A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos Atheist:
…I want to hang this up at my church.
I’m passing this around all over the place. Thanks.
Su. Fucking. Perb.
The church DOES KNOW THIS!!! But they don’t give a schite about truth or reality, their delusion is all that matters so they can use their religion as a stick to beat the phuck out of whomever their bigotry points to…..i.e. atheists, gays, women, heretics, other cults, etc.
1. The Church already knows this. 2. The Church doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the truth. 3. The Church just care about keeping their members fooled so they continue to keep them in power. The worst part is that most of their members are there in the first place because they want to be fooled; they are too scared of the truth, they want to obey, they are too afraid to call the shots themselves, they rather give their life’s reins to someone else, and the Church knows and loves this.
The “church” knows something/anything? The churches are a bunch of silly old (mature) men wearing dog collars and pretty robes with extremely silly hats and shoes (in some cases magic undies), basing their beliefs and morality on a bunch of childish nonsense made up by bronze-age goatherders two thousand years ago and collated and re-interpreted over the years by committees made up of the same silly old men in dog collars and we expect them to actually know something? I think we’re expecting too much.
“basing their beliefs and morality on a bunch of childish nonsense made up by bronze-age goatherders two thousand years ago”
Two thousand years ago, the Mediterranean world had moved out of the Bronze Ages and into the Classical period. Y’know, the period that gave us Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Epicurus, and a whole load of other distinguished philosophers. People two milennia ago weren’t nearly as ignorant as smug modern types like to think. And so what if their morality is two thousand years old? Is there some sort of use-by date for every moral theory, so that it somehow becomes incorrect after a certain timeframe?
(Incidentally, first-century-AD Palestine was made up largely of farmers. There would have been a few goat-herders, no doubt, but not many, and there’s no evidence that the Evangelists or early Christian thinkers made their living that way. If you’re going to call the Church ignorant, it might be a good idea to get your basic facts right.)
“and collated and re-interpreted over the years by committees made up of the same silly old men in dog collars”
There are more manuscripts surviving of the Bible than there are of pretty much any other ancient text, and the earliest surviving manuscripts and manuscript fragments are closer to the date of composition than is the case with most ancient writings. In terms of textual reliability, the Bible’s actually pretty accurate.
(And dog collars only became part of clerical attire comparitively recently. Again, basic facts, etc., etc.)
“the Mediterranean world had moved out of the Bronze Ages and into the Classical period. Y’know, the period that gave us Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Epicurus, ” Exactly. So why were biblical writers so amazingly ignorant of the physical reality of the world they lived in, while the Greeks and Romans were harnessing that physical reality in the form of steam power, aqueducts, medicine, sophisticated ships, etc. ? Compare Leviticus, written between 538-332 BC with the writings that came out of Periclean Athens.
“There are more manuscripts surviving of the Bible than there are of pretty much any other ancient text,” If true, a meaningless statistic. There are more empty soda cans than Ming vases. “the earliest surviving manuscripts and manuscript fragments are closer to the date of composition than is the case with most ancient writings.” Those other manuscripts don’t claim to the be word of God or his prophets. ” In terms of textual reliability, the Bible’s actually pretty accurate.” No. Just no. The earliest edition of a pastiche or legends and superstitions is still a pastiche.
“Exactly. So why were biblical writers so amazingly ignorant of the physical reality of the world they lived in, while the Greeks and Romans were harnessing that physical reality in the form of steam power, aqueducts, medicine, sophisticated ships, etc. ?”
I think you’re exaggerating slightly here. In some areas Roman and Greek learning was quite advanced, but in others it was about the same (running a farm would have been much the same in Galilee as in Latium, for example). And Greek and Roman thinkers had their fair share of wrong and silly ideas as well — the four elements theory, for example, or Empedocles’ swerve of the atoms. And your comments do rather raise the question of why, if Jewish and early Christian thought was so totally inferior to Greek, Christianity was able to spread so rapidly.
““There are more manuscripts surviving of the Bible than there are of pretty much any other ancient text,” If true, a meaningless statistic. There are more empty soda cans than Ming vases. “the earliest surviving manuscripts and manuscript fragments are closer to the date of composition than is the case with most ancient writings.” Those other manuscripts don’t claim to the be word of God or his prophets.”
If you’re going to reject the Bible on the grounds that we can’t know what was originally in it, you’d also have to reject pretty much every other ancient author as well. Funnily enough, very few people want to do this.
“No. Just no. The earliest edition of a pastiche or legends and superstitions is still a pastiche.”
“In terms of textual reliability, the Bible’s actually pretty accurate.”
“There are more manuscripts surviving of the Bible than there are of pretty much any other ancient text.”That thousands of manuscripts from the middle ages were copied from 3rd and 4th century manuscripts, does not remotely help the reliability of the originals.“The earliest surviving manuscripts and manuscript fragments are closer to the date of composition than is the case with most ancient writings.”This one is just factually untrue. And is a fairly basic fact that you should get right before chiding others about basic facts. If you’re going to reject the Bible on the grounds that we can’t know what was originally in it.”What if we reject the bible for a variety of reasons, inluding but not limited to, we can’t know what was originally in the texts which became the bible, we do know how those texts were selected above others and some of how they were modified, and because what is now in the bible is rife with scientific and historical innaccuracies, myths plagiarized from earlier cultures, and some of the worst advice ever written.“Is there some sort of use-by date for every moral theory, so that it somehow becomes incorrect after a certain timeframe?”Not a timeframe per se. But when a moral theory is based on premises we know to be untrue or based on accepting the authority of a made up god, or is morally nonfunctional, it is past its expiration date. The moral theory that feeling like a good person is more important than how your actions affect your fellow humans, has always been morally repugnant.
“There are more manuscripts surviving of the Bible than there are of pretty much any other ancient text.”
That thousands of manuscripts from the middle ages were copied from 3rd and 4th century manuscripts, does not remotely help the reliability of the originals.“The earliest surviving manuscripts and manuscript fragments are closer to the date of composition than is the case with most ancient writings.”This one is just factually untrue. And is a fairly basic fact that you should get right before chiding others about basic facts. If you’re going to reject the Bible on the grounds that we can’t know what was originally in it.”What if we reject the bible for a variety of reasons, inluding but not limited to, we can’t know what was originally in the texts which became the bible, we do know how those texts were selected above others and some of how they were modified, and because what is now in the bible is rife with scientific and historical innaccuracies, myths plagiarized from earlier cultures, and some of the worst advice ever written.“Is there some sort of use-by date for every moral theory, so that it somehow becomes incorrect after a certain timeframe?”Not a timeframe per se. But when a moral theory is based on premises we know to be untrue or based on accepting the authority of a made up god, or is morally nonfunctional, it is past its expiration date. The moral theory that feeling like a good person is more important than how your actions affect your fellow humans, has always been morally repugnant.
That thousands of manuscripts from the middle ages were copied from 3rd and 4th century manuscripts, does not remotely help the reliability of the originals.
“The earliest surviving manuscripts and manuscript fragments are closer to the date of composition than is the case with most ancient writings.”
This one is just factually untrue. And is a fairly basic fact that you should get right before chiding others about basic facts.
If you’re going to reject the Bible on the grounds that we can’t know what was originally in it.”
What if we reject the bible for a variety of reasons, inluding but not limited to, we can’t know what was originally in the texts which became the bible, we do know how those texts were selected above others and some of how they were modified, and because what is now in the bible is rife with scientific and historical innaccuracies, myths plagiarized from earlier cultures, and some of the worst advice ever written.
“Is there some sort of use-by date for every moral theory, so that it somehow becomes incorrect after a certain timeframe?”
Not a timeframe per se. But when a moral theory is based on premises we know to be untrue or based on accepting the authority of a made up god, or is morally nonfunctional, it is past its expiration date. The moral theory that feeling like a good person is more important than how your actions affect your fellow humans, has always been morally repugnant.
“This one is just factually untrue. And is a fairly basic fact that you should get right before chiding others about basic facts”
The earliest manuscript fragments of most books in the Bible date from the late second to fourth centuries AD, so around 100-250 years after they would have written. By contrast, most secular authors of this period only survive in Carolingian-era or later manuscripts, around 800 years after they were written.
And Greek and Roman thinkers had their fair share of wrong and silly ideas as well — the four elements theory, for example, or Empedocles’ swerve of the atoms.
Of course they did. But their value to us is not in their being right all the time, but in what they inspired others to investigate further. Empedocles’ metaphysical speculations may have been wrong, but he did try to suss out how optics worked (which led to Euclid and Aristotle getting quite a bit further towards the correct answer), and pointed out that air and other gasses were fluids with substance and positive pressure. After all, with very few exceptions (damn you, Pythagoras!) those philosophers were selling a school of thought, not a religious dogma. Judging them on the same playing field is necessarily going to lead to absurd results.
And your comments do rather raise the question of why, if Jewish and early Christian thought was so totally inferior to Greek, Christianity was able to spread so rapidly.
It’s not really a mystery at all. First, and most obviously, Christianity is an evangelistic religion; it exhorts its followers to spread it. There is no such imperative in most Greek and Roman philosophical texts, and even if they were, they were not motivated by eschatological panic (as early Christianity certainly was). Second, and more subtly, correspondence to truth isn’t the primary determinator of whether a person will adopt a belief under most circumstances. Rather, people are more wiling to believe things that provide easy, intuitive accounts (whether they are true or not), since the function of those accounts is actually not to explain but rather to give a person a sense of occupying a generally ordered universe. “My wife died because of an imbalance of humours” doesn’t provide the same type of answer that “My wife died because God has a plan for all of us and that was her time” does; the first functions as a pragmatic explanation, whereas the second situates the event in a etiologically sensible landscape. Third, one of the aspects that restricted the expansion of Hellenic philosophical thought was that it required extensive education to understand (which required resources and time that most people didn’t have) whereas Christianity has the advantage of having few (if any) practical prerequisites to adopt.
Again, the problem is the elison of the difference between philosophy and religion. For a religion to be credible (after all, it is based on a purported communication from a perfect deity), its texts must meet high standards. In order for us to get value out of a philosopher or their text, only the gist of the idea really has to survive.
“why, if Jewish and early Christian thought was so totally inferior to Greek, Christianity was able to spread so rapidly” There’s no question that the Biblical writers were appallingly backward compared to the Greeks, Romans, and even the Egyptian who preceded them by centuries. You might check what modern Israeli archaeologists have to say about the history of their own people, and how much of it contradicts what excavations have revealed. As for why Christianity survived, in its various early forms (Pauline, Gnostic, Nestorian, etc.,) and the demographic and political reasons behi9nd its spread, there are many good books you could consult. If you think you can lie or generalize about history, you’ve come to the wrong blog.
Scuzi, make that “how much condradicts what the bible says.”
#9 feels like begging the question. Of course we want to be remembered for doing the right thing. The argument is over what is the right thing.
I don’t understand #3. Did you mean manna or mana?
I, too, find #3 incomprehensible, manna or mana.
A Christian’s job should never be to judge, and those who do need to remember that God judges, not people. Christians do not support homosexuality because it is forbidden in the Bible and thus we don’t practice it nor can we accept it. However, I can see the frustration of non Christians with religious groups like Westbro Baptist. Yes, there are Christians out there that are completely radical and hateful, something that the Bible never taught us to do.
In case you are wondering, this is why we think Christians like you are hypocrites and stupid.
“Christians do not support homosexuality because it is forbidden in the Bible and thus we don’t practice it nor can we accept it.”
Just like wearing 2 different kinds of cloth, eating shellfish, not working on Sundays. Touching pig skin and touching a woman while on her period.
Just asking. But have you really read the Bible seriously before. If you did you would have realised that numerous times it talks about Jesus being the fulfillment of the law and that as Christians we are to honour God by following the life of his Son (Jesus). Seeing as Jesus was perfect and able to fullfil the law God was able to create a new covenant so that we can have a relationship with Him through the blood of Jesus that was shed on the cross and avble to be recieved through faith in his son.
Another point is that when God established those old laws he was establishing his people as set apart for him. A lot of the things you mentioned that aren’t allowed to be worn, touched or eaten where the things that were being done by neighbouring idoletorous nations that were not pleasing to a perfect God. So looking back we can see how much a pure life and heart is improtant in a relationship with God. However these day’s purety and righteousness is not achieved by obey these things. We are set apart when we repent and believe in God to forgive our sins. Then we can be in a relationship with him.
Oh and in relation to working on the sabath. Jesus and his deciples collected grain on the sabath once cause they were hungry, when questioned he said “the son of God is the Lord of the sabbath’ and also after he healed a man with a shriveled hand ‘if a sheep falls into a pit on the sabath won’t you lift it out? …Then how much more valuable is a person than a sheep’.
Hypocrisy is BAD and it is very sad to see it within a christian and especially within a church. However you cannot say that the world is in it’s worst moment when it comes to morality just as ther bible said it would happen. I just pray that whoever reads this will be wise and come to God. because it’s not going to be pretty for those who don’t when God comes and judges.
If you really believe “judge not lest ye be judged”, you should have no trouble understanding that it is not your place to condone or condemn the sexual activities of consenting adults. You do not need to accept or reject their actions. You just need to realize it doesn’t concern you. No one is telling you to practice homosexuality if you don’t want to. We just ask that you not try to force your beliefs onto others.
The WBC is the loudest and most obnoxious. But the majority of christian churches are preaching bigotry in the name of Jesus. And they draw a lot of support for that bigotry from people who don’t think of themselves as hateful people. A solid majority of christians are completely radical and hateful. This can not be separated from the influence of the bible which tells them to be hateful, but it is contrary to the general spirit of the teachings attributed to Jesus.
If you just personally think being gay is a sin, you are wrong, but probably not hurting anyone but yourself with that belief.
If you are actively trying to limit the rights of other people based on how you feel about their sexual orientation, or supporting attempts to do so by your church or christian lobbying groups, perhaps you should ask yourself if you actually are one of the good ones.
“If you really believe “judge not lest ye be judged”, you should have no trouble understanding that it is not your place to condone or condemn the sexual activities of consenting adults.”
The view that “judge not lest ye be judged” means pretending that morally wrong behaviour is actually OK, is one that couldn’t survive five minutes’ actual reading of the Gospels.
Morally wrong behavior is absolutely condoned and even celebrated by the gospels.
‘Morally wrong behavior is absolutely condoned and even celebrated by the gospels.’ Where?
Two examples of morally wrong behaviour commanded by God: Joshua 8:1-29, the massacre of Ai’s inhabitants, who were killed because they were living in Canaan. 1 Samuel 15:3, the genocide of the Amalekites was commanded by God because of raids by said people on the Israelites’ ancestors by their ancestors, during the exodus. (And Saul will lose his kingship in this affair because contrary to God’s commands he had spared their livestock…and their king, probably for a later public execution)
To Azel. The gospels is Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. first four books in the old testatment. And the Bible say’s that Sual spared all that he spared out his own selfish ambition. God wanted the amelakites out of the land because they were an immoral nation.
And with the King that Saul spared. He had a descendant named Agag. Who in the book of Esther (in the bible) tried to wipe out the entire jewish race. Pretty cool story. You should check it out. Book of Esther.
If there’s a god to judge, then you need not. If being gay is actually a sin, that’s between god and the person who is gay. It’s not up to you or anyone else. That’s what I don’t really get about you Christians bothering everybody to be like you and do like you do, interfering in law-making to make laws more biblical instead of rational, and just plain getting in everyone’s business and butting your nose in where it doesn’t belong. Because “judge not lest ye be judged” means you’re not perfect. Get yourself in line and shut the fuck up about anyone else’s line. If they do go to hell someday, that’s their business and god’s, not yours. I do not believe homosexuality is a sin, nor do I believe in god or hell, but at least I think I know how this should work! ARE YOU GOD? I think we can establish that you’re not. So that should be the end of the discussion.
I think that in this behaviour they are, distasteful as it may be, following in their god’s steps: isn’t that the goal of Jesus’s crucifixion ? Forgiving all offences even if all concerned do not (for example, the victim of a thief) ?
It’s my understanding that Christians are urged to become the hands and feet of Jesus. Jesus cannot contact anyone directly, and so have taken on the role of busybody. And their missions are fashionable: don’t be gay; don’t have an abortion. “Love” in the sense that most Christians seem to be using it is, via their evangelism, to save every single person from hell. If that means they have to outlaw marriage for homosexuals by a majority vote, so be it. If that means they have to eat a lot of chicken and twitter pic themselves eating chicken, so be it.
Meanwhile, they are keeping no homosexuals out of hell. They are putting them in hell on earth, and whether or not they can get married, they’ll still have sex with each other.
Plus they’re so fucking cheerful about it! Being a Christian seems to have become more about “winning souls” than being a good person. It is as though you can’t get to heaven if you just shut your mouth. If you believe in Jesus and just shut your mouth, and claim it’s not about deeds, chances are you are still wanting to get in everyone’s business…. and deny any wrongdoing, hurt, abuse, or other unChristly behavior. Christians seem to think it’s their right (and it is, sort of) to say anything they want any time they want to, because their religious beliefs mandate they evangelize, and they never look at it the other way. They are commanded to do this, and by my estimation, that’s a deed. Will every Christian go to hell if gay people get to marry in the legal definition? Is there any reason they can’t just stop worrying about other people’s business? Because I think “judge lest ye be judged” means they should sort their own business before someone turns it around and points out their sins. Which is what we did with KATIE. And she said it wasn’t free speech because she couldn’t hate gays without someone telling her to step off.
What I absorbed from what little of religion I know of is that we’re all hypocrites in some way. Hypocrisy is my interpretation of “sin”. And if you point out someone’s hypocrisy, they can point out yours. Well go ahead. But yeah, it’s not a free-for-all where Christians get to impose themselves on the rest of society but it’s persecution if people fucking mind it. I don’t tell Christians what to believe, although I think it’s silly so I say that. I just draw the line where they can believe is not over in someone else’s business. It’s in their business, and my business is my business. I’m doing my best not to mind their business except when it spills over because then I am still minding my business and I see someone else’s business in it where it does not belong. It gets turned around, we get accused of being hateful toward Christians and judging them. I’m only judging the portion of their business inside my business where it doesn’t belong. Take it back to their own side and we’re cool.
“Being a Christian seems to have become more about “winning souls” than being a good person.”
That’s a pretty bizarre false dichotomy you’ve got going on there: “winning souls” vs. “being a good person”. If you’re a good person, you’ll want as many people to get into Heaven as possible.
And there’s a difference between saying a certain behaviour is wrong and judging another person. In fact, you probably employ the same distinction when judging your own actions: if you do something you know is wrong, chances are you’ll be able to say to yourself “that was wrong, I shouldn’t have done that,” but that you will still think of yourself as a fundamentally OK person, albeit one who occasionally falls short of the standards they ought to uphold. Same applies with other people’s behaviour.
“Winning souls” means ignoring the other person in favor of some scorecard. It may seem like a “nice” behavior but it’s motivated in competition and selfishness. It’s a sales technique. The church wants you to bring more people to church so they can get more money and they package it for you, the pawn, as an imperative. See the other person as a soul to be won instead of a living human neighbor. You have the opportunity to help someone but you’re fixated on the death cult. It’s the suggestion to you that you’re winning something, not that they’re winning something, not even that the church is winning something. Making you happy go-getters is a sales technique, you’re motivated to sell church to non-church-goers, and who absolutely wins? The church. Not god and not you. Pawn!
[Kodie, the spam filter seems to have taken a liking to you; I just dug this out - Custador]
The view that “judge not lest ye be judged” means “let god worry about judging others and you just worry about the beam in your own eye” is pretty consistent with most of what’s in the gospels.
Speaking of the gospels (and pretending for a moment they are accurate), how did Jesus completely forget to make any mention whatsoever of something as central to christianity as condemning gay people?
@Nox Who says He didn’t make mention of it? The Bible does not quote everything that Jesus ever said and did. And condemning gay people is not central to Christianity; having a loving relationship with God and people is central. And loving God as God loves means obeying his rules because they are loving. Living otherwise is the cause of pain and chaos. People who call themselves Christian and treat gays badly are misguided. Still, sodomy is condemned in the Bible. So is intercourse outside of marriage. So is lust. For those who keep saying that gays should have the same rights as heterosexuals, they already do. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. As a matter of fact, that is what our anatomy is designed for.
Christians clearly can’t be trusted to know what’s best for gay people – prove your god exists and therefore explain why we should care what you interpret he says the rest of us should do. Prove it. Prove god exists. Otherwise, you are a crazy person.
Still, sodomy is condemned in the Bible. So is intercourse outside of marriage. So is lust.
So is eating bacon, so is picking a stick on the sabbath, so fukcing what?
For those who keep saying that gays should have the same rights as heterosexuals, they already do. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Are you really that dense? The point is that gay people should the same right as straight people to marry the person they love.
And loving God as God loves means obeying his rules because they are loving.
I didn’t know lapidation was an expression of love, I learn things everyday…(Deuteronomy 21:18-21, for an overkill punishment for disobedience)
One, slavery and genocide being commanded in the Bible, I would take moral commands from this book with more than a grain of salt. Two, thought crimes ? I hope you know that that way lies the Miniluv.
“Who says He didn’t make mention of it?”
Technically (whether they realize it or not) anyone who says the gospels represent an accurate recording of the life and teachings of Jesus. So, in practice, mostly the same people who claim Jesus condemned homosexuality.
If you read that link, you’ll notice I already believe (and have already demonstrated) the gospels are not accurate in their portrayal of Jesus (hence the caveat, “pretending for a moment they are accurate”). I was pointing out the irony that christians devote so much Jesus fervor to something their official source on Jesus doesn’t actually mention him having any opinion on.
Based just on the gospels, one might conclude the guy was more concerned with how his followers treat the poor and disadvantaged (something the character called Jesus does mention several times). Based just on the gospels, one might conclude that condemning gay people is not central to christianity (something the character called Jesus does not mention at all). But those are hardly the conclusions you’d come to by looking at the behavior of christians and the preaching of the christian church.
Evangelical christians are as obsessed with homosexuality as they are with casting stones at the poor and disadvantaged.
“The Bible does not quote everything that Jesus ever said and did.”
As good a reason as any for people to just make up whatever position they want, and put it into the mouth of the character they treat as automatically right.
There’s no real evidence that Jesus even existed. Whether he existed or not, the gospels attribute things to him which he probably didn’t say. If he did exist, it’s pretty likely he said other things which were not recorded in the gospels. This in itself raises some serious questions about how much we can even know about such sloppily preserved teachings. How can we know any of what Jesus said or did?
It is entirely possible that Jesus was as homophobic as Paul. Who knows? For that matter, it’s entirely possible Jesus was gay.
“And condemning gay people is not central to Christianity.”
One would not come to this conclusion by looking at the behavior of christians or the preaching of christian churches.
“Still, sodomy is condemned in the Bible. So is intercourse outside of marriage.”
Things you do every day are condemned in the bible. The same stretch of Leviticus that condemns sodomy also condemns eating bacon and shellfish. Do you murder your children when they disobey you? Do you murder your neighbor if you see him working on the sabbath? The bible commands these things. But you don’t obey them. It is only the condemnation of sodomy that christian readers seem to get out of the jewish law. When the law is inconvenient, it was replaced by Jesus. When the law justifies the bigoted positions one wants to hold, it is god’s eternal law forever.
And I didn’t say the bible wasn’t a disgustingly homophobic book overall. Again my point was that either this is something Jesus didn’t give a f*ck about or this is a significant oversight in the gospels.
I’ve previously said here that despite the good intentions of some liberal christians who point out nice things like “Jesus said to love everyone”, accepting biblical justification is just not a path which will ever lead to a less bigoted society. People who call themselves christian and treat gays badly are misguided. But it’s no mystery where that misguidance comes from.
“For those who keep saying that gays should have the same rights as heterosexuals, they already do. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.”
Kodie is right. We can’t trust you.
All opponents of marriage equality demonstrate this same selfish lack of empathy. Few demonstrate it as clearly as you have here.
Is this what you mean by having a loving relationship with god and people? If an injustice isn’t an inconvenience to you personally it isn’t a problem? As long the choices being infringed on aren’t something you want to do, it isn’t a problem?
The right to marry against your sexual orientation is not the same right as marrying who you want.
I know christians don’t really believe in the golden rule, but try to put yourself in the shoes of the poor and disadvantaged here, and ask what you would want done unto you. Just as a thought experiment. If you can not extend empathy for others, surely you are still capable of feeling sorry for yourself. So imagine for a moment, if the only form of marriage which were legal were gay marriage, and you wished to marry someone of the opposite sex. You would not feel that you had the same rights as everyone else. You would feel that your options were being artificially limited, based on someone else’ articifial definition of what you should do. And you would be right.
Being able to marry someone of the opposite sex, is not the same right as being able to marry someone of the opposite sex. It’s a meaningless right for people who don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex. The “right” to deny who you are out of forced adherence to what the most innaccurate book ever printed says you should be, is a meaningless right.
“As a matter of fact, that is what our anatomy is designed for.”
That our anatomy was designed at all, is a matter of much less than fact. If you want to believe it was designed for some particular purpose, you are free to hold that unfounded opinion. If you want to take that opinion as a reason why you should refrain from marrying someone of the same sex, you are free to make that choice. But your opinion of what our anatomy was designed for is not sufficient cause for you to decide what other people can use their anatomy for.
“And condemning gay people is not central to Christianity”
Yeah, it is. It’s certainly central to your version of Christianity. How many times are you going to dodge the fact that you are spending so much time and energy condemning homosexuality and completely ignoring everything else that god condemns? You can’t help yourself but try to interfere in the lives of homosexuals, but haven’t nearly the same compulsion to stop people eating shellfish or cheeseburgers. You coward, own your hate.
“having a loving relationship with God and people is central.”
Stopping people from marrying the person they love is not loving. You have no sense of empathy. Your god squished that out of you by keeping you in abject terror.
“And loving God as God loves means obeying his rules because they are loving.”
Don’t eat random shit I don’t like and don’t do random activities I’ve decided to arbitrarily brand with a moral value or you’ll go to hell to suffer and scream for eternity… because I love you! Makes total sense. You worship an absolute monster.
And you don’t have to pretend that what you consider morally wrong behavior is “OK”, either. Sit at home and stew about it all you want that the world’s not the way you think it ought to be. For example, some Christians are all about modesty and covering up, and they can dress any way they want. They don’t have to consider cleavage- or knee-revealing garments “OK” and they don’t have to wear them, but they can’t tell anyone else how to dress so they feel more comfortable or secure. Take by example that nobody tells you how to marry but yourselves, the way you want. What gives you the right to overstep your boundaries and tell others how to marry? And you still get to not like it all you want!
“And you don’t have to pretend that what you consider morally wrong behavior is “OK”, either. Sit at home and stew about it all you want that the world’s not the way you think it ought to be.”
Qui tacet, consentit, as a lawyer might say: silence gives consent. If you see something wrong, have an opportunity to correct it, and do nothing, then you are complicit in the wrong-doing.
But only the very few things you choose to pick out to fight against, right? You’re fine being permissive of most of the other behaviors allowed but choose this one particularly to fight against. By your logic, shouldn’t you be fighting continuously against everything that is considered “wrong”?
Not to mention the hilarious consequences that obtain when you apply that logic to your God.
ARE YOU GOD? No. Then you’re being judgmental. Seriously, I do not understand when people believe there’s a god but don’t have faith in him to work this shit out, or are you admitting you don’t have faith in your god to work this shit out so you have to step up?
Seems a bit weird, from where I sit, that anyone could consider that what consenting adults do with each other is morally wrong, but denying a specific group civil rights and the protection of law is perfectly okay.
At least the WBC are honest. They may be hateful, but you’re hateful too. You may rely on the bible for guidance, while they also rely on the bible for guidance. You cannot agree with them completely while pretending you’re different because you’re nicer or something. They are honest, however, you are dishonest. You’re not supposed to judge but you judge. You wield the bible and god to judge so you can pretend your hands are clean and you are not so radical because you’re polite about it. You protest gay people’s equality, don’t you? You don’t have to carry a sign and yell at people, but you’re fixated on their sexuality and complain they shouldn’t have rights and they’re sinners and going to hell. I would love to see how you respond to this, I will make popcorn.
forbidden in the Bible and thus we don’t practice it nor can we accept it.
A. What Sunny Day said. You disregard plenty that’s forbidden in the bible. B. The rest of the world doesn’t give a rip what your book says as it doesn’t pertain to them. If being gay is against your religion, don’t be gay. I bet it’s easy enough if you’re already not gay, you get the luxury of not having to resist any temptation or breaking any biblical laws and feel superior for free. But the world does not revolve around what you believe in or what you choose to not accept, by your biblical code or any other personal reason. What do you think your “acceptance” has to do with anyone else’s life? What if I don’t accept Christians as equal human beings and where would you draw the line of how many of your rights I get to dictate? C. http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/483083_462164810469307_1790698291_n.jpg “I don’t understand why people think that having a gay child means they failed as a parent. Disowning your child means you failed as a parent.” Someday you may have some very hard thinking to do.
There are lots of christians that do support homosexuals, and their wish to be married. So you are probably not a real christian.
1. Christians don’t hate gay people. At least we aren’t supposed to anyway. I have friends who are bisexual and I treat them as I would any one else 2. To Nox : You say I’m wrong but how do you know? You say it like a fact, but it is indeed an opinion. And no, what people do in their private lives in none of my concern. However, in light of the recent Chick-fil-a contreversy, many members of the Gay/lesbian community have shown their true colors. Threats, manipulation, bullying and just downright awfullness have shown us that the people who were once bullied, have become the bullies. And that is my concern. To Sunny Day : There is a difference between feeling a sexual attraction to some one of the same sex, and acting on that feeling. Its not a sin to feel, its a sin to act. Know the difference. Oh and just because some one doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean that they are stupid. To Kodi : I’m having trouble understanding how I was hateful in what I said. I stated why Christians don’t accept homosexual behavior. See its people like you that probably encourage free speech and saying what you believe in. Yet when some one disagrees with you, they become hateful idiots. Am I right? And no, I am not better than everyone else because I am a Christian. I sin. I make mistakes. We all do. However being a Christian means that you ask forgiveness for these mistakes, not keep on living in them with no regret. You seem to think that judging is wrong, but even as you read this you are judging me. I realize that I’m not going to change your mind about this, and that’s okay, you have a right to your own opinion. My goal here was not to get in a rip roaring argument with any of you. I just wanted to make you understand the reason that Christians don’t support the gay and lesbian lifestyle.
Tell me how often you ask for forgiveness for every sin you commit, continually, in defiance of your bible, then we’ll take you seriously, maybe.
And for the record, the reason you don’t support homosexuals is you personally, as a person, with your own mind, choose not to do so. Don’t try and pawn your own personal feeling off on your faith. That is cowardly and dishonest, and you really should be ashamed of yourself for not owning up to your personal responsibility and just admitting that YOU (You, You, You, YOU) don;’t like gay people.
TrickQuestion, you seem to believe that you know what the persons you are criticizing are thinking and believing and what their motivations are. You seem very angry and mean-spirited. How do you know what Katie feels and why are you so accusatory?
Because she has stated her opinions, her viewpoints, and i can read.
Where did I mention any thing about sex or sexual attraction? If you don’t want to be call stupid, why don’t you address my point?
