WillingToDie

Big difference between cell phones and the other two (microwaves and tvs) is that you hold a cell phone right up to your head. The link is certainly plausible, and I think more research should be done on the subject.

But was Britney a Christian? Did she profess to be one? Is She Producing Fruit? yes, WHAT KIND?????? GOOD FRUIT THAT LAST???? or other fruit? we are known by the fruit of our labors..... we can only utilize what we can see (physically or spiritually ) to say Yea or Nay...... from the fruit that is evident, I would say NAY!!!!!!!!!!! mike I would like to see how you hold up under the pressures she was subjected to at such a young age.

That's how I saw it. And to be fair, only Tyler was the terrorist, which was the result of his extreme anarcho-nihilism. I must say though, that Tyler made some excellent points about our present culture. Very thought provoking movie.

The people who were the Bible's original audience were not Scientists, as we would think of a "scientist" today. As such, the Bible was not written from a Scientific point of view, and I don't think it should be read as a science text book.

So then, you are OK with us protesting Civil Unions for this reason? Of course, you can protest anything you want. Free country. Like I said beforehand, I've suspended judgment on the issue.

Thank-you. Now consider this: what do you think of other people opposing legislation that they consider an abomination to God? Please no arguments for why something is or isn't in your opinion, but plain and simple - are you opposed to other people acting on their convictions in this way - even if you do not agree with their convictions? Imagine a politically conservative version of Homer Simpson, only with a short temper. That was Archie Bunker. Diverting the argument again? The speaker in the radio clip, who is a former homosexual, pointed out the intimidation tactics used by homosexual activists to change society via silencing any opposition voices. I mentioned the Archie Bunker bit to refer you to when he talked about the Boy Scouts. The homosexual activists tried to force the Boy Scouts to change their policy with regards to homosexuality (they won't let it in their troops) through law suits, encouraging supporting organizations to drop their funding, forbidding them from meeting in certain buildings, etc. Is this freedom? 1)Of course I wouldn't oppose someone acting on their convictions 2)OK 3)BSA are certainly free to make choices about who or who is not allowed in their organization. However, people are also free to protest those choices in any way they see fit. Freedom runs both ways. And I'm not meaning to divert the argument, I'm trying to predict where the argument will go. Call it a defensive measure.

1)How is allowing for, say, a civil union encouraging their behavior? It will happen, Civil Union or no Civil Union, so it really doesn't make a difference to non-homosexuals. That said, I can understand your point, but why all the focus on outlawing homosexuality? Why not put ore effort into outlawing adultery, which is arguably a great threat than homosexuality, since, if for no other reason, more people are practicing adultery than there are practicing homosexuals. With all due respect, WTD, this response does not answer the question. I am asking what how you would respond to legislation you believed was abominable to God. He mentioned that as a part of the homosexual agenda's attempt to silence by intimidation. It came just after what he said about Archi Bunker. Did you hear that part? 1)OK, fair enough. I would oppose legislation that I felt to be an abomination to God. However, there isn't much that the country could legislate that I would deem an abomination to God. 2)I remember the bit about Archie Bunker. I'm too young to have ever seen the show, but I've heard about the character. I think we do a good enough job of creating our own Archie Bunker by allowing people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "speak" for us.

Thank-you for watching the video. OK, I have a couple of questions: 1) If laws were proposed to encourage behavior and actions that you believe are abominable to God (consider something specifically you feel this way about), would you fight against them or let society do as it will? Even more, if you believed this behavior was being crammed down your throat, would you remain silent about it or resist? 2) What do you think about what happened to the Boy Scouts? 1)How is allowing for, say, a civil union encouraging their behavior? It will happen, Civil Union or no Civil Union, so it really doesn't make a difference to non-homosexuals. That said, I can understand your point, but why all the focus on outlawing homosexuality? Why not put ore effort into outlawing adultery, which is arguably a great threat than homosexuality, since, if for no other reason, more people are practicing adultery than there are practicing homosexuals. 1)I don't remember hearing about the boyscouts in the audio clip, but if you're referring to the controversy that sprung up not too long ago, they're a private organization, and while I don't agree with their decision, they have the right to make that decision.

I do not intend to change your minds, as I have not myself made up my mind. As I stated in my previous post, I'm waiting to make a decision until I have an increased knowledge in the original languages and an increased understanding of the cultural context. And there is a difference between being homophobic and stating that homosexuality is sin. The man from your link displays this difference very effectively, although I take issue with his assertion that acceptance of homosexuality in an area is correlated with decrease in religious freedom and free speech.

I don't see it as immodest. Annoying, yes. Amusing, occasionally. But immodest, not really.

Homophobia moves beyond fear of homosexuals and extends into general aversion and discrimination. And I have studied the Scriptures on this subject, quite extensively, and debated it for years. I've reserved judgment until I have a better grasp of the original languages (well, better grasp of Greek, and actually learn Hebrew) and a better understanding of the cultural context in which the text was written. Again, you assume that because I disagree with you that I must be ignorant. Way to make a false assumption. I hope your appointment goes well.

Giving the homophobic nature of the Hip-Hop community, I doubt it has to do with prison sex. If anyone is really interested in seeing where this trend originates from, this site has a number of theories. The bottom line is, we don't know exactly where the trend comes from.

Who says I'm not? your own words say you're not. your whole position on this issue is against Him. Have I even made my position on homosexuality clear, or do you just infer what it must be because I oppose silly statements like in the OP? WTD, the fact that you think the OP's statement is "silly" IS your position. and it is very much a "world view" rather than a "God-view". so really, what you personally think of homosexuality is irrelevant. you have made your position on the concept that the homosexual agenda is destroying a nation abundantly clear, and just did so again! you think it is SILLY. that tells me without a doubt that while you are "willing to die" for Him, you aren't willing to STAND for Him... or you wouldn't be playing the devil's advocate. i mentioned this earlier... you do realize that the word advocate means to defend, correct? by playing the devil's advocate, you are DEFENDING the devil's works instead of the Lord's. Just so you know, "Devil's Advocate" is more or less an idiomatic expression: Main Entry: devil's advocate Function: noun Etymology: translation of New Latin advocatus diaboli Date: 1760 1 : a Roman Catholic official whose duty is to examine critically the evidence on which a demand for beatification or canonization rests 2 : a person who champions the less accepted cause for the sake of argument Anyway, it is silly: there is no evidence aside from homophobic paranoia of homosexuality destroying our nation, or any nation, for that matter.

Who says I'm not? your own words say you're not. your whole position on this issue is against Him. Have I even made my position on homosexuality clear, or do you just infer what it must be because I oppose silly statements like in the OP?

Who says I'm not?

There's a difference between not supporting something and making outlandish claims. I believe that the OP is such an outlandish claim, and whatever my feelings about homosexuality, I cannot let such claims stand unchallenged. You are certainly condescending. Coming down from your high post to tell little old me that I'm apparently ignorant of my Bible, and apparently the English language as well. It's insulting. If the shoe fits... How have I shown ignorance of the Bible? I stated before that I'm very familiar with the Bible, particularly passages relevant to teh current discussion. Oh, I get it, I disagree with you and your interpretation, so I must be ignorant. Nice.

This is interesting, given the nature of Hinduism.

There's a difference between not supporting something and making outlandish claims. I believe that the OP is such an outlandish claim, and whatever my feelings about homosexuality, I cannot let such claims stand unchallenged. You are certainly condescending. Coming down from your high post to tell little old me that I'm apparently ignorant of my Bible, and apparently the English language as well. It's insulting.

Minorities??? I see more white kids wearing those ugly things than black kids. That may be true, at least in your area. But the fact is that it started within a minority sub-culture, and banning sagging pants can be seen as an attempt to suppress that which is perceived as "not white". Shalom Willing, Strawman Argument. Race has nothing to do with the issue. Droopy pants are droopy pants, no matter what race the wearer is. Turning this into a race argument is ridiculous. You're right, it has nothing to do with what the race of the wearer is, but rather what it represents: it represents black culture, which is becoming more and more dominant in youth culture today. I started playing Devil's Advocate here, but more and more I'm starting to wonder if, at least in part, at the root of this is a culture war.

I'm not merely implying something. I am stating a known fact. Statistically Homosexuality was always less than 5% of any given known society. Nowadays due to the Socialization and Normalization of the practice through the Relativistic mindset. It has come to be somewhat of a much more signiificant number in the Youth cutures. If you do not believe that satan is using this to destroy a whole generation, like in the days of Moses, a Generation of revived deliverers before they ever get started. Then you seriously need to examine the issue a little closer. Peace, Dave Again, I bring up the examples of Ancient Greece and Japan. Second, are you implying that Homosexuals are converting heterosexuals to the "gay side"? I can not see how ancient Greece or Japan fit into this topic and nobody is suggesting that homosexuals are converting hetrosexuls into being gay. You are either very naive or a supporter of homosexuality, which makes you as bad as they are. Get to know your bible......please. They certainly fit into this topic. Both Ancient Greece and Japan had fairly normative homosexuality, and neither were destroyed. This discounts the claim that "no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted, you know, more than a few decades". And yes, Matthitjah's post that I quoted seems to imply that homosexuals are converting heterosexuals, but rather than assign that position to him, I instead asked him if that is what he is indeed saying. And I don't appreciate that last comment, I'm very familiar with my Bible, particularly those relevant ot the current discussion. There is no need to be condescending.

I'm not merely implying something. I am stating a known fact. Statistically Homosexuality was always less than 5% of any given known society. Nowadays due to the Socialization and Normalization of the practice through the Relativistic mindset. It has come to be somewhat of a much more signiificant number in the Youth cutures. If you do not believe that satan is using this to destroy a whole generation, like in the days of Moses, a Generation of revived deliverers before they ever get started. Then you seriously need to examine the issue a little closer. Peace, Dave Again, I bring up the examples of Ancient Greece and Japan. Second, are you implying that Homosexuals are converting heterosexuals to the "gay side"?

Minorities??? I see more white kids wearing those ugly things than black kids. That may be true, at least in your area. But the fact is that it started within a minority sub-culture, and banning sagging pants can be seen as an attempt to suppress that which is perceived as "not white".

Ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah? If our nation doesn't fall apart as a result of the chaos associated with such blatant disobedience to God, he will certainly bring judgement upon this nation for it. S&G were not necessarily destroyed because of homosexuality Both you and the Rep seem to be forgetting about Greece and Japan. Both, for hundred years, allowed for homosexuality among hte members of their society. Yes, ancient Greece eventually fell, but so do all empires/civilizations. Japan is still alive and well today.

Sagging pants annoying? Surely (and in some cases hilarious). Obscene? Not really. The argument could be made that this is just an attempt to further marginalize minorities. Not an argument I'm making, but expect to see it made if this law is passed.

No, because he ascribes to the philosophy of "He who yells loudest wins". When he gets shown up by a guest, O'Reilly just starts yelling as loud as he can, even going as far as to tell his guest to "just shut up" and insult his guest. He'll ask a "tough question" and not give his guest an adequate chance to answer, as in the Dawkins interview. Hardly. First, some of his guests forget who is the host. Second, those he has to tell to shut up won't share the mic because they can't give a direct answer. Most of those guests I have seen him get ugly with felt they needed to give an essay to some pretty simply questions. Just look at how many yes or no questions his guests feel they have to beet around the bush on. It's nothing to do with who's the loudest but who knows they are wrong and have to take 5 minutes justifying themselves. And his simple "yes or no" questions aren't loaded at all? Perhaps the reason they feel the need to take 5 minutes to answer a question is because both "yes" and "no". And I seem to recall him yelling at people who are remaining completely calm. The man is a bully, everybody but his supporters can see it. Not an O'Reilly fan, myself. Still I would have paid money to see him lose it like that! Bill O. didn't shove anybody; that was beat to death on his show months ago. Geeze, let's get our facts straight for crying out loud. BTW, I got my "Don't Block the Shot" t-shirt. Very cool. Of course Bill gave his opinion on how it happened. Whether or not that version is to be believed remains to be seen.