Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 44
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    No, it is not perfectly accurate! Everything you say has a twisted and perverted spin to it, specifically for the sake of shock value. How pathetic and unchristian is that?

    You seem to be quite obsessed with people having sex with their mothers! What's up with that anyway?? Kinda weird don't you think??
    Damn straight!
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Look at the title of this thread and there's your answer. The further we go back, the less mutation load the human family had built up in the genome. Once the genome mutated to a certain point, the risk of birth defects became greater and greater (thereby resulting in a divine decree against brother/sister marriages during the Mosaic period). Further, if God had created a multitude of couples (rather than beginning with a single couple), then there would be no one single human family. By starting with one couple, it makes us all one as a brotherhood of humanity and EMPHASIZES the brotherhood of humanity.


    And notice I'm talking about adults having consenting sex WITH THEIR OWN MOTHERS, which was NEVER sanctioned biblically and which is logically *ALLOWED* under ANY atheistic moral system (including yours). And now it's time to ask you a question in the spirit of universal brotherhood and discovery ...


    Do you believe it is morally wrong to have powerful sex with a DEAD goat??? If not, WHY???



    BINI



    What a steaming pile of bullshit. Incest is still incest no matter who it's with. Thanks for showing your gross double standard. You don't. Hold the bible to the same standard.

    Every scenario involves sex. You sound like the most sexually depraved lunatic I have ever seen. Piss on you and your goat sex. I'm not even discussing such trash with you.

    Plain and simple. You're a sick bastard.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,105
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    What a steaming pile of bullshit. Incest is still incest no matter who it's with. Thanks for showing your gross double standard. You don't. Hold the bible to the same standard.

    Every scenario involves sex. You sound like the most sexually depraved lunatic I have ever seen. Piss on you and your goat sex. I'm not even discussing such trash with you.

    Plain and simple. You're a sick bastard.
    Double Damn Straight!
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    So now he can ask himself his favorite question: If a man had a vasectomy and his sister had her tubes tied, would it be immoral for them to have sex? If so, why? They wouldn't have any children, so his explanation fails.

    That's easy ... First of all, I never said circumstances do not play a role when it comes to determining what is moral and what is immoral. The exact opposite is true. Circumstances ALWAYS have to be taken into account. However, there are NO CIRCUMSTANCES whatsoever that would make a father/mother or daughter/mother relationship allowable (unless you're an atheist of course) ...


    There are two reasons why brother/sister marriages are wrong *NOW* ...

    1) The risk of genetic defects.

    2) The fact that it was INTENDED for a finite period that would cease once the human population had grown such that it was not needed. So just as animal sacrifice is done away with and it would be biblically immoral to reinstitute it, so brother/sister marriages are done away with and it would be biblically immoral to reinstitute it. The purpose of animal sacrifice was to point to THE sacrifice of the Christ and the purpose of originally creating a single couple (rather than a multitude of couples) was to eventually produce a single brotherhood of mankind in a very real sense.


    So to answer your question ...


    Yes, it WOULD be immoral to marry your immediate brother/sister even if they were unable to produce offspring BECAUSE the very purpose for which it was allowed has been achieved (a single brotherhood of mankind AND a large enough population such that it's not needed to multiply the human family).



    On the other hand, YOUR moral theory ALLOWS for Victor to get a vasectomy and have consenting sex WITH HIS OWN MOTHER. Further, YOUR moral theory ALLOWS for Irene and Isabella to have consenting sex WITH THEIR OWN MOTHERS.



    BINI
    Last edited by Gambini; 08-12-2014 at 07:02 PM.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Every scenario involves sex. You sound like the most sexually depraved lunatic I have ever seen. Piss on you and your goat sex. I'm not even discussing such trash with you.

    Plain and simple. You're a sick bastard.

    Hey IDIOT, why is incest wrong under YOUR MORAL THEORY (including cases where offspring are not a possibility)??? I already explained why it's wrong under my moral theory in response to Richard's question. Anybody who does not believe that circumstances play a role when it comes to moral questions is a NUTTER ...


    It's not my fault that YOUR MORAL THEORY allows for all kinds of weird and wacky shit. And you KNOW this, which is why you can't even give a reason for why it is morally wrong to have ruthless sex with a DEAD goat



    BINI
    Last edited by Gambini; 08-18-2014 at 01:19 PM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    So now he can ask himself his favorite question: If a man had a vasectomy and his sister had her tubes tied, would it be immoral for them to have sex? If so, why? They wouldn't have any children, so his explanation fails.

    There are two reasons why brother/sister marriages are wrong *NOW* ...

    1) The risk of genetic defects.
    Can't you read? I explained why that explanation fails and you did not respond to, let alone refute, what I wrote. You merely repeated your failed explanation.

    And besides, that, your explanation is not a MORAL explanation at all. Skydiving is risky. People die doing it. That doesn't make it immoral. With every post you prove the same points over and over again: You don't understand what you read. You don't know how to form a logical argument, and you don't have a clue what actually makes something moral or immoral.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    2) The fact that it was INTENDED for a finite period that would cease once the human population had grown such that it was not needed. So just as animal sacrifice is done away with and it would be biblically immoral to reinstitute it, so brother/sister marriages are done away with and it would be biblically immoral to reinstitute it. The purpose of animal sacrifice was to point to THE sacrifice of the Christ and the purpose of originally creating a single couple (rather than a multitude of couples) was to eventually produce a single brotherhood of mankind in a very real sense.
    There is no evidence that it was intended for a finite time. You just made that up out of your own imagination to defend your ludicrous dogmas about your ludicrous gawd.

    Your morality is not based on any UNIVERSAL OBJECTIVE PRINCIPLES. It is mindless religious dogmatism no different that what the terrorists used to justify bringing down the Twin Towers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    So to answer your question ...

    Yes, it WOULD be immoral to marry your immediate brother/sister even if they were unable to produce offspring BECAUSE the very purpose for which it was allowed has been achieved (a single brotherhood of mankind AND a large enough population such that it's not needed to multiply the human family).
    Even if your excuse were true, that wouldn't make it immoral. The fact that there is supposedly no longer a "need" for incest does not imply that incest is now immoral. How freaking lame is your brain?!?

    You've got nothing to offer but ludicrous fallacies of special pleading and similar bullshit. You just make up excuses out of your lame little brain and declare that they are God's Own Truth. What a load of pathetic bullshit.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Hey ... It's not my fault that YOUR MORAL THEORY allows for all kinds of weird and wacky shit. And you KNOW this, which is why you can't even give a reason for why it is morally wrong to have ruthless sex with a DEAD goat
    Apparently Gamboner has a boner for dead goats and his own momma.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Hey IDIOT, why is incest wrong under YOUR MORAL THEORY (including cases where offspring are not a possibility)??? I already explained why it's wrong under my moral theory in response to Richard's question. Anybody who does not believe that circumstances play a role when it comes to moral questions is a NUTTER ...


    Hey ... It's not my fault that YOUR MORAL THEORY allows for all kinds of weird and wacky shit. And you KNOW this, which is why you can't even give a reason for why it is morally wrong to have ruthless sex with a DEAD goat



    BINI
    Hey Bini wienie,

    Are you posting from the farm again? That would explain your obsession with goats. Thank you for proving you really are a sick freak.


    Also, you don't have a moral theory. You just assert your morality comes from god, until the Bible condones the very thing you are arguing against. Then you make up bullshit excuses about why incest was kosher in the Bible.

    My moral theory? I have never even discussed any kind of a moral theory you lying sack of shit. I haven't discussed it with you because you have proven yourself to be a psychopath void of any decency.

    And who but a goat lover himself could come up with powerful ruthless sex with dead goats as a topic of morality?
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Apparently Gamboner has a boner for dead goats and his own momma.
    Quoted for truth.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,105
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Hey Bini wienie,

    Are you posting from the farm again? That would explain your obsession with goats. Thank you for proving you really are a sick freak.
    He's been obsessing about sex with "stinking dogs" and "dead goats" for many months on this forum. Quite the freak. And to think he thinks he's a Christian? Wow. The religious delusions run deep in his sect.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Also, you don't have a moral theory. You just assert your morality comes from god, until the Bible condones the very thing you are arguing against. Then you make up bullshit excuses about why incest was kosher in the Bible.
    That is typical of the religiously deluded. They have no sense of morality whatsoever. Case in point: Watch the video in the thread Hector Avalos debates Keith Darrel: Is the Bible a Moral Code for Today? where only the atheist can say that genocide is objectively immoral, because the Christian knows that his gawd commanded it many times. And that's not an isolated case of the stupider-than-average fundamentalist. The "greatest living Christian apologist" - William Lame Craig - has attempted to defend God's genocidal madness by saying that he did no wrong to the children because "they all went to heaven." Somehow the great Christian philopholer failed to notice that the same logic justifies abortion.

    And if you want to see "moral character" approved by hoards of fundamentalist Christians, you can watch former pastor (now convicted pedophile) Jack Schaap "polish his shaft" in mock masturbation, complete with groans and grunts.



    Hoards of mindless Christians Zombies follow these ludicrous charlatans. I'm sure Gambini would feel right at home amongst them.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    My moral theory? I have never even discussed any kind of a moral theory you lying sack of shit. I haven't discussed it with you because you have proven yourself to be a psychopath void of any decency.
    Gambini simply ASSUMES he knows your moral theory, and then makes wild and unsupported assertions about how you would approve of whatever perversion he made up in his sick and twisted mind. He's been do that to me for months.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    And who but a goat lover himself could come up with powerful ruthless sex with dead goats as a topic of morality?
    Indeed.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •