DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Thanks for proving that you're a moron.
JESUS said
- Thread starter King Jesus
- Start date
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
And anyone who thinks the Jews 2000 years ago were all blue eyed buff guys with blond hair and trimmed beards is an even bigger moron. Moron.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Anyone who believes that the beliefs of any individual religion should have place in our laws is willing to pitch the US Constitution out the window.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
anyone who thinks that's a valid response to the argument also ranks high....
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I agree, now show where I said that, moron.
Another post where you call me a moron or some other pejorative term, yet offer no proof.
If he didn't say something in his own words, you sure as fuck aren't qualified to say it for him.
How disturbingly arogant you are.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
so once again you can't back up your claims...you can't show me where jesus changed god's written words saying homosexuality is an abomination. further, the NT does not just contain the words of jesus...jesus didn't talk about every single thing or every single law, like i said, your logic can only mean jesus approves of beastiality because he didn't outright condemn it. such logic is absurd and beyond arrogant. i'm not the one presuming to SPEAK for jesus, you are. you are stating that because jesus didn't expressly say X, that jesus in fact believes in X, despite the OT saying otherwise, because surely jesus walked the earth to repeat the entire OT.
romans 1:26-27
Yurt! Hello, Yurt! Is this your post? Do you deny saying "he would be against gay marriage"? Hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me.
Do you understand that you did indeed speak for Jesus?
Furthurmore, do you know the difference between the new and old testaments, idiot?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
romans 1:26-27
thats because the NT denounces homosexuality and jesus NEVER said homosexuality was not an abomination. YOU are the one claiming to speak for jesus by saying simply because he DID NOT say something, then that must mean he is for it. jesus as spoke of making divorces harder and fornication more sinful by adding that just lusting after someone could be fornication, so he actually enhances the moral code for sexual ideas and you would have us believe that he would say homosexuality is ok.....makes no sense
like i said, your logic can only mean jesus supports beastiality. your logic is absurd. you can't even address your logic. you will now just keep repeating yourself ad nauseum with no citing support, never addressing the logical arguments because you must defend your world view at all costs.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
The proof was your post that I responded to, duh.
Point out what I said that was wrong, duh.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You stated:
and was referring to this:
which means that you actually said: 'conservatives are still the same as they were 2000 or 200 years ago.'
But the fact is that modern conservatives in the US revere the Constitution and limited government, yet during the revolutionary period of the US someone who called themselves "conservative" would have been on the side of England.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
didn't think you could actually debate the logic of your point....when faced with superior logic, run away dune
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
for the record, dune of course did not state what i lied about or what i was a hypcrite about....as i predicted
No, that is just what you think. There is a difference between facts and your thoughts.
Modern "conservatives" claim to be fiscaly conservative, but they are not, at least not on a political basis. They claim to respect the constitution, yet want to amend it to fit their goals.
Modern conservatives are the same as those of two hundred years ago, in that they want to preserve the status quo, division of society into upper and lower classes, rule of aristocrocy, and beleive it or not, England. The Bank of England that is, the true ruler of the "free" world.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
How ironic, you coming up with a definition of conservatism based not on reality, but what you think. Why not take a published platform of a national conservative group as a better indicator of what conservatives actually stand for? Wouldn't that be more logical and reasonable instead of making up your own?
Sorry, I didn't make it up.