Total posts: 2,082
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You mock what you don't understand.
In more ways than one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Let me help:
Okay, but what is the difference between "reality" and "Reality"?
The second one has a capital letter.
That is not what nihilism is, no.
Maybe not, but what about Ultimate Nihilism? There's a huge difference, man, and if you don't get it, well then your worldview is self refuting, so suck on that.
:)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
This distills the entire argument, you can skip all the other stuff. How does this square off exactly? Wouldn't it have been part of his plan, and wouldn't he have known this would happen, so why get mad about it when it could have been deleted as a possibility?
You have to get over the fact that if you are going to persist that "god" created everything in the whole universe then he created homosexuals and then called it an "abomination" then he ordered capital punishment for those who participate in homosexual act.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
The Bible treats death as the enemy,Virtually all others see death as a good thing.
How? Some interpretations seem to think this life is just a practice run, one to wipe one's feet on so that you're ready for the next life. And after death you get to go to Jesus's party provided you're in the right group. Which religions see death as a 'good thing'? That's distinctly different from seeing it as inevitable and not to be feared, you know.
Salvation is a gift which people cannot earn, others say one has to earn it.
So you believe in predeterminism, where you're saved no matter what, or you're damned no matter what? Because different sects of Christianity believe both that it can be earned (by asking forgiveness, by inviting Jesus over to your heart sincerely, or just by being Christian) and others think you can't earn it (no Hindu goes to heaven, no matter how good a person they are).
All other leaders of religions are dead in their graves, Christ is risen.
Where is he, then? Because as far as I can tell, if he ever existed, he sure seems to be dead to me. He's not giving interviews, he's not performing miracles, he's not out preaching his word, he's not on this message board, and if he loved everyone (this is also a point of contention among Christians, for example, ethang doesn't think he was about saving EVERYONE, just a few), that would be the responsible thing to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
It means why do we exist? What is the reason you are here? Why is there something rather than nothing?In order: don't know, don't know, and don't know. Without knowing these answers, it's amazing I find my way to work every day! Okay, so what are your answers?
I'm asking the question again, because you repeatedly say that you make sense of the questions above. Please demonstrate making sense of them.
My starting point - God - makes sense of morality. God would have an objective mindset, knowing all things. Relative human beings do not.
This is not 'making sense' of morality. This is assigning credit for morality to god. That doesn't make sense of it at all. Morality is relative and subjective, this is clearly how the world works. It's not the same today as it was however many hundreds of years ago this book was published. You saying "You don't rape anyone because unbeknonst to you, God wrote on your heart! You know it's wrong!" doesn't explain the massive number of self professed Christians who DO rape people. Did god forget to scribble it down for them too? This is going to get more difficult, I'm afraid:
No, he was not. Show me how that was God's purpose. He went against God's purpose. He chose to do things his way. He placed himself above God's good counselWell...then was God completely surprised by these two and their behavior?How could an all-knowing being be surprised? That does not make sense.Didn't he know they'd do this when he made them?Again, transcending time means He sees the past present and future before Him. They have a will in which they choose evil. Evil is living and acting outside God's counsel and will.
I'm confused. In these back to back posts, you're responding to my pointing out that god made Epstien and Weinstein to do exactly what they did, act like monsters. You took offense to this, saying they were going against god's purpose, not with it. But in the bolded, you make clear, god cannot be surprised and sees the past, present and future. This means they don't really have free will, because that would make god surprised by their behavior. This makes him less than all knowing. If he knew what they'd do and he still made them so that they could do it, then it's impossible to imagine that they somehow went against his will. Please don't tell me I'm the one with an inconsistent worldview until you can explain how these two things can simultaneously be true, it's ridiculous that you don't see it.
That is the point, isn't it? From your worldview perspective, they do not get what they deserve. Epstein escaped answering to justice in this life. And who determines what is just outside of an objective being? Does your relativism decide? Why yours?
I don't know what's going to happen to Weinstein, but Epstein's death is basically what he deserved. Justice is determined by society, not by appealing to magic. It's not individual. BUt again, your worldview is perplexing here: according to you, if Weinstein or Bill Cosby, right before they die, have a sincere come to jesus moment and take him truly and sincerely into their hearts, THEY GO TO HEAVEN. No matter what they did. This is the entire appeal of Jesus, heaven and hell. If you get to heaven and Bill Cosby's your neighbor, do you think he got what he deserved? A handful of years in prison after decades of systemic sexual assault on unconscious women? That's the perfect system of justice and morality according to you.
We are just biological accidents in a universe that is indifferent to our existence. You may not agree with it but I would again contend that you are being inconsistent with your starting belief of blind, random chance happenstance...Things just happen. What exists is deemed by those who survive and have evolved (to a thinking status) to be fitter than that which does not exist.
I agree, this is exactly what we are. You're arguing from incredulity. I'm looking at what's available for everyone on earth to look at and saying the simplest explanation is most likely. You're still missing the word "fittest" in this context. It's not who's strongest. It's who's best adapted to the environment. It's SUPER SIMPLE to understand as a principle, it's just unsettling at first, but seriously this is all there is. I know this is difficult to understand if you think the world is something like 10,000 years old, which I believe you do, but that's because, ironically, your starting point is way, way, way, way, way off.
Created:
Posted in:
The two of you ought to take this act back to your old website, what happened there? One guy starting topics six at a time, the other pointing it out and neither contributing to furthering any real discussion most of the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Wait, WHAT narrow, to the letter definition of the terms in the verse?
If you're contending that "man with another man" applies to all men, not just homosexuals, then the rest of that verse should be read with equal literality: "lie with another man as he does a woman." In which case, "lie with a woman" means literally lying down. No?
The word "lays" in the verse does not mean supine, genius. Do you think a chicken is lying down when it lays an egg?
Please explain how the word in the verse means anything other than laying down, if the rest of the verse is literal. Either way it's bad news
How can the verse be singling out homosexuals when the same behavior by a heterosexual is just as prohibited?
I didn't argue that it was. I am saying it doesn't single out anyone at all except people who are committing sexual acts while laying down, and it's okay for one heterosexual man to blow another man because he can't give a blow job to a woman.
But can't you answer the question and post your gay porn too? Why does it have to be only gay porn?
Huh??? Why would I post gay porn? Sorry if I missed some of your incredibly insightful nuggets in your back and forth with your latest internet rival, reading that sh1t is boring AF so I skim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Only if he lays down, right? Because the verse definitely says "as he LAY" with a woman. What if that heterosexual man gives the other guy a blow job? Which one is in trouble? The answer is NEITHER! One guy would never be able to do that to a woman, but more importantly, neither is lying down. So while napping together would be enough to put such men to death, blowing each other so long as neither lays down is fine, according to the logic that the verse doesn't say 'homosexual.'
Created:
Posted in:
Weeding through the juvenile back and forth attacks aside, is the argument that the verse doesn't say "homosexuals,' but instead any man lying with any man as he does with a woman?
If we're going to use that narrow, to the letter definition of the terms in the verse, then not only are blow jobs and hand jobs fine, but they're not abominations if they simply do it standing up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
You know those bible verses are just words to me, no one's demonstrated they're any different from words in any other book. So I'm not going to address them, I've heard them all, I went to church for a long time. But you missed my questions, that's the only reason I'm back. Try again. They're actually your questions.
It means why do we exist? What is the reason you are here? Why is there something rather than nothing?
I answered.
If there is no God then we are alone in an indifferent universe and what we do has no impact on this indifferent universe.
What we do has not one iota of impact on the universe. Not one. It doesn't care at all. But what I do has an impact on people I care about, on my community...why wouldn't I care about that? Are you one of these people who think the only thing holding people back from anarchy and raping their way through the day is Jesus?
No, he was not. Show me how that was God's purpose. He went against God's purpose. He chose to do things his way. He placed himself above God's good counse
Well...then was God completely surprised by these two and their behavior? Didn't he know they'd do this when he made them? If he did know and still made them, and his plan was in order, then they only did what god knew they'd do. Well, unless you can tell me for sure what god's purpose was that either Weinstein or Epstein went AGAINST. In my view, they're just monsters who deserve every scintilla of punishment that could be exacted (well, one is now dead, so that's a moot point). In your world, Jesus made them to do what they did and we should be thankful. It's bizarre.
Why should we want to survive? The evolutionary principle of 'survival of the fittest' does not mean that the fit survives because they want to survive, it means that those who are deemed the fittest are those who do survive. You may argue that they survive because they want to survive but it is not them that determines that but their genetic makeup and how able that makeup aids them in adapting to their environment. Your caring means nothing to a hungry lion or an angry, hateful, cruel person.
