logo Sign In

The Controversial Discussions Thread (Was "The Prejudice Discussion Thread" (Was "The Human Sexuality Discussion Thread" (Was "The Homosexuality Discussion Thread"))) — Page 30

Author
Time
 (Edited)

There are works of clear fiction (the plays of Shakespeare, Game of Thrones etc) where there are acts of violence but only the insane would believe the events depicted therein are real or a real foundation for human behaviour.

And there are religious texts like the Bible which has been altered for centuries and says different things in different translations but is claimed to be the word of God and a framework by which people should live. Ender follows a faith that has a different book of scripture to other Christian groups.

While I'm against censoring fiction, I'm all for restraint when it comes to scripture.

Now I'm not telling people what to do with their old Bibles but if you are declaring yourself against violence directed at gay people, women, etc it makes sense to say "In our religious text that bit is non-canonical" or not relevant enough to include or mention.

It's also a book... not a person.

Blinding people with bleach isn't the same thing as removing or altering for clarity sake a bronze age law mentioned in the Bible in the context of a currently existing religious organisation.

Or do you thing books are people? And removing words from them causes the book pain?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

It's fairly simple really, you want to change an entire religion by altering it's text to fit your view of the world while others want to alter human beings by pouring bleach on them so they fit their view of the world.

You want to censor an entire religion and others want to censor an entire section of the population.

Seems even odds to me, a horse a piece.

Author
Time

I can't see Bingo's posts, but I'll bet yet again he is trashing Christinity for some reason.   

The broken record continues . . .

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Only the bit that is apparently obsolete and only ever was meant for a particular people (the Israelites) at a particular point in history (between the Exodus and the coming of Christ) which advocates a violent death as a solution to acts deemed sinful to the Deity but legal to the state.

Only the bit that in some translations has been interpreted to refer to only penetrative sex between men (with one dressed as a woman) and all homosexual acts including lesbianism.

The bit that crazed evangelicals dish out whenever they want to damn something happening in the secular world which is not allowed within the closed doors of their religion (though often the speaker in question is blowing male prostitutes while high on drugs).

It's not in anyway equatable with spraying bleach into mens eyes and pouring bleach into another man's mouth.

Author
Time

Bingowings said:

Only the bit that is apparently obsolete and only ever was