts who disagree with you. A good example was your refusal to debate an expert about macro evolution. You also used some awful arguments about macro evolution that you would not dare to use in a debate with an expert, that is, if you were willing to debate an expert, which you aren't.
 
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Agnostic your busted. I have checked and apparently you are posting the same post in several threads to me. You also seem to post everything I say in one thread to one I am not. You are arguing by proxy. Apparently I am winning debates in threads where I am not even debating. I am joking but what are you doing with my limited time? I know why it's limited now. You. I am gone have a good weekend.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
1robin said:
Agnostic your busted. I have checked and apparently you are posting the same post in several threads to me. You also seem to post everything I say in one thread to one I am not. You are arguing by proxy. Apparently I am winning debates in threads where I am not even debating. I am joking but what are you doing with my limited time? I know why it's limited now. You. I am gone have a good weekend.

This is all your fault because you left the original thread about homosexuality at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-76.html#post3413082 months ago. I had no choice except to bring it up in other threads where you were making posts. In addition, recently, when I made a reply in one thread, you would hang out in another thread, and I would have to wait for to you get back to the other thread. Quite naturally, the original thread would be the best place for us to discuss homosexuality, so from now on, let's limit our discussions on homosexuality to that thread. I will now make a post in that thread, and you can reply to it.
 
Last edited:

Renji

Well-Known Member
Depends on what you mean "rational proof". Theists and Non theists seem to look at it in a different view.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
1robin said:
Before I invest the hour to comb through this let me make sure you [SkepticThinker] are actually claiming that thousands of people have not left their former sexual orientation behind them? I must be missing something here. There are entire ministries run by former homosexuals all over the world just in Christianity alone. This is either true or false and can't imagine the role all your argumentation has in it.

Actually while homosexuality is not my forte I do believe my argument in this case is absolute. The reason choice is at least a heavy component in orientation is that vast numbers of either said have chosen to adopt the opposite. I personally am aware of quite a few Christians who were former homosexuals but have put that completely behind them and would tell you they did what they did based on choice and their former choice was wrong.

I will start a new thread on this issue. I will title it "Can sexual identity be changed?" I will make a few comments now, and I will save most of my evidence for the new thread.

"Put that completely behind them" does not mean that sexual identity was changed, only that sexual actions were changed.

1robin said:
.......If they changed their minds about homosexuality and found they did not miss it.......

That is very difficult to reasonably prove, as I will show in my new thread.

All major medical organizations disagree with your claim that sexual identity can be changed. In very rare cases, maybe, but usually not.

In the new thread, I look forward to reading about "entire ministries run by former homosexuals all over the world just in Christianity alone," especially since Exodus International, the largest ex-gay ministry by far in the world, just closed, and said that they were wrong, and that sexual identity cannot be changed. Their co-founder, and former president Alan Chambers, a supposed ex-gay, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, apologized for all of the harm that he and his organization had done, and said that 99.99% of the homosexual client of Exodus International did not change their sexual identity.

Edit: I have completed a number of posts in the new thread, including some evidence about the benefits of having sex, and the risks of practicing long term abstinence.
 
Last edited:

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
1robin said:
Before I invest the hour to comb through this let me make sure you [SkepticThinker] are actually claiming that thousands of people have not left their former sexual orientation behind them? I must be missing something here. There are entire ministries run by former homosexuals all over the world just in Christianity alone. This is either true or false and can't imagine the role all your argumentation has in it.

Actually while homosexuality is not my forte I do believe my argument in this case is absolute. The reason choice is at least a heavy component in orientation is that vast numbers of either said have chosen to adopt the opposite. I personally am aware of quite a few Christians who were former homosexuals but have put that completely behind them and would tell you they did what they did based on choice and their former choice was wrong.

You are welcome to discuss your theory in my new thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed.html. Or, you can discuss it in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...2807-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other.html. Since both of those threads are about homosexuality, they would obviously be better places to discuss homosexuality than this thread.

The following is from my new thread:

"Alan Chambers, the [former supposedly ex-gay] president of Exodus, had recently denounced reparative therapy and claimed that 99.9% of clients didn’t transform from gay to straight.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Are you suggesting these people do not exist? That is also a genetic fallacy (I think). If they changed their minds about homosexuality and found they did not miss it, had any urges in that direction, and suffered no loss who cares why they decided to change their mind. I did not say they quit but struggled with it the rest of their lives. I said they left it behind.

Your sexual orientation is not just “in your mind” is what I’m telling you. It’s a part of your biological makeup, just like heterosexuality is. All the evidence suggests (plus common sense) that this is the case and not what you are trying to assert here. If you don’t think these people struggle with it their whole lives, rather than just “leaving it behind” and moving on or something, I think you might be deluding yourself. All evidence shows that “reparative therapy” or whatever you want to call it, is not only harmful to the individual, but it doesn’t actually change their innate sexual orientation.

If heterosexuals was all God made would not all heterosexuals not choose it (they just would be that). That does not make homosexuality not a choice.

Stop trying to elude the point. Did you or did you not choose to be heterosexual? And why would you think that others choose which sexual orientation they will have, if you did not?

Obviously your god must have made homosexuals, because they exist. They exist all over the animal kingdom.

I believe all humans have impulses to do a very wide range of sexual activities.

You would be right about that.

Every single one is actualized by choice.

Yes and no. You don’t get to choose who you are attracted to. That is quite evident. What you do get to choose is whether or not you engage in any kind of sexual activity with another person. But so what? The latter isn’t really relevant to the discussion of whether or not homosexuality/sexual orientation is a choice.


Even the data that suggests that Indians are genetically disposed to become addicted to (alcohol in this case). I stopped drinking and have no desire what so ever to have another one by choice.

Good for you, I’m happy to hear it. You are one of the lucky ones.

Lots of people are predisposed to addiction. The same sorts of epigenetic, biological and environmental factors are in play in with addiction that are in play within most aspects of human development. If you were exposed to certain epigenetic or biological factors that would have reinforced your addiction, you might be in a different boat right now.

It seem everyday I hear how our genes make us do this or that yet I know I choose everything I do.

We don’t get to choose lots of things. We don’t get to choose if we’ll be schizophrenic or bipolar or have an anxiety disorder or if we’ll be predisposed to depression. We don’t get to choose our personalities, for the most part. We don’t get to choose if we’ll be dyslexic. We don’t get to choose if we will develop Huntington’s disease. And we certainly don’t get to choose our eye colour or handedness. Just for a few examples.

In many cases, you may well get to choose what sorts of behaviors you will carry out, but you are suggesting we can make choices about things that are innate within ourselves like our personalities or sexual orientations.


It is all part of what the Bible calls a spiritual blindness IMO.

The Bible is neither a medical book nor a book on mental health. So I hope you’ll excuse me for ignoring it in this discussion.

That is what makes studies and data hard for me to have confidence in.

Because the Bible says it’s just spiritual blindness? You don’t put any stock into empirical studies for that reason??? If that’s the case, then what you’re telling me is you just believe whatever you want to believe, science and medicine be damned.

So you think we get to choose our biological makeup? What prenatal factors may affect us in utero? What environmental factors we are exposed to? You can’t be serious.

Cont'd ...
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I will try.

I don’t know what the big problem is.

You can't possibly know this. I hate it when your side does this. It ruins my confidence in you. I know a great many Christians who actually know that say the exact opposite. I am one of them and have had the Church help fixing problems I could not in several areas. For crying out load the 12 step program is God based. How many millions are sober because of it. Even agnostic sais that Christianity has produced the bulk of "cured" homosexuals. She/he actually brought it up.

We’re not talking about the 12 step program, although its efficacy is also debatable. We’re talking about “reparative” or “conversion” therapy, whatever you like to call it.

I sure can. Especially when I know that they are practicing, unproven, unregulated “programs” that the experts in the field actually say are harmful for the individuals involved and do no actually “cure” homosexuality. Who are these people to say that homosexuality must be “cured” in the first place? They are not experts in the field of anything other than religion.

