Christianity is Poison

[organofcorti]

It's the gays that are getting together to fight non-gays, just so that they can prove themselves a minority, get funds from government, and make Christians and others support them. Why should Christians support fags? Let them support themselves.

Christians do this too, so is it  bad thing or not a bad thing? Why should everyone support Christians?
 

Percentage wise Christians almost don't do this. But it is one of the major activities of gays.

For Christians it is a little mistake. For gays, it is a lifestyle.

You really think "Percentage wise Christians almost don't" ask for money from the Government? So you'd be ok with Christian churches losing their tax break?

The difference being Organ that some of that tax break goes back into outreach to help people through feeding the homeless, building shelters for people in the Global South, or simply by providing aid during a natural disaster.

It get's a tax break for it's charitable values, the LGBT community has been using its funding to aggressively target and bite back Christians does that mean it deserves a tax break.

I think you might be generalising there.

BTW, what does "bite back" mean?

A general reference to that bathroom bill and the signifcant media and global coverage of it.
The one in South Carolina mandating that unisex bathrooms basically be mandatory and having organizations like Disney and Hollywood put economic pressure on governemnt to force their point of view across even if a populace disagrees against it heard its 60% approve of that bill but a fair bit of money does go towards influencing media towards a condemnation.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/paypal-embraces-bathroom-tyranny-cuban-commies/
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article70946672.html

Someone coined a phrase for something so specific? I'm guessing there's a very interesting etymology -- can you explain how the term came about?

[1714847605]

1714847605

[1714847605]

1714847605

[1714847605]

1714847605

[Swordsoffreedom]

Someone coined a phrase for something so specific? I'm guessing there's a very interesting etymology -- can you explain how the term came about?

There are no general terminologies to my knowledge regarding the anti-gay word that basically means against gays that do not have the word gay in it.
I used bite-back as a lexicon term to illustrate the promotion of a gay lifestyle an extreme left SJW focus being forced down society's throat regardless of religious/conservative viewpoints.

The word Bite-Back though does have a terminology I just applied it to this case, sometimes we make the dictionary its how language is organicaly created after all (Used Organ in there)

The two main lexicon uses per se are
1. to ​stop yourself from saying something or from ​expressing an ​emotion:
2. to ​react ​angrily, ​especially to someone who has done something ​unpleasant to you: A ​youth ​club has ​bitten back at ​vandals by ​covering ​its ​roof with ​razor-sharp ​security ​wire.

I used the second term as it is a nice way to put it in not so many words, basically I meant its an idea of gay vengance on anything that is not in line with their viewpoint or perspective and that is namely religion in particular christianty and by bite-back I mean using social media the SJW the press, corporations and activists groups to push an agenda that is against the majority opinion in this context.

The closest related term I could have used instead would be the pink/gay mafia but that didn't seem to cover the entire context so I used bite-back instead to relate to that point since you mentioned funding and I was responding in regards to how it is being used by the gay community to promote a one could say hatred filled agenda against Christianity in general and some peoples conscientious beliefs.

That said I also implied the first term in how religious organizations tend to hold back on their opinion for the most part regarding this issue but when they do make a stand and protest, the gay community Bites back at them for having a conflicting viewpoint and trying to stifle any open discussion on any issue in a sort of SJW ish way.

(Edit in: Just realized you meant in general use it's just a term I made up it's sometimes used in articles but its not a particular terminology)

[organofcorti]

Someone coined a phrase for something so specific? I'm guessing there's a very interesting etymology -- can you explain how the term came about?

There are no general terminologies to my knowledge regarding the anti-gay word that basically means against gays that do not have the word gay in it.
I used bite-back as a lexicon term to illustrate the promotion of a gay lifestyle an extreme left SJW focus being forced down society's throat regardless of religious/conservative viewpoints.

The word Bite-Back though does have a terminology I just applied it to this case, sometimes we make the dictionary its how language is organicaly created after all (Used Organ in there)

The two main lexicon uses per se are
1. to ​stop yourself from saying something or from ​expressing an ​emotion:
2. to ​react ​angrily, ​especially to someone who has done something ​unpleasant to you: A ​youth ​club has ​bitten back at ​vandals by ​covering ​its ​roof with ​razor-sharp ​security ​wire.

