The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Boxer Manny Pacquiao calls for gays to be put to death

What I'm curious to know (and I genuinely have no idea) is if you are CAPABLE within yourself to answer it.

It could have been answered twice now at the beginning of either of your last two posts, IMMEDIATELY followed by your explanations why it's not applicable. You're WAY intelligent enough to provide an adequate rebuttal and disclaimer to it, AND provide answers to any misleading follow-ups. But the glaring point is you HAVEN'T.

Why would someone like you who is perfectly capable of explaining yourself articulately find it SO challenging/threatening to answer a simple hypothetical question? So am I wrong? I can't understand why it couldn't have been answered WITH your previous posts.

Do you see the point I'm making? Would we theoretically go round and round and round in circles ad infinitum to 1,000 pages long and 50,000 posts (they'd move it to the Fun & Games thread) where the title would be: "Get Kulindahr to answer the question" and it becomes a ridiculous charade.

Yes, I see what you're talking about. You're trying to get me to establish that I can be led off-topic by any old hypothetical question someone throws out.

But if you want an answer, it's this: the question is wrong. People can't be absolved of other people's sins, only of their own. But they do have to deal with the consequences of all sorts of other people's actions -- which the scenario fails to address at all.
 
I didn't say that Adam & Eve didn't deserve punishment for their sins.

I asked why letting their children suffer for a crime they had no involvement with is fair.

Let me break it down. Parents do bad. Parents get punished. Kids are born. Kids get punished too.

How is that fair?

What does that have to do with God or Christianity or Genesis?

And what does it have to do with real life? Kids get stuck with the consequences of their parents' decisions all the time -- and with the consequences of their teachers', coaches', and others' decisions -- like policemen, politicians, and preachers.

If you want to talk "fair", you can spin moonbeams in the clouds all you want -- but it has nothing to do with the real world, because the real world is never fair.

And Genesis is about the real world, not some utopia as people might want it to be.
 
What does that have to do with God or Christianity or Genesis?

And what does it have to do with real life? Kids get stuck with the consequences of their parents' decisions all the time -- and with the consequences of their teachers', coaches', and others' decisions -- like policemen, politicians, and preachers.

If you want to talk "fair", you can spin moonbeams in the clouds all you want -- but it has nothing to do with the real world, because the real world is never fair.

And Genesis is about the real world, not some utopia as people might want it to be.

In this case, the consequences that the children suffered were easily remedied by God, yet he still let the children suffer.

If a bunch of crackheads let their children live in shit and eat dirt, you get the kids away from their fucking parents. If you have the power to help those kids stop suffering because of their parents' stupidity, then do it instead of standing there and letting it continue.
 
You're trying to get me to establish that I can be led off-topic by any old hypothetical question someone throws out.

NO. I'm trying to get you to establish if you have a mental block based on your religious beliefs.

Worrying about being led off-topic is NONSENSE.

You've made over 75,000 posts and answer as much a variety of topics as practically any JUBber on this entire site.

You've CHOSEN not to answer this because your beliefs DON'T ALLOW you to answer it.

And it's obvious that labouring the point any further leads us nowhere but a game of words.

But if you want an answer, it's this: the question is wrong.

:rotflmao:

I REST MY CASE.

:wave:
 
"Genesis is about the real world"

You mean the world where a man comes from dust and a woman from a rib? Where snakes talk? A world where a wooden ark can hold 2 of every animal, enough room for food, a way to dispose of the tons of waste and still float? THAT world? Funny how all these miracles stopped happening before cameras and videotape was invented.
 
In this case, the consequences that the children suffered were easily remedied by God, yet he still let the children suffer.

If a bunch of crackheads let their children live in shit and eat dirt, you get the kids away from their fucking parents. If you have the power to help those kids stop suffering because of their parents' stupidity, then do it instead of standing there and letting it continue.

Remedied how -- make them sinless? It seems that the choice was let them live in what their parents had done or dissolve Creation.
 
Hmmm........


819564d1337320467-boxer-manny-pacquiao-calls-gays-put-death-stuffyoursorryiesinasack.jpg


StuffYourSorryiesInASack.jpg
 
NO. I'm trying to get you to establish if you have a mental block based on your religious beliefs.

Worrying about being led off-topic is NONSENSE.

You've made over 75,000 posts and answer as much a variety of topics as practically any JUBber on this entire site.

You've CHOSEN not to answer this because your beliefs DON'T ALLOW you to answer it.

And it's obvious that labouring the point any further leads us nowhere but a game of words.



:rotflmao:

I REST MY CASE.

:wave:

Okay, answer this question: should a cop be demoted because a fireman fell from a ladder?

That makes as much sense as his question -- there's no answer, because the question doesn't make any sense.

So your response is to basically say "I'm not interested in dealing with the issues, so I'll claim victory".
 
Remedied how -- make them sinless? It seems that the choice was let them live in what their parents had done or dissolve Creation.

What? Why would God have to "dissolve creation" because he saved Adam & Eve's children from an unfair punishment?

That's like saving the kids from the crackheads, then blowing a whole city up.
 
Kuli, the more you try to defend yourself in this thread the more foolish you look. Give it up. :p
 
"Genesis is about the real world"

You mean the world where a man comes from dust and a woman from a rib? Where snakes talk? A world where a wooden ark can hold 2 of every animal, enough room for food, a way to dispose of the tons of waste and still float? THAT world? Funny how all these miracles stopped happening before cameras and videotape was invented.

Trying to discuss this with you is like trying to explain the core features of a painting to someone only interested in scratching the frame to see if it's been artificially colored.

If you can't address the actual issues, well, that sort of indicates why your analogies for Genesis fail.

Genesis is about the real world, one where actions have consequences, not one where there are magic solutions to things.
 
Okay, answer this question: should a cop be demoted because a fireman fell from a ladder?

That makes as much sense as his question -- there's no answer, because the question doesn't make any sense.

So your response is to basically say "I'm not interested in dealing with the issues, so I'll claim victory".

If the cop pushed the fireman off the ladder or sabotaged it in some way, then yes, he should be demoted. But if the cop HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, HE SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED! BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE UNFAIR!

How hard is that concept?

And again, I ask: Is it fair that Adam & Eve's offspring should pay for their parent's sins? YES or NO?
 
What? Why would God have to "dissolve creation" because he saved Adam & Eve's children from an unfair punishment?

That's like saving the kids from the crackheads, then blowing a whole city up.

No, the problem is that they were cocaine & AIDS babies who inherited a genetic deformity while the entire world they lived in had become damaged and flawed.

You're minimizing in order to disagree with something. It's a straw man approach.

And you're pleading that God should be a nanny who rescues everyone from every mistake and makes it all better with a magic wand that doesn't take reality into consideration, and so reducing humans to a dependent, immature state more like pets and people.

That's where I said Genesis is about the real world, where there are consequences to actions; it's not a fairy tale where waving a magic wand will make everything suddenly better. In the real world, if parents burn down the forest they live in, their kids have to suffer the consequences, too. In the real world, if rich corporations poison the water with a nasty toxin, the people whose water supply that is suffer the consequences, too. In the real world, if engineers at a nuclear plant screw up and there's a meltdown, everyone in the area suffers the consequences, too.

You're asking for make-believe. Genesis isn't about make-believe.
 
Kuli, the more you try to defend yourself in this thread the more foolish you look. Give it up. :p

Telling the truth about something is foolish? Wow.

Explaining things is foolish. Oh, my.

Maybe those of you who plainly don't have a clue about Genesis should pay attention to someone who does -- and most especially should stop acting like mentally-challenged fundamentalists.
 
(I haven't been following this thread because I'm an atheist. I have disagreed with Kulindahr in the past over guns but I've since come to realise and appreciate his intelligence, erudition and generosity on other matters.)
 
Back
Top