There are several ongoing lawsuits involving former “patients” of these therapies where they say they paid thousands of dollars to be made to do bizarre and damaging things, and as a result suffered from anxiety and depression to the point where many of them had to seek out real therapy in order to counteract the damage done to them by these churches (NARTH, being the main one, I believe).

Short of interviewing every person who claims they have left homosexuality behind and omnisciently knowing the biological truth of their claims nothing you say affects their claims. They are the people most capable of knowing the truth of what they claim on the face of the Earth. Your claiming to know things you have no access to has no bearing on anything.



Once again, refraining from engaging in homosexual activity isn’t the same thing as being “cured” of homosexuality or changed into a heterosexual. They are different things.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
1robin said:
Before I invest the hour to comb through this let me make sure you [SkepticThinker] are actually claiming that thousands of people have not left their former sexual orientation behind them? I must be missing something here. There are entire ministries run by former homosexuals all over the world just in Christianity alone. This is either true or false and can't imagine the role all your argumentation has in it.

Actually while homosexuality is not my forte I do believe my argument in this case is absolute. The reason choice is at least a heavy component in orientation is that vast numbers of either said have chosen to adopt the opposite. I personally am aware of quite a few Christians who were former homosexuals but have put that completely behind them and would tell you they did what they did based on choice and their former choice was wrong.

You are welcome to discuss your theory in my new thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed.html. The title of the thread is "Can sexual identity be changed? Or, you can discuss it in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...2807-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other.html. Since both of those threads are about homosexuality, they would obviously be better places to discuss homosexuality than this thread. Regarding the latter thread, I have transferred a number of my arguments in this thread to that thread.

The following is from my new thread about sexual identity at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed.html:

"Alan Chambers, the [former supposedly ex-gay] president of Exodus, had recently denounced reparative therapy and claimed that 99.9% of clients didn’t transform from gay to straight."

Wikipedia says that "by far the largest ex-gay organization that has existed, Exodus International, disbanded in 2013, stating that therapy can't change someone's sexual orientation."

If Exodus International, the largest ex-gay organization that has existed, had very little success, which appears to be the case based upon what the former president (and others) has said, If what happened there was at all representative of what happened at other such clinics in the world, your arguments are not valid.

You are obviously not aware of the great harm that reparative therapy clinics, and other anti-gay efforts, have caused. In my new thread on sexual identity, at least three of my posts show the great harm that such efforts have caused. The former head of Exodus International admitted it. As one of my posts in the new thread shows, even the Mormon church has admitted it, and even though they still oppose homosexuality, they have abandoned their political campaign against same-sex marriage, and a top church leader apologized for all of the harm that the Mormon church has done to homosexuals. Many Mormons resigned from the church, and the church headquarters got the message.

Following is my post #10 from the new thread:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/...-consumer-fraud-suit-against-an-ex-gay-group/

thinkprogress.org said:
The Southern Poverty Law Center has filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against ex-gay group JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing), accusing it of consumer fraud for peddling a “cure” for homosexuality. The complaint features four young men and two of their parents as plaintiffs, including Chaim Levin, who has been very vocal about how the Orthodox Jewish community has mistreated him for being gay. The men and their families argue that JONAH lured them into paying for counseling with deceptive practices. JONAH relies on ex-gay professional group NARTH, specifically the repudiated techniques of Joseph Nicolosi.

The complaint outlines some of the bizarre treatment the men were subjected to in sessions with JONAH counselor Alan Downing and others:
  • remove all clothing during both individual and group therapy sessions including an instruction to Levin to hold his penis in front of Defendant Downing,
  • cuddle and intimately hold others of the same-sex including between young clients and older counselors,
  • violently beat an effigy of the client’s mother with a tennis racket,
  • go to the gym more as well as bath houses in order to be nude with father figures, and
  • be subjected to ridicule as “*******” and “homos” in mock locker room and gym class scenarios.
The men were also encouraged to replicate personal trauma, such as reenacting scenes of childhood sexual abuse. Another JONAH counselor instructed one of the men to snap himself on the wrist with a rubber band every time he felt attracted to a man. JONAH claimed that “gay people are all generally lonely, suicidal, and have or will contract HIV/AIDS.”

The suit seeks a revocation of JONAH’s business license and a permanent injunction against all JONAH staff from further offering ex-gay therapy through a trial by jury. In addition to achieving justice for these young men, this suit will hopefully help other ex-gay survivors step forward to challenge the harmful ministries plaguing young people across the country.

How can you approve of monsters like JONAH, and NARTH?

Homosexual Wayne Besen wrote a book years ago that is titled "Anything but Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth." In the book, he tells how he went to a gay therapy clinic and pretended that he wanted to change his sexual identity to heterosexual. He describes many bizarre treatments like the ones that I just mentioned that the organization JONAH uses. JONAH has been largely influenced by NARTH.

At any rate, as I suggested, let's limit our discussions to the two threads that I mentioned.


 
Last edited:

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Message to SkepticThinker: In one of my replies to 1robin, I said:

"You are welcome to discuss your theory in my new thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed.html. Or, you can discuss it in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...2807-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other.html. Since both of those threads are about homosexuality, they would obviously be better places to discuss homosexuality than this thread."

1robin has given me permission to quote him in other threads, so I have transferred some of my arguments in this thread to the thread at
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...2807-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other.html. I am sure that 1robin will not mind if you do the same thing, but you can check with him if you wish. I think that you will agree with me that by limiting discussions on homosexuality to threads about homosexuality, we can attract more readers who are interested in the topic of homosexuality.

1robin is very misinformed about lots of things about homosexuality. He only believes what he wants to believe instead of objectively studying research. His post #304 in the thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...2807-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other.html is a good example of that. Much of what he quoted is false, misleading, or poorly documented.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Message to SkepticThinker: In one of my replies to 1robin, I said:

"You are welcome to discuss your theory in my new thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed.html. Or, you can discuss it in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...2807-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other.html. Since both of those threads are about homosexuality, they would obviously be better places to discuss homosexuality than this thread."

1robin has given me permission to quote him in other threads, so I have transferred some of my arguments in this thread to the thread at
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...2807-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other.html. I am sure that 1robin will not mind if you do the same thing, but you can check with him if you wish. I think that you will agree with me that by limiting discussions on homosexuality to threads about homosexuality, we can attract more readers who are interested in the topic of homosexuality.

1robin is very misinformed about lots of things about homosexuality. He only believes what he wants to believe instead of objectively studying research. His post #304 in the thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...2807-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other.html is a good example of that. Much of what he quoted is false, misleading, or poorly documented.
Do you realize that you commented on and mentioned an argument I made to another person three times in one page of just this thread not to mention all the threads you are transferring stuff I say into. I need one of those tests that make you type in letters written in strange ways to makes sure your are not a robot that has a rapid redundant circuit that makes you type every thing three times. It is also against forum rules to comment concerning members (at least in a negative manner) to other members but I never report anything so do your worst. I do not remember saying anything concerning homosexuality in weeks that can even be determined to be actually wrong or right and commentary like that discourages me from engaging you on the issue at all.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
1robin said:
Do you realize that you commented on and mentioned an argument I made to another person three times in one page of just this thread not to mention all the threads you are transferring stuff I say into. I need one of those tests that make you type in letters written in strange ways to makes sure your are not a robot that has a rapid redundant circuit that makes you type every thing three times. It is also against forum rules to comment concerning members (at least in a negative manner) to other members but I never report anything so do your worst. I do not remember saying anything concerning homosexuality in weeks that can even be determined to be actually wrong or right and commentary like that discourages me from engaging you on the issue at all.

I prefer to discuss homosexuality in threads that were started to discuss that issue. Please reply to my most recent post in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-79.html#post3419893.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Your limiting my comments on homosexuality based on thread relevance is even more absurd than the rationale used to justify the practice to begin with, however since I can only gain by your restrictions I agree and will hold you to it.
Again, homosexuality itself is not a practice. It is a sexual identity and an orientation.
 
Top