Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Farmer Geddon

Jesus Had Two Dads...

Saw this in the Indy online:





http://ind.pn/15c9rfM



Good on St Johns' Church - just goes to show that not all Canadian Church goers are homophobic bigots..
Lexilogio

I saw that somewhere last week. Its a good one.
Derek

I may seem a little think, but is this insinuating that God is homosexual?
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
I may seem a little think, but is this insinuating that God is homosexual?


I don't see how.

I guess it's trying to get people to think twice about their prejudices regarding single sex couples raising children though.
gone

Assuming a deity exists there would be nothing wrong with it being gay!
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
I may seem a little think, but is this insinuating that God is homosexual?

Bloody hell, you see it everywhere
Derek

Floo wrote:
Assuming a deity exists there would be nothing wrong with it being gay!


As the main tenant of divinity is to encourage procreation then one can only assume that a gay God would be a contradictory God.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
Assuming a deity exists there would be nothing wrong with it being gay!

As the main tenant of divinity is to encourage procreation then one can only assume that a gay God would be a contradictory God.


Given the context of the OP do you think that the Christian God has any particular sexuality then?
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
Assuming a deity exists there would be nothing wrong with it being gay!

As the main tenant of divinity is to encourage procreation then one can only assume that a gay God would be a contradictory God.


Given the context of the OP do you think that the Christian God has any particular sexuality then?


Not something I give a lot of attention to. That he is called our father in heaven suggests that he is a male. If he is a male then what makes him a male? A penis. Would God require a penis to procreate? Does God procreate, if not, why the need for a penis. i genuinely do not know for sure but by the fact that we are born in his image, he is a father in heaven, and he is referred to as "Him" I have always just assumed that he is a male. No reason for him to be just an assumption.
The Boyg

Of course if the Heavenly Father also had a Heavenly Mother as a companion then he'd have to be heterosexual, wouldn't he?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavenly_Mother_(Mormonism)
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
Assuming a deity exists there would be nothing wrong with it being gay!

As the main tenant of divinity is to encourage procreation then one can only assume that a gay God would be a contradictory God.


Given the context of the OP do you think that the Christian God has any particular sexuality then?


Not something I give a lot of attention to. That he is called our father in heaven suggests that he is a male. If he is a male then what makes him a male? A penis.


You think that God has an actual, physical penis?
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Of course if the Heavenly Father also had a Heavenly Mother as a companion then he'd have to be heterosexual, wouldn't he?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavenly_Mother_(Mormonism)


It is not a part of Mormon Doctrine that God has a wife. It is, however, spoken about between members and there is a general consensus that he has a wife. I did not really subscribe to that idea as there is no evidence to support the claim, other than us having a female partner so why shouldn't he. I do not think it necessary for our salvation but it would not surprise me to see a heavenly mother when I die. If he does then you must conclude that he is heterosexual.
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
Assuming a deity exists there would be nothing wrong with it being gay!

As the main tenant of divinity is to encourage procreation then one can only assume that a gay God would be a contradictory God.


Given the context of the OP do you think that the Christian God has any particular sexuality then?


Not something I give a lot of attention to. That he is called our father in heaven suggests that he is a male. If he is a male then what makes him a male? A penis.


You think that God has an actual, physical penis?


I don't know. I asked a question as to what would make him a male, a penis?
gone

As the deity would be really lonely and bored sitting by himself on his cloud, why not have a bit of gay or straight rumpy pumpy to liven things up a bit.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
Assuming a deity exists there would be nothing wrong with it being gay!

As the main tenant of divinity is to encourage procreation then one can only assume that a gay God would be a contradictory God.


Given the context of the OP do you think that the Christian God has any particular sexuality then?


Not something I give a lot of attention to. That he is called our father in heaven suggests that he is a male. If he is a male then what makes him a male? A penis.


You think that God has an actual, physical penis?


I don't know. I asked a question as to what would make him a male, a penis?


No, you asked a question, i.e. "If he is a male then what makes him a male?", and gave answer, i.e. "A penis.".

If the second sentence was part of your question then it would have been followed by a question mark as the first one was.

You couldn't lie straight in bed Ralph.
The Boyg

Floo wrote:
As the deity would be really lonely and bored sitting by himself on his cloud


Is that what God does then Floo?
trentvoyager

Quote:
You couldn't lie straight in bed Ralph.


 
Lexilogio

I hate to point this out - but the sign was supposed to be humorous.

I doubt if anyone at the church actually thought God had sexuality either way. It was merely a comment that Jesus had two fathers.
Shaker

Lexilogio wrote:
I hate to point this out - but the sign was supposed to be humorous.

I doubt if anyone at the church actually thought God had sexuality either way. It was merely a comment that Jesus had two fathers.

... and one of them was himself  
Derek

trentvoyager wrote:
Quote:
You couldn't lie straight in bed Ralph.


 


Nobody in this thread said this. That means that you are lying about this being a quote. Why? What did I say here to warrant that nasty remark?
Derek

Lexilogio wrote:
I hate to point this out - but the sign was supposed to be humorous.

I doubt if anyone at the church actually thought God had sexuality either way. It was merely a comment that Jesus had two fathers.


It is only humorous if it makes you laugh or smile but this did not do either for me. To many people find a mockery of God to be funny by accusing him of being so many negative things. I genuinely do not find any mockery of God, whether humorous or intentional, to be funny.

Gal. 6:7

7  Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

D&C 63:58

For this is a day of warning, and not a day of many words. For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in the last days.

D&C 104:6

For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things—
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
It is only humorous if it makes you laugh or smile but this did not do either for me.

Get away  
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
I hate to point this out - but the sign was supposed to be humorous.

I doubt if anyone at the church actually thought God had sexuality either way. It was merely a comment that Jesus had two fathers.


It is only humorous if it makes you laugh or smile but this did not do either for me.


Actually, as I said earlier, I think that the point was to make people with prejudices against same sex couples raising children stop and think and reexamine those prejudices.

This is clearly too much to ask of some people though.
Shaker

That.
trentvoyager

Ralph2 wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:
Quote:
You couldn't lie straight in bed Ralph.


 


Nobody in this thread said this. That means that you are lying about this being a quote. Why? What did I say here to warrant that nasty remark?


What? The BoyG said this. Read the posts more carefully. Please apologize for the accusation of lying.
The Boyg

trentvoyager wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Nobody in this thread said this. That means that you are lying about this being a quote. Why? What did I say here to warrant that nasty remark?


What? The BoyG said this.


It's true. I did.
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Nobody in this thread said this. That means that you are lying about this being a quote. Why? What did I say here to warrant that nasty remark?


What? The BoyG said this.


It's true. I did.


What, about me and in this thread?
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Nobody in this thread said this. That means that you are lying about this being a quote. Why? What did I say here to warrant that nasty remark?

What? The BoyG said this.

It's true. I did.

What, about me and in this thread?


Yeah.
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Nobody in this thread said this. That means that you are lying about this being a quote. Why? What did I say here to warrant that nasty remark?

What? The BoyG said this.

It's true. I did.

What, about me and in this thread?


Yeah.


Where
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Nobody in this thread said this. That means that you are lying about this being a quote. Why? What did I say here to warrant that nasty remark?

What? The BoyG said this.

It's true. I did.

What, about me and in this thread?


Yeah.


It is OK, I found it. I apologize, however, for the first post to me in this thread, from TV, to be an insult, without provocation, reveals much. If nothing else it proves that it is not me who is the shit stirrer.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
I apologize, however, for the first post to me in this thread, from TV, to be an insult, without provocation, reveals much.


Syntax error.
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
I apologize, however, for the first post to me in this thread, from TV, to be an insult, without provocation, reveals much.


Syntax error.


Really, Go figure Teach
trentvoyager

Quote:
the shit stirrer.


Oh I do wish you woud stop with these profanties, your grandchild could be reading this
Derek

trentvoyager wrote:
Quote:
the shit stirrer.


Oh I do wish you woud stop with these profanties, your grandchild could be reading this


I don't consider shit to be profanity but I do consider B------ks as profanity. Profanity is also a part of the way you say it and shit stirrer defines an action not a term to insult or offend.

Quote:
Shit

1. Excrement.
2. The act or an instance of defecating.
3. shits Diarrhea. Used with the.
4.
a. Something considered disgusting, of poor quality, foolish, or otherwise totally unacceptable.
b. A mean or contemptible person.
5. A narcotic or intoxicant, such as marijuana or heroin.
6. Things; items.
7. Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
8. Insolent talk or behavior.
9. Trouble or difficulty.
10. A small or worthless amount: He doesn't know shit.
Lexilogio

Ralph2 wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
I hate to point this out - but the sign was supposed to be humorous.

I doubt if anyone at the church actually thought God had sexuality either way. It was merely a comment that Jesus had two fathers.


It is only humorous if it makes you laugh or smile but this did not do either for me. To many people find a mockery of God to be funny by accusing him of being so many negative things. I genuinely do not find any mockery of God, whether humorous or intentional, to be funny.



It was not mocking God at all. It used humour to challenge entrenched views, and just asking people to look at an issue from a different angle.
Is it bad to have two fathers? No.

You could then address the point logically and note that Jesus also had a mother, who brought him up. And that, to an extent, we are all children of God, so we all have two fathers.

Humour is always subjective. Not everyone finds it funny. But the issue with comedy like this is to look at the point it is trying to make.
trentvoyager

Quote:
— pl n1.See testicle another word for testicles
2.nonsense; rubbish — interj

3..an exclamation of annoyance, disbelief, etc

4.the bollocks , the dog's bollocks  something excellent — vb

5.to muddle or botch


We can all do that ralphie boy. Look bollocks is not a profanity.    

Your posting usually falls under the 5th definition listed.
Shaker

trentvoyager wrote:
Look bollocks is not a profanity.    

Your posting usually falls under the 5th definition listed.


I know a story about that ...
Powwow

That sign is all about the gay thingy. And that thingy is but one of the reasons why that denomination is dying over here.
Derek

Lexilogio

Quote:

It was not mocking God at all. It used humour to challenge entrenched views, and just asking people to look at an issue from a different angle.
Is it bad to have two fathers? No.


My initial question was "is this insinuating that God is a homosexual" No response indicated that it was.
Quote:

You could then address the point logically and note that Jesus also had a mother, who brought him up. And that, to an extent, we are all children of God, so we all have two fathers.


This did not readily come to mind. I did not have an active father so I did not readily consider the idea that I have a earthly father and a Heavenly father.

Quote:
Humor is always subjective. Not everyone finds it funny. But the issue with comedy like this is to look at the point it is trying to make.


The point that I assumed that it was making is that Heavenly Father has a male partner. That concept, to me, is horrifying for many reasons. If that is what it was saying then it is a mockery of my God and offensive to all who worship him.
Derek

trentvoyager wrote:
Quote:
— pl n1.See testicle another word for testicles
2.nonsense; rubbish — interj

3..an exclamation of annoyance, disbelief, etc

4.the bollocks , the dog's bollocks  something excellent — vb

5.to muddle or botch


We can all do that ralphie boy. Look bollocks is not a profanity.    

Your posting usually falls under the 5th definition listed.


Profanity is also a part of the way you say it and shit stirrer defines an action not a term to insult or offend. You said it in an offensive manner intended to hurt the feelings of the recipient. That is not nice so just take it on board and amend your behavior. I is no disgrace to admit that you were wrong.

Even here you cannot help but to be bitchy can you. Do you know that to insult people like that for no apparent reason makes you look bad and not me.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
The point that I assumed that it was making is that Heavenly Father has a male partner.


Why would you presume that?

I'm sure that most people who are familiar with the Gospels would realise that the comment is a reference to God the Father and St Joseph, who raised Jesus as his own son.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
Profanity is also a part of the way you say it and shit stirrer defines an action not a term to insult or offend. You said it in an offensive manner intended to hurt the feelings of the recipient. That is not nice so just take it on board and amend your behavior. I is no disgrace to admit that you were wrong.


So you define the rules in such a way that it is profanity if someone else uses a swearword but not profanity when you do it.

What a hypocrite you can be.
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Profanity is also a part of the way you say it and shit stirrer defines an action not a term to insult or offend. You said it in an offensive manner intended to hurt the feelings of the recipient. That is not nice so just take it on board and amend your behavior. I is no disgrace to admit that you were wrong.


So you define the rules in such a way that it is profanity if someone else uses a swearword but not profanity when you do it.

What a hypocrite you can be.


If I said that you were a F-----g T--t it would be the use of those terms to offend you. If i said that you are a shit stirrer then i am saying that you are performing and act of trouble making. One is offensive to the person and the other is not. That TV used your words to insult me on his first post to me should concern you more than me using the word Shit. What he has said is offensive and can hurt people feeling unnecessarily. What I pointed out is an act that he was performing. Innocent compared to the potential consequences of his bitchy remark.

Fact is that I was debating, with posters, about whether the sign was indicating that God is a homosexual. A perfectly innocent question that deserved a respectful answer only to be insulted by someone who does not like my views on gay sex so uses every opportunity he can to insult and discredit my person. This is the truth of it. Are you happy to condone that behavior. It is nasty and disruptive to the thread being debated

You, of all people, should know that I have been consistent in my disapproval of the use of profanity. Shit, in our family, is not considered to be profanity. Having said that, if it genuinely offends posters I will discontinue the use of it. I have offered you an olive branch in return for yours. Do you really want to give it back.
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The point that I assumed that it was making is that Heavenly Father has a male partner.


Why would you presume that?

I'm sure that most people who are familiar with the Gospels would realise that the comment is a reference to God the Father and St Joseph, who raised Jesus as his own son.


Why, are you a psychotherapist.

Guess that I am not most people then because i did not.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
You, of all people, should know that I have been consistent in my disapproval of the use of profanity.


Only your definition of what constitutes "profanity" though.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The point that I assumed that it was making is that Heavenly Father has a male partner.

Why would you presume that?

I'm sure that most people who are familiar with the Gospels would realise that the comment is a reference to God the Father and St Joseph, who raised Jesus as his own son.

Why, are you a psychotherapist.


Nope.

Quote:
Guess that I am not most people then because i did not.


Still doesn't explain why you would automatically presume that it implied that God had a male partner though. I imagine that a psychotherapist might be interested in the answer to that one.
Lexilogio

Ralph2 wrote:
Lexilogio


Quote:
Humor is always subjective. Not everyone finds it funny. But the issue with comedy like this is to look at the point it is trying to make.


The point that I assumed that it was making is that Heavenly Father has a male partner. That concept, to me, is horrifying for many reasons. If that is what it was saying then it is a mockery of my God and offensive to all who worship him.


Really? I'd never read it as insinuating that God had a male partner - or any partner. I assumed it meant God and Joseph.

I'd be astonished if anyone from that church thought it implied that God was homosexual - or sexual in any way.

Interesting how we are unable to envisage a relationship without sex being a part of it. And yet many of us have had live in relationships without sex. I have had both male and female flatmates, and the idea of having a sexual relationship with one never entered my head (well - ok, it entered my head about one bloke, but I never did anything about it...)

In fact, I used to enjoy going to the pub with them, and when someone asked about the relationship, we'd say we lived together, and then howled with laughter at the thought that people thought it was  a sexual relationship. Maybe you had to be there. But we thought it was hilarious at the time.
Derek

[quote="Lexilogio:94111"]
Ralph2 wrote:
Lexilogio


Quote:
Humor is always subjective. Not everyone finds it funny. But the issue with comedy like this is to look at the point it is trying to make.


The point that I assumed that it was making is that Heavenly Father has a male partner. That concept, to me, is horrifying for many reasons. If that is what it was saying then it is a mockery of my God and offensive to all who worship him.


Quote:
Really? I'd never read it as insinuating that God had a male partner - or any partner. I assumed it meant God and Joseph.

I'd be astonished if anyone from that church thought it implied that God was homosexual - or sexual in any way.


In retrospect, I think you are right. I had just stopped debating on a thread about homosexuality and had not had my lemon sorbet to clear the taste pallet of my mind of it. I saw two fathers and immediately connected it with the gay plight to adopt children. It is completely my fault for confusing the situation. I should have kept my big mouth shut, or at least thought about it a bit first.

Quote:
Interesting how we are unable to envisage a relationship without sex being a part of it. And yet many of us have had live in relationships without sex. I have had both male and female flatmates, and the idea of having a sexual relationship with one never entered my head (well - ok, it entered my head about one bloke, but I never did anything about it...)


Lexi, from the very day I married my darling wife I have only thought of the opposite sex, and the same sex, as people. When I went to university my study buddy was a girl called Jane, 18 years younger then me. She was a really attractive young girl and the best buddy that I have probably ever had. I did an HND and Degree with her sat next to me. She came and seen my wife and me many times and bought all my children birthday and Christmas resents. Not once did it ever cross my mind that she was anything other then a good friend. I only ever look at my wife with those eyes.
trentvoyager

Quote:
That TV used your words to insult me on his first post to me should concern you more than me using the word Shit.


I didn't insult you - I laughed because it was both funny and true at the same time.

And I note that you accuse me of bitchiness - whilst the originator of the remark - Boyg was not. I wonder what prompted you to accuse me of bitchiness and not him?

That may be against the board rules - I will check.
Derek

[quote="trentvoyager:94120"]
Quote:
That TV used your words to insult me on his first post to me should concern you more than me using the word Shit.


Quote:
I didn't insult you - I laughed because it was both funny and true at the same time.

If it is true then maybe you can try again to provide evidence to show where I have lied. You have not been able to do it as of yet but please be my guest.

Quote:
And I note that you accuse me of bitchiness - whilst the originator of the remark - Boyg was not. I wonder what prompted you to accuse me of bitchiness and not him?


I did not see it in his post, however, it would have been in a guest from him where as you are serious about it and bitchy. You have said that it is a good thing to emotionally upset people and that you do not mind insulting posters, or is that one of my lies.

Quote:
That may be against the board rules - I will check.


Why would you do that if not to insight some sort of angst between us. That is bitchy and trouble making. What you accuse me of.
trentvoyager

Quote:
it would have been in a guest from him


I'm guessing that you mean jest here. Which it was. Which I laughed at. Don't you laugh at jests every so often?

Or do you only laugh at your guests?


Quote:
where as you are serious about it and bitchy.


If you can show where I was serious about it and bitchy please do so.

All I posted was:    

I would have thought that indicated a light hearted approach to the remark. Had I wanted to say more I would have - don't be in any doubt that I won't show you up for the disingenuous poster you are.

Quote:
That is bitchy and trouble making.


No it isn't it is expressing a valid concern about the insult that you used against me. You didn't use it against BoyG when he made the remark - but used it against me when I merely "laughed" at it.

Which makes me suspect that you are targetting me with unwarranted insults. An insult, furthermore, that you know full well can relate to my sexuality.

As I have already stated it is very telling that you chose not to call BoyG bitchy.

Quote:
That is bitchy and trouble making. What you accuse me of.



Please show me where I accused you of being "bitchy and trouble making"?
Derek

[quote="trentvoyager:94123"]

Quote:
Quote:
it would have been in a guest from him


I'm guessing that you mean jest here. Which it was. Which I laughed at. Don't you laugh at jests every so often?


Well yes i did, but I am claiming no expertise in grammar either. Good job you have that as you have obviously deciphered what i was saying.

Quote:
Or do you only laugh at your guests?


You did not just laugh. You regurgitated it.


Quote:
Quote:
where as you are serious about it and bitchy.


If you can show where I was serious about it and bitchy please do so.

All I posted was:    


You laughed at a derogatory remark against my person. Add that to the relentless history of mockery of my good name by you and you have a serious and bitchy action.

Quote:
I would have thought that indicated a light hearted approach to the remark. Had I wanted to say more I would have - don't be in any doubt that I won't show you up for the disingenuous poster you are.


On its own it would but when coupled with previous nasty remarks that you have made against my person it becomes something far more than that,

Quote:
Quote:
That is bitchy and trouble making.


No it isn't it is expressing a valid concern about the insult that you used against me. You didn't use it against BoyG when he made the remark - but used it against me when I merely "laughed" at it.


I know that the Boyg was not being bitchy as a result of his recent post. I know that you were being bitchy as a direct result of your recent post. You resent my belief on homosexual acts so the way that gays like you deal with it is to get ride of the threat and pretend that nothing happened instead of just getting on with it.

Quote:
Which makes me suspect that you are targetting me with unwarranted insults. An insult, furthermore, that you know full well can relate to my sexuality.


Oh right, the old homophobic card that gays love to play. Not entirely unsurprising.

Quote:
As I have already stated it is very telling that you chose not to call BoyG bitchy.


Well, then I hope my reasoning above has clarified it for you.

Quote:
Quote:
That is bitchy and trouble making. What you accuse me of.



Please show me where I accused you of being "bitchy and trouble making"?


I am referring to the trouble making that you accused me and my previous sock puppets of, one resulting in a ban. You accused me of being a trouble maker whilst stirring the pooh yourself. If you call me a liar for that then you will have to live with that as I know that you did and that is enough.

If you want to start a fresh and put the insults and accusations behind us then I am willing to do that. The choice is all yours.
trentvoyager

I am aware that I have called you a liar - and as you have admitted that, then really there is no doubt about it.

I have never called you bitchy - and I don't think I have ever called you a trouble maker  (although I am prepared for you to prove me wrong on that).

You talk about your good name - it must be nice to live in an alternate universe sometimes.

I was not playing the homophobic card - I want to know why you chose to call me bitchy for quoting Boyg's words - but you do not consider him bitchy.

So don't turn it round - you justify your remark and why you aimed it at me.

Even you must see the inconsistency there ?
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
I know that the Boyg was not being bitchy as a result of his recent post.


Whether or not I was being "bitchy" is quite subjective.

However I was completely serious as you had said one thing:
Ralph2 wrote:
That he is called our father in heaven suggests that he is a male. If he is a male then what makes him a male? A penis.

and then tried to claim that you had said something else:
Ralph2 wrote:
I asked a question as to what would make him a male, a penis?
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
I know that the Boyg was not being bitchy as a result of his recent post.


Whether or not I was being "bitchy" is quite subjective.

However I was completely serious as you had said one thing:
Ralph2 wrote:
That he is called our father in heaven suggests that he is a male. If he is a male then what makes him a male? A penis.

and then tried to claim that you had said something else:
Ralph2 wrote:
I asked a question as to what would make him a male, a penis?


No, what I said and what I meant may be questionable, however, you chose the wrong meaning of what I said then insisted it was the right reason. I did actually say "If he is a male then what makes him a male? A penis. What I should have said is "If he is a male then what makes him a male? A penis? As my use of punctuations leaves a lot to be desired I missed the question mark on the end of "A penis" and you assumed that I was answering my own question. I cannot say for a surety whether you knew exactly what I was saying, given the text in which I said it, or whether you were being pernickety, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt, in view of you recent post, so when you said "You think that God has an actual, physical penis?" I said "I don't know. I asked a question as to what would make him a male, a penis?" I was under the impression that it would conclude the issue, obviously not as you continued to say
Quote:

No, you asked a question, i.e. "If he is a male then what makes him a male?", and gave answer, i.e. "A penis."

If the second sentence was part of your question then it would have been followed by a question mark as the first one was.

You couldn't lie straight in bed Ralph.


I did not pick up on the last sentence, probaly because i thought it was your signature and was not expecting such a remark.

The context in which I said it is as follows

Quote:
Given the context of the OP do you think that the Christian God has any particular sexuality then?


If I knew that it was a penis instead of questioning it then would I say this?

Quote:
Not something I give a lot of attention to. That he is called our father in heaven suggests that he is a male. If he is a male then what makes him a male? A penis. Would God require a penis to procreate? Does God procreate, if not, why the need for a penis. i genuinely do not know for sure but by the fact that we are born in his image, he is a father in heaven, and he is referred to as "Him" I have always just assumed that he is a male. No reason for him to be just an assumption.


To be frank, maybe I undersell myself because I would have known all of this without questioning it, just by reading it in context so maybe, just maybe, you were being awkward.
Derek

[quote="trentvoyager:94129"]

Quote:
I am aware that I have called you a liar - and as you have admitted that, then really there is no doubt about it.


I have not admitted to being a liar. Maybe one of my personas but not me. I do not lie. I express an opinion based on my knowledge and experience. I do not intentionally lie.

Quote:
I have never called you bitchy - and I don't think I have ever called you a trouble maker  (although I am prepared for you to prove me wrong on that).


You have never called me bitchy, as I have already said, however, you have called me, Ralph, a troublemaker and disrupter of the MB, however, that was before Lexi drew the line so I will not go there.

Quote:
You talk about your good name - it must be nice to live in an alternate universe sometimes.


Not sure what this means. In my daily life no one disrespects me, including gay people I know. Mind you, I only voice my personal opinions in places like this because I would hate to offend anyone face to face. I take no offense her either, I just do not see the necessity to insult anyone. It is just not nice. You can put your opinion across without calling someone a fool. I only insult in retaliation to insult.

Quote:
I was not playing the homophobic card - I want to know why you chose to call me bitchy for quoting Boyg's words - but you do not consider him bitchy.


I fear that you are reading far to much in this. I am not  discriminatory
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
I have not admitted to being a liar. Maybe one of my personas but not me. I do not lie.


Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
I have not admitted to being a liar. Maybe one of my personas but not me. I do not lie.




Persona The role that one assumes or displays in public or society; one's public image or personality, as distinguished from the inner self.

the mechanism that conceals a person's true thoughts and feelings, esp in his adaptation to the outside world

the public role or personality a person assumes or is perceived to assume


Is Tom Cruise a Liar when he plays a secret agent in Mission Impossible?
trentvoyager

Quote:
Is Tom Cruise a Liar when he plays a secret agent in Mission Impossible?


No because he is an actor - and we know he is an actor.

You deliberately set out to deceive with your 'personae' to make people believe you were a different poster.

This is usually known as lying.

The fact that you were rubbish at lying is neither here nor there.
trentvoyager

Quote:
I fear that you are reading far to much in this.


I'm not reading anything into this - I just do not understand your reasoning.

By your own judgement, Boyg made a jest - I laughed at it.

For laughing at something that you admit was a jest - you know a bit of light hearted banter, a giggle, etc. - I was labelled bitchy by you. Why?

IF you think the original jest was bitchy then you should at the very least have included Boyg in your castigations - how a mere   can be considered bitchy is beyond me.

If on the other hand you didn't think the original remark was bitchy then why is my laughing at it thus defined?
Derek

[quote="trentvoyager:94142"]
Quote:
Is Tom Cruise a Liar when he plays a secret agent in Mission Impossible?

Quote:

No because he is an actor - and we know he is an actor.


He, as I, was portraying a persona. Is your real name Trentvoyager, no, so you to are portraying a persona. How do I know you are gay. It could just be a part of your character, as saying that I am a liar was a part of mine, although I do not recall my sock puppet saying it. I know that Clive did but he was not lying. He is, or was, what he said he was. This is me, Ralph. I do not tell lies.
Quote:

You deliberately set out to deceive with your 'personae' to make people believe you were a different poster.


Yes, I did, but I did so to combat the unfair way in which I was being treated by you and others setting me up for a ban that I clearly did not deserve. I cannot act any different then myself. I do not think that I have changed since the last time I posted on here. I may have gain knowledge and experience but my core beliefs are as they were. Why have I not been banned again. My persona's were born out of necessity to clear my good name. Let me tell you that IMO my actions were no where near as bad as those who used unscrupulous tactics to shut my mouth.  
Quote:

This is usually known as lying.

The fact that you were rubbish at lying is neither here nor there.


Yes, it is complementary to be told that I am not good at the deception game, thank you. The only one that suffered was me by being banned again. What about the sock puppets that you thought were me and banned. How do you feel about that. Let me assure you that you banned at least two posters that I am aware of for being me when they were not me. I have no reason to lie about that as I am here now as myself so have nothing to hide. Admittedly you did not ban as many innocent posters a Boyg did but you failed in your attempts to get me twice, at least, and someone else had to suffer in my name. That was worse then catching me out and banning me again.

Anyway, that was then and this is now. I have forgotten it now and remain thankful to Lexi for her Christian act of allowing me back on her forum as my real self. It is so much more relaxing. I doubt whether an atheist would have been quite as compassionate.
Shaker

Congratulations trent - when Ralph says that he's debated topics in excess of a hundred pages long, you've just found out why  
Derek

trentvoyager

Quote:
Quote:
I fear that you are reading far to much in this.


Quote:
I'm not reading anything into this - I just do not understand your reasoning.


I think you are

Quote:
By your own judgement, Boyg made a jest - I laughed at it.


I my opinion, you laughed at what he was saying about me. It was a negative statement, yet you were prepared to hurt my feelings and laughed at me.

Quote:
For laughing at something that you admit was a jest - you know a bit of light hearted banter, a giggle, etc. - I was labelled bitchy by you. Why?


Based on my previous experience and knowledge of your vitriolic post to me I did take objection to it. If you tell me now that you were not intending to cause me unnecessary offense then I have to accept that and apologies.

Quote:
IF you think the original jest was bitchy then you should at the very least have included Boyg in your castigations - how a mere   can be considered bitchy is beyond me.


It matters not how many times you say this. I am not discriminatory. I did not call you bitchy because you are Gay. If I did, would that be an insult anyway? You have insulted me enough. If you do not like being insulted then don't insult others. Simples. I should have known it would be beyond you and kept my mouth shut.

Quote:
If on the other hand you didn't think the original remark was bitchy then why is my laughing at it thus defined?


The difference is in who is delivering the humor, or lack of it. You have consistently berated me at every possible opportunity as a result of my personal beliefs. From you the humor was just not funny but bitchy. Boyg had recently defended an injustice  in which I was wrongly treated. He did not have to. I am sure that he was fighting the injustice of the situation and not me, but that in inconsequential. He could have said nothing. That he did stand for justice and equality really impressed me so I was obviously more tolerant of the remark being made by him then I was in you making it. I have a resilient loyalty and respect for those who stand for truth and righteousness, as Boyg did.

That he is also doing the same elsewhere, against three formidable opponents, one dictatorial atheist and his three stogies, is also highly commendable. I admire his tenacity and courage to take on these three people who think that they are in control of an empire instead of 20 posters
trentvoyager

Quote:
It was a negative statement,


Hang on - you said it was a jest Boyg made with no malicious intent. How does my laughing at it make me bitchy.

You seem a little confused.

I'm still loving your defence of your personae though.

What a way to justify lying.

You go girl. (Now that was bitchy and sarcastic)
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
I have not admitted to being a liar. Maybe one of my personas but not me. I do not lie.




Persona The role that one assumes or displays in public or society; one's public image or personality, as distinguished from the inner self.

the mechanism that conceals a person's true thoughts and feelings, esp in his adaptation to the outside world

the public role or personality a person assumes or is perceived to assume


Is Tom Cruise a Liar when he plays a secret agent in Mission Impossible?


So you're saying that you were playing the role of a liar and therefore not actually lying yourself.

trentvoyager

Quote:
That he is also doing the same elsewhere, against three formidable opponents, one dictatorial atheist and his three stogies, is also highly commendable. I admire his tenacity and courage to take on these three people who think that they are in control of an empire instead of 20 posters


Whilst not necessarily disagreeing with some of what you say - I think discussion of that particular board is best conducted in that place as it is for that board to resolve.
Ketty

My only comment on this thread, as I head off for the beach, is that Ralphiepoos and Cymru sound like a pair of bitchy old queens when they get their wobbly and paranoid old heads together for a bit of faecal-stirring gossip.    
Derek

[quote="trentvoyager:94150"]

Quote:
Quote:
It was a negative statement,


Hang on - you said it was a jest Boyg made with no malicious intent. How does my laughing at it make me bitchy.


You are having a real problem with this aren't you. Or are you just trying to be clever and failing miserably.

Where did I say that there was no malicious intent. You said that. That is misrepresentation and not very smart.

You laughing at it makes it bitchy because it is specifically you who is laughing at it. The one who has incessantly insulted my person. I said:
Quote:

I did not see it in his post, however, it would have been in a guest from him where as you are serious [malicious] about it and bitchy. You have said that it is a good thing to emotionally upset people and that you do not mind insulting posters, or is that one of my lies.


Quote:
You seem a little confused.


That's a little rich

Quote:
I'm still loving your defence defense of your personae though.


Thank You

Quote:
What a way to justify lying.


Playing a role is not lying. The character was based on a real person.

Quote:
You go girl. (Now that was bitchy and sarcastic)


Well you would know
trentvoyager

Ketty wrote:
My only comment on this thread, as I head off for the beach, is that Ralphiepoos and Cymru sound like a pair of bitchy old queens when they get their wobbly and paranoid old heads together for a bit of faecal-stirring gossip.    


Good grief Ketty - are you trying to steal my crown of Queen Bitchery ?

Derek

trentvoyager wrote:
Quote:
That he is also doing the same elsewhere, against three formidable opponents, one dictatorial atheist and his three stogies, is also highly commendable. I admire his tenacity and courage to take on these three people who think that they are in control of an empire instead of 20 posters


Whilst not necessarily disagreeing with some of what you say - I think discussion of that particular board is best conducted in that place as it is for that board to resolve.


I was not discussing it I was highlighting Boygs exemplary action to challenge something that is blatantly wrong. The content of what it is all about was not mentioned as it is irrelevant to this board.

You are just looking for anything to confront me with, aren't you. You can see that I did not mention the content of the argument but you just could not help yourself but to have a go. I offered you an olive branch. I will not be doing that again. You are trouble making so our debates will have to cease until you have learnt how to speak to people instead of trying to be clever in catching them out on irrelevances. i am here to debate not to have pathetic squabbles over irrelevances.
trentvoyager

Quote:
Where did I say that there was no malicious intent.



Here -
Quote:
I did not see it in his post, however, it would have been in a guest from him where as you are serious about it and bitchy.


You said it was in jest - but that my response to that jest was bitchy. Are you forgetting what you posted ?


Quote:
Playing a role is not lying. The character was based on a real person.



I'm afraid you've really lost the plot in the little play you are performing  
Derek

[quote="trentvoyager:94159"]

Quote:
Quote:
Where did I say that there was no malicious intent.


Here -
Quote:
I did not see it in his post, however, it would have been in a guest from him where as you are serious about it and bitchy.


As I said. I did not say it had malicious intent, thank you

Quote:
You said it was in jest - but that my response to that jest was bitchy. Are you forgetting what you posted ?


No, I posted the same quote showing that I did not say what you accused me of.

Quote:
Quote:
Playing a role is not lying. The character was based on a real person.



I'm afraid you've really lost the plot in the little play you are performing  


What play is that then?
trentvoyager

You do know that you are arguing against yourself here:

Quote:
Where did I say that there was no malicious intent.


and



Quote:
As I said. I did not say it had malicious intent, thank you



The fact remains you accused me of being bitchy for laughing at a remark made by someone else. I wasn't being - I found it funny and true.

But for my laughter to be considered bitchy - the original remark has got to be bitchy too - otherwise your argument fails.

So either you are targetting me with the accusation of bitchiness and leaving Boyg out of it because of your new found bromance - or Boyg was by your definition bitchy as well.

So which is it Ralphie ?
The Boyg

trentvoyager wrote:
So either you are targetting me with the accusation of bitchiness and leaving Boyg out of it because of your new found bromance


Unrequited, I can assure you.  
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:
So either you are targetting me with the accusation of bitchiness and leaving Boyg out of it because of your new found bromance


Unrequited, I can assure you.  


Recognition of good works requires no reciprocation it is merely an observation and respect for someone choosing the right and following it through. I have asked you for nothing in return, have I?
gone

TV there are lies, damned lies and Ralphie!    
Derek

Floo wrote:
TV there are lies, damned lies and Ralphie!    


Whoops, this could be expensive.
Shaker

genghiscant

Farmer Geddon

What happened here; I thought I posted a funny, not a rebuttal...

Re butt all...   <snarf>

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum