Maybe he’s saying that atheists hate the idea of God?

If he does that, I might bail this thread.

darth_ender said:

Now consider the nature of much older societies. They found stability in their societies in different ways than today. Some found homosexuality to be wrong and sex with fourteen year-old females to be acceptable (and in fact preferable, when the life expectancy was much shorter). Who are you to tell an ancient society what is right or wrong?

Well, it’s kind of our job to see what was right and wrong in ancient civilizations.

It was not always wrong. It was in fact the better thing at the time. Where is the universal law that says pedophilia is wrong? There is none. It is wrong because we believe that sex should be consensual between those capable of making intelligent decisions (adults). But in ancient times, fully (or even mostly) developed frontal lobes were of secondary consequence, and survival of humanity took a front seat. Hence, marriage to young females was okay. My point here is that we cannot judge ancient societies by modern standards, and that they were within their right, as a society, to define what was sexually acceptable and what was not. We have changed in our modern interpretation, and that interpretation will likely change more over the centuries, where you may one day look like a backwards barbarian, but the fact remains that societies can define sexuality as they define all other rights and wrongs, and you should not measure them by your yardstick.

I think it’s OK to judge the actions of a previous generation based on our modern yardstick. Isn’t that the whole point of history?

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

joefavs said:

This God guy sounds like a real asshole.

Thanks for your useful contribution. A lot of people sound that way till we get to know them better. And perhaps you’re getting to know God through someone else’s interpretation.

So how would you portray God? Do you take issue with other people’s interpretations?

Yes, but do I hate them for it? I know you do.

Woah, where did I say that?

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

I have insulted him, then systematically argued his points.

You did.

Someone get this man a medal!

I was going to add something else but that would seem condescending.

moviefreakedmind said:

I never said it was a choice.

So how can both of these statements be true, under what your implying you think: Sexual orientation is not a choice, and people can change their sexual orientation.

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

So yeah, I know plenty of gay people, some of whom have chosen to live straight.

Alright, so why do they choose to live straight?

Maybe they want to have kids; maybe they want to settle down. I don’t know. It isn’t self-loathing though, I can say that for sure, not in these cases.

The former is reasonable, the latter is baffling. How is be coming straight ‘settling down?’

That’s like saying a giraffe wants to be a cow.

Or a man wants to be a woman? That seems like the obvious analogy.

You can change your gender. I don’t see how you can change your sexual identity.

Why?

I think we have a fundamental disagreement here. I think being gay is something you have from birth, you think it’s a choice. And we’re not going to argue ourselves out of those positions—that’s just how it’s gonna be.

FanFiltration said:

Music 8/10
Artwork: 8/10 - No “bewbs”! 😉

Voodo!

is my favorite part.

Jeebus said:

I’m sure the movie will be fine, I just think it’s a cheesy line. A New Hope had plenty of cheesy lines, but the overall tone of the movie allowed for it because it was a cheesy movie. Rogue One is trying to pass itself off as a gritty war movie set in the Star Wars universe, and if that’s what they’re going for, there’s no room for cheesy lines like that.

The Empire Strikes Back was a pretty serious movie. It also had its fair share of cheesy lines. I hate to say this, but also see Revenge of the Sith.

darth_ender said:

Lord Haseo said:

moviefreakedmind said:
Until a group of insane Christians occupy territory the size of small countries and start flying planes into buildings, let’s stop with the ISIS comparisons.

Yes, because the Crusades…never happened

This is the mindset that irritates me. You can’t take historical documents and evaluate them based on today’s moral standards and then wonder why they aren’t as pretty as John Lennon’s Imagine.

I’m pretty sure the merit of a deity’s moral code should be immune to the passing of time. Pretty much if his morals were right then they should be right now because he’s God.

EDIT:

Also I’m sure it was Al-Qaeda that brought down the WTC

Let me pose a separate set of questions here.

These questions weren’t directed at me, but what the heck.

I don’t know your family situation, but let’s assume you have young children. What do you teach them about lying? Stealing? Modesty? Strangers? I’m guessing you lay down some pretty concrete rules for your kids. All these things are always wrong.

Now let me ask you, are there times when lying is not only acceptable, but in fact the higher law? What about stealing? Is nudity acceptable at times that your kids are unaware of, especially as an adult? Do you talk to strangers?

Yes, there are times when these things are better than the other options. In an ideal world, there would always be another way, but it’s not an ideal world, so you might have too do thee things.

So why the difference in the rules? Perhaps your children don’t have the understanding of complex situations that adults do.

True.

Now you are right, God must have a universal set of morals, his highest existing laws. But throughout the past, and even today, is it possible that mankind has not been, and even now is not, ready for his ultimate highest set of laws? Is it possible, assuming God exists, that he works within a moral framework that his mortal followers, who really are like uncomprehending children to him, can understand?

Well, humanity has screwed up a lot of things over the years, so I think if God did exist, we have never been and will never be able to understand his ultimate moral compass.

Tyrphanax said:

I never got the whole “rated highly because of hot babe” thing, just like I never understood the “hot babe” calendars or posters or setting your desktop background to a half-naked woman. I never got the point of having a car magazine with some woman in a g-string splayed all over the hood, I never got the point of a gun magazine where you have a model in booty shorts and a tactical vest. I don’t like the idea of selling things with sex because I feel like it insults my intelligence and talks down to me.

I love women and the female form, but Jesus. There’s enough porn around these days that it’d be nice to look at a car or a gun or some other form of “male hobby” magazine without it also being a Maxim shoot.

You are a reasonable person, Tyrphanax. A lot of people aren’t and are extremely vulnerable to their base instincts. ‘Get hot girl’ is a base instinct. And, when a large portion of people have a vulnerability to be exposed, the mass media will expose it.

darth_ender said:

darthrush said:

Frink is right about religions promoting hate. As a ex Mormon I found many of our principles promote hate. Though we say to hate the sin and not the sinner, if the sin (homosexuality) is inherently apart of that persons identity then you can’t cover up the fact that you are promoting hate.

As an active Mormon who is very tolerant, I disagree.

In your estimation how many Mormons would you say are intolerant? In the context of this discussion, one individual doesn’t matter. We need a a large sample size.

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yeah it’s a sin, but if you don’t believe that then what does it matter?

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2014/topic-pages/victims_final

18.7 percent were targeted because of bias against sexual orientation.

Giving people reason to hate is not a good idea. See Trump, Donald.

I happen to be very sympathetic to the plights of the LGTB community. I do believe in tolerance. I in fact hold the opinion that gay marriage should be legal for many reasons which I do not have the time to discuss here. I agree with Frink wholheartedly on this post.

Believing something is sinful, however, is not the same as justifying bias against sexual orientation. How many adulterers are victims due to what Christians consider a sin? How many fornicators? How many liars?

Just because a Christian perceives homosexuality as sin doesn’t mean he is justified in any level of intolerance, and just because an atheist/agnostic knows a Christian sees it as sin doesn’t mean that Christian is hateful. See _ender, darth.

Well, you can’t change people, and many people think that just because they perceive homosexuality as a sin, they are justified in intolerance.

darth_ender said:

joefavs said:

This God guy sounds like a real asshole.

Thanks for your useful contribution. A lot of people sound that way till we get to know them better. And perhaps you’re getting to know God through someone else’s interpretation.

So how would you portray God? Do you take issue with other people’s interpretations?

darth_ender said:

I have insulted him, then systematically argued his points.

You did.

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

joefavs said:

Is no one going to bring up how insane it is that religion allows people to feel entitled to any opinion at all about other people’s sexuality?

Actually it doesn’t do that. Religion tells people what to think about other people’s sexuality.

Do you tell anyone what to think about their sexuality? I bet you do.

Do I?

Please enlighten me.

Do you support statutory rape laws? Do you allow your daughters to engage in sexual activities with other minors? Do you support polygamous marriages? Do you believe children’s cartoons should be restored to their original form with large-breasted, barely covered female characters? Do you believe that women should not be idolized as sex objects? Do you believe clothing should be worn in public? Do you support abusive sexual relationships?

Now while these do not equate to consensual homosexual sex, the fact I am trying to point out is that you do in fact try to tell people how their sex lives should be.

‘Do you support regulations on food safety? You’re telling corporations how to do business!’

Now consider the nature of much older societies. They found stability in their societies in different ways than today. Some found homosexuality to be wrong and sex with fourteen year-old females to be acceptable (and in fact preferable, when the life expectancy was much shorter). Who are you to tell an ancient society what is right or wrong?

Well, it’s kind of our job to see what was right and wrong in ancient civilizations.

darth_ender said:

Lord Haseo said:

The Full Definition of bigot as provided by Merriam Webster

a person who is 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

The definition doesn’t support your accusations so in essence the foundation for your sensitivity is without substance which makes your claims even more inane.

At least you are starting to use substance instead of resorting to the “I’m right because it’s so obvious” technique. I appreciate you at least starting to use that noodle of yours, since you’re obviously so much more intelligent than the ignorant morons who profess a belief in the divine.

This is such a quintessential ad hominem attack.

So what happened to the phone?

moviefreakedmind said:

yhwx said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Telling someone to “come to terms” with being gay is telling someone what to think about their sexuality.

The difference is that this is obviously the right thing to do.

See? There’s your leftist “it’s ok when we do it!” BS again.

It’s OK when it’s the morally right thing to do.

Not all gay people want to be gay.

Pardon?

Lord Haseo said:

Looks like we’ll be getting some more quotables in Episode VIII though I don’t think anyone of them will be as widely used as “May the Force be with you”

I wonder about this all the time. Will we ever get something as quotable and widely used as that phrase? Will we ever get something that has the Earth-shattering effect of the original Star Wars? It just seems that the first movie had such an incredible momentum and it was released at just the right time that we probably won’t get something with the mega effect of Star Wars in this media climate.

moviefreakedmind said:

Telling someone to “come to terms” with being gay is telling someone what to think about their sexuality.

The difference is that this is obviously the right thing to do.

Lord Haseo said:

Jeebus said:

Lord Haseo said:

Jeebus said:

It’s just a little to on-the-nose for me. I would prefer if it went something like

“This is a rebellion, isn’t it? That’s what I’m doing.”

I think “This is a rebellion, isn’t it? That’s exactly what I’m doing.” would have been better

Yeah, for sure.

But back to the overall topic at hand. You can’t gauge the quality of the script based on a line or two. Overly opinionated teenagers on youtube be damned.

Correct. There are plenty of lines in a supposedly well written movie like A New Hope that seem clunky on paper but context and good delivery sold them.

SilverWook said:

Must be how Jersey Shore looks like this time of year.

Darth Id said:

TV’s Frink said:

2. Don’t listen to anything Id says. Ever.

TV’s Frink said:

I give that advice to everyone.

Strangely, it even makes sense outside the context of this chat bored:
The SUPEREGO follow you must, younglings. Only to the Dark Side will Id lead!

We already got an Id here. It’s not working out well.

Jetrell Fo said:

yhwx said:

I don’t like this agreement.

How many of you are there here?

Let me check my spreadsheet… 72.