This reflects a pretty bleak view of life and of mankind, none of which I agree with, not to mention a misunderstanding of the principle survival of the fittest and the evolutionary primary goal, survival. Let me help. Survival of the fittest is more like survival of the bare minimum to survive. it's why we have vestigial organs, or why there are so many weird forms of life, not just a single one. Individuals want to survive because if you didn't, you don't get to pass on your DNA (soi in essence, DNA wants to replicate above all else). And no, me caring doesn't mean shit to a lion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Whatever God does is generally considered imminent meaning it could happen at any time, seconds from now, hours, days, years or decades.
Could it also be never?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Yes, they all have their unique characteristics but the Bible has the most significant ones.
How so, and significant to whom? The majority of religious people on the planet do not find the bible compelling, because they don't believe in it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Two questions: how so, and so what? All religions claim to be both unique and true, and many are older. How does what you said bear at all on if it's the one that's correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
My sister has bone cancer and it has spread to her head.
I'm really sorry to hear that, man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Why MUST it be there?What do you mean by 'it'? Do you mean 1) God, 2) necessity or 3) our existence and the universe?
Careful now, we're not at your god yet. Why is any being necessary?
I believe it and you are here because of the grace of God. He chose to create it and us.
This is HOW it is here, according to you. It does not in any way speak to why he'd have made it, what he is getting out of it...this is how I understand the phrase "make sense of" something that appears otherwise senseless and random.
Start a morality topic if you want, but the rest of that stuff, we've been through a hundred times.
And sorry you got your drawers in a bunch about Darth Vader, sheesh. I find your lack of faith disturbing. My point is that world renown isn't a measure of truth. Nor is being in a book. Nor is being in a really old book. Nor is the number of believers in anything. Any one of those arguments can be undermined by simply pointing out that Jesus isn't the only one in an old book that claims to have given him superpowers. There are always older books with claims just as dubious, there are always famous fictional characters, there are always large numbers of people who believe something you don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
It means why do we exist? What is the reason you are here? Why is there something rather than nothing?
In order: don't know, don't know, and don't know. Without knowing these answers, it's amazing I find my way to work every day! Okay, so what are your answers?
If you believe there is no reason why you exist why do you hold to a particular worldview that believes humanity is a chance, freak, accident but live inconsistently with such a worldview when you make things matter?
This is pretty presumptuous! How do I live inconsistently with my worldview, exactly? Things matter TO ME. I don't think they matter to the universe. I assign this meaning, and the things that mean something to me are subject to change.
You live inconsistently when you keep looking for an explanation and meaning for life. Why should there be any?
I don't keep looking for an "explanation" or "meaning" for life. There isn't a default meaning for everyone, if there were, such a proposition causes an issue for your worldview: Jeffrey Epstein was meant by god to live his life as a terrible monster. Harvey Weinstein was only fulfilling his godly purpose. I don't think there is any capital letter Meaning to Life. Please explain the meaning of your life in this context.
Why are you on such a forum debating such things or at least trying to throw a monkey wrench into a belief that you oppose and believe is wrong? Why should you care? What does it matter? Can you answer these questions?
In order: bored at work and in search of civil discourse (spoiler, that's pretty fleeting). I would also distinguish between your belief being WRONG and your belief being INCORRECT and poorly founded. In the end what you believe individually is meaningless and your right. How'd I do?
.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you KNOW God that way? Can you disprove God?
He's in books. Darth Vader's in books. Why do we know him as a fictional character? His story takes place a long time ago in a different galaxy. Can you PROVE the story was not transmitted directly to George Lucas? Because I have a picture with Darth Vader, like a real one who was walking around. Do YOU have a real picture with God? Seems like I have personal proof of Darth Vader being real to me.
How can Darth Vader be equal?
He is in books, he is in movies, he is in academic studies, he has magic powers. Okay, so he's not nice like people say Jesus was. But he's equal to Jesus in this way, but he's better than Jesus when it comes to having a space ship. There's plenty of evidence that Darth Vader is at least as real as Jesus. I am being only slightly facetious. You religious types aren't exactly world renowned for your sense of humor about stuff like this. :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I could give a few that are unreasonable, like an illusion or everything is just my mind creating it.
