• 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!

"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
This is where it becomes a problem that your definition of pedophilia is different from the generally accepted definition that everyone else uses.
Do you see that?
Not at all.

In fact, I believe that my definition is the only clear and logical way to look at it.

You see, if pedophilia is merely "an attraction to children" as you and others have said - then most of the posts that have talked about pedophilia on this thread make no sense.

Remember that one post that claimed that I did not consider "consent" or "respect" in my determination of what are appropriate expressions of sexuality?

You remember right? The one you agreed with?

So, if pedophilia is simply "an attraction to children" then why was "consent" and "respect" brought up?

You don't need someone's consent or respect to be attracted to them.

Obviously, the forum member who made that comment (to which you agreed) was not talking about "an attraction to children" when he mentioned pedophilia, but rather the actions potentially made by those who are afflicted with that attraction (i.e. raping children).

So, you agreed with a claim that raping a child is equivalent to pedophilia - while also trying to maintain that pedophilia only means "an attraction to children".

@columbus also said something similar in his post to me.

Remember when he said that me sharing my opinion "causes a great deal of damage" because, he claimed, it was "similar" to pedophilia?

You remember right? You gave this one a "Like" vote I believe.

If pedophilia is only "an attraction to children", then what "great deal of damage" is done? How does being attracted to someone hurt them in any way?

Obviously when he said "pedophilia" he was not referring to "an attraction to children", but rather to the actions potentially made by those who are afflicted with that attraction (i.e. raping children).

So, you may now claim that pedophilia is merely "an attraction to children" (which does not do any damage to anyone and does not require "consent" or "respect") but whenever pedophilia has been discussed by people on this thread they automatically apply actions to that attraction (i.e. raping children).

So - you may claim that you do not agree with my definition of pedophilia - but in reality you and others on this thread do agree with my definition.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Yet, you believe that my beliefs need justification?
Yes. Because you are the one saying that homosexuality needs to be justified.

Not at all.

In fact, I believe that my definition is the only clear and logical way to look at it.

Except that it's not the definition that most people use. It's kind of like, your own personal definition.

You see, if pedophilia is merely "an attraction to children" as you and others have said - then most of the posts that have talked about pedophilia on this thread make no sense.

Only yours.

These definitions have to do with sexual attractions.

Remember that one post that claimed that I did not consider "consent" or "respect" in my determination of what are appropriate expressions of sexuality?

You remember right? The one you agreed with?

So, if pedophilia is simply "an attraction to children" then why was "consent" and "respect" brought up?

You don't need someone's consent or respect to be attracted to them.

Consent was brought up because people with sexual attractions may want to act on them. Depending on what kind of sexual attraction we are talking about, that may or may not be appropriate, because in some cases, consent on the part of the other party is not possible. This is where your whole “it needs to be justified” thing applies.

Obviously, the forum member who made that comment (to which you agreed) was not talking about "an attraction to children" when he mentioned pedophilia, but rather the actions potentially made by those who are afflicted with that attraction (i.e. raping children).

Why couldn’t (s)he be talking about both?

So, you agreed with a claim that raping a child is equivalent to pedophilia - while also trying to maintain that pedophilia only means "an attraction to children".

Raping a child is rape. Being sexually attracted to children is pedophilia. Pedophiles may or may not rape children.

@columbus also said something similar in his post to me.

Remember when he said that me sharing my opinion "causes a great deal of damage" because, he claimed, it was "similar" to pedophilia?

You remember right? You gave this one a "Like" vote I believe.

If pedophilia is only "an attraction to children", then what "great deal of damage" is done? How does being attracted to someone hurt them in any way?

How does being attracted to children hurt someone? I’m guessing it takes quite a toll on one’s psyche. Imagine having to struggle with that? It also prevents someone from finding an appropriate mate with which to share one’s life and find some kind of companionship and/or fulfillment.

Obviously when he said "pedophilia" he was not referring to "an attraction to children", but rather to the actions potentially made by those who are afflicted with that attraction (i.e. raping children).

Some pedophiles sexually abuse children. Some don’t. All pedophiles are sexually attracted to children.

Similarly, heterosexuals are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex. Some heterosexuals rape members of the opposite sex. Some don’t. All heterosexuals are attracted to members of the opposite sex.

So, you may now claim that pedophilia is merely "an attraction to children" (which does not do any damage to anyone and does not require "consent" or "respect") but whenever pedophilia has been discussed by people on this thread they automatically apply actions to that attraction (i.e. raping children).

It's not merely that. It is that.

So - you may claim that you do not agree with my definition of pedophilia - but in reality you and others on this thread do agree with my definition.

I don’t agree with your definition, because learning about such things has been a part of my educational background.

See above.
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Nope.
However, if you want others to accept your beliefs as anything other than your beliefs, then yes.
That's completely reasonable.

Just so you know - I only asked @Jainarayan to justify homosexuality in retaliation to him first asking me to justify my beliefs.

No one seems to think that fact is relevant though.

I do not believe that either need justification. We can just agree to disagree.

However - for the sake of curiosity - since you do not believe that my beliefs need justification - why did you not jump to my defense like you did for @Jainarayan ?
 
Last edited:

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Oh, yes, he loves us so much and because he doesn't want anyone feeling forced to make a choice that he lets us "chose" to worship him or be sentenced to hell. I guess if you're being robed at gunpoint you can choose to hand over your money and jewelry, but it's not really a choice when the outcome of resitance is getting shot. And in safety training for places like gas stations, indeed people are taught to be cooperative for their own safety and the safety of others. That's this "loving choice" your god presents us.
I can't speak for other Christians - but I and my Church do not believe that anyone goes to Hell simply for not believing in God.

According to my understanding - the scriptures claim that it would take a lot more than that for someone to go to Hell.
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Why wouldn't you believe that it's sincere??
I don't consider you to be all that sincere. Is this news to you?
The subject matter we are talking about is still "current," unfortunately. Hence my statement.
That has yet to be proven - in my opinion.
ImmortalFlame has given you several examples.
All @ImmortalFlame has done is claim that any disparity between groups signifies oppression.

The sources given to not agree with that conclusion.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
All @ImmortalFlame has done is claim that any disparity between groups signifies oppression.
False.

What I have done is show you the disparity and point out - at length - how systemic racism accounts for it.

The sources given to not agree with that conclusion.
This is also false. The sources I've provided demonstrate the disparity which is directly caused by systemic racism.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I don't consider you to be all that sincere. Is this news to you?
I think your position is a strange one, as I am always sincere.

That has yet to be proven - in my opinion.

It has yet to be proven to you that there are long-lasting societal, psychological and/or institutional effects resulting from the enslavement of a whole race of people? On what planet? Just for the most obvious example … slavery was abolished in 1863 in the US, but the Voting Rights Act that finally allowed African Americans to actually exercise their right to vote wasn’t passed until one hundred years later in 1965.

It’s kind of difficult to have representation in government when you’ve been systematically denied your right to vote for people that will represent you. Not to mention all the examples and studies provided to you by myself and other posters. Common sense alone tells us that the enslavement of a race of people will have long-lasting negative consequences for those people.

All @ImmortalFlame has done is claim that any disparity between groups signifies oppression.

I disagree. I do not think he has done that. In fact, I think he’s made his case quite well.

The sources given to not agree with that conclusion.

But they do. You should read through them. I gave you several examples as well. One of them being a link to the National Police Foundation wherein they openly discuss the problem with systemic racism in the police force and how they think it needs to be dealt with. You disagree with that too? You know better than they do?
 
Last edited:

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Just so you know - I only asked @Jainarayan to justify homosexuality in retaliation to him first asking me to justify my beliefs.

I never asked you to justify your beliefs, nor would I ever ask anyone to justify their beliefs. I would not do that because I'm not that disrespectful and do not like being disrespected, myself.

Let's review:

https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...esbian-wedding-ad.228006/page-16#post-6444790
https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...esbian-wedding-ad.228006/page-16#post-6446737
"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"
"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"
https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...esbian-wedding-ad.228006/page-18#post-6449487 This is where my failed sarcasm and snarkery comes into play.
https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...esbian-wedding-ad.228006/page-18#post-6449875
https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...esbian-wedding-ad.228006/page-18#post-6454968 Now here's where it gets a little preachy, striving to save my soul from certain damnation.
https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...esbian-wedding-ad.228006/page-18#post-6455725 Pièce de résistance Part I
https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...esbian-wedding-ad.228006/page-18#post-6455729 Pièce de résistance Part II

 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
It's not worth it if they keep bugging me about stuff.

I bet me being from California would be enough to set them off.
My partner used to have a t-shirt that read "How dare you assume I'm straight?"

He wore it just like any other such shirt. He was from small town Indiana. More than one person made a comment such as "You're the only person I know who could wear that shirt into a red neck bar in North Vernon and get away with it."
He's no snowflake.
Tom
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
You have led me to believe that you do not appreciate the time and effort I am putting into my posts.

Your questions have caused me to repeat myself and I believe this is so because you are not actually reading my posts, but skimming them to look for potential “ammo” to use against me.

You have also tried to claim that I said things I never did and you are falsely accusing me of trying to change what I had initially said.

I will go over examples of these things in this post.

Everything I’m about to share is my opinion or belief. I will not be saying “I believe…” in front of every sentence because that is annoying.
I’m not quite sure what that means. What is the “ineffable witness that is so powerful that it can cast out all fear and doubt?”
This is an example of you either are not reading my posts or you are trying to get me to twist my words and create a “Gotcha!” moment.

Our current discussion began after you asked “Why?” in Post #538 about some beliefs I shared with @columbus

I responded with a list of more of my beliefs to which you responded with, “Why do you believe that?” in Post #563.

This led me to respond in Post #569 with,

“I believe that the Holy Spirit of God has testified to my heart and mind the truthfulness of these things.

It is an ineffable witness that is so powerful that it can cast out all fear and doubt.” (Bold and italics added)

And now you are asking me what this “ineffable witness is? Like - really?

The “ineffable witness that is so powerful that it can cast out all fear and doubt” is the testimony of the Holy Spirit to your heart and mind.
At the same time though, you should expect your beliefs to be challenged, on a debate forum.
Obviously, but I would argue that my beliefs have not been “challenged” in as much as they have been “misrepresented”.

Also, you asking me “Why?” over and over again doesn’t really qualify as a “challenge”.
There was no “willful misrepresentation” by me and others.
Agree to disagree.
I explained more than once why I took issue with your comments about pedophilia in a discussion about homosexuality, as did the other posters you mention.
Yes, but my argument was about the weaknesses of an attraction to children and same-sex attraction - not the sins of pedophilia and homosexuality.

In a discussion about my beliefs we are going to use my understanding of these terms. Not yours.
I discussed how such a thing is a common tactic, used time and time again by people who are against homosexuality as they attempt to demonize and marginalize gay people as some kind of criminal elements. I’ve seen it over and over again.
And I explained to you that that was not at all what I did.

First off - I did not mention pedophilia - but an attraction to children. Which is a weakness - not a sin.

Second - I never once “demonized” or “marginalized” those who suffer from an attraction to children. I never said there was anything “wrong” with them.

Therefore - logically - you cannot use this argument against me because I didn’t bring up pedophilia nor did I “demonize” or “marginalize” those who suffer from an attraction to children.

If I don’t “demonize” those who are attracted to children - how can you claim I use that attraction to “demonize” those with a same-sex attraction?

It makes no sense.

Your argument against my referring to an attraction to children in a discussion about same-sex attraction boils down to, “I don’t like it.”

You just don’t like that both an attraction to children and a same-sex attraction appear on my list of “inappropriate sexual attraction”.

You have every right not to agree with me. You have every right to believe that there is nothing inappropriate about same-sex attraction. You don’t have to believe that it is a weakness.

But you don’t have the right to misrepresent my beliefs.

The moment you claimed that I was discussing pedophilia - you were misrepresenting my beliefs - because we are using my understanding of these terms - we are discussing my beliefs, not yours.

Besides, you already know that my understanding makes way more sense because all of you have been using my way of thinking every time you discuss pedophilia.

Both @columbus and that other forum member who talked about “damage” and “consent” and “respect” both used the word “pedophilia” to describe “raping children” - not just an attraction to children.
Which claims and which evidence? I’m all about evidence. If you’ve got convincing evidence/arguments, I’m all ears.
As I said before, I do not believe that you would accept my evidence. It is spiritual evidence.

There are methods for deciphering truth mentioned in the scriptures which I tried and I found them to be reliable.

I first applied them at a time in my life when I did not want what I was taught to be true.

However - to my astonishment - I received the “ineffable” witness of the Holy Spirit as promised after following the method described.
Also, I’m in the camp that says a person can entertain an argument without actually having to accept it.
That is not the impression you made on me at all.

It seems to me that if you don’t accept an argument - you misrepresent it in an attempt to try and paint it as immoral - or rather paint the person presenting it as immoral.

Or you ask a bunch of questions with the hope of “twisting their words” so you could accuse them of saying something they never said or that they had “changed their tune” when they never did.
What I think you told me was that gay marriage is wrong and sinful because God wants us to multiply, and gay people can’t do that. Then when I pointed out that gay people can and have “multiplied” you started going on about all this other stuff.
Wow. What a non-committal response. “What I think you told me…”

Bro, this is the internet. Our entire conversation is saved and easily accessible. If you want to claim that I said something - actually quote me saying it.

I never said what you claimed that I said.
Why did God create homosexuality if this is what you say he wants?
First off, this is a question based on the assumption that people are born homosexual. I do not believe that to be true.

A person may be born with or develop an attraction to the same-sex, but that does not mean that they are destined to commit homosexual acts.

We are born with weakness (same-sex attraction) but we are not destined to commit sin (homosexual acts).

Let me ask you a couple questions.

Are you going to claim that since God created Light that He also created Darkness?

That because He teaches us His Laws that He also created Lawlessness?

His desire for us to be righteous created wickedness?

Adam and Eve gained the ability to discern Good from Evil when they partook of the fruit. This partaking also caused the conditions of mortality to be placed upon them, such as weakness and eventual death.

God wants us to gain - through our experiences - the ability to choose Good over Evil and the strength to overcome our weaknesses.

He allows us to pass through trials so that we can gain the experience we need to become like Him.

As I have told you before - God does not force anyone to do anything. He will not force us to be perfect. All choices lie before us - the entire spectrum between Good and Evil - and He wants us to choose for ourselves.

To prove who we are and what we want to be through our choices.

God did not create sin, therefore He did not create homosexuality.

You assume that your question was valid because you assume that people are born homosexual.

But I believe that both assumptions are wrong.
Why can’t God help a man and his husband “on their journey to eventual perfection?”
God created us - His children - and He commanded us to follow His example.

Men and women are different. They were designed this way to complement one another.

Only a man and a woman - acting together as one through marriage - can obtain perfection in the next life.

It is possible for those who do not marry in this life to find an eternal mate in the life to come - and thus attain perfection.

It is also possible for those couples who could not procreate in this life to be able to do so in the life to come - which is also a requirement for eventual perfection.

These blessings have been promised to those who keep God’s commandments.

Two men and two women cannot become perfect together.

Let me explain something further. Sexual attraction and urges - as we understand them here on Earth - will not exist in the next life.

When me and my wife leave this world - our relationship will endure because it was sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise - but we will no longer have the sexual desires that we had on Earth. That was a temporary thing.

We would still desire each other - but it would be on a different level. A higher level.

A homosexual couple - when they leave this world - will also no longer have the sexual urges that they experienced on Earth and their relationship will also have an end.

Their relationship will end because it was not sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise - which God claims can only happen to those who follow His Law regarding marriage.

The weakness that God had intended for them to overcome and use as a stepping stone - instead became a stumbling block - for whatever reason.

Two men and two women just cannot become perfect together.
If he loves my cousin then he should want her to be happy, which she finally is since she’s come out of the closet and decided to just be who she is.
Again, this is an argument based on the idea that people are born to be homosexual. Which I believe is false.

They may have been born with the weakness of same-sex attraction - but that does not mean they were born to commit the sin of homosexuality.

Just like how a person who is born with a temper is not destined to commit unjustified violent acts.

Also, the argument that something that makes us happy should be considered moral or good - is very weak.

I believe this is a very simplistic view of both love and happiness.

I love my children and I know that giving them candy makes them happy - but I also know that candy does not instill in them a lasting happiness and can cause harm in excess.

God wants us to receive eternal joy. He rejoices in our moments of happiness only as long as those moments are drawing us closer to the ultimate goal of eternal joy.

For example - He may not rejoice with me in my happiness after beating someone at a video game (which feels awesome) - if my excessive playing of video games is negatively affecting me and my relationships with my family and friends.

God will not rejoice in your cousin’s supposed happiness because He knows that it cannot last into eternity - which is all He really cares about.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Both @columbus and that other forum member who talked about “damage” and “consent” and “respect” both used the word “pedophilia” to describe “raping children” - not just an attraction to children.
I can't help but notice that you've never responded to posts #648, 649, or 650.

Sometimes, lack of evidence is solid evidence.
Tom
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
And why exactly, couldn’t we overcome our sins before a human sacrifice was supposedly provided for us?
I’m not going to try and explain the entirety of Christian doctrine and belief. I believe it would be a waste of my time and effort.

It would be impossible to relay an entire life-time of study and experience to you and I would recommend that you seek this out for yourself.

I doubt you would though - because I am convinced that you don’t have the desire to learn.
Why should she have to pretend to be something she’s not? That’s what a God wants from us? Why?

Also, why would my cousin want to “return to Him” when “He” doesn’t accept who she is, even though “He” obviously must have created homosexuality.
You are assuming that people are born homosexual. You are also assuming that people should be defined by their sexual preference.

God has given us His commandments and all He wants is for us to do our best. That’s it.

I don’t understand this whole “God created it so He should accept it” argument.

It is based on false assumptions and ignorance because anyone who reads the scriptures would readily see that a large chunk of God’s encounters with Man is Him telling Man NOT to do various things.

Such as performing homosexual acts or any sexual acts outside of marriage (which He defines as only between a man and a woman).
Um, okay. You have just changed your tune here.
How could you possibly say that?

Do you not remember how your tirade of “Why?” began? You don’t remember bolding what I said in my post to @columbus ?

“I believe that any sexual attractions or relationships outside of a marriage between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded are inappropriate. That is where I draw my line in the sand.”

That has always been my stance!

This is further proof that you keep asking your “Why?” questions with the hope that you can twist my words, not understand my beliefs.
That’s not a belief I hold.
Then why do you practice it?
That’s not a belief I hold.
Then why did you vote “Winner” for the post that claimed that someone sharing their belief was “similar” to raping a child?
That’s not a belief I hold, nor is this the “logical conclusion.”
Are you claiming that if you saw someone harming a child in a way that was “similar” to raping them that you wouldn’t try to stop them? You wouldn’t call the police?

If you don’t believe that someone sharing their beliefs is “similar” to raping a child, then why did you vote “Winner” for that post?
And just how does the Lord Jesus Christ do that?

Can I have a conversation with him? Nope.

Can I ask for his advice? Nope.
I believe that you literally can converse with God in prayer and receive answers from Him through the Holy Spirit.

That is what the scriptures teach and that has been my experience.
You know what I think is a better idea? Not to demonize homosexuality in the first place, and then there is no need to have to “overcome” anything.
I have claimed from the very beginning that there is nothing “wrong” with anyone.

If you don’t believe me, go read my first post to @Jainarayan (#326) and see for yourself. It is at the end of the post.

We are all comprised of strengths and weaknesses. All of us. None of us are perfect. God wants all of us to overcome our weaknesses because He wants us to become perfect one day - just like Him.

Just because you believe that same-sex attraction should not be considered a “weakness” does not mean that I have been “demonizing” anyone.

Just because you believe that same-sex attraction should not be considered a “weakness” does not give you the right to misrepresent my beliefs and argument.
The problem I was pointing out with your view is that you are telling people they are born with something wrong with them and must pretend they are not the person that they are, in order to be accepted by some God that may or may not even exist in the first place.
No, you and others are the ones who have been saying that people are born a certain way - which predestines them to commit certain actions - and that they can never change. Not me.

I have been saying that everyone has been born the same. With weaknesses. Imperfect.

But that anyone can overcome their nature through the Lord Jesus Christ.

I have also told you extensively that God honors the decisions that we make. Even if He does not agree with them.

He accepts us as we are. However - don’t expect to become like Him by not keeping His commandments.

You are misrepresenting my beliefs and argument again.
You’re telling people straight up that there is something wrong with them, when there really isn’t.
No. What I have been saying is that no one is perfect - but they can be through Christ.

There is nothing wrong with being weak. We are all born weak. However - staying weak or allowing our weaknesses to dictate our actions - is wrong.

You just don’t like the fact that I consider same-sex attraction a weakness. Get over it and stop misrepresenting me.
That is what you are saying, and have said in this very post. And that is what (many version) of Christianity want us to believe.
Where did I say that we should unquestioningly follow anything or not think for ourselves?

I never used the term “sick” to describe our inherent weaknesses until you did.

All I have been saying is that none of us are perfect. Us being imperfect means we have weakness.

That is not a “Christian” principle - it’s common sense.
Are we born weak and imperfect in the ways you’re talking about? Nope. I don’t agree. Nor do I recognize “sin” as anything particularly meaningful.
If you have read any of my posts you would know that I have talked about a few different weaknesses and generally claim that they are what make us imperfect.

You just don’t like the fact that I consider same-sex attraction to be on my list of “inappropriate sexual attraction”.
We’re talking about unquestioningly following the orders of an invisible deity that has not, as of yet, been shown to exist.
No, that is what you are talking about. I never claimed that anyone should do anything without question.
My parents taught me that I should think for myself, and that I should carefully consider my choices before I make them.
You believe that people who live by the teachings taught to them by God means that they don’t think for themselves?
How is that any different than you living by what your parents taught you?
And never did they tell me I was born weak and sinful and needed fixing by submitting myself to them or to an invisible deity.
If you weren’t born weak (imperfect) - then why did they feel the need to teach you anything at all?

I’ll let you in on a little secret - your parents taught you to think for yourself and to carefully consider your choices before you make them - because you were weak.

They realized that you were just a dumb ignorant kid (like all of us were/are) and they decided to teach you something to help you avoid the various pitfalls of life.

This is exactly what God does with all of us.

No one is forcing you to follow God’s teachings just like nobody's forcing you to follow what your parents taught you.

I rather like what your parents taught you because it is what my parents taught me, what I teach my kids and what God teaches us all.
No, I do not believe that. Good teachers will teach critical thinking skills to their students.
You are too jaded to talk about these kinds of things.

You keep mocking people who believe in God - claiming that they lack critical thinking skills - simply because they believe in God.

It’s just sad, bro.
In some cases, perhaps they are. In others, probably not.

If a soldier follows an unlawful order or an order that they thought was immoral, then I guess I would say they are not thinking for themselves.
The same could be said of anyone who believes in God.

Of course there are those who don’t actually think about what they are being taught - that could be said for anyone everywhere, not just Christians - but you assuming that everyone who believes in God cannot think for themselves makes you sound like a bigot.
Perhaps you'll notice that I've been asking for the reasons that you believe what you do.
Yes, you have asked - but then you either claim I said something I never did or you falsely claim that I had changed something I said previously.

I honestly don’t believe you are here to learn anything about what I believe.

You’re just looking for potential “ammo” and supposed chinks in my armor.
You want to re-define words so you can fit them into your religious worldview. You said it yourself, in the above. Which, I guess you're free to do, but now we're not talking about the same thing anymore.
eVsXy9qa2BQvfvATbqyXuPV3iXGrjDWsc0ljOUE6-Ll3m0u0JvBTvL4UfH1PBpE_0MLA79j8-_8vxZA_SojVfAdyYmGvkEtmR8iD1anV5QGdmIFtqhkPsUxmHIzfAUDWXmy8B1DN
No, the “thing” we have been talking about - since the beginning - has been my beliefs.

So, yeah - if you guys are going to be asking me to explain my beliefs and you want to dissect them and talk about them - then you are required to use the same definitions that I use.

Otherwise - you are proving that you don’t actually want to learn about my beliefs - you want to try and convince me that they are wrong.

Besides, my way of defining these things makes way more practical sense and you know it.
No. You claimed that you couldn't be making a comparison because they aren't exactly the same. I pointed out that they don't have to be "exactly the same" for you to have made a comparsion.
OK. If what you say is true - explain exactly how I compared them.

You and others have been arguing that my supposed “comparison” was me claiming that pedophilia and homosexuality were “exactly the same”.

That’s why you people have been talking about “consent”, “respect” and “damage”.

You have been claiming that my supposed “comparison” was me claiming that consensual homosexual acts are “exactly the same” as raping a child.

So - in light of the fact that I initially claimed that I was not making such a comparison (that they are “exactly the same”) - how are you now claiming that I “compared” them?

I bet your claim is nothing more than, “I just don’t like that an attraction to children and same-sex attraction appear on your list of “inappropriate sexual attraction”.”

So, how did I “compare” them, exactly?
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
You view both pedophilia and homosexuality as a weakness and a sin.
Nope. You are wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Further proof that you are not reading my posts.

I believe that an attraction to children and same-sex attraction are weaknesses. There is nothing wrong with having either weakness.

However, once a person acts on those weaknesses - rapes a child (pedophilia) or engages in homosexual acts - then they have committed sin.

God will judge us based on what we do - our works - not on the weaknesses that we have.

Your entire argument that I am claiming that people are born “sick” and “sinful” and that there is something wrong with us is completely false.

I do not believe it.

We have weaknesses, but there is nothing wrong with having weaknesses.
The major difference here is that I don't view homosexuality as some kind of weakness.
Great. Good for you. I believe that you are wrong.
No, I don't like that attraction to children was mentioned in a discussion about same-sex attraction and I stated my reasons for that numerous times.
All of your reasons do not apply to me at all.
I can, and I did.
That is nonsensical.
I don't know who has submitted that as an argument. It wasn't me.
It was @Jainarayan in his original post to me. A post that you gave a “Winner” vote - so I am convinced that you agree with that argument.

Also you have repeatedly claimed that people are born homosexuals and that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
I already told you number times why I protested what I viewed to be a comparison you had made.
You originally claimed that I had said that pedophilia and homosexuality were “exactly the same”.

Then, when I pointed out that that was not the case, you claimed that I still made a “comparison” - but you were unclear how I compared them.

Basically - you have moved the goalposts. Backpedaling.
Then I guess it's too bad that you don't like the pushback you've gotten from myself and several other posters.
5pB-tYRgJjuQL_FQM_9zGXXgkIk6PD_iYseQPv-6r7ipNAIu5Ui9fActBfVmjFhK4EuZH8uvdvrzbZV8Ry5f4nzUlYpizlylP3Iad5bfQf-7497kN_8qNGFqKWaM_WWPtjYu0KOG
You guys have “pushed back” against the false narratives you have created by misrepresenting my beliefs and argument.

All the “push back” against my actual beliefs and argument from you guys has been “I don’t agree” or “I don’t like that”.

Not much of a “push back” in my opinion.
I never made such an argument. So no, I'm not defending an argument I didn't make.
I did not claim that you made that argument. I claimed that it was a “common argument”.

Also, don’t forget that you gave the post that made this argument a “Winner” vote - so I am convinced that you agree with it.
I don't see homosexuality as a problem because being gay doesn't hurt anyone.
You falsely assume that something should only be considered a “sin” if it inflicts discernible damage - but the scriptures teach us otherwise.

I believe that homosexuality hurts all the individuals involved. It does serious spiritual damage and makes it less and less likely that they will repent of their sexual sin.
It doesn't negatively effect society.
That’s debatable.
And I don't believe there is any god in existence that doesn't like it either.
You are free to be as wrong as you want.
Now we're wilfully delusional. That's funny.
Hilarious and accurate.
You haven't dismantled any argument that anybody here has made. I've never claimed that being "born this way" automatically makes something moral. In fact, I'm starting to wonder if you've even been reading through my posts at all, if that's what you're claiming.
Never claimed that you made that argument. I claimed that it was a “common argument.”

However - just to point out again - but you did vote “Winner” for the post that made that argument and you have repeatedly claimed that people are born homosexual and that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

I’m starting to wonder if you remember all the crazy posts you have voted for?

Remember when you voted “Winner” for the post that claimed that me sharing my opinion was “similar” to raping a child?
Nobody said you should be arrested, assaulted or killed for sharing your opinion. Well, you said it. But nobody else did.
So, you wouldn’t try to stop someone from doing “damage” to a child that was “similar” to raping them?

You wouldn’t at least call the police?

That’s horrible. Unless - of course - you don’t actually believe that someone sharing their opinion is “similar” to raping a child.

If that is the case - then I wonder - why did you vote “Winner” for the post that claimed that me sharing my opinion was “similar” to raping a child?
You invoked Godwin's Law, more than once. That's fine if you want to do that, but you better be prepared to be called on it. Welcome to a debate forum.
You have yet to explain that there is anything inherently wrong with “invoking Godwin’s Law”, so I what purpose does it serve to call attention to it?

If the comparison is accurate - there is nothing wrong with claiming someone’s argument is similar to Hitler’s.

Welcome to the truth.
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
I can't help but notice that you've never responded to posts #648, 649, or 650.

Sometimes, lack of evidence is solid evidence.
Tom
Sometimes people have their own lives and children.

No need for such impatience. Your posts are not going anywhere.

I'm trying to address them all chronologically.
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
You're the only poster who ever said that.
No, Tom. That is not true. (Sigh)

I'm only responding to this comment before your other ones because it popped up as "New Alert" while I was online earlier and it drew my attention - and because it is completely false.

I will give a summary list of posts and then an explanation.

@SkepticThinker began this whole "me comparing pedophilia to homosexuality" false narrative when he pointed out in Post #352 that I had "brought up" pedophilia (even though I had only mentioned an attraction to children and not pedophilia) in my initial post.

@9-10ths_Penguin responded to this by saying, "It's kind of a big red flag that consent and respect don't factor into what @JesusKnowsYou considers acceptable and unacceptable sexual relationships." in Post #353.

I responded to @SkepticThinker in Post #359 by sharing that the only reason I had brought up an attraction to children was to prove that people born with a certain presupposition (or "weakness") are not destined to act on that weakness (i.e. an attraction to children).

I also responded to @9-10ths_Penguin in Post #360 by claiming that I would consider any sexual behavior outside the boundaries God has set up (only between a man and woman who are married) to be inappropriate and that no one is destined to commit sexual sin.

I also said that, "It is not my fault that same-sex attraction and attraction to children both fall under the same category of sexual weakness and sexual sin" and I then claimed that I felt like he owed me an apology.

That last one caused @9-10ths_Penguin Post #361 to reiterate his earlier claim that "factors like consent and respect don't matter in your determination of what's appropriate and inappropriate expressions of sexuality" and he then claimed that I had treated others with "disrespect"(without explaining exactly how I did that).

He then refused to apologize to me and said, "the people who deserve an apology are the ones you compared to pedophiles."

@Jainarayan , @SomeRandom and @Shadow Wolf gave his post (#361) a "Winner" vote.

The next two posts were from @SkepticThinker (#362 and 363) where he said that I had tried to "demonize" homosexuals (even though I never "demonized" those attracted to children, so that made no sense) and then he made the claim (without evidence) that me having my beliefs somehow meant that I mistreat people.

@Jainarayan gave that post (#362) a "Winner" vote.

@SkepticThinker then responded to @9-10ths_Penguin original post (#353) (where he claimed that I did not consider "consent" or "respect") with a "Right?" (then a "shrugging shoulders" emoji) in Post #363.

Then this leads us to your response in Post #365 @columbus where you claimed that, "And furthermore, preaching this sort of thing causes a great deal of damage. Particularly when preached to young people, before they even know they're gay. So I put your preaching in a category similar to pedophilia."

@SkepticThinker and @Jainarayan gave your post a "Winner" vote.

Then @Shadow Wolf claimed in Post #370 that I owed an apology, "To people such as several of my friends whom you have compared to pedophiles and zoophiliacs."

@SkepticThinker and @Jainarayan gave that post a "Like" vote.

Everyone on here either posted that my "comparing" pedophilia to homosexuality (I never did) meant that I was comparing those who commit homosexual acts with those who rape children or they voted for a post that claimed thus.

Everyone on here also used the word "pedophile" to describe "those who rape children" and "pedophilia" to describe "the practice of raping children".

None of you used those words to describe a person who was attracted to children or the practice of being attracted to children.

You all associated rape with these terms.

When @9-10ths_Penguin discussed my supposed "comparison" he claimed that it meant that I did not consider "consent" or "respect" when I determined what was appropriate "expressions of sexuality".

So, obviously @9-10ths_Penguin does not define pedophilia as simply "an attraction to children", but as "the practice of raping children".

Being attracted to someone does not require "consent" and is not an "expression of sexuality" and any talk of lack of "consent" when discussing "expressions of sexuality" is a reference to rape.

@9-10ths_Penguin claimed that I had "compared" homosexuals to those who rape children (pedophiles), or in other words, I had compared those who commit homosexual acts with those who rape children.

@Jainarayan , @SomeRandom and @Shadow Wolf gave his post a "Winner" - signifying that they agree with his claim.

@SkepticThinker also agreed with @9-10ths_Penguin claim when he said "Right?" in reply.

Then you @columbus by claiming that me sharing my opinion would cause "a great deal of damage" that was "similar to pedophilia" were making the claim that "pedophilia" means raping children, not simply an attraction to children.

To all of this I said in Post #372,

"I did "bring up" an attraction to children (not pedophilia) in a list of inappropriate sexual attractions, but after my list I immediately said,

"Before you flip your lid, I'm not trying to say that all of these attractions are exactly the same, but depending on who you ask people will draw a line somewhere as to what is or is not appropriate sexual behavior."

I only brought up the inappropriate sexual weakness of an attraction to children to help build my argument that just because someone suffers from a weakness, they are not destined to indulge or act on that weakness.

Someone who has an attraction to children is not destined to rape children. They have a choice."

And,

"I do believe that both an attraction to the same-sex and an attraction to children are inappropriate - but that does not mean that I consider the sins of homosexuality and pedophilia to be the same.

I also believe that shoplifting and murder are wrong - you would argue that my claiming so means that I regard both of these crimes to be the same? The same severity?

I never compared homosexuality to pedophilia. I pointed out that both of these sins come from an inappropriate sexual attraction, but I never claimed that they were the same.

Someone who suffers from the weakness of an attraction to children is not destined to engage in sexual behavior with children. They have the choice to resist their urges.

If they decide to indulge in their weakness and act on their urges and engage in sexual behavior with children - they have committed rape (because children cannot give consent) - and it is my belief that that is a crime that should be punishable be either castration or execution.

I do not believe that any consensual sexual behavior between adults conducted in private (no matter how inappropriate) is a crime nor worthy of any punishment."

Even though I never compared pedophilia to homosexuality - everyone mentioned in this thread claimed that I did - and they all claimed that "pedophilia" meant "raping children".

This was a false narrative that you all ran with and spun out of control.

Also, @Mestemia - why are you giving this a "Winner" vote?

Why haven't you explained to me why you decided not to defend me when @Jainarayan asked me to justify my beliefs?
 
Last edited:

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Nonsense.

My female cousin and her wife have a five year old. They're a family. Why should their family never get to be respresented on television? They exist, after all. And they are a family. :shrug:
Even though I believe that homosexuality is sinful and that same-sex marriage is not sanctioned by God - I agree with everything you said here.

Good job.
 
Top