You said you don’t practice or support the things that the bible tells you are bad.
Just like wearing 2 different kinds of cloth, eating shellfish, not working on Sundays. Touching pig skin and touching a woman while on and the days before and after her period. In fact you are commanded to execute people by stoning them in the same pages that condemn homosexuality.
“To Sunny Day : There is a difference between feeling a sexual attraction to some one of the same sex, and acting on that feeling. Its not a sin to feel, its a sin to act. Know the difference. Oh and just because some one doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean that they are stupid.”
Uhu. Being sexually attracted to somebody of the same sex? Yeah, that makes you gay. Fighting against it and screwing members of a gender that you don’t find attractive? Yeah, that makes you a repressed homosexual.
People understand that Christians don’t support the homosexual “lifestyle” because it’s in the bible. You are talking to us like we never met a Christian before, had this argument before, or even used to be Christian and know your arguments inside and out. While it’s fine if you want to believe something, not accepting someone else is not NICE. It’s hateful. The bible gives you an excuse to hate people and even if you don’t like to use strong language, it’s obvious to the rest of us you are hating people and judging them based on your book.
What I’m saying is you can stay with your religion, you can’t force anyone to comply with it. Because it’s made up, imaginary, not proven. So while you say you love gay people and pretend it’s so freakin’ difficult to love people, you do it because the bible tells you what to do. That really mystifies me why you think the rest of the world needs to care what it says in your book. You don’t even obey everything it says in that book. Your religion and its non-acceptance of certain people should have nothing to do with their civil rights.
If gay people get married, that doesn’t change your marriage or your beliefs. You don’t have to accept it, but you can’t construct a barrier to their rights by imposing your beliefs on them and the rest of us - and also claim that you’re not a hateful person.
You can talk and talk about how you’re not, you can go pray to god because nobody else should be listening to you; opposing the freedom and civil rights of others is an act of hate even if you never personally draw an association between how you think, how you vote, and the results of your vote infringing the rights of others. Hiding behind the bible to say how you really feel and how you really want the world to be different than it is, if you don’t think that’s hate, then you’re deluded and a weasel. You worship a book that instructs you to hate. If you still don’t see it, I can’t tell if you’re playing stupid or actually stupid. Those are your only choices.
And Katie says to Sunny Day “To Sunny Day : There is a difference between feeling a sexual attraction to some one of the same sex, and acting on that feeling. Its not a sin to feel, its a sin to act. Know the difference.” I who had the bible crammed down my throat beg to differ, according to the bible it’s a sin to even think about sinning, see Matt 5:28 “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” if you don’t know the book don’t quote it, there is one truthfully useful statement it is the golden rule “DO UNTO OTHERS” and everyone knows the rest. I was forced to read, pray etc and I don’t force any of my opinions on others all I even say here is open your mind, many are right Jesus preached acceptance and tolerance I don’t think he’d be very impressed with todays religion. m
You act as if I’m self righteous and pious. I am a sinner and no, believe it or not I don’t get down on my knees and pray every second of every day. But I do serve God as best I can. Its who I am and what I believe and no amount of insults or snide remarks will change that.
I can pretty much guess that you don’t go out of your way to follow what gods laws are unless they happen to be ones you personally want to follow anyway.
Which ones do you follow that say homosexuality is wrong? Cite them, them look around them , to see what else you shouldn’t be doing. If you pick that one, then those around it should have the same weight, yes? So mixing fabrics, or touching pigs or eating shrimp are on the same level as homosexuality (if Leviticus is where you get the source) If that isn’t the one you refer to, please let me know which one it is and i will provide examples of why those are not valid reasons as well.
Again, typical manipulation of my words. I hate or dislike no body. Homosexuals are people and I am called to love them. Is it easy? No. But I do it anyway. I don’t deserve a medal or trophy for that because its my job. Could you do the same for a Christian?
“Christians do not support homosexuality because it is forbidden in the Bible and thus we don’t practice it nor can we accept it.” Quote, from you, about why you can’t accept homosexuality. How does that manipulate your words?
I accept a lot of christians, for the people they are, not because they are christians. I accept people on their individual merits, and could care less about who they choose to love. I also accept people of every faith, for the people they are. My usual circle of friends includes a gay christian, a wiccan, an agnostic, a non-gay christian, and myself (my girlfriend is jewish, btw). They’ve been my friends for all of my adult life. Know why? Because we accept each other for the people we are. We love each other and respect our differences.
I didn’t ask if you pray every second, i asked if you ask for forgiveness for every single sin you commit that is specifically mentioned as a sin in the bible. Or, does a big blanket statement cover them all?
And, it’s not “your job”. It’s a personal viewpoint on how you choose to treat, view, and interact with people.
Its not easy to love anybody by the way, not just homosexuals. Its the people around you that make you angry that are hard to love. Hate is easy. Compassion is hard.
Compassion is easy, if you truly care about other people. It’s easy for me. It’s actually a lot harder for me to intentionally be mean to people. I can’t say that I love you, honestly, but that isn’t anything to do with you or me or this conversation, simply the lack of time spent getting to know someone. Love has varying degrees of difficulty, really. It’s easy to love your child. It’s easy to love your family (depending. I won’t blanket statement this for everyone because we all have different experiences.) There are varying degrees to most things. But, choosing to take a viewpoint, before you get to actually know someone isn’t prudent. So saying homosexuality is wrong already plants the seed in your mind that this person is an unrepentant sinner, and taints your perception of that person before you even give them a chance to find out who they really are. If they turn out to be a big douche canoe, then you have a valid reason to let them have your contempt-just like anyone else.
Also, on the subject of judging- we all do it. All of us. It’s not a bad thing in some cases. If we didn’t, then we’d have no system of right and wrong.
Well I’m glad you aren’t hateful against Christians as many people seem to be now a days. It is most certainly my job to love people. The Bible says in Lev. 19:17-18 ” Do not hate your brother in your heart, rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt, do not seek revenge against your brother or hold a grudge but love your neighbor as you do yourself” this is the way I try my best to live. It’sa good commandment to live by don’t you think?
You want to really feel some hate? Be an atheist in the south, smack dab in the middle of fundementalist central. Then we can talk about hate. Keep reading the passage you quoted, the rest of Lev 19. see what all it says. Nobody is saying that every single thing in the bible is not a good idea or something you can live by to be a better person, but a few good things doesn’t make it all true and good. Mein Kampf has some things in it that can be said are good ideas too.
Look, I understand that you don’t believe in the Bible. Your opinion. But my entire life has been centered around it, and my life has been happy. Not without trials and problems of course, but that’s a given. My life is not better than anyone’s because I practice love and compassion, but instead I want to try to make others lives better. That’s not going to happen by shoving my religion down people’s throats and hating people who don’t agree with me. You disagree with me? Okay, that’s fine with me. Lets just agree to disagree Because obviously we aren’t going to convince each other. You are sticking with your belief and I, mine
This isn’t about believing or not believing. This is about being decent to other people. Just because you center your entire life around it, and it would be too painful for you to even try and think something different., You like to think that you practice love and compassion, but honestly, that’s against your gods laws too. You should be stoning people to death left and right, if you truly followed your holy book. But you don’t. NOBODY DOES. You pick and choose the parts that suit you, your personal prejudices, whether you were taught to think that way or just do so on your own, and ignore the parts you don’t want to or aren’t taught. Do you really not see that persecuting people, telling them that they are wrong and sinful and horrible people for FEELING how they feel is so far from practicing love and compassion it’s not even the same time zone? You can argue “oh, they can feel it as long as they don’t do it” all day but that’s a crock. I am guessing that you have felt love for someone, maybe even acted on it. Think-i mean, really think, try and have some real empathy, not what you’re told is empathy- for other people, about how it would affect you if you were told that what you feel isn’t right, and if you dare to love the person you LOVE that you’re wrong and sinful and deserve to be told that at every occasion. Hated for being who you are. Try that for a while, and see if some of that love and compassion you claim to practice really comes through, or if it’s just something you say to make yourself feel better about your personal prejudices.
Just Sayoing mate. if you think that Christians aren’t told that what they believ is wrong well. your wrong. your doing it right now. Also. Katie has been quite commpasionate with her comments considering you have been throwing quite a bit at her and hey. Thats part of what she’d go through quite often if she truly lived out Jesus in her life. If you think athiests in your south have it bad. Try reading stories of Christians in muslim countries, North Korea and other communist countries. They don’t have it easy. As well as this they get persecuted (threatened, tortured, killed) just for showing that they believe and love God love sharing it.
On a different point. What would you do if you found the truth, and saw that everyone else was doing the wrong thing and were destined to an eternal hell. Wouldn’t you take it as your responsibility to tell them? What you think is ‘making people feel bad’ and so on is actually us trying to show you the way the leads to eternal life and the truth that sets you free. You thinks that we pick an choose. But read the Bible and you’ll see how Jesus fulfilled the law and has created a new covenant, one that will garantee you an eternal life in heaven and access to Jesus. It seems to me like you pick and choose what parts of the Bible you can use to try and prove a point or let yourself know you’re believin the right thing.
THEN PROVE GOD EXISTS. You can’t make claims, subject people to the laws of the bible, and expect anyone to think you’re not full of shit without proof. The bible is not proof that the bible is true. The bible is not proof that god wrote the bible. The bible is not proof that god exists.
If god can’t come right down here and prove this truth to us, and relies on busybodies like you, that’s his fault if they all go to hell. You’re off the hook, buddy, you go relax now. Or prove god exists.
Well Kodie. Prove to me that your aetheistic views can really save the world. But anyhow. On me proving the bibles accuaracy. Homers illiad is considered one of the most consistent and accuarate ancient texts. It has 600 hundred copies and the closet copie to the original to the next copie is 1000 years. There are 25000 texts of the old testament with the oldest copie from the original being only 30 years. Another reason why i believe the bible is true is because it’s living. By that I mean that what is written in the bible is capable of tranforming the life of anyone who is willing. It’s teachings have been used to judge moral standards for a LONG time. and don’t try say that it’s morals are bad as the bibles morals have been used to determine the laws of many Western countries including yours and mine. Also alot of the events mentioned in old and new testament have found out to be true by many archeologists, both christian and non-christian. It has also been used as standards to prove the reliability of other ancient texts. It is alos used to measure dates and such by using the events listed in it. Interestingly enough though it also mentioned a race that had never been dicovered or heard before; the Hittites. Surely enough (i forget the date) the Hittites were discovered.
Now on my favourite point: GOD. Now you say the bible is not addequate to prove God. well I just showed you a taste of how capable it is of doing just that. Also to prove God. I cannot be done fully. Thats not God’s fault. There is always gonna be that little bit of disatisfaction of the amount of proof shown to someone who chooses not to believe. And then there’s nature. Just look around. ther is now way that evolution can be responsible for it. Look at the air. Can you see it. no. but you know it’s there. you see it’s affects on your suroundings. God is the same. He you cannot see him because he chooses not to show himself. But you see his effects on your surroundings. I like this because then it shows the true meaning of faith. Jesus said ‘Blessed is the person who believes in me with out seeing me (physically)’. So our faith is based on that fact. God exists and we look for his work in our lives everyday. Oh, and God did come down to earth once. In the form of a man. And people still didn’t (and still don’t) believe him. That man was Jesus, and he loves you VERY much. He died for you, so that you can live with him.
“Homers illiad is considered one of the most consistent and accuarate ancient texts.”
I actually did just squirt my coffee out of my nose laughing! You owe me for a keyboard. Here’s a hint, dipshit: The Iliad is a poem and a work of fiction that is set during a war but is not actually an historical record of that war. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that Gone with the Wind is an historical record of the American Civil War!
My God, the stupid is so strong with you that it hurts! Durpdurpdurpdurp durpin’ along durpin’ all day durpity durp! LOL!
No, it is god’s fault. The book he supposedly wrote is full of errors, regular errors and consistency errors. Anyone can write a book, they can write it right now and claim that it was breathed or inspired by god – that doesn’t mean it happened, and I bet you wouldn’t believe them.
I’m not impressed by the bible’s “power” to help people when they are at their lowest. Grasping at any shred of hope is you Christians’ favorite quality in new customer. Try actually helping them without also trying to convert them – you challenge me to cure a drug addict with the power of atheism? Not trying to convert anyone, you can still want to and try to help them with what’s actually wrong.
It’s rather easy to “prove” the bible is true to someone who is easy to fool, just like any sales technique for any product, ever. It’s not transformative because it’s true, and it doesn’t become more true because someone’s life changed. God as you describe him loves to hide out and be cryptic and not provable. That ruins the whole game for him whether I go to hell or not! What a fucking asshole.
But there’s no hell, and you haven’t proved god exists or what he really wants, so you don’t get to force your biblical policies on the rest of us. You don’t seem to get that. Name another religious belief, any religious belief, guaranteed you haven’t studied it or why it is exactly the same reason you deny that it is true! You wouldn’t enforce by law some other religious beliefs unless that religion produced proof of god.
And you can’t either, so back off.
First of all, you won’t go far claiming that the Bible is authoritative: the bloody thing isn’t even internally consistent, all accuracy it might have is the luck of the draw, nothing else. An example: are you saved by faith or by works ? (Luke 5:20 versus Luke 8:21…two verses for both ideas in the same book, that’s consistency right here !)
Second, you shouldn’t assume so that the Bible is the source of the law of my country. First, I don’t hold the Bible to be the source of anything you can find in the Code of Hammurabi: whatever you find there was discovered without the Bible so could be again without it…if the Bible didn’t take laws directly from there ! Second, I am French. Our laws are based on Napoleon’s era codes, whose origins are the legal customs of Northern France, particularly those of Renaissance-era Paris and Justinian’s Code (which during the Ancien Régime was the basis of Southern France laws). However, they were thoroughly secular texts: for example, during the conception of the penal code its maker decriminalized all crimes based on religion (Christian religion that is), defending that before the assembly by dismissing them as “phony offences created by superstition”. Third, it wouldn’t be so bad if there was a shred of evidence for God (and remember God is omnipotent: if there is a plausible naturalistic explanation, it is to be preferred). There are none. P.S. : As for seeing the air, I reckon that you could do that by means of an electronic microscope. How do you see God already ?
Oh, look! It’s a Common or Garden Variety Christian Persecution Complex! I haven’t seen one of those in, oh, it must be at least fifteen minutes. Last time I saw a Christian, come to think of it.
Tell me, Mr M, do you seriously believe that any Christian in the Western world faces adversity because of their faith? Because friend, if you really think that, then you are an utter fucking idiot. What other demographic would even get publicity and air-time if they tried to ram their outdated, bigoted philosophy down other people’s throats? Christians not only get to do that, they actually get taken seriously enough to influence the law of the land. And yet here you are, claiming that to be a part of the Christian majority is to suffer injustice at everybody else’s hands. Well boo-hoo, cry me a fucking river.
Moving on to your second point: You have found what you think is the truth, and rather than accept that you could be wrong, you interfere with everybody else’s lives and ram your “truth” down our throats. Never mind that you cannot provide any evidence for your “truth” whatsoever, let alone actual proof. You are so arrogant, so egotistical, that you think you are the final arbiter of what is true and false.
Go away, Mr M. Your spiel is not original. It’s the same tired old dogma. It’s bullshit and it’s boring.
Just to clarify, I live in a country where Christianity is a minority, not in the States. I do find it quite prescious the language, word choice and attitude that you display towards me and then tell me that i don’t face adversity. I am being quite polite and civil in my attitude towards you.
I never said that I face a lot of adversity because of my faith. But i do face adversity. It is however an undiniable fact that more christians have been martyrd for their faith in the last century thans in preceding 1900 years. In my life i have had a lot of experience with people who come from broken homes, alchohol addictions, drug addictions, and controlled by extrmely violent behaviour. hundreds of those people have had their lives transformed through coming to know Jesus Christ as their saviour. You see Christianity is not us trying to ram our doctrine down peoples throats. It’s about teaching the message of Jesus Christ and the wonderful relationship you can have with him. Not a series of rules that we expect none christians to follow. It’s the Holy Spirit that tranforms you and enables you to live the way God designed for us to live. Just try telling the hundreds of people I know whose lives have now been transformed by Jesus that God doesn’t exist and see how they react. You’ll have to come up with alot better reasons than the swearing and inacurate enterpretation of the bible to try and change their mind. By the way, how many drug addicts do you know whose lives have been transformed by your atheism? :)
“…how many drug addicts do you know whose lives have been transformed by your atheism?”
I wouldn’t give much credibility to anecdotal testimonials such as yours (or that of an atheist) as some sort of proof. I would much prefer actual statistics. AFAIK there are no specific studies correlating your claim that “…people have had their lives transformed through coming to know Jesus Christ…” If you do, please give the link.
There are, however, statistics about the prison population of the US showing that less that 2% of the inmates identify themselves as atheists. Since a large percentage of inmates are imprisoned for drug related crime, I think it’s fair to extrapolate that very few of them are atheists and that perhaps that statistic can be applied to the US population in general.
In other words, even though over 20% of the population consider themselves non-religious, few of that quintile may be considered addicted to drugs, or, as it relates to your anecdotal references, that most of the addicted you speak of were/are already religiously influenced and abused the drugs anyway.
You live in Australia. And Australia is 61% Christian.
Liar for Jeebus is free to fuck off now.
And by the way: Install a fucking spell-checker, you cretin.
Custador, don’t you know that when they speak of Christianity they speak of Real True Christianity™ ? Of course they are in minority, others are heretics bound for Hell…unless considering them Christians permit them to claim a majority, of course.
A question for you Mr M: how do you define “martyr” and “martyred for their faith” ? Because I am interested by your assertion that more Christians have been martyred for their faith during the last century than during the 1900 years before. Your sources ?
The vast majority of christians who have ever been martyred for their faith, were killed by the christian church for not being the approved type of christian.
Do you seriously not understand how denying equal rights to a percentage of the population or supporting those who are doing so is the complete and utter opposite of making their lives better?
And by the way, Leviticus is not the only book in the Bible that speaks against homosexuality. 1 Corinthians 6:9 says that those who practice sexual immorality, adultery, idolitry, and homosexuality, will not inherit The kingdom of God. The key word here is ” practice, as it implys that those who practice sin without regret will not gain favor in the eyes of God. ( in response to your earlier comment)
You say in one post that you practice love and compassion, and then the very next one still try and justify a plausible reason for you to be able to hold onto your dislike for homosexuality.
Let’s take a peek at what’s around 1 Cor 6:9. Try 1 cor 7:10 “10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.”
So, no divorce.
How about 1 cor 7:4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.
1 co 7:8-9 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. So, if you’re not married, or widowed, you can get married again, but only if you’re REALLY horny.
Long story short, the main difference between how you approach life and how i approach life is my actions are mine. i take responsibility for what i do. it’s all on me. you hide behind doctrine that tells you how to act and use that to justify the things you do, taking responsibility out of your hands, because you’re just following “orders” (which oddly enough nobody follows the ones the don’t want to )
What does compassion have to do with one’s likes and dislikes? Compassion means to love your enemies and to love the people who hate you. In regards to the verses you quoted, Marriage is a sacred thing, a precious and wonderful thing. God ‘s strict rules regarding it are only because he wants us to find that perfect person who help us to blossom in our faith.
Marriage is a civil contract that was used as power/property contracts. Here’s a handy chart showing why this “sacred thing” isn’t even really a 1 man 1 woman thing. That’s part of “god’s strict rules”. http://www.religioustolerance.org/biblemarriage.jpg If we REALLY wanted biblical marriages, we’d allow all of those as well.
Pay special note to the rape one, which pretty much demonstrates one instance of women are property shown in the “holy” bible.
As a Christian, I can assure you I am not loved by everyone. No Christian today is. Our goal in life is to share the word of God and to try our best to follow him. How do I make you understand that I hate no one, I just might not agree. With or support them sometimes?
You stop telling people that they’re wrong for being who they are because your book tells you to think that. You can say you don’t hate anyone as much as you like, but if you’re preaching-using what you have been taught your god wants you to- at people telling them that they’re bad and wrong and sinful, that isn’t compassion at all. you can CHOOSE to do that or not do that. YOU. But, you haven’t done that. You will keep telling people how bad homosexuality is and that is your choice, but thee’s no way it’s considered compassion when it’s doing nothing productive, and only causing harm.
Hiding? I take responsibility for myself just as much as you. I sin and I disspoint God and the people around me. Its not just a doctrine, its a lifestyle
Then say this. Say “I don’t like gay people because I don’t like them, not because a book tells me that what they are doing is wrong”.
You cant use those things as a fact. The law was different back then because the situation was different and more primitive
Yet you say the laws in your book aren’t different because the situation was different and more primative?
Again, not just a book. At least 40 authors that span out from many different time periods that knew nothing of each other. This, like Homosexuality is a lifestyle. And don’t you think that some laws should change as the situation does?
Not in a book that is supposed to be the inerrant inspired laws of god. and i darn well do think the laws should change as a situation does. But, again, this goes back to you picking and choosing which laws YOU like. If some laws can change why can’t the ones you don’t like?
Why would someone ever choose homosexuality? Do you really think that the gays executed in Iran wanted to be trendy? What about those killed in Uganda? Why did they CHOOSE that lifestyle?
I am straight. I would feel very uncomfortable in intimacy with another man. Why would I ever do that when I’d even risk my life?
Im not cherry picking here. I may not like the laws that tell me not to have premarital sex, or not to swear or disobey my parents. But I still follow them. The point is the Bible was written in time eras things were much different.
You know what’s really easy? Calling yourself compassionate. Easiest f*cking thing in the world. Doesn’t require any compassion or self reflection whatsoever.
Now being compassionate, that is hard. It requires you to put yourself into the other persons shoes. It requires that you actually think about how someone other than yourself will be affected by what you do. It requires asking yourself how you would feel if this was you in that position. Much more work than just calling yourself compassionate.
If other people were telling you that you couln’t get married because it didn’t fit their definition of what marriage should be, how would you feel. What would you want them to do unto you? If people were condemning you as a sinner, harrassing you, beating you, and throwing rocks at you because you were born a little different, how would you feel? What would you want them to do unto you? If other people were trying to pass laws punishing you for being straight because their god doesn’t like it, how would you feel? What would you want them to do unto you? If other people were trying to pass laws forcing you to abide by the rules of islam whether you believe in allah or not, how would you feel. What would you want them to do unto you?
If you didn’t get the golden rule, you didn’t get anything worthwhile out of the bible. If you want to call yourself compassionate, maybe you should start by asking how you would want others to do unto you, and then doing that.
If you think not buying someone’s chicken sandwich is an equivalent act of bullying to campaigning to have people killed, then you are not demonstrating the compassion you claim. The owner of Chic-Fil-A spent millions of dollars (on behalf of his company) to lobby to have laws passed in this country to deny rights to gay people, and in other countries to have gay people put to death. In response some people have announced they will not eat at Chic-Fil-A, and have called on anyone of conscience to do likewise. Do the threats, manipulation and bullying of gay people register as horrible to you? Or do you just get offended when people don’t buy chicken sandwiches?
We are not trying to take away Mr. Cathy’s right to hold his religious beliefs. Religious beliefs, like sexual orientation should be a personal matter. We’re not trying to take away your right to hold your religious beliefs. We are trying to get you to think about those beliefs, and how the actions you base on those beliefs affect your fellow humans.
That love the sinner, hate the sin bullsh*t does not change what you are doing. The point is not whether you are a good or bad person. The point is whether you are causing harm to others. It doesn’t matter if you love gay people. It doesn’t matter if you hate gay people. It just matters what you are doing.
You want to distinguish yourself from the obviously bad christians who you think are ruining christianity’s good name. But what are you doing differently?
Do you think there is some nice way to deny someone the same rights as everyone else? Do you think it matters if you smile or speak cheerfully while participating in discrimination? It doesn’t matter whether you are a good person. It doesn’t matter whether you want to think of yourself as a good person. It matters what you are doing.
If you look at an already persecuted and marginalized minority, many of whom have been harrassed, beaten, tortured, murdered and driven to suicide by your church, and decide what you really need to do here is hate the sin, then what you are spectacularly failing to be is compassionate.
Nah, you are cherry-picking laws and it’s a good thing. Because a sentence is part of the law: when you define crimes you also define associated penalties. So if you’re not, as TrickQuestion said upthread, stoning people left and right, you are at least cherry-picking the penalties for breaking biblical law. And unless you are, for example, not wearing poly-thread clothes and underwear (Deuteronomy 22:11) and not eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:10) nor pork (Leviticus 11:8), you are picking and choosing the law you follow. Not that it’s a bad thing (it isn’t) but just so you know.
You’re in denial. I’m not cherry-picking, I’m not hateful. You came here to explain something that’s already widely known. You don’t like gays because it’s in the bible. That’s hateful from the bible. That’s an excuse to be hateful from the bible. Not a cherry-picker? You don’t follow all of god’s commands just the ones you want to. If the bible is inerrant as you claim, you have to do everything in it or you can’t deny that you’re a cherry-picker. You also get to, from coming here and saying stuff, be disagreed with and have your hypocrisies pointed out to you. The first part of what you said is you don’t accept the gay lifestyle because you don’t really understand it and unwilling to defy what it says for you to do in the bible. The rest of everything you said is deep denial. You’re not a nice person. People can disagree with you about the bible’s legitimacy or god’s existence, now that you’ve brought it up, it’s your responsibility to prove god exists and wrote the bible. Otherwise, your opinion is founded on nothing but your own dislikes and preferences. And then make up reasons why you don’t have to follow all the laws in it, just the ones you want to, you PERSONALLY.
Just because some people a few thousand years ago had a prejudice toward homosexuals doesn’t mean you have to. You said it yourself, it was written a long time ago when things were different. Contradicting, cherry-picking, hating.
We’re very familiar with Christian “logic”.
I love your image, however, I wish it didn’t include the bit about Leviticus. Leviticus is obviously old testament, but this argument is easily latched onto by any somewhat educated Christian, since they believe that Corinthians, Romans, Timothy, and Revelations all condemn homosexuality as well, and these are found in the new testament. Corinthians essentially lists the worst sins as the sins of the flesh (the only non-sexual one being gluttony), the others seem to refer to homosexuality as some sort of curse.
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill”
Last time i checked, old testament was still in the bible.
So ? If Christianity really had wanted to avoid these kinds of arguments, it should have removed these books from its canon, as Islam did if I recall correctly. For all its faults, Islam had the good idea: you are building a new religion, that means new books. If you keep the old books, you don’t get to complain if you’re judged also by them.
Well most of you here obviously have very strong opinions. That’s good, I’m glad. We could go back an fourth here for days. My belief is that Homosexuality is wrong, and no amount of anger or disagreement from the world will change that. I stated my opinion, hoping to show people that no, Not all Christians are not close minded, homophobic bigots, you will disagree with me, yes. But until you go to to an actual church or go and meet some actual Christians then you might not really know what kind of people they really are. I do not hate gay /lesbian people. As I said, I have friends who are bisexual, and as long as we agree not to insult each others lifestyle, we remain friends. You all seem to see me as a stone throwing, judgement casting, self righteous monster. I’m not. I am a person with an opinion. If that makes me a monster, then maybe you’re the judgement casting stone thrower.
While it may be lost in all of the above chatter, I do have one question. Do you think gays and lesbians should be allowed to be married in a civil court and be guaranteed all the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples?
If you vote against marriage equality, your life will not change, but your actions negatively affect other people. If you vote for marriage equality, your life will not change, and you will actually make a lot of people happier, safer and healthier. Now WWJD?
@Katie “My belief is that Homosexuality is wrong, and no amount of anger or disagreement from the world will change that. I stated my opinion, hoping to show people that no, Not all Christians are not close minded, homophobic bigots, you will disagree with me, yes.”
Katie – Your first sentence is the very definition of being close minded.
@ stop2wonder Having a belief is not being closed-minded nor is disagreeing with you. The list above is inaccurate. In the first place it makes the assumption that Jesus didn’t discuss homosexuality, but we do not know all that he said — only what the New Testament writers said he said. In Jesus’ time homosexual sex may not have been an issue in the Jewish culture. Jesus did say to love sinners, thankfully, because we all are sinners in one way or another. Jesus did not advocate sin, however. Marriage is a civil ceremony in many countries for a variety of reasons, but the joining of a man and a woman in holy matrimony came first Biblically. Sex outside of that context is condemned in the Bible. The church has no reason to submit to the ways of the world just to be politically “correct”.
The church doesn’t have to. The rest of us do not care what the church has to say about how we like to live because it’s nonsense.
If you hold an opinion that won’t change no matter what, you are close-minded. If you think that homosexuality is wrong, no matter what, you are homophobic. If you (and I realise you haven’t actually said this) actively vote against the civil rights of a group, actively or passively condone violence or discriminate against them, you are a bigot. There is no way of getting around it – if you do those things, that is what you are. Free speech has never included the right to have no disagreement with your stated opinion.
“My belief is that Homosexuality is wrong, and no amount of anger or disagreement from the world will change that.”
“I stated my opinion, hoping to show people that no, Not all Christians are not close minded, homophobic bigots, you will disagree with me, yes.”
Statement one proves that statement two is a lie. You’re a liar Katie. You are homophobic bigot. You base that bigotry on an ancient book, which you claim is holy, but you are a bigot nonetheless.
You should at least be honest and own your bigotry. I don’t think your Jesus friend was all that fond of lying.
So now you attack my religion? That’s cool, but I kinda think that’s being hateful. You obviously don’t accept my viewpoints, and according to you that’s not “Nice ” This is simple, really. I have an opinion. You don’t agree with it, and now suddenly I am hateful.I understand that. However, how can you sit there and call my religion ” imaginary ” How in the world do you justify attacking one’s personal beliefs, yet defending another’s? Its a double standard. And I’m not forcing any one to comply with my religion. I’m asking you to understand the reason that we beleieve homosexuality is wrong. Not accept, just understand.
You have a hateful opinion. That is why we say it is hateful. Put your persecution complex away, it won’t work here. Your religion isn’t a personal belief. it’s a widespread belief that is ACTIVELY HURTING PEOPLE.
Honestly, i have an easier time ACCEPTING that you are bigoted and hateful than ever being able to understand it.
@TrickQuestion That is because you have a closed mind and do not find name-calling hurtful.
I have quite an open mind, thank you. I just don’t allow it to be filled with any old thing people want to put into it. Open mind isn’t like an empty glass. I get to decide what goes into it.
You got it from the bible. You said that already, you believe the bible tells you everything you need to know and you don’t have to think for yourself and that makes it ok to oppress people and keep them from having rights. I didn’t take your rights away, KATIE. I said you are welcome to have them. I just said as long as you continue to obstruct people from having the same rights, especially when it comes from the bible, which has no credibility of fact that it’s the word of god, you cannot say that you don’t hate those people. Nobody doesn’t understand where your opinion comes from. It’s not even your opinion. You have brought no news to this discussion. We’re aware that hateful people beat everyone over the head with their bibles as if we’re all supposed to obey YOUR bible. It’s nobody else’s bible, it’s nobody else’s law. If you want to follow it, fine, but don’t drag the rest of us into your warped world defined exactly how you selectively define it from a book that god didn’t write. You can believe it, but that doesn’t mean it’s true.
When your opinion is to choke the rights from other people, then fuck off. Really! Because you hate. You’re all persecuted because I argue with you, boo hoo KATIE. Do you not expect a reaction when you’re so smug about where you get your opinions and why you think they’re not hateful? Oh, sure KATIE go ahead and flip all the switches to Christian so we can’t disagree with you and we all have to do what it says in your bible even when we don’t believe it and it’s inhumane.
And hateful. No, we don’t stand for that.
Since your magic book is slightly less historically accurate, and significantly less well written, then Harry Potter, the term imaginary is defiantly appropriate.
Don’t feel special, we attack all religions, and we have no use for the concept of “sin.” We don’t need any books or gurus to tell us what is helpful or harmful to humans; we can deduce that through observation.
I see that this is no longer a place of free speech. It has become a place of ” you can say whatever You want but if I doesn’t Comply with my beliefs then I will insult you, tell you you’re wrong, call you a bigot and attack your character.” Its sad really. But as I said, homosexuality Will always be wrong. I dont care what you think of me, because I don’t need your approval. I just need you to realize that a good Christian will never accept homosexuality, just as any of you can never accept Christianity. Its a matter of what you truly believe in, and if you people cant understand the double standard you are taking on here, then you will never understand my opinion or the opinions of others that oppose you.
You had all the free speech you want. What you don’t have is the right not to be disagreed with. AND FYI – Free speech is not covered in private forums, that only keeps the government from limiting your speech, not a moderator on a blog, KATIE.
Good christians are accepting of people, loving people (i think that’s supposed to be the main thing, right?) so no, you’re not a good christian.
And, one more thing. if, in your mind, being a good christian means you’re a bad person, then why the hell would you ever want that?
You’re a fucking mental defective. Your free speech does not preclude me using my free speech to point out that you’re a hateful, bigoted little twunt. I could give a good fuck about your dodgy justifications from your grubby little book of mythology. You’re still a hateful, bigoted little twunt, and a mental defective besides.
That’s a very strong way to put it and will likely not lead to any kind of discourse or progress, but I understand your frustration. Katie does actually seem to be mentally defective – she’s completely ignoring the position she puts herself in and the mirror held up to her. I mean completely. It’s like she is having a totally different conversation from the rest of those posting here. All she can do is take offence and harp on about her faith being insulted and her words being twisted and how she’s really just a nice person who happens to “not agree with” homosexuality. The concept that behaving in the manner she does could ever be construed as not nice, that interfering in the lives of anybody but Christians could be considered bigotry, does not register with her. But she’s not an idiot – she’s capable of writing, capable of turning on a computer and searching the Internet. That a relatively functioning mind can be so warped by this particular article of faith (gays are bad, m’kay) is frightening.
Katie, if you’re reading this, please go and look up these terms in a dictionary: ‘bigot’, ‘hate’, ‘discrimination’ and ‘free speech’. Then come back and tell me, honestly, are you willing to accept the position your god has put you in by demanding that you stand in the way of homosexuals living their lives?
I see that this is no longer a place of free speech. It has become a place of ” you can say whatever You want but if I doesn’t Comply with my beliefs then I will insult you, tell you you’re wrong, call you a bigot and attack your character.”
Your scare quote is pretty much the definition of free speech. Here’s a hint – free speech runs both ways.
And when someone has a shitty character, attacking it is a perfectly legitimate response.
Hey Katie, tell me what does your holy book of hate say about the Reply button?
Poor little reply button….
She doesn’t hate the reply button, she just believe that if you act upon your desire to use it you’re a depraved sinner and deserve to burn in hell forever.
It is a shame that so many of you who seem to be anti-Christian and pro- gay rights people are so self-righteous, mean-spirited and foul-mouthed. Talk about bigoted!
I’m not anti-christian. I am anti-hatred. I am anti-bigotry. I am anti-forcing your beliefs on other people. i am anti- denying other people their rights based on my personal beliefs. I am anti- not wanting people to do something that harms nobody and makes those people happy. I am anti- pretending you are being “faithful” while simply hiding behind faith to be a bigot. I am anti-cowardice. I am against people who won’t follow their own faith trying to force certain parts they like on me.
Last time i checked, wanting equality is the antithesis of bigotry.
Christians have full domination of their own realm of belief. I don’t try to change that. I don’t vote to outlaw it. But I’m against anyone stepping over the line into other people’s business expecting us all to care what god says about this or that. You would fight back if Muslims were telling you how to dress. You would ridicule! Hindus telling you not to eat a fucking steak. Do not be such a hypocrite. Your beliefs apply inside your own club, and I’m sad about the children who have to be trained to grow up to be such assholes (or have the torn emotions of having to escape from the abuse of it), but for right now, you don’t get to say what everyone else has to do, according to your bible or your god. Until you bring proof and a very clear demonstration of where hell is and not just how you get there, then your opinions are your own problem and nobody else’s. .
Not sure if Poe or complete fucktard…
Yet again somebody needs to become more familiar with another big, thick book – the dictionary. You simply do not know what the terms self-righteous, mean-spirited or bigoted actually mean. You simply think that anybody who decries you and your faith for its terrible teachings fits any conceivable negative label you can come up with. That’s childish. And spare me your pearl clutching over people being foul-mouthed: you’re the one claiming moral authority comes from a book that orders you to go around murdering people at the drop of a hat. I don’t give a shit if somebody swears at you – you don’t get to control how people speak and you don’t get to control who they marry. You don’t like swearing? Don’t do it. You don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get gay married. But please give it a rest with throwing a tantrum the moment somebody stands up to you and projecting your own hate and bigotry on anybody who dares to point out that you are a hateful bigot.
When you say it is a shame, what you mean is that it’s a shame people disagree with homophobic Christians, and are capable of doing so in a strong and coherent manner that can’t be countered with the magical thinking that gets the job done internally. What really is a shame, though, is that so many Christians are incapable of understanding the simple, black and white hypocrisy they practice. What is a shame is that otherwise intelligent people are incapable of seeing that they are cherry-picking passages that suit them and discarding ones that don’t in the most blatant manner. And what really is a shame is that a good proportion of Christians seem very happy to cherry-pick homophobic passages in particular.
Test where did my post go.
[pulled it out of the spam filter - vorjack]
If you want to see your post again you will deliver 3 pounds of lightly crispy unmarked Bacon….
I will meet you halfway and deliver 2 pounds of lightly crispy bite-marked bacon.
Doesn’t matter had Bacon.
Soooooo… After reading all these wall o texts…and yes, I can read… I’ve come to the conclusion that
1) anything Katie says or thinks is not what she REALLY thinks since she is a Christian and nox, trickquestion, and kodie? know what she is really thinking or feeling
2) it’s ok to be jerky and say hurtful things at Katie because she is just a stupid Christian and we know she just a closeted bigot who thinks hurtful thoughts all the time
Being a teacher, reading through this reminded me of a group of middle school punks trying trying to get the nerdy kid to fight.
Bigot – a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Hatred – prejudiced hostility or animosity
Intolerance – unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
So again, by reading these wall of texts, I can conclude that trickquestion, nox and kodie…
1) hate Katie (that is if their typed words are really what they are thinking because there is definite animosity and hostility there)
2) are intolerant of her position that she can think homosexuality is wrong and not be full of hate (didn’t see much animosity or hostility from her)
3) must be bigoted against Christians (since apparently that is what Katie represents).
Oh and by the way, teachers (and everyone else) calls that group of middle school punks bullies.
Here’s a copy of an earlier post to someone besides katie, in case you missed it.
“I’m not anti-christian. I am anti-hatred. I am anti-bigotry. I am anti-forcing your beliefs on other people. i am anti- denying other people their rights based on my personal beliefs. I am anti- not wanting people to do something that harms nobody and makes those people happy. I am anti- pretending you are being “faithful” while simply hiding behind faith to be a bigot. I am anti-cowardice. I am against people who won’t follow their own faith trying to force certain parts they like on me.
Last time i checked, wanting equality is the antithesis of bigotry.”
Just because Katie doesn’t act like or think of herself as a hateful intolerant bigot, she uses words that say she is. She is outside her own power to tell people what to do, i.e., herself, and imposing a belief system on other people and wanting to limit their rights. She has come here with a disagreeable viewpoint and been disagreed with.
(Cue) These guys are goIng to tell me what I’m really thinking now.
It honestly has nothing to do with her being a christian. It has to do with her reasoning for justifying her hatred. She happens to be using a christian line of reasoning for why she dislikes gay people, rather than simply stating that SHE doesn’t like them, rather than just coming out and admitting that it’s her own personal feelings. A book can’t force you to feel something you don’t feel in the first place. It can provide a convenient cover for why you “must” fell that way, giving you an out and making it where you have “no choice” n the matter but to follow what it says. I will ask you, with no animosity towards you this question : How is calling someone out for false reasoning of intolerance hatred? I have to know someone pretty well before i can express hatred of them. I only know katie by what she has said and shown here. Just as you only know me from what you have seen. Disagreeing with someone and telling them so doesn’t represent bullying. She can have her opinion, and we can have ours. We have the right to express it as much as she does. SImply not agreeing with someone and telling them so does not equate to bullying. Unless, of course, you are also considering yourself a bully, for posting what you did.
Nailed it. I feel ‘most scolded to death, don’t you?
Just another example of the itinerant drive-by self-righteous fundycrat, trying to fill his demonizing for Jeeesuusss quota.
“(Cue) These guys are goIng to tell me what I’m really thinking now.” (if you insist) “I really stuck it to these atheists, cuz i’m so smart and i sure did tell them, yessiree bob.” I may have paraphrased.
I think more of Katie’s friends and churchmembers should drop by. (Now in this I AM assuming)
TQ – Now you’re just being dishonest with yourself. The main focus of most of your posts was her Christian beliefs. Most if not all of your statements went beyond mere disagreement. You were very uncivil. You called her stupid and intellectually defective just for stating something you disagreed with. I posted the dictionary definitions of those terms and used a little logic to reach a conclusion. If you don’t thInk my conclusion is accurate, please explain how it is not.
You said, “I have to know someone pretty well before I can express hatred for them.” You apparently don’t have to know Katie very well. You’ve exchanged a couple of messages on a forum. That must mean you can know the innermost workings of her heart and soul.
Also, I never even thought the word atheist until you just said it. I just thought you were being jerks and I called you out on it. I’ll go back to my original point that what you said and the way you said it went way beyond merely disagreeing. Disagreement is not hatred… By definition hatred requires animosity and hostility and I think anyone who reads this thread with an open mind would agree that you three demonstrated much more animosity and hostility toward her than she did toward you.
I think its interesting that you think I’m bullying you now when you just said disagreeing with someone does not constitute bullying.
Theory of I – Where did I mention religion anywhere in my post other than Katie’s Christianity? I saw people acting like jerks and called them out on it.
Kodie – trickquestion just stated that disagreeing with someone doesn’t mean you hate them, and yet you still are pushing the position that Katie hates gay people because she disagrees that homosexual behavior is right. I will say again that what I saw in the previous posts went way beyond disagreement. You were openly hostile toward her. You called her names and berated her intelligence. Theory of I just called me a “self righteous, demonizing fundycrat” because I spoke my opinion about you guys being jerks.
To all – Here’s a quote for you to chew on for awhile…
“Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.” ― Rick Warren
I don’t believe i ever called her intellectually deficient or stupid. You may be confusing me with another poster. If anything, i accused her of being disingenuous. I used her christian views because that’s what she came in here with. That was her argument and i used the same source to refute it. Bring in someone of another faith and i will use their faith as well. She framed the argument in terms of christianity, not I.
Please show me where i ever told katie that i hated her. I never did, nor do I. the only thing i truly hate is dishonesty with one’s self. My posts were meant to explain that you can’t use an outside source to justify internal feelings, especially if you’re using those to directly hurt other people. When someone uses, essentially peer pressure to make you believe something, that is bullying. Kids do it all the time. “do this or i won’t be your friend. Do this or i won’t like you” Kids often do things they say they don’t want to because they are coerced into doing so, much like the arguments i am putting forth back to katie. If they truly didn’t want to do something, they wouldn’t do it.
Also. i never said you were bullying, did I? I notice that you didn’t answer the question i put forth to you in my first reply either, so i shall reiterate: “How is calling someone out for false reasoning of intolerance hatred?”
I believe it was Custador who called Katie ‘mentally defective’, and I agreed, though I actually based it on the profound, obnoxious lack of understanding she continued to demonstrate as she tried to ignore the cognitive dissonance that must have been tearing her mind apart.
Anyway, the Rick Warren quote demonstrates that nothing is getting through to Katie or the drive-by posters she has sent over here to assist her. It once more completely misses the point. Someone, anyone, please actually answer me this – in what way is it compassionate and loving to stop people expressing their love for one another? In what way is it compassionate and loving to interfere in the lives of people who are doing you no harm and who don’t believe in your particular brand of faith, all because a deity said in a book that they should be executed for being who they are? How is it compassionate and loving to worship a being that has prepared a place of eternal torment for people who break arbitrary rules like putting their penis in the wrong place or eating the wrong kind of food?
And for the last freaking time, why are you so determined to interfere in the lives of homosexuals and not people who eat cheese burgers or shrimp?
TQ – You said: “Please show me where i ever told katie that i hated her. I never did, nor do I.” Suppose Katie had said to you, “Please show me where I ever told a homosexual I hate them.” What would your response be? She actually did the opposite, but that was rejected out of hand as an impossible position since she stated that she thought homosexual behavior was wrong.
If I stated, “I think murder is wrong.” , does that mean that I hate all murderers? Suppose a person had murdered my mother. My father found out who did it and then murdered that person. From your line of thinking, I would have no choice BUT to hate my father.
I have never expressed that i have animosity for katie as a person, just her opinion that she is unable to accept homosexuals. I would simply pull the quotes from her posts that states her opinion.
You stated that murder is wrong, and so yes, under your blanket statement you would indeed.
I think you’re missing what i am saying. I’m not saying that expressing “i think it is wrong” is incorrect, i am saying that “I am saying it’s wrong just because the bible tells me it’s wrong” is wrong. I would be more than happy if katie or anyone else would simply say “i don’t like them because i don’t like them” instead of saying “i don’t like them because i’m told i shouldn’t”
I also need to ask you where you found justification for all your internal feelings? But you can’t use another person’s experience because that’s an outside source, you can’t use books or literature or writings of any kind because that’s an outside source. I guess I shouldn’t technically let you use your own experiences because they involved outside sources as well.
You’re absolutely right, i can’t use other people’s experiences or literature to justify my own feelings. they’re a reaction to stimuli , be it intellectual stimuli, emotional stimuli or just ecosystem stimuli. i choose how i am going to react to that stimuli based on how it makes me feel. That reaction is what forms the basis of my feelings. How i choose to act upon those, however, is purely up to me. Can someone tell me how i am supposed to react to something? Sure they can, but that doesn’t mean i have to react that way. It’s ultimately my own choice how to react.
Katie’s assertion that she doesn’t hate homosexuals was rejected out of hand because every single thing she wrote that didn’t directly state “I do not hate homosexuals”, indirectly stated “I hate homosexuals”. I’d call her a liar, but in fairness I suspect she’s bought in to that weird Christian mindset (i.e. self-deception) that you can behave with absolute and complete animosity towards a given demographic, and yet still love them. It’s laughable bull-crap at best. And the thing is, you see, we have all encountered that mind-set many, many times. People who have it are completely predictable, and, yes, they are intellectually and emotionally stunted. Or “mentally defective”, as I think I described it in an earlier post.
Incidentally, your paradigm is retarded. Murder is something harmful a person does to another person, it’s rarely inherent to who they are. Homosexuality is something loving (or at least mutually enjoyable) a person does with another person, and it is absolutely an inherent part of their character.
Out of interest, are you just playing Devil’s Advocate, or are you also mentally fucking defective?
So now we are back to the name calling and berating of intelligence argument?
So… You’re not playing Devil’s Advocate, then? And, no. We’re not. If you’d bother to read the whole post and not just reply to the sentence that contains a swear-word, you’ll note that I did, in fact, advance a cogent and pointed argument. One which you apparently can’t respond to, instead choosing to draw attention to the question I asked at the end. Sadly for you, I am un-phased by such amateurish tactics.
Pedophilia could also be loving and mutually enjoyable for two people and would be an inherent part of their character.
I wondered when this would crop up. And I’m going to preface this by pointing out that if you aren’t playing Devil’s Advocate, then you really are mentally fucking defective.
It is not inherent in the nature of any human being below the age of sexual maturity, to have sex. It is not inherent in the nature of a child to enjoy being raped. You fucking idiot. I can promise you with 100% certainty that it is not enjoyable for a child to be abused, and neither are the years of mental anguish that a person goes through after being abused in any way enjoyable, and if you were ever stupid enough to extend that argument to my face, I can assure you that my initial anger response would be highly unpleasant for you too. You clueless piece of shit. If you ever imply that paedophilia might be an enjoyable experience for a child on this board again, I will not only ban you in a heart-beat, I will forward your comments together with your IP address to your local law enforcement agency, and you can explain to them why you think kiddy-fiddling is a mutually enjoyable act.
Don’t even try to justify that comment. Don’t you even fucking dare.
pedophilia is an abusive behavior that harms a child. It’s in no way the same thing as an adult consenting relationship. The key word is consent.
Pedophilia is ABSOLUTELY a disgusting and abusive behavior that harms more that just the child. I WAS playing Devil’s Advocate to point out that IF there was a consenting relationship between a man and a boy, would it be hateful to tell them that their relationship is wrong?
Now what did I just say? Oh yes: “Don’t even try to justify that comment. Don’t you even fucking dare”. You’re on thin ice.
I could give you a long and involved essay about informed consent, juvenile mental development, and Gillick competence, but frankly you’ve already shown yourself unable to grasp such difficult concepts, so I’ll summarise: A boy under the age of sexual maturity by definition cannot give consent to sex because sex is a concept he is unable to understand, therefore your paradigm is once again a shitty one because it deals with a “What If?” scenario that cannot happen, as well as comparing a mutually consenting act of love/pleasure with (what you have just conceded is) a harmful act of rape.
And incidentally can we just clear something up here:
“Homosexual behaviour” is not limited to actual sex, in the same way that “heterosexual behaviour” implies more than just men and women having intercourse.
When a man is romantically or sexually attracted to another man, or when a woman is romantically or sexually attracted to another woman, even if they don’t do anything about it, it’s still homosexual behaviour. We’ve allowed this stupid distinction to remain unchallenged for far too long – It feeds into the ridiculous homophobic myth that homosexuality is in any way a choice. It isn’t. If you’re gay, you’re gay. You don’t choose it. You just are it. And, my friend, if you can sit their and tell me with a straight face that you chose to be heterosexual, then brother you are either gay or bisexual, and that’s a fact.
Sorry, I was answering another post and making a point that name calling is not an argument technique.
Well, to be fair it’s valid to attack the character of a person if the character flaw you’re highlighting has a bearing on the argument they’re extending. I’ll tell you what is a crappy arguing technique, though: Pretending that you haven’t noticed the arguments that you can’t counter and focusing on a petty, irrelevant detail instead.
You’re too easily distracted from the point.
Let me say that I owe you an apology about the animosity statement from a few days ago. I did get you confused with another poster… I also need to say that it is nice to be able to have a calm, stimulating conversation with someone here.
With that said, “How is calling someone out for false reasoning of intolerance hatred?” I would say that action in and of itself is not hatred (but I also think the word hatred is WAY overused in society today). But I also think in this specific situation, the question would have to be asked, “Is Katie intolerant?” Most of the discussion here seems to take that as a given because of her statement that homosexual behavior is wrong despite her own words saying she is not. That was also my whole point with the Rick Warren quote.
Yep, you confused him with me. He’s the calm one, I’m the shouty one. HI!
She used the term “we cannot accept it”. that, to me, displays hatred.
Bingo. “We cannot accept it” carries the implication that it requires her (their) consent. It does not. It is, in fact, none of their business. They should, in fact, keep their small-minded, interfering, petty, bitchy little noses out of it.
But you guys have stated several times that you ‘cannot accept’ that a Christian doesn’t hate gay people. Which would imply that hatred of Christians statement I stated earlier is actually correct using your own words, but you have told me a couple of times that you don’t hate Christians. I’m starting to get confused…
One of my usual circle of friends is a gay christian. Also a fundamentalist christian,. an agnostic, me, and a pagan. I dislike behaviors. I dislike individuals. There are a few i hate, but that’s reserved for a select few, none of whom are here in this forum.
Oh do keep up! We have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER ACCEPTING CHRISTIANS. Did you get that? Good. Now let’s extend the argument a little. WE DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ACCEPTING THAT HOMOPHOBES (CHRISTIAN OR OTHERWISE) HAVE ANY RIGHT TO INTERFERE IN OTHER PEOPLE’S LIVES AND BUSINESS. Did you get it that time? This is not complex, dude, really. We don’t accept that Katie doesn’t hate homosexuals BECAUSE SHE BEHAVES WITH HATRED TOWARDS HOMOSEXUALS. Actions, words, louder than. I’m sure you know the axiom.
How has Katie behaved with hatred towards homosexuals?
Lol, really?! You want me to spell this out? Alright then.
We’ll start the translation software running with this gem:
“Homosexuals are people and I am called to love them. Is it easy? No. But I do it anyway.”
Did your bullshit detector dial hit eleven yet? No? Then we’ll continue.
The same person who wrote that, also wrote this: “You all seem to see me as a stone throwing, judgement casting, self righteous monster. I’m not.” And this: “homosexuality Will always be wrong”. Do those two statements seem at all mutually exclusive to you? No? Then let’s move on.
Katie also wrote this: “I’m not forcing any one to comply with my religion” and this:“a good Christian will never accept homosexuality”. Now, if you can’t see how incompatible those two statements are from a person who professes to be a good Christian, then you’re just being deliberately obtuse, the debate equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “NUH UH! I’M NOT LISTENING!”
Incidentally, I’m still waiting for you to respond to earlier points. You’ll note that’s what I’m doing with your posts – deconstructing your arguments one by one. You’re choosing to ignore quite a lot of mine. Which is revealing. Why don’t you think about that?
By my tally, she stated that she thought homosexual BEHAVIOR is wrong. That’s it. Made a statement.
She said that christians do not support and can not accept homosexuals. “I just need you to realize that a good Christian will never accept homosexuality, just as any of you can never accept Christianity.” That isn’t the behavior. It’s its existence.
Learn to read because it’s been explained thoroughly.
Let’s stop beating around the bush… What’s the difference between TOLERANCE and ACCEPTANCE?
I’m tolerating your fucking shitty attitude (for now).
“Tolerating” something implies that it’s something that has a direct effect on you personally, and you put up with it in spite of the negative effect on you. “Accepting” simply means acknowledging that something exists or is a certain way.
I don’t have to “tolerate” homosexuality. It has no negative effect on me. In fact, even homophobic, closeted homosexuals don’t have to tolerate homosexuality – It’s not their homosexuality that harms them, it’s their homophobia.
I accept homosexuality as a simple fact of human existence. Because that’s exactly what it is.
Tolerance implies permission. Acceptance implies community.
So how would you describe a person who practices tolerance vs. a person who practices acceptance?
This was just explained to you, in some detail, by me. I’m beginning to suspect that you’re trolling. The fact that your email address contains the name “Poe” does not help this impression.
One is reluctant, one isn’t.
I admire your patience, TQ. I’m done feeding this particular troll, though. I haven’t seen him answer a single point yet. Later, y’all.
It’s already been answered.
I guess I’ll leave then. I’ve enjoyed talking with you guys (especially you TQ) even if y’all didn’t enjoy talking with me. Please think about that Rick Warren quote. Here it is again. I think there is a lot of truth there for both Christians and non-Christians.
Jeeves- “How has Katie behaved with hatred towards homosexuals?”
She has her biblical blinders on so tightly that the human rights of others (real people) are totally lost from her pathetically narrow field of view. If she votes, she will undoubtedly vote for politicians who state publicly that they intend to strip the LGBT community of as many rights as they possibly can.
She is, as she has shown here, agitating in support of the anti-gay faction — the Christian Dominionists, more precisely — who use the thousands of years old contrived exhortations of an imaginary invisible spook to deny real people of their equality and pursuit of happiness.
These scripturally sightless fanatics share the same mentality and employ the same tactics as those who, in previous times, had the authority to kill anyone who would not strictly conform to their beliefs…and did so with zeal. She conveniently ignores that part of her Christian heritage as do virtually all Christians today. Et tu, Brute?
@Jeeves – there’s no point in you staying anyway if you’re going to refuse to read answers to your question or acknowledge what has been spelled out for you and Katie numerous times. You like to pretend it was never addressed and go away because you can’t get the answer you wanted. You want us to say, “good insight, Jeeves! Thanks for the Rick Warren quote, it changes everything and makes it ok for Christians to intrude on other people’s rights and not ok for us to mind.” Well, you’re dense, and fuck off now.
Someday Jeeves I hope you realize that you are failing to live up to your Rick Warren quote, and we are already fulfilling it.
I don’t fear and hate your lifestyle’s desire to meddle and interfere in the lives of other people, I pity it.
A, JEEVES, I called her KATIE, which is her name. B, the difference between Katie’s hate and what you perceive is ours is when KATIE hates, she wants to limit other people’s freedom. Christians are meddling in other people’s lives, while the rest of us are meddling in Christians IN our lives. Christians can be not gay if they think it’s a sin but they should realize that their power only extends to the limits of their own lives and their own faith. It does not extend into other people’s lives. And WE HATE that Christians are into other people’s lives and telling them how to live, to please their own god. GTFO. Marriage is a civil matter that churches are given the power to officiate but the legal rights of being married come from the government, not any religion.
How many times do I have to explain that to you people????? Christians stay on your own side of the line! It’s not hate to say mind your own business. Gay people, by contrast, are not enforcing you Christians to be gay. You just don’t like the sight of them! You just can’t stand sharing your community or basic human rights that they deserve as much as you do.
By the way, if you still can’t understand my post after I have posted the exact same concept for now the 3rd or 4th time, there is nothing wrong with me saying you’re playing stupid or actually stupid. Nobody is attacking Christians on Christian territory, unless you believe the whole world is or will be made by force to conform to the Christian ideal, which Christians can’t all agree on by the way. Then I will tell you what I said to Barbara Bankes – prove god exists. Faith doesn’t impress me as facts do. Prove god exists before you go supposing everyone has to conform to whatever it says in that book. What you don’t understand that you have is called “privilege” and maybe not used to being resisted from shoving and presuming your way along into everyone else’s matters. You would not like if I told you to stop being a Christian. I am just telling you that doesn’t mean I have to be and nobody has to follow your warped rules. Just like you don’t have to be gay. You don’t have to pray to Allah. You don’t have to deprive yourself from eating pork, shellfish, or beef. You can use electricity and cars on Saturdays. You can have a tattoo, but you don’t have to get a tattoo! You can get your hair cut, and you don’t have to wear a turban, hajib, yarmulke, or dreadlocks. Some other religion isn’t crowding into how you believe things should be done and making you do them THEIR way. Christians’ fixation on the sex life of others, the proclamation that sex is a sacred union between a husband and wife, is total made-up bullshit, and you can live within those parameters BY CHOICE. But you cannot force everyone to live like you do and think like you do and make the same choices as you do. Prove god exists. Prove your god exists and that’s why Christians aren’t just neurotic busybodies.
“…I never even thought the word atheist until you just said it.”
Interesting. You come to a blog called UN-reasoable Faith in the atheist channel of a site that focuses on religion, and read numerous comments critical of Christianity and the Bible and then make that remark with a straight face. You call the posters punks, jerks, school yard bullies, hostile, bigoted, intolerant and hateful, all of which are your personal projections, add nothing of any substance to the discussion, and you think you will be given credibility?
“Where did I mention religion anywhere…” Oh dunno, it must have been that duck I heard quacking as I read your diatribe. You’re welcome to clarify.
You’re defending Katie as she demonstrates nothing but the faithful regurgitation of her inculcated and misguided beliefs. She has that right UNTIL by action or acclimation her stance interferes with the rights of others. She, like you, expected the members here to ignore the harm she can and does cause by proclaiming her anti-gay bigotry. She doesn’t earn the compassion she demands. And by association, you don’t earn any credibility.
What I read Katie say was that she wanted to explain the reason that she’s a bigot. I’m not a bigot, she says, I’ve got a very good reason, and that reason is because it says so in the bible. She says this as if we had no idea, or that… oh, that’s ok, it came from the bible, then it’s not hate.
The rest of us have this faculty called “reason”. There is no proof that there is a god, there is no reason to pretend that there is, just because a lot of other people believe it’s true. Not Katie or any other people who post here. It was pointed out that she hides behind scripture and she blatantly denied hiding behind it. It was her whole reason for posting here, that she believes something because it’s in a bible. She has not formed her own opinion, and that’s all there is to it, as if we’re supposed to give it a pass, say “it’s ok, then, since it’s in the bible, for you and people like you to restrict other people’s rights.” It’s not ok. There’s a difference between restricting someone’s rights and withholding someone from restricting your own rights. It’s not bigotry against Christians at all. If a bigoted Christian can’t see outside their own bubble to see how what they do and how they oppress others amounts to hate, it’s still bigotry.
If a man comes up to you on the street and walks beside you and babbles insanity, do you have to agree with him? That’s what Christians do – they enter personal space and babble insanity (try reading a myth from some other religion and sincerely try hard to believe it – ridiculous) and then expect agreement or courtesy or something. If that man told you you couldn’t go in this store and this store or the post office and physically impeded your way, wouldn’t that bother you? He says you can’t be trusted because you’re wearing a watch on the right hand instead of the left. He’s personally decided you can’t go in this store or that store or the bank or to get coffee. And you can’t get rid of him. He’s hounding you at every turn. He doesn’t think you deserve the same rights and freedoms as anyone else.
Is it hateful or bigoted to tell him to leave you alone? To leave you the fucking hell ALONE? To call the cops and have him taken away from you, if necessary, so you can get on with your errands? Why should anyone care what hand you wear your watch on, GEEZ! None of his fucking business why you want to wear a watch on the right hand instead of the left. You’ve always done it that way and it just feels weird to wear it on the other hand, and WHY SHOULD IT MATTER TO ANYONE IF YOU LIKE IT THAT WAY? Just because you have two hands doesn’t mean you are doing it wrong, even if setting your watch means you have to contort yourself because the stem is on the right side of the face.
Using your capacity of reason, you know it doesn’t matter. But it’s in his bible, the one you have no faith in, that makes up arbitrary shit for people to police each other and you don’t believe in or agree with any of it. But it’s in his bible! He has to harass you because that’s what his bible tells him to do! You are the one in denial because god was very clear about that. He also said you couldn’t chew gum, but only the orthodox gum-eschewers follow that one. He also said you couldn’t wear earrings if they don’t match your necklace, and really old ladies follow that one but not a lot of the younger ones do, and then only if they feel like it. However, he was clear about wearing a watch only on the left hand, and no telling time by looking at your shadow or asking a stranger what time it is. Anyway, just because it’s in that guy’s bible, does that mean he has a good reason to order you around? And even if he uses nice peaceful language to explain himself or impel you to put your watch on the other hand, and you just want to buy some gum at the drugstore, but he won’t let you, does it matter if he expresses himself differently than someone who hollers and carries signs at funerals of people who wore their watch on the right hand, that you’re going to hell, and that god hates people who wear their watch on the right hand? Do you feel like you could reason with this man? Don’t his actions demonstrate that he hates your kind, even if he doesn’t use those words?
When this man started to bother you, you tried to tolerate him, but when he took over your personal space, it starts to be irritating. And what the fuck is he even going on about? Superstitious bunk you can readily dismiss. You’re not angry at his god, you simply don’t believe any of what he’s claiming is true. Not for you, not even for him. But you can also say, let him wear his own watch on whatever hand he thinks god prefers, and you don’t give a flying crap, or bless his heart, or whatever you pleasant bigots say.
If your convictions are founded on poor reasoning, your sense of compassion is false. How you intend to be compassionate is not received as compassionate. For ONE, you have not proven your god exists, and the convictions you draw only from your belief are worthless reasons to someone else, whom your intended “compassion” affects. You have demonstrated no concept for empathy, so this compassion is just an empty thing you say. You have demonstrated no concept for reason, so this conviction you have is just planted there with no examination.
(That is an example of reading, comprehending, acknowledging, and addressing someone’s post).
Here is my favorite part though: I haven’t seen you have an original thought yet. You like that Rick Warren quote so much you posted it twice. You defended Katie because you can’t see anything possibly wrong or badly reasoned with anything she said. And you’ve asked the same question, getting a variety of cogent responses each time until we have run out of patience, without reading, comprehending, acknowledging or addressing anything but the “tone”.
What do you think the difference is between “tone” and “controlling the rights of someone else”? Can you see no difference between controlling what another person does and how they speak to you when you try to do that?
Just a quick reply to one thing here. I’ll try to have some response to everyone sometime later today. I just got back from a birthday party for my buddy’s twin sons that just turned a year old. Just wanted to point out to Theory of I that I got directed to this page from a discussion on Huffpost and just started reading the article/list and comments so yeah, I made that comment with a straight face.
I don’t see any trackbacks here from Huffington Post. You could always actually provide that link to the discussion where this place was brought up. And then you could explain why clicking a link over there makes any difference to the point Theory of I made: you’re at a blog called unreasonable faith, in the atheist part of this site, fully of atheists talking about the church’s blatant hypocrisy with regards to homosexuality. You never even thought the word atheist until somebody specifically said it do you? Well at best that just shows you’re not remotely paying attention. And if you’re not telling the truth, you wouldn’t be the first person to turn up and lie endlessly for Jesus.
Still, please, I’d love to actually get an answer to a couple of things:
1) Why can not a single one of you figure out how to use the reply button?
2) Why can not a single one of you muster up the same energy you have for combating homosexuality to stand against, say, eating shrimp, or having sex with menstruating women, or having a cheeseburger, or wearing clothes woven from two different fibers, or even things that actually cause material harm to people like being a greedy, self-centred banker who wrecks hundreds of lives in order to make a forty million dollar bonus instead of a thirty two million dollar bonus, or being a nosy busybody trying to enforce one’s particular interpretation of a particular faith on millions of people who don’t believe it, thus forcing them to be miserable and alone because it’s icky to one’s god that they might put their genitals in the wrong place?
Sorry I don’t remember the article name, it was a link provided another poster. Also, I do a lot of this type of posting and stuff from my phone which doesn’t have all the website information… just the article and the comments with no reply button, just a publish button.
And now I’ve gotten to a computer and will try to use the reply button.
So glad you’re here to tell us what we’re thinking. While complaining that we’re telling someone what they think. Wait what?
You must have missed nox’s tangent on how this isn’t about what you’re thinking, but what you’re doing. And the part about how we’re not trying to take away her right to her beliefs, we’re just telling her not to impose them on others. And the part where instead of attacking her incredibly attackable beliefs, I went out of my way to make my point accessable within her current belief system.
Maybe you also missed the part in Katie’s first post about “nor can we accept it”. If she had left it at “forbidden in the Bible and thus we don’t practice it”, the response she received wouldn’t have been necessary. She wasn’t a closeted bigot. She was openly a bigot, who was taken at her word and got offended at being seen as a bigot.
Katie came here to be enabled. She came here to be told that the form of bigotry she engages in isn’t that bad. And we refused to enable her. She chose to come here and post things which demanded a response, and we didn’t give her the response she hoped for. As someone who has been on the receiving end of christian love, your attempt to equate what happened here with bullying is laughable.
Failing to pat someone on the back for thinking of themself as a good person is not bullying. Pointing out how someone’s actions are affecting others is not bullying. Pointing out hypocrisy is not bullying. Pointing out bullying is not bullying. This does not change if the person being called on their bullying cries about being called on their bullying. Refusing to enable someone persecuting someone else, is not persecution.
I realize that being spoken to harshly by three people can feel like being ganged up on. I’m not entirely comfortable with the gang dynamic. It doesn’t give me any joy to know that making my point required making a 14 year old girl cry. But there are larger issues at play here. If someone can only feel okay by living in a world where everyone is forced to bow to their whims, their feelings are an acceptable sacrifice.
And anything short of “wow Katie, you’re so awesome, you’re not like those other christians” was going to hurt her feelings. She came here to be told that she wasn’t part of the problem, and it would have been dishonest to tell her that. Congratulations on not protesting funerals. Truly you are not quite as obnoxious about your bigotry as the most obnoxious bigots. You don’t personally throw rocks at people, you just support denying them equality. You want a f*cking cookie or something?
I’m not going to help someone avoid taking responsibility for their actions. I’m not going to help someone feel like a good person while hurting their fellow humans. If I helped her separate thinking of herself as a good person from making any effort to actually be a decent person, I wouldn’t be helping her or the people who have to live with her.
If I were trying to pick on christians, I could have easily used Katie as just one more in a long series of examples to demonstrate how christianity tricks impressionable well meaning people into mindlessly oppressing their neighbor. If I wanted to attack her character or attack her beliefs, she left me no shortage of things worth attacking.
But I didn’t attack her. I tried to give her an out. I saw that she was torn between what she knew was right and what her church had told her was right. And I tried to give her a way to justify being a decent person while still feeling like a “good person”. She could keep her Jesus, without having to be a participant in the evils of christianity. And all she had to do is realize faith is a personal matter, practice her own faith as a personal matter, and not try to force it upon others.
A person who accepts the red letters as axiomatic does have an excuse to be a decent person while still calling themself a good christian. If being a decent person is what they actually want to do. It’s right there in the principle Katie expressed with the first line of her first post. Judge not. A fairly simple concept. If something seems like a sin to you personally, don’t personally do it. And if someone else is doing something you personally think is a sin, shut the f*ck up and let them sin. That’s not an attack on christian beliefs. That’s a paraphrased Jesus quote. This turned out to be one of those rare times when the bible does have the right answer.
I assure you I have no interest in extolling the virtues of the bible. It’s not a good book. And “this is what Jesus would want” is not a good justification for anything. That’s a larger point that society needs to wrap its head around. But that point isn’t one Katie was ready to hear. And there was no way she was going to hear it. The more urgent thing here was to show her a way to rationalize what she needs to do within the belief system she already accepts.
What she really needs isn’t something I could fit in a comment box. The only way she will outgrow homophobia is to actually meet some gay people, and realize that they are actual people, and see for herself how her actions have hurt them. That experience is not something which can be condensed into any combination of words. So I gave her the next best thing. I asked her to imagine herself in the position of those she was condemning, and consider how she would feel in that situation.
Now I am going to tell you what Katie was thinking, or more specifically how Katie was not thinking. Katie was not thinking of the people affected by her actions as real people. She is only concerned with herself and how things affect her. So I made it personal. I asked her to imagine how this would affect her.
In an effort to help Katie, I consciously made the choice to expose her to disapproval of her beliefs. That she has spent her entire life being denied that exposure is how she fell into these ridiculous beliefs in the first place. She did not come to them through reason, and was not going to be reasoned out of them. She came to these beliefs by seeking approval, and denying her that approval was the most effective way to speak to her reasons. This is what her pastor and family taught her a good person was supposed to think. And she unquestioningly accepted that, not because she thought about it, not because they were right, but because she was completely surrounded by approval of these beliefs.
Jeeves, Katie, Rick,
The fact that these are your religious beliefs isn’t a reason that they are not bigotry. It is a reason that your religious beliefs are only a suitable choice for those who would choose bigotry.
You choose your own chains. You choose to be christian. You choose what type of christian to be. You choose to call the bible the word of god and you choose which parts to ignore. You choose to keep the commandments which go along with what you want to do.
You’re not stuck with any of this. Stop acting like it’s unavoidable. Take some god damn responsibility for yourselves. If the parts you choose to keep are the parts which condemn gay people, it is because you decided that was something you wanted to keep.
The guy that did the list is a contributor to Huffpost, and has recently done a post titled ” Real Christians Don’t Gay Bash” for them. The comments section is down currently, but it stands to reason there might have been a link to this in there.
Thanks TQ and Jeeves.
I’m sorry you feel that way Kodie. From your words and behavior during this discussion, I think you might be the most hateful and angry person I’ve ever met.
So it’s not okay for people to point out that Katie is behaving in a bigoted and hypocritical manner and/or doesn’t understand the meaning of the word bigotry by stating repeatedly that she is a nice person but “doesn’t agree with” or accept homosexuality solely on the basis of her religion, and to scold people for doing so, but it’s okay for you to call Kodie hateful?
You have not even tried to understand. You think your point is brilliant, Katie thinks she has a perfectly good explanation. Neither of you is interested in acknowledging that you can read and comprehend what’s been explained to you. Go ahead and pretend it’s our problem because you’re dishonest and/or stupid. In addition to being a hateful bigot.
Unless I’m quite mistaken, you’ve never met Kodie, any more than I’ve met you.
I know, the Internet, right?! It’s magical.
What am I, chopped liver? Still looking to know why you spend so much energy interfering in the lives of homosexuals and not in the lives of cheeseburger and shrimp eaters and people who are just plain greedy.
You want to not be seen as a bigot? Stop blatantly acting like one and whining about people who point it out to you. You’ve got to give them something that shows you’re interested in more passages in your holy book than the one that lets you judge homosexuals and the one that lets you pretend you’re not a judgmental homophobe because “Christians don’t judge”.
Also, Jeeves, above you were asking us to again look at your Rick Warren quote. Maybe you should go back and see the response it got the first time and actually try to answer some of those criticisms before trying to placate us with the platitudes of an ignorant, notoriously homophobic pastor.
One, neither you nor I met her. Two, if you really think that Kodie is “the most hateful and angry” person you ever met, either you are trying, and failing I might add, to do the old argumentation tactic known as “lying for Jesus” or you are very cloistered. If I am to consider only tone and delivery, please excuse me for that comment, Custador is worse than Kodie. For one he have been bordeline insulting (for my part I see that as a needed wakeup call, but your mileage may vary), and I didn’t see Kodie being so. Saying that someone is either stupid or playing stupid when they’re at best playing stupid, yes. Insulting, no: if the shoe fits…I say you are cloistered for other reasons: I know of easily around twenty persons who can be far more “hateful and angry” (the more I read this discussion, the more I think it’s a codeword for “disagree with me using arguments I can’t refute”) than Kodie has shown herself to be…me included. Three, even if an ad hominem weren’t a lousy argumentation tactic, Nox and JohnMWhite have raised interesting points to which you should answer before even considering you can state that Katie was unfairly criticised.
P.S. : And before you state that “JohnMWhite’s point doesn’t count, the command against shellfish is in the Old Testament, we are in a new covenant embodied by the New Testament”, I’ll refer you to one of my past comments
Well the problem is christians don’t and aren’t allowed to think for themselves, they can’t do research and investigate things and say oh wow this is wrong, it’s not allowed, they are told to do bible study etc and that things in the bible are right. Well I’m not beating my children, selling anyone into slavery or assuming any one who has a thought is sinning (“Matt 5:28″ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.) Sorry maybe that was rude but I’m getting sick to death of the “persecuted christians” persecuting everyone else, because anyone who thinks they have the rights to dictate other’s lives is doing just that. I’m sick of untrue reposts on facebook things people don’t check out because they want to believe. There is so much hate in this world, it’s really to bad. OH wait what I’m trying to say is people MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS not everyone else’s. It isn’t hurting my kids that a gay couple wants to get married let them. I hope every married couple can be as happy as can be no matter their orientation.
Interesting discussion about the nature of Kattie’s character. But I have to call bullshit on the whole, “she doesn’t hate gay people she actually loves them but disagrees with them” argument.
Here’s a thought exercise. Take everything Katie said about homosexuals, and replace the word “homosexual” with “black.” For example: “Christians do not support black people because it is forbidden in the Bible….”
I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t call this kind of statement utter bigotry. It’s no less bigotted when directed at gay people.
I could accept her argument that she loves gay people even though she disagrees with them if she supported equal rights for gays. After all, there is supposedly freedom of religion in the U.S., and if this concept is going to work, people must be free to make their own mistakes. If she values her own religious freedom she should be supporting the freedom of others to choose differently.
But somehow, based on what I’ve heard her say, I just can’t picture Katie supporting equal rights for gay people.
Ursa – I disagree. Private beliefs still form the basis of bigotry. If her position were something like: “I think gay people should have equal rights under the law, but I personally dislike them just because they are gay,” she is still a bigot. She’d be a bigot who recognizes the difference between public laws and private belief, but a bigot nonetheless.
Now that position is certainly more enlightened than “everyone should adhere to my bigotry through use of public laws,” but it’s still not a moral position. She admits to disliking a whole group of people based on a single inate characteristic.
I support her right to believe what she wants. I also support my right to call it what it is.
I don’t disagree with you when it comes to Katie in particular. However, I don’t think she was actually pretending to think along these lines: “I think gay people should have equal rights under the law, but I personally dislike them just because they are gay.” She was pretending to not agree with the lifestyle choice (yes, it’s not really a choice, but let’s say Katie genuinely thinks it is) made by homosexuals. If that were true, I think it can be possible to disagree with homosexuality without being a bigot, provided you simply stick to not practicing it yourself. I don’t approve of several religious lifestyles but wouldn’t take kindly to being called a bigot for it, because while I wouldn’t make those choices myself or encourage anybody else to do so, I’m not sticking my nose in trying to legislate against their choice.
“I think gay/black/Jewish people should have equal rights under the law, but I personally dislike them just because they are gay/black/Jewish,” is obviously a bigoted statement, because it invokes personal dislike for a group. But if it were simply “I think Muslims should have equal rights under the law, but I personally don’t agree with anything they believe or stand for,” we’re talking about something very different.
I think I’m ready to stop dissecting this. Katie left the building over a week ago. You can only carry a postmortem so far.
And here comes someone spouting more apologetic trash and purposefully missing the point.
And here is the point-by-point refutation:
1) The argument here is, I believe, that since Jesus never specifically mentioned the topic of homosexuality, and since Christianity is founded on Christ, that Christians should not regard it as essential because the “founder” didn’t. This explicitly ignores Christ’s teaching in Matthew 19 that God made human beings as male and female and that only a man and a woman can become, spiritually and physically, one flesh, and ignoring the fact that Jesus was born under the law and was a Jew as far as his humanity is concerned, which would lead us to the fact that the law of God explicitly condemns homosexuality as an “abomination” (Lev. 18:22, Lev. 19:28), and since Jesus was considered a teacher, a “rabbi,” and since Jesus fulfilled (not abolished) the law (Matt. 5:17), he held to every jot and title of the law, thus he also rejected the notion of homosexuality and of homosexuals marrying.
But even if He didn’t, all I need to say about this is that Jesus never mentioned child rape or bestiality either, should we then not consider it essential to Jesus’ teachings that children are raped? There are a variety of things that Jesus didn’t mention, but that doesn’t make them “non-essential” to his teachings, whatever “essential” means here. The point is,he didn’t have to address every single subject imaginable. Jesus’ milieu was Israel. Especially seeing how the religious leaders of the day sought to enforce the Mosaic law (and add twists of their own to it), it is hard to imagine that such practice as homosexuality would be tolerated. It wasn’t. I would challenge whoever wrote this to offer a single piece of evidence from Jewish writers that supported homosexuality or “gay marriage.” The argument really is self-refuting and goes nowhere.
But even without all that, the simple question I would ask is: if a pedophile comes and uses the same argument against you, on what basis can you disagree or deny this person the “rights” you want to claim? You cannot, if you really wish to be loving and tolerant.
2) I read this over and over and I was not able to understand what point, if any, was being made.
3) This is another one that seemed really incoherent to me. It is like those cliches that are going around that mean nothing but make those who use them appear smart. If what is meant by this is that just because wine is “old wine” (or the “fundamentalist-traditional” interpretation of Scripture) it doesn’t make it a “better” argument, but rather, truth is something you define for yourself; since the word “manna” means “what is it?” it probably refers to the relativist idea that you make up your own truth with whoever and wherever you are. I may be wrong as to what this point was trying to get across, but I would have preferred if it was worded differently.
4) You don’t need to ask for the same rights I have, you already have them: you can marry anyone from the opposite sex you want.
5) So, I can’t “bother” (whatever that means here) someone who is a homosexual or an advocate of homosexuality, but you can bother me? Aren’t you bothering me by saying that? I would conclude that it is also no longer your “personal view” when you are bothering me (am I not part of the “someone else” here as well?). Again, when a pedophile uses this same argument against you, on what basis can you say “you’re wrong”?
6) Who is your authority? On what basis do you affirm it’s a civil ceremony? Please define what is a civil ceremony. Furthermore, using the same logic from point 1, if Jesus didn’t talk about marriage as a “civil ceremony,” then it’s not essential to his teachings, then you can’t affirm that either. It seems very arrogant to me to see how this point reflects an attempt to redefine marriage based on a relativistic foundation (which is really no foundation at all). Marriage is a covenant relationship under God, not a civil ceremony. Once again, a “boy-lover” will use this same argument, and you will have no basis on which to disagree.
On this point, it is important to point out that a common counter-argument is the following: “You can’t use the pedophile example! That is not love, that is rape! Children or minors don’t rationalize as adults do about marriage or sex.” That is far from the truth and it’s very arbitrary, when convenient. A very good friend of mine worked as a police officer for many years and he can attest, both from personal experience as a law-enforcer and from documented evidence, that many of these adult-child sexual relationships are sought out by the minors: they like the attention, and they even enjoy and seek out the sexual aspect of it. Is that the case for every minor? Absolutely not. The point is that that counter-argument fails as well.
7) What if a pedophile tells you that? “Oh, you’re just worrying too much about something that’s none of your business!” I would hope that how a pedophile “stimulates the pubic nerve” would at least tickle your “moral compass.” Just a tiny bit.
8) This is clear proof that whoever wrote this does not know what he or she is talking about. One thing I would say is this: If you’re going to use the Bible to refute the Bible, please don’t even bother opening it. Why? Because you are only going to allow the connections you have made of Leviticus out of context, regardless if it makes sense or not, if it contradicts itself or not, as long as it is against the true meaning of Scripture, go for it. This is really a very dishonest claim.
Will whoever wrote this (and those who agree with this list) even bother to look into the difference between ceremonial and moral law? Will they read on in Leviticus 18-20 and realize that the very same passages that speak against homosexuality speak against adultery, stealing, murdering babies, and other things that they themselves still hold as “morally correct”? Perhaps not. If we are to throw away the whole of Leviticus, you throw away the only objective basis for morality you have for condemning adultery, stealing, murder, among other things. Christ fulfilled the law, he didn’tabolish it. There’s a difference. The moral law is still binding on every human being, and it is binding upon themperfectly, meaning, it must be obeyed perfectly, which must immediately bring to light the fact that we cannot fulfill it perfectly, but Christ has only on behalf of His sheep (John 6,10,14,17, Hebrews 10).
One of the common objections that springs from this objection is as follows: “Well, Leviticus says that getting tattoos is forbidden or that eating pork is forbidden, but I don’t see you following that!” While this entry is not meant to get into that exhaustively, it is worth mentioning that the Bible, as any other book, must be read IN CONTEXT! Who was forbidden to eat pork? The Israelites. As we see in Acts 10:15, the ceremonial law (which included the dietary laws) had found its fulfillment in Christ, and was no longer binding upon either the Jew or the Gentile. The moral law, however, is continued in the New Testament both by Jesus and His Apostles (Col. 3; 1 Cor. 6; 1 Thess. 1:5). Evidence of this is the fact that people still die. Romans 6:23 tells us that “the wages of sin is death.” Since no human being can fulfill the law of God perfectly, all have transgressed it, and all, therefore, die. The difference is that Christians have a hope, while unbelievers do not.
9) The connection being made here is that the Christian’s rejection of homosexuality and homosexual marriage is equal to racism. Racism is based on ethnicity, it is not a behavior. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a behavior. And if we are going to be consistent when using the Bible, stealing, murder, and other sinful behaviors are condemned as such, sin. What I’m saying is this: if you are going to equate racism with rejection of homosexuality, please keep in mind that you have done away with any condemnation of stealing, rape, abortion, adultery, etc. Is there such a thing as a thieving Christian, an adulterous Christian, a murderous Christian? No. Not a true Christian. Well, neither is there such a thing as a “gay Christian.” You cannot equate racism with rejection of homosexuality. That is confusing categories and it does not stand. Christians don’t despise homosexuals, they should be preaching the Gospel of repentance to them (which is actually the most loving thing you can do) so that, if God wills, they may repent of their sin and turn to Christ. The North Carolina “pastor” who said that homosexuals should be put in concentration camps is not a true Christian. It is tragic that people like him end up being the image people have of Christianity in general. Homosexuality, like rape, like adultery, like stealing, are sins that people must repent of and sins that must be condemned.
And again, when a pedophile, or someone who wants to have intercourse with an animal, or a necrophile uses the same argument against YOU to demand their “rights,” on what basis can you deny them or call it “wrong”?
A pedophile will look at you then at everyone else and say “If we do not do the right thing in our day, our grandchildren will look at us with the same embarrassment we look at racist grandparents.”
10) Let’s pretend for a moment that Jesus did, in fact, forbid judging, aren’t you judging me by saying that? How is it fair for you to judge me but not for me to judge you?
Let’s stop pretending now. Again, people who write these kinds of things don’t know what they’re talking about. They write lists and things that on the surface appear to shame and embarrass Christians, and they use the Bible without even opening it in an honest way to “refute” things they themselves haven’t given careful thought to. What did Jesus actually say about judging? Let’s look at Matthew 7.
First of all, what are the only verses people rip out of context to come up with something like this? Verses 1-5 (verse 5 half-way, by the way), and verse 12, the famous “Golden Rule.”
Verses 1-5: “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye….”
That’s it! That’s all we need to read, right? What does the other half of verse 5 say?
“….and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
So, you still need to take the speck out of your brother’s eye! And the very next verse says,
“Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.”
If you are not to give dogs what is holy, what does that make the dogs? Unholy. If you’re not to throw your pearls before pigs, what are you to throw before them? Of course, this is not a reference to actual dogs and pigs, Jesus is talking about something else. Gentiles (anyone who is not Jewish) was usually called either a “dog” or a “pig.” I believe Jesus is referring to them in this passage.
What about verse 12, the Golden Rule? “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”
Well, if you read verses 15-27 you will see Jesus calling people the following: false prophets, ravenous wolves, thornbushes, thistles, diseased trees, bad fruit, workers of lawlessness, and foolish men (the Greek word for “foolish” is the word “mōros,” from where we get the English word for “moron”).
So, if Jesus Himself calls people dogs, pigs, false prophets, ravenous wolves, thornbushes, thistles, diseased trees, bad fruit, workers of lawlessness, and morons, what does that say about the original assertion that Jesus forbade judging absolutely? Is he contradicting Himself? No. He is condemning hypocritical judgment, like the Pharisees (Matt. 23), but, as we see the chapter as a whole and the surrounding context, we see Jesus himself telling his audience to judge them by their fruits, to distinguish dogs from non-dogs, to distinguish pigs from non-pigs, to distinguish sheep from wolves, good fruit from bad fruit, healthy trees from unhealthy trees, wise men from morons. And, what’s more, He himself will judge the righteous and the wicked, separating one from the other at His coming (vv.21-23; Matt. 13,24,25).He forbids hypocritical judgment but commands people to exercise righteous judgment (John 7:24; Prov. 31:9).
I must insist: when (it’s already happening) a pedophile comes asking for his or her “rights,” and you tell them “NO! That’s morally wrong!” They will have every “right” to say to you, “When Jesus forbade judging, that included you.” If you really wanna be non-judgmental, all-loving, and tolerant, you must keep silent and let every form of depravity imaginable loose without any restraint or moral judgment: thieves, rapists, adulterers (I forgot, this one’s already “okay”), pedophiles, etc.
– Romans 1 can’t be any clearer: The depravity of man reaches such low levels as to not only degrade himself by sexual sin but by twisting the word of God and suppressing that truth in unrighteousness. Truth is a hard thing to swallow, but truth is the only sane thing that remains in this world. Furthermore, the only truth that can be called “truth” is that of the Bible: it is the sole objective standard by which all things must be measured and lived by. If you are reading this today and you are a homosexual or you promote homosexuality, I would like to leave you with a few things to keep in mind:
1) No matter how hard you try, the Bible does not condone homosexuality, it condemns it. 2) You are a sinner and you are suppressing the truth of God in unrighteousness. There is hope only in Jesus Christ. If you repent of your sins and trust in Him alone, you will be saved from your sin, including homosexuality, for which the wrath of God is coming (Col. 3). There is no other name by which you can be saved from your sin (and ultimately from God’s wrath itself) and to a living hope than in Christ (Acts 4:12).
The Biblical message is a message both of judgment and hope. We have already seen how these objections seek to destroy any objective truth and deny the truth of God’s Word. It is dreadful to think of a world where anarchy and chaos rule (we’re not too far from it). There is only one source of pure, unadulterated, never-changing, eternal, objective truth, and that is God Himself, revealed through His Word.
I hope this challenges you to check your worldview and see whether you are being consistent or not. And I pray that the Holy Spirit gives you a new heart to see the things of God and repent of your sins to turn to Christ, who is blessed forever, amen.
1. Are you god? 2. What do pedophiles and rapists have to do with consenting adults? 3. Gay people are not telling you to be gay. You are telling them to follow Christ and abide by laws that have no bearing on anyone’s life. 4. Jesus isn’t real, the bible has no authority, and there isn’t any god to punish anyone. Not even pedophiles.
I note that you have not addressed the refutations.
Refutations is that what people are calling apologetic vomit?
That’s because I don’t respect your source and I don’t think you have read the rest of this thread to absorb arguments that have already been stated. You come in at the end about a month later as if you have something new to say, but you don’t. I don’t have to humor you by engaging you to refute your points directly to you redundantly. Your god has no power over anyone because he doesn’t exist. We have laws that pertain to actually dangerous activities, like pedophilia and murder. We protect young people even if they don’t (as you suggest) choose to be helped. They will turn 18 someday and can fuck whomever they want, and it’s up to the grown-up to know better and keep their sexual distance from minors. In situations of homosexuality, who are you to say that’s a sin? You’re not god. You can’t prove god exists or should be anyone’s authority. So fuck you. We have laws in place for things that actually are harmful, not things some imaginary character in your book forbids just because he is an asshole. The god depicted in the bible is an asshole nobody should respect or like or pray forgiveness to. He’s also fictional, but what am I angry for if he’s not real? The FUCKING PEOPLE. People like you who think we need to defer to your god. People who force other people to live like you decide. They are not telling you how to live, they are not forcing you to be gay. You are trying to force them to be Christian and to feel guilty for being who they are, they’re not hurting you and they’re not hurting children or anyone. They fuck other consenting adults, that’s none of your business. That’s your psychological issue, not anybody else’s. Why are you fixated on the sex lives of consenting adults? Why do you think we should treat your fairy tale like it’s real? Are you god? Is god real? Would you prove that god is real and we should defer to his authority or shut the fuck up! Really!
I also note that you have not addressed my refutations of your refutations. Who the fuck do you think you are? I answered you in a way you didn’t like, so deal with it! Christians think they have all these credible answers that we have to address, and no, we don’t. The bible is not credible. It’s a wall you fix yourself behind so nobody can argue with you. Yes, the bible says things, but no, we don’t have to believe them until you prove god exists and why we have to defer to biblical or theistic authority. You can, you’re totally free to believe it and live by it, but you have to make a better case why the rest of us have to, starting with proof, not with what it says to do in the bible.
The refutations in a shorter form:
1. pedophile defense, seriously? 2. admits too stupid to understand the point 3. admits too stupid to understand the point 4. too stupid to understand the point 5. pedophile defense, seriously? 6. doesnt own a dictionary, never took a civics class & retreats to the pedophile defense 7. pedophile defense. 8. Context is everything except those parts where it’s not needed. 9. Pretends that racism is not bigotry & retreats to the pedophile defense 10. Apparently non beleivers are not allowed to use their teachings against them.
Jesus F Christ, talk about missing the point. Are you being deliberately obtuse? I guess not, since I’ve seen numerous Christians come up with this nugget in the last couple of months.
Anyway, nobody here cares about your apologetics. In fact, most of us agree with you that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Why do you think we find it to be a primitive and detestable book in the first place?
That last sentence makes Daniel’s meme of the day quite appropriate, really.
The only people using moral relativism to defend pedophilia are the catholic church and christian apologists. The rest of us are mostly able to wrap our heads around why f*cking children is unacceptable without needing a god to tell us. That you can’t tell the difference between an adult (say for example a christian priest) coercing a child into sex, and two or more consenting adults engaging in mutually consensual sexual activities, doesn’t really say anything positive about your moral compass.
It is really painful to see someone start with the bible and attempt to follow through with reason with the bible as their starting premise. Check your own worldview, duh! You are really trying very hard to make this imaginary … thing make sense to the rest of us but not realizing from your own perspective how freaking stupid it sounds. You believe in imaginary goblins telling you what to do and what not to do. You have buried the ability you have as a human being to reason it out, but you try. You start with the bible and you try to be logical, I can see you trying. It’s so painful to see your wheels turning and trying to convince us that you’re intelligent, but you forsake your intelligence to believe in something that’s fake, you’re so dumb that it convinced you, and you go into an outburst of biblical fuck-all. Why do you think any of that is real? Let me ask you that. I know you have a lot to get through and I have already responded twice, but:
Why do you think any of that is real?
Actually, the comment that whyman has made here that particularly annoys me is the implication that somehow we are inconsistent, but that it is okay for him to selectively use the Biblical code depending on context. Believe me, Whyman, it is much much easier to find homosexuality acceptable and paedophilia wrong on the basis of looking at harm and consent than it is to make them equivalent. It is also far more consistent than basing legal rights in a modern context on an anncient set of laws written for a completely different culture, supposedly dictated by a God whom not everyone believes in but in fact historically shown to be based on even older legal codes from a different culture again, and even the ones who do believe can’t agree on how those laws should or shouldn’t apply.
Everything in the Bible is God’s teachings, therefore ALL are important. One more thing. If you stole a piece of candy, and I said to you, “You stole that piece of candy and according to the Bible that is a sin.” I am not judging I am stating facts. Therefore if I say “The Bible says having sexual relations with the same gender is a sin.” I am not judging, I am stating a fact out of the Bible. This means if you don’t follow the Bible, it isn’t a sin is it? My proof comes from the 6th commandment: You shall not commit adultery.
Follow Patheos on