How did you rule these OUT?
I have asked you to discuss your thoughts on why we are here.
And I have asked you what this means. I can't answer the question.
How I arrive, or humanity arrives, or the universe arrives is that an intelligent, mindful, omniscient, necessary, eternal Being chose to create. Is that reasonable?
It's reasonable if you can provide evidence of this being, and then explain how you assign all those qualities to it. Start with "necessary," it's an adjective your Frank Turek-lite, William Lane Craigish argument seeks to sneak in without explaining it. Why MUST it be there?
Both of us appeal to authority. Do you believe that?
No. I look at the information that's independently verifiable and make a conclusion.
Of course, you can live life being illogical and irrationally and not tackle the issue of what makes sense.
You also never explain in practical terms how this makes a difference in your every day life, or what I'm unable to do that you can based on this belief of yours. Or why so many people don't believe it, how are THOSE people making sense of life? If you mean "assigning cause to life," please say that, not "making sense of life's big questions."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Uncreated exists absolutely.
Uh huh, and how can I tell this to be the case? What demonstration can I see? Or how many examples of uncreated things can I look at and compare to created things?
Created:
Posted in:
<br>how many do know about Him yet do not know Him.
I can say the same about Darth Vader. More people know about him, discuss him and the universe he lives in, than know him. THerefore he is equal to Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
the uncreated and created have distinct natures.
I almost can't ask this with a straight face: please explain in english words the difference between the natures of something that is created versus something that is uncreated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What is chance supposed to be?Sounds like a god of the gaps to me.
Look it up, because you don't understand what the god of the gaps idea is.
God did not come into being, but always was, always is, and forever will be.
While you're at it, check out special pleading.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Can you think of any other reasonable possibility that you would like to discuss with me? If you think there are other reasonable starting points for our existence then please list them.
I asked how you know those are the only two possibilities. You said "Well do you have any better ideas." This is essentially how I see your entire argument, and why it's so unconvincing. You cannot explain how you arrive even at this dichotomy when I inquire directly. How you know there's only chance or creation? You seem rather certain so it should be easy to explain. Not "I believe the two most likely options are," no, you KNOW, right? All I'm asking is for an explanation of how, considering both you and I have witnessed the birth of exactly the same number of universes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Then i would assume that you would support having paedophiles addressing young children to show that they are just people.
Gay people aren't pedophiles. They're not remotely the same. Also, an odd contention since you presumably believe children should go to church, where there is an overwhelming body of evidence to show that priests are far more dangerous to children than your run of the mill florist or hairdresser. Are you willing to tell churches to keep children out, lest they are recuited by authority figures, claiming to have heard from on high that Jesus said you better let them put their holy sceptre in your mouth and accept the eucharist direct from the tap, on pain of eternal damnation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Okay, pops, so you're basically the opposite of an atheist, you believe literally everything?
I recognize there are truths, facts and insights within many religions and spiritual texts not just one.
There are truths, facts and insights in every text ever written. Seriously, Horton Hatches the Egg has plenty of insight and truth and fact in it. Is that a spiritual text?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
you present a challenge to make sense (arguments) then you claim the explanations are just claims lol, wow.
What I present is the question "How does your version of the cause of the universe 'make sense' of existence." I am sure PGA appreciates you standing up for him, but saying "because Jesus" isn't making sense of anything as I understand the phrase making sense of something. It's not a why, it's a how. Those are two different things. Where I say the explanations are just claims is when someone says "The bible explains it, in the bible." By this standard, Harry Potter books in 1000 years can be viewed as the history of magic in the late 20th century, because those books are internally consistent and prophesy that one of the characters is the chosen one.
You mock me about planets and yet the universe is chock full of galaxies WITH planets, does that make sense when planets are for the purpose of inhabiting?
Right, but you said it's in a different dimension, so I'd need an extra special spaceship like the one I guess you had that confirmed all that. Unless I misunderstood and it's in this dimension and universe, in which case you should be well able to win a nobel prize by pointing a telescope at the Hindu planet of heaven. Literally not one theist besides you seems to think that dying is some sort of relocation process, and your argument that it is seems to be "Well I have the open mind, you don't that's why you don't know this for sure." That applies to every single other person on this board, not just to atheists. You've also claimed the soul has been demonstrated and confirmed and then never explained how.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I have taken the reigns on this in another thread and given you the steps that connect the dots
You mean by saying "open your mind!" and "I have the knowledge that heaven is really a physical planet, and all religions have their own planets, and you could travel there if you had a spaceship powerful enough"? Your special knowledge which, like god of the gaps, you refuse to comprehend? You make claims, not arguments. I can't even tell what religion you think is right, but every one of these religious phonies in here thinks you're wrong too, they just won't tell you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
An accusation needs to be supported by evidence. The only thing a claim or an accusation is evidence of is that someone thinks or says something happened. This has no bearing on if it did or didn't happen in reality. Or even in the Ultimate Reality. Or the super duper Ultimately Awesome Reality. Which is presided over by the Ultimate Warrior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
There are only two reasonable possibilities, we exist due to design or chance happenstance, creation or chance, intent or indifference.
How are you certain these are the only possibilities? Start there and then make your argument.
X makes sense for it is logically consistent and reasonable to believe.
This is distinctly different from "x is true."
I'm not sure how you want me to do that.
I want you to prove your claim without saying it's more reasonable than another similar claim, therefore it's likelier. It should be TRUE. Not likely. Not reasonable. If it's true, it's true. I can't tell you how to do it, because I find your claim unconvincing. The reason using the claim as the evidence doesn't work is as follows, watch:
Me: "PGA totally robbed this store."
PGA: "No I didn't!"
Me: "Officer, I have evidence PGA robbed this store."
Officer: "What is the evidence, let me see it."
Me: "I said he robbed the store, that's the evidence."
Do you think you'd be in the back of the cop car on your way to the station based on the above? Because according to you I've provided EVIDENCE, not an accusation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I've already made my points on other threads, there's no reason to do it again as far as 'making sense of existence' goes. You're only saying X cause put life here and set all this up. That doesn't 'make sense' as much as it 'provides cause.' Making sense' is why, not how. Please feel free to make your point about Christianity being true without referring to any other religion, though. Using the claim as the evidence is a poor start.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
This disingenuous since you know what we are talking about, those who desire conversion therapy.
And they've waived patient client confidentiality such that we're able to quantify the number of people in therapy trying to not be gay just because they hate being gay?
I have never attended one although i inadvertently witnessed one in Toronto and have seen footage from others which were much the same.I am not afraid of seeing skin but it is more the lewdness of it especially with children around, plus the fact that it is uneccessar
I've been to several to support family members and have never seen lewd displays.
Drag queens addressing kindergartners has been a thing for a few years now, unless one has been out of touch. Should be able to google "drag queens address children" or some variation of that.
Exposing children at an early age to diverse backgrounds of people is a way to help them see that people are just people, before dogma like yours senselessly infect them.
Gay people aren't recruiting children to be gay. They're recruiting people to understand they're equal. That website is a bit of a slanted take.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
If that were the case, Civil Unions would've sufficed, treatment by others notwithstanding.
Only if no one else got state sanctioned "marriage" licenses, which I take as your point about the mistake in aligning the church vocab (marriage) with the state law (licensing the unions). Equality is equal across the board. One could argue having separate drinking fountains, bus routes, etc for blacks should also have "sufficed."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Yes, it is arguing my case. It is an argument in making sense of a worldview that excludes God
Can you make your argument without referring to any other worldview to do so? This way you're not saying "Mine doesn't make sense all the way either, but I think yours makes less sense, therefore mine is correct". Consider it an open challenge, much like "disprove the greek pantheon without reference to Christianity."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
That's not arguing your case. It's arguing against whatever you think mine is. What you never explain is what "making sense of existence" means, in practical terms. I'm ont getting into it again, there's plenty of other places we've had this argument. TLDR: "I exist because Jesus" is not how I understand the phrase "making sense of." It's assigning credit without sufficient demonstration, and even if it were true, it doesn't "make sense of" anything, it simply says "this is what caused something."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Fair enough, good talk. We will agree to disagree that the equal rights for gay people movement is about forcing Christianity or Catholicism to accept them. I think it's more like forcing Christians and Catholics to treat them as deserving of equal rights under the law and less about "I'm gay therefore I should be legally allowed to have a ceremony in your private club."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You call Aboriginals people subhuman and inferior,
Huh? Where did this guy do that? Please highlight, here's the post just in case:
What many religious followers don't want to accept is that there are many religions, each claiming to be the only one and the only path to an afterlife of bliss for eternity.So which is the right one?Just because one subscribes to a particular religion (usually because of one's geographical placement), It doesn't make it the correct religion, Does it?Well, May we all barrack for our national football team, but, surely religion is something different and the choice of a religion based solely on one's location or culture is fraught with danger.Shouldn't we look at the first religion as being the one and only authentic religion and subsequent copies as fake?According to the Ancient History Encyclopedia, Christianity, For example, Comes well down the timeline of when religions started.Preceding all these religions, and, by a considerable margin of time is the Australian Aboriginal "Dreamtime".We are looking at 40,000 years BCE and the religion is still followed by Aboriginals today.So, Shouldn't we give these people the benefit of the doubt that what they say about their spiritual attachment to the land through Dreamtime is the one true and only valid religion?In which case, Abrahamic religious followers should take note that their afterlife may not be one of their spirit returning to the Dreamtime but, because of their errant choice, will more likely end up existing in an eternal nightmare in the middle of the Simpson desert with not a drop of water to touch their tongues, enduring constant searing heat and constantly fending off satanic, deadly taipans.Perhaps it may be time to throw those Bibles, Qurans, And Torahs in the fire, get out the souvenir boomerang and start a corroboree.
Also WTF is the Simpson desert.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The Christian religion is reasonable and logical and I argue necessary in making sense of existence.
You never ARGUE this. You say it then don't explain any of the ways you 'make sense' of it. We've gone through it like six times now. I gave up because I don't think you're using "make sense" in the way I understand that phrase.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
The majority actually seek help from secular psychologists.
They seek help SPECIFICALLY to stop being gay? Because a lot of people, gay or straight, seek help from secular psychologists for all sorts of trauma. Like, say if you were told that feelings over which you have no control, that you've had since you were very young, were a potential reason to lose your family and your social circle, that would be trauma one might need help with. Can you back up this 'majority of gays seek help to get rid of being gay' claim?
Also, if one looks at the gay pride parade, there is more skin exposed than probably most people care to see
How many gay pride parades have you been to, precisely? Where? It sounds like you're imagining a Simpsons episode version. Plenty of towns have gay pride parades where no one is running around in leather harnesses. They're mostly just parades of people. Why are you so afraid of seeing skin?
many schools have drag queen coming in and indoctrinating the very young.
Please provide substantiation for this nonsense.
At least one "gay" journalist admitted a few years agothat indoctrination was essential to the gay communities future survival.
Link please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
The fact is that many homosexuals have problems with their homosexuality and do seek help with it.
How many of these help-seeking homosexuals are Christians, whose Christianity informs their "problems" with their sexuality? I know a couple homosexuals, not a one has a problem with their sexuality. WTF are you talking about, exhibitionism and attempts to sexualize children?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
It was clear that the gay movement was more than just about "civil rights"--otherwise they would've accepted civil unions, which satisfied the premise of their initial contention. They wanted to ingratiate homosexuality not only within the public sphere, but also Christianity itself (the push for gay marriage never once incorporated the idea of gay nikkahs--Islamic equivalent of marriage--and gay nissuins--Judaic equivalent of marriage.
Do you think Christians would have just accepted if the country decided that "married" is now no longer a legal term, but strictly a religious one, and would no longer be on forms as 'marital status' like when you're filling out your tax forms? It seems pretty unlikely considering how many Christians wind themselves up over the apparent prohibition on saying Merry Christmas at your local Macy's. I guess it's just a meaningless word since for tax purposes and medical benefits purposes, marriage and civil unions function the same, but MARRIAGE is only legal as a state sanctioned event. Because of that, all people have a right to it, gay or straight. The flip side would seem to be telling everyone you no longer apply for a state sanctioned MARRIAGE license, but instead a license to unite civilly or something like that. I get the feeling the Christian community would be none too pleased about it, considering how many Christians said things like "it ruins marriage!" somehow. I'd certainly make the same argument for Islam and Judaism, but that's not what was on the table here. I guess I'd support eliminating any secular use of the word marriage for any federal or state purposes provided all rights are exactly the same and people are treated the same, but you probably can guess that if you were, say, filling out an adoption paperwork and had only two boxes to tick, Married or Single, and you were in a civil union, you might think that could affect the decision on allowing you to adopt. I don't know why a gay person would want to be a Christian considering how they're viewed by the bible, but I don't see why anyone would, obviously. I guess if I were gay and wanted to join a church, I'd find a faith that didn't have ANY reason to persecute or discriminate.
I've sort of lost the thread as to what we're discussing here, but I think it's probably the other way around, hatred (sanctioned by Jesus in the bible) would inform the harassment. Imean otherwise where's the motivation to harass them come from?
But does harassment inform the alleged hatred?
I don't believe the description expands to the circumstances you mentioned. But, it would logically follow that if one were to reject sodomy for its lack of reproductive utility, one would, in order to be consistent, reject sexual congress the very day after a woman's menstrual cycle ends. So their "sins" would be identical in that context.
At least this is consistent: any form of ejaculation that is not at least risking impregnating a woman is sinful. But anyone can go down on a woman, it's not a sin because there's no ejacluation, so...good for them I guess :).
Created:
Posted in:
If you're pro-voluntary conversion therapy for gay people who don't want to be that way, would you also support voluntary religious deconversion services for people who don't want to be THAT way?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
uh, okay? I guess I'm so busted!
?
Created:
Posted in:
Can you guys both go start your own board, or maybe just email each other the useless crap posts so we don't all have to read them? Nothing's more annoying on this board than getting an interesting topic, and interesting discussion, only to know you guys are going to get into a tiff over who's the toughest poster in history. It's fkng tedious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You're proving my point, thanks. There's literally no way for anyone to substantiate any of that, so even the retort to his assertion is pointless. There are plenty of metrics that would support that areas of religious fervor are in general not as prosperous as places with less of it, he just doesn't show any of it, and even if he did, there's nothing that says religion causes stupidity. It's just correlated really strongly.
Created:
Posted in:
This is correlation, not causation. The question should be more along the lines of why do religious fervency and (some metric that your studies must cite but remain unexpressed in this forum) seem to have an inverse correlation. You're oly going to end up with people who say things like "well I know a doctor at my church!" and that would refute your 'argument'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I agree that there's a more solid foundation for rejecting homosexuality in juxtaposition to oral insemination, but your initial scrutiny was that it should be deemed the same as homosexuality.
My point was in response to your contention that reproductive utility is somehow associated with the sanctioned hatred of homosexuals (even though the bible doesn't make this clear in the verse about them being abominations). I just wanted to point out that this line of logic would make all non-reproductive sex equated with homosexuality, and clearly Christians don't see it that way in general, as evidenced by no one making signs saying "God Hates Hand Jobs" and parading around with them at every funeral you can find, or deciding you can't adopt a baby if you've ever given or received a hand job. The same cannot be said for homosexuality.
My question is, if their sense of self is heavily influenced by the backing of Jesus, wouldn't their taking "sole responsibility" be a reflection of their relationship to Jesus?
I don't see how that would follow. Can you explain? Let's say my parents hate homosexuals, and they teach ME to hate homosexuals when I'm little. When I ask why, their answer is "Doesn't matter, Jesus said so, it's here in the book, you don't really get to go against it." Now I grow up, I meet a couple of gay people in high school, they seem okay to me, but I don't want to burn in hell for not hating them properly, so I have to! Jesus said so. Do I have any other rational reason to hate homosexuals?
My point is, if this was always the case, what is one's reference for comparison?
Reference point for it being easier? I'm not sure what you mean.
then what relevance does harassment have, given that the subject of the discussion examines the alleged hate of homosexual,
If Jesus told you to hate homosexuals under pain of eternal damnation, and you then harassed homosexuals, you can do so without fear of eternal damnation as you're just following orders. If you don't have Jesus's backing to do so, to hate homosexuals and perhaps even harass them, you're off the reservation on your own. And to be clear, i'm not saying all Christians hate or harass gays. I'm saying it's much harder to find a strictly non-religious group that protests gay rights and cares if kids can be adopted by them, or if they can share tax and medical benefit coverage. THere is literally no rational reason for that, it's discrimination, and the people who want to prpoagate it are, I'm sorry, very, very largely Christians who want to impose their biblical values on society at large as far as I can tell.
And sorry, I missed this one earlier:
I don't believe the description expands to the circumstances you mentioned.
Is there any reason that sexual congress let's say the very day after a woman's menstrual cycle ends would NOT be considered useless from a reproductive utility standpoint and therefore sodomy as you laid it out? Particularly in the bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I guess it would imply that the bible calls one behavior (laying with a man as with a woman) an abomination but makes no comment specifically on blowing your load in your wife's mouth, and therefore, Christians have more solid biblical foundation for hating gay sex than they do hating oral sex finishers.What does their increased comfort implicate? Is it merely a difference in number?
But if their code of conduct, their impressions, their decisions, their feelings, even, are dictated by their adherence to Jesus and his philosophy, why would it then be "nice" to have Jesus "back them," so to speak, as opposed to... what?
I'm a little unclear on what you're asking here, so I'll take my best shot at it. It's nice to have Jesus back them, rather than have to take sole responsibility for their hatred and subsequent attitudes and potential harassment. For me, for example, if I decided I hated Asian people, and someone asked me why, I'd just have to admit "well, their eyes are weird" or "they seem shifty" or whatever, and the person would be free to judge me as a bigot. If I said "Well Jesus said to," now that same person, in my eyes, if they're judging me is not only bigoted against ME, but against my religion too. It's much easier for me to live with considering Jesus warned that I'd be so persecuted for standing up for his beliefs and all.
An argument can be made that harassment incorporates some "hate," but does "hating" someone or something incorporate the manifestation of some harassment? That has yet to be argued sufficiently.
I don't think I argued all people who hate harass, rather that it seemed to me that most group harassment is in some way informed by hatred, as one of the factors. Can you rephrase the last two questions if I missed them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Furthermore, you make mention of "volition," what do you mean? Are you referencing circumstances where one of the parties is raped?
I'm referencing one or both of the parties not wanting to get pregnant, so they employ birth control. Which seems like it would turn regular old sex into sodomy, because pregnancy is out of the question. Would that also mean that having sex in non-fertile weeks is sodomy, and therefore the same sin that gay people are apparently committing?
And even if we were to entertain your premise that Christians hate "fags" in greater quantity, what would be the relevance of said quantity?
That they seem more comfortable with denigrating gay people than they are denigrating those whose wives let them finish in their mouths.
How does that qualify their alleged discrimination?
As 'sanctioned by Jesus.'
How do you know that it is often manifested in harassment?
ET rephrase: what motivators for harassment are common are there in your view? And I'm using the very softest language for harassment, as pointed out earlier, 'dragging a person behind a truck because they sleep with someone of the same sex" is a little more than harassment, wouldn't you say? To me, once is too many times. In any case, I tried to think of a reason someone would harass a group of people as a rule (not an individual), and ignorance, misunderstanding...all of those can morph into hatred and combine that with group think and suddenly you could end up with a real problem on your hands.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Inseminating your wife's mouth during a blowie is considered sodomy, which is condemned by some Christians.
No one is carrying signs at funerals that proclaim "God Hates When You Finish In Your Wife's Mouth," though, we can agree the number of Christians who are proud to say "God Hates F@gs" is apparently far greater than those who condemn finishing in your wife's mouth with equal ferocity, no?
One doesn't need permission to discriminate.
But it's sure nice to have a divine mandate to fall back on, rather than having to say "Oh, I don't WANT to, but what can I do? Jesus said to!"
How is harassment relevant?
This is how hatred is often manifested. Not always, but often. Same applies to the subsequent examples.
Non sequitur. Oral sex is not sodomy. Insemination during oral sex is.
So your position is only sodomy is outlawed, and the crux of that is insemination, such that any sexual act wherein male ejaculation is achieved and the semen is NOT issued directly into a vagina with at least the chance of a woman getting pregnant (volition of the participants aside) is all the same and prohibited? It's a genuine question, I just want to understand where you're coming from.
Since when does on need or required to look for a reason to "hate"?
Same as before, it's not REQUIRED, but having the good book back you up is much more palatable than having to think "Oh, I have no good reason for hating this person, they're black, that's enough for me!" and still thinking you're a top notch person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Props for leaning right into the no true Christian argument! Why try and avoid it, right? Also, Catholicism is the largest sect of Christianity on the planet, saying it's "only" Catholics is still a pretty big number. And if I google Orthodx clergy scandals, I'm going to get nothing?
Created: