Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

MADem

(135,425 posts)

6. No "interpretation" on my part is required. Your comment is quite plain.

Reply to humblebum (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:40 PM

Feb 2013

Let's review it:

Perhaps, then, he does condemn them for NOT being what he created them to be or trying to stop others from being what he created them to be.

You are doing the thinking for your deity. I think you're on thin ice, and that's not "anti-religious bias" talking. I am looking at your own words and coming to that conclusion.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A nice counterbalance to a trainwreck of a thread [View all] dsc Feb 2013 OP

Perfect grantcart Feb 2013 #1

Perfect AlbertCat Feb 2013 #35

Post removed Post removed Feb 2013 #2

Way to miss the point entirely....as you speak for your God, insisting that he's MADem Feb 2013 #4

That is your interpretation of what I said. I could not disagree agree with you more. humblebum Feb 2013 #5

No "interpretation" on my part is required. Your comment is quite plain. MADem Feb 2013 #6

I have no idea where you got that from. You sure do not show it. Maybe the term humblebum Feb 2013 #7

I "got that" from your post. Walk back slowly, now--the ice IS thin. nt MADem Feb 2013 #8

If you did you failed to show it. I think your preconceived bias has affected your judgement. nt humblebum Feb 2013 #9

Keep walking backwards, and trying to make this about me. MADem Feb 2013 #10

So then, if you have an objection to that statement, then that can only mean that you humblebum Feb 2013 #11

Nope. Not even close. MADem Feb 2013 #12

You are the one who objected to the statement, not me. And you are also the one telling me humblebum Feb 2013 #13

What a failure of a misdirect. You're the one that opposed the notion MADem Feb 2013 #16

Homophobic bullshit like this has no place on DU. cleanhippie Feb 2013 #17

I agree. I think the attempt to flip the argument is brazen in the extreme, too. MADem Feb 2013 #18

That has been his MO all along. I am suprised at the homophobic stuff. cleanhippie Feb 2013 #19

I'm stunned he lasted that long. What rank hatred and judgment-- MADem Feb 2013 #25

Well, he is gone now. cleanhippie Feb 2013 #26

Holy shit.. EvilAL Feb 2013 #32

Yep, me too. cleanhippie Feb 2013 #34

Your post was homophobic drivel, couched in religious cover. Despicable. cleanhippie Feb 2013 #15

Looks like admin agreed. Goblinmonger Feb 2013 #21

+1 cleanhippie Feb 2013 #22

As is the OP of the original train wreck. n/t Goblinmonger Feb 2013 #23

I saw that too. cleanhippie Feb 2013 #24

MADem certainly has no anti-religious bias LeftishBrit Feb 2013 #28

I am a fan of civility and I think people have every right to believe what they'd like. MADem Feb 2013 #29

Nicely done, dsc. Thanks for posting this. cbayer Feb 2013 #3

This message was self-deleted by its author cleanhippie Feb 2013 #14

The cowardice in trying to camouflage skepticscott Feb 2013 #20

KICKING! There's a REASON the First Commandment is the First Commandment. patrice Feb 2013 #27

it took me a minute to figure it out Phillip McCleod Feb 2013 #30

Well, I think I agree with you on that because speaking homophobically for God is doubly evil. patrice Feb 2013 #31

Well, unless you're a Pope. mr blur Feb 2013 #33