Lol. I never said it was. But accounts written by historians who were born long after Jesus died and never even directly referred to him can't be taken with a grain of salt.

__________________

You're scared to respond, what a dodge. I asked you who are you to say that, as literal, not a personal blow - context clues?

How can you say that? You've never been dead.

How can it not be? You have no proof of the true priority as you see it.

Your belief that it isn't the main priority is not natural.

You understand in logic, and life in general, it takes effort and thought to produce a positive statement/claim, correct? That is law.

The claim that there is something more, or extra after death is not a natural thought pattern, it needs reasoning and evidence to validate it; anyone making a positive claim must do the same.

There's the logic behind why I can do the same you are doing, only change it to "after death you ride bicycles down a set of stairs for eternity."

I'll reiterate: that's what you backed off to early against me, that's why I said "who the f..k are you to say that?"

Context clues, it wasn't a personal attack, you just dodged it, like usual.

How can you say it's a problem, when you have no evidence of it being a problem. Personal experience trumps told experience, that's why people f..king try things and live.


You really bring nothing to this section.

You have got to be the most rude person to ever come into these debates.

I refuted your f..king argument about George Washington, everyone has. It's illogical to compare the two.

Then you have some sort of audacity to act as though authority granted you the right to say "wrong" when you can't even defend your position. So rude.

No, lol.

Can you not tell the difference between "stories told of Jesus' existence" and "historical secondary/first person documents" of this existence as well as physical evidence of his existence?

Not to mention he was our founding president of our country and a major general in wars that were fought.

Your logical and analogies are completely unfair/not congruent.

What?

You can't say anything.

It is completely true f..ktard, what are you, stupid?

People could slap evidence on your lap and you deny it convictly.

All you do around here is say is "it just is", what a weak ass defense.

You're pathetic.

__________________

I'm back from the caves blastin' back at yo ass

I'm catholic, and I am pro gay marriage.. People are just dumb.

__________________

Lol :P.

Love you too BORAT.

cxr you made me lol too haha.

__________________

I don't think there's free will in being gay or not. One day, did you wake up and say "Gee, I think I'm going to be straight!"

Nope, it's just something you always were - and always will be, no matter how much you try to hide it.

I couldn't turn gay out of "free will" because I will always be straight, and I think it's the same for gay people. If you ask them, they will say the same exact thing.

You can act gay or you can act straight just because the society around you wouldn't accept you, but at heart, you will be what you were at birth. Like how MJ will always be black... haha.

Exactly

The confusion or utter ignorance that some have, is from the interpretation of bisexual orientations, some say they are bisexual, while this is a fogged perception issue on their part because of their indecisive personality to know "one's self."

On the other hand, there are very decisive bisexuals who are well aware of their dual attraction. Nothing wrong with that.

But the misinterpretations lies with the claim that people "choose" to be gay/straight, when they we're calling themselves bisexuals because of their indecisivity. They always were one or the other in this case.

That's different from being bisexual.

__________________

I'm back from the caves blastin' back at yo ass

Though I am not christian or religious I do date who I am attracted to not based on gender, so I am looped into the "gay" spectrum. This is my opinion on "god's" intention:

I believe that the concept of "god" is a term created to describe something we are not capable of grasping. I do not think that there is a being that makes an effort to influence the way we develop socially nor does it have an opinion on my sexual partner. However I do not believe we are at the highest level of existence, and I theorize that there is only a small part of our creation we can conceive, just as any other living thing has its own limitations.

__________________

I wouldn't fully agree with you. I would edit it to this...
I believe that God is an infinite being that we are not capable of fully grasping. Isaiah 55:7-9. "7let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts;
let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him,
and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
8For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
9(N) For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts."

Socailly developed? Yeah I'll skip that one.
I think it's obvious that we were created to be with a female. Common sense right? So does Postal Service :P. We were clearly designed for each other. Can you reproduce with the same sex? 1 Corinthians 6:9. "9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

I would agree with you somewhat, again. :P

__________________

But God made them that way.

__________________

I accept the intelligence in your sentiment, I understand that the differences in our argument are based on the fact that I am not a religious person. My views are based on my favor of science, philosophy, and social empathy. So your scripture quotes fall on deaf ears, but nevertheless allow your fellow agonist to appreciate your knowledge on the subject you are defending.

My stance on "god's" intention involving homosexuals is that creation has no emotional investments in our choice of sex partners nor any other living thing. Not every living thing needs a female mate to reproduce (take account of the self breeding plants and animals), and you are only addressing a problem that affects people who want to have children naturally (also ignoring the unnatural process of artificial insemination). The concept of homosexuality is a socially created phobia. There is no such thing as "we are not supposed to", that only applies to ethics. In which case, the fact that I might enjoy the company of a female companion occasionally in my own private life, I hope, would not be an issue with my ethics.

__________________