I used the second term as it is a nice way to put it in not so many words, basically I meant its an idea of gay vengance on anything that is not in line with their viewpoint or perspective and that is namely religion in particular christianty and by bite-back I mean using social media the SJW the press, corporations and activists groups to push an agenda that is against the majority opinion.

The closest related term I could have used instead would be the pink/gay mafia but that didn't seem to cover the entire context so I used bite-back instead to relate to that point since you mentioned funding and I was responding in regards to how it is being used by the gay community to promote a one could say hatred filled agenda against Christianity in general and some peoples conscientious beliefs.

That said I also implied the first term in how religious organizations tend to hold back on their opinion for the most part regarding this issue but when they do make a stand and protest, the gay community Bites back at them for having a conflicting viewpoint and trying to stifle any open discussion on any issue in a sort of SJW ish way.

I misunderstood what you meant and hadn't looked it up myself.

Ther way you're phrasing it sounds to me like you're saying that there are saying that there are pro-sexual freedom groups and religious anti-sexual freedom groups, and when the second group posts hate messages about the first, they react angrily. I think this is a pretty fair response, tbh. If someone I didn't know claimed to have unfalsifiable "proof" that I'm evil and shouldn't be allowed the same freedoms as other people, I'd be pretty pissed too.

If I'm not getting it, it's probably that I just don't have a good guide for these issues in your country -- I don't see much religious hatred of sexual practices where I am, and there are churches that cater for both groups.

[Swordsoffreedom]

Someone coined a phrase for something so specific? I'm guessing there's a very interesting etymology -- can you explain how the term came about?

There are no general terminologies to my knowledge regarding the anti-gay word that basically means against gays that do not have the word gay in it.
I used bite-back as a lexicon term to illustrate the promotion of a gay lifestyle an extreme left SJW focus being forced down society's throat regardless of religious/conservative viewpoints.

The word Bite-Back though does have a terminology I just applied it to this case, sometimes we make the dictionary its how language is organicaly created after all (Used Organ in there)

The two main lexicon uses per se are
1. to ​stop yourself from saying something or from ​expressing an ​emotion:
2. to ​react ​angrily, ​especially to someone who has done something ​unpleasant to you: A ​youth ​club has ​bitten back at ​vandals by ​covering ​its ​roof with ​razor-sharp ​security ​wire.

I used the second term as it is a nice way to put it in not so many words, basically I meant its an idea of gay vengance on anything that is not in line with their viewpoint or perspective and that is namely religion in particular christianty and by bite-back I mean using social media the SJW the press, corporations and activists groups to push an agenda that is against the majority opinion.

The closest related term I could have used instead would be the pink/gay mafia but that didn't seem to cover the entire context so I used bite-back instead to relate to that point since you mentioned funding and I was responding in regards to how it is being used by the gay community to promote a one could say hatred filled agenda against Christianity in general and some peoples conscientious beliefs.

That said I also implied the first term in how religious organizations tend to hold back on their opinion for the most part regarding this issue but when they do make a stand and protest, the gay community Bites back at them for having a conflicting viewpoint and trying to stifle any open discussion on any issue in a sort of SJW ish way.

I misunderstood what you meant and hadn't looked it up myself.

Ther way you're phrasing it sounds to me like you're saying that there are saying that there are pro-sexual freedom groups and religious anti-sexual freedom groups, and when the second group posts hate messages about the first, they react angrily. I think this is a pretty fair response, tbh. If someone I didn't know claimed to have unfalsifiable "proof" that I'm evil and shouldn't be allowed the same freedoms as other people, I'd be pretty pissed too.

If I'm not getting it, it's probably that I just don't have a good guide for these issues in your country -- I don't see much religious hatred of sexual practices where I am, and there are churches that cater for both groups.

That seems like a fair interpretation of Bite-Back, using the definitons of the free dictionary that is also how a person could read it in the scope of sexual freedoms.

Example:
South Carolina voted they don't want transgenders in my bathroom to protect children (anti-sexual freedom works as well), a gay group bit back and said they would boycott the state because it's one or another they either let everyone use that bathroom or seperate it for men and women which has been the standard for the last 100+ years (pro-sexual freedom).

I didn't want to use the one that used an animal interpretation which is why I posted the other definition as that could be interpreted wrongly, ah history it could be treated as nigger ahem black person reference since historically they were called animals.

1. Lit. to defend an attack by biting at someone or something. (Usually an animal.) I threatened the dog and the dog bit back.
2. Fig. to fight back at someone; to return someone's anger or attack; to speak back to someone with anger. She is usually tolerant, but she will bite back if pressed. Yes, she will bite back.

I would be pissed that a pedophile could use the girls room in a school pretending to be transgender and vice versa for females who like little boys.

That is why we have unisex bathrooms which address transgender issues but on the other hand I can't see the economic viability of making a unisex bathroom in every single building. One you would need to change the building code to mandate three bathrooms in a building to address a minority, or two you need to retroactively have all male female bathrooms become unisex.

Passing that bill raises the issues of privacy and comfort for others as well so religious freedom which is why I can see that people are pissed off on both sides of this spectrum, personally I don't want people to use my bathroom if they are transgender and would just want unisex to be used. If its not available then the problem lies in that if one identifies as a female but looks like a male where do we draw the line into what bathroom they use.

So when you have people like Bruce Springsteen boycotting a state because of that reason it seems bigoted to me but in a term he bit back.
Folks with gender disorders deserve basic protections, but that doesn't mean we turn the social norms of our society upside down.

One group's rights cannot trump another's. This is fundamental to a society that is respectful of rights. As the saying goes "your right to swing your arm ends when it meets my face". The Trans community needs to come to terms with the fact that there will be limits to how they exercise their rights when they come into conflict with the reasonable and legitimate rights of others.

Either way this is the biggest Gay/Christian battle America wise at present so it fits into the context of this thread based on where you stand personally.
https://www.charlotteagenda.com/44997/hold-creating-author-profilei-love-lgbt-community-support-house-bill-2/

That said the debate is ignited in the US because of the Supreme Court Decision, legislatures are trying to be pre-emptive in making legislation they didn't plan on making any time soon so there are competiting priorities, what makes the debate depends on their own alignment of interests, here the legislature voted so there were no issues which makes sense organ believe your Canadian as well that said in the USA they forced it through courts so some resentment would be expected.

Either way South Carolinas not alone on that even Canada is debating it in general but we just don't see boycotts since its not affecting anything at the provincial level yet.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/transgender-rights-bill-gutted-by-transphobic-senate-amendment-1.2975024

Either way hope that explained that issue for you a bit organ.

[Buffer Overflow]

God doesn't hate fags, nor does He make them. God makes straight people. Fags make themselves. God simply tries to turn fags from the mess they are making of their own lives by being fags.
Rather, He commands His followers to love gays, and try to move them out of their self-destructive nature. Difficult thing to do.

Since you claimed that we have no free will:

We don't even have free will.

How could homosexual people choose to be homosexual when they have no choice in the matter because they have no free will? Why would your god try to change their alleged "self-destructive nature", when your god knows full well his supposed followers could never do that due to lack of free will? Why would your "loving" god create homosexual people (remember cause and effect, they must of been born homosexual) then condemn them to hell for something completely out of their control?

Or are you going to make up a special "homosexual free will exemption" rule up? Just like you did when you panicked after I pointed out if we have no free will then Cristianity is proven false.

Well, it wouldn't matter to you. You would stay exactly fluffy as you are even if you had free will, right Fluffer?

 

.
  I had a funny feeling you would avoid answering that one. 
Trouble is you've twisted yourself up into such a BADlogic soggy bag of lies, you cannot really answer without digging yourself even deeper into that hole.

[hangar18]

It's not simply limited to Christianity fundamentalism in nearly every religion leads to Deaths destruction etc

[BADecker]

It's not simply limited to Christianity fundamentalism in nearly every religion leads to Deaths destruction etc

That's right. And whatever personal religion you have for yourself, no matter what it is, it leads to death. Even if science cracks the code to immortality in our genes, we all will die some day.

The only way to live forever is to accept the forgiveness of Jesus, the Christ, for partaking of your own personal religion. Move over to Jesus and be saved for eternal life.

[BADecker]

God doesn't hate fags, nor does He make them. God makes straight people. Fags make themselves. God simply tries to turn fags from the mess they are making of their own lives by being fags.
Rather, He commands His followers to love gays, and try to move them out of their self-destructive nature. Difficult thing to do.

Since you claimed that we have no free will:

We don't even have free will.

How could homosexual people choose to be homosexual when they have no choice in the matter because they have no free will? Why would your god try to change their alleged "self-destructive nature", when your god knows full well his supposed followers could never do that due to lack of free will? Why would your "loving" god create homosexual people (remember cause and effect, they must of been born homosexual) then condemn them to hell for something completely out of their control?

Or are you going to make up a special "homosexual free will exemption" rule up? Just like you did when you panicked after I pointed out if we have no free will then Cristianity is proven false.

Well, it wouldn't matter to you. You would stay exactly fluffy as you are even if you had free will, right Fluffer?

 

.
  I had a funny feeling you would avoid answering that one. 
Trouble is you've twisted yourself up into such a BADlogic soggy bag of lies, you cannot really answer without digging yourself even deeper into that hole.

Not sure what you are talking about. Everyone has a right to his/her own opinion. More than anyone, you seem to state your opinion as an opinion. You seldom if ever offer anything to back up what you say. Why contradict that you have an opinion? Everyone has many opinions. What is there to answer?

[Moloch]

One of thousands of children murdered by prayer

[Buffer Overflow]

God doesn't hate fags, nor does He make them. God makes straight people. Fags make themselves. God simply tries to turn fags from the mess they are making of their own lives by being fags.
Rather, He commands His followers to love gays, and try to move them out of their self-destructive nature. Difficult thing to do.

Since you claimed that we have no free will:

We don't even have free will.

How could homosexual people choose to be homosexual when they have no choice in the matter because they have no free will? Why would your god try to change their alleged "self-destructive nature", when your god knows full well his supposed followers could never do that due to lack of free will? Why would your "loving" god create homosexual people (remember cause and effect, they must of been born homosexual) then condemn them to hell for something completely out of their control?

Or are you going to make up a special "homosexual free will exemption" rule up? Just like you did when you panicked after I pointed out if we have no free will then Cristianity is proven false.

Well, it wouldn't matter to you. You would stay exactly fluffy as you are even if you had free will, right Fluffer?

 

.
  I had a funny feeling you would avoid answering that one. 
Trouble is you've twisted yourself up into such a BADlogic soggy bag of lies, you cannot really answer without digging yourself even deeper into that hole.

Not sure what you are talking about. Everyone has a right to his/her own opinion. More than anyone, you seem to state your opinion as an opinion. You seldom if ever offer anything to back up what you say. Why contradict that you have an opinion? Everyone has many opinions. What is there to answer?

Funny how you seem to get these recurring bouts of amnesia with regard to questions, with increasing frequency on here I might add. Ginkgo biloba can help with that.

[BADecker]

God doesn't hate fags, nor does He make them. God makes straight people. Fags make themselves. God simply tries to turn fags from the mess they are making of their own lives by being fags.
Rather, He commands His followers to love gays, and try to move them out of their self-destructive nature. Difficult thing to do.

Since you claimed that we have no free will:

We don't even have free will.

How could homosexual people choose to be homosexual when they have no choice in the matter because they have no free will? Why would your god try to change their alleged "self-destructive nature", when your god knows full well his supposed followers could never do that due to lack of free will? Why would your "loving" god create homosexual people (remember cause and effect, they must of been born homosexual) then condemn them to hell for something completely out of their control?

Or are you going to make up a special "homosexual free will exemption" rule up? Just like you did when you panicked after I pointed out if we have no free will then Cristianity is proven false.

Well, it wouldn't matter to you. You would stay exactly fluffy as you are even if you had free will, right Fluffer?

 

.
  I had a funny feeling you would avoid answering that one. 
Trouble is you've twisted yourself up into such a BADlogic soggy bag of lies, you cannot really answer without digging yourself even deeper into that hole.

Not sure what you are talking about. Everyone has a right to his/her own opinion. More than anyone, you seem to state your opinion as an opinion. You seldom if ever offer anything to back up what you say. Why contradict that you have an opinion? Everyone has many opinions. What is there to answer?

Funny how you seem to get these recurring bouts of amnesia with regard to questions, with increasing frequency on here I might add. Ginkgo biloba can help with that.

You suggest that something is funny. It isn't you. You would rather distort things than go and look at what is being said in the context that it is being said. This makes you to be deceptive.

In another post I invited you to come to God and to church. This was following a post of yours where you said essentially that the smart elite in church are there to rip people off.

What you are really showing us is that you, in your deceptiveness, are not smart. If you were smart, you would be in church, there to rip other people off. How do we know? By your deceptiveness that you attempt to use to rip people off in their thinking... right here in this forum. As it is, you are ignorant and unthinking enough that you can't even understand the things that you are talking about.

There is nothing wrong with this. Not everyone can be a great thinker. And you probably have some other wonderful traits that make up for both, your deceptiveness, and your inability to understand things.

[jonatuzc]

Please We need peace in the world and not fights

[BADecker]

Please We need peace in the world and not fights

That's the trick, isn't it?

If the other guy doesn't want peace, and shows it by his actions against you, how do you live peacefully? You can roll over and die. But that isn't living.

[RJX]

Please We need peace in the world and not fights

And there's the whole truth. Who cares what you do or do not believe. Life is about developement of the soul, whether by means of a religion, denying every religion or just drawing up your own plan and eat blueberries all day every day.

When someone starts picking on someone else, for whatever reason, it indicates they have a longer path ahead than those who do not need to downplay other people's actions to make themselves look better. It's primitive but for some reason, a good 7000 years into this civilisation, we haven't managed to stop picking on each other.

So peace would be damn good start to try and develop as a species, not as a group or as an individual. And if you don't get it in this life, then I guess I'll see you next lifetime.

[RJX]

Please We need peace in the world and not fights

That's the trick, isn't it?

If the other guy doesn't want peace, and shows it by his actions against you, how do you live peacefully? You can roll over and die. But that isn't living.

If you die, you die. If you're done here you'll evolve into something grander.

To attack or to defend are all part of the play you're in, in this lifetime. Mutual respect should prevent others from taking your life. As long as that is not the case then there is a chance you'll die, goes for the other guy as well.

There is more between living on your knees and dying on your feet. We're simply not there yet and fear is powerful instrument to keep anyone from rising above the flock.

[BADecker]

Please We need peace in the world and not fights

And there's the whole truth. Who cares what you do or do not believe. Life is about developement of the soul, whether by means of a religion, denying every religion or just drawing up your own plan and eat blueberries all day every day.

When someone starts picking on someone else, for whatever reason, it indicates they have a longer path ahead than those who do not need to downplay other people's actions to make themselves look better. It's primitive but for some reason, a good 7000 years into this civilisation, we haven't managed to stop picking on each other.

So peace would be damn good start to try and develop as a species, not as a group or as an individual. And if you don't get it in this life, then I guess I'll see you next lifetime.

The problem with this thinking is that it will not work. Nice idea. But it doesn't work.

[BADecker]

Please We need peace in the world and not fights

That's the trick, isn't it?

If the other guy doesn't want peace, and shows it by his actions against you, how do you live peacefully? You can roll over and die. But that isn't living.

If you die, you die. If you're done here you'll evolve into something grander.

You have been to the other side and back? You know this?

To attack or to defend are all part of the play you're in, in this lifetime. Mutual respect should prevent others from taking your life. As long as that is not the case then there is a chance you'll die, goes for the other guy as well.

There is more between living on your knees and dying on your feet. We're simply not there yet and fear is powerful instrument to keep anyone from rising above the flock.

There are two flocks. One flock is destined for eternal life in the hereafter. The other flock is destined for eternal damnation in the hereafter.

[RJX]

The problem with this thinking is that it will not work. Nice idea. But it doesn't work.

Why not?

[RJX]

You have been to the other side and back? You know this?

Would you accept a, more or less, affirmative answer to your question?

There are two flocks. One flock is destined for eternal life in the hereafter. The other flock is destined for eternal damnation in the hereafter.

If that is true, what's the difference between this lifetime and the hereafter?

[BADecker]

You have been to the other side and back? You know this?

Would you accept a, more or less, affirmative answer to your question?

There are two flocks. One flock is destined for eternal life in the hereafter. The other flock is destined for eternal damnation in the hereafter.

If that is true, what's the difference between this lifetime and the hereafter?

Death here. Next life no more death for the living. Continual death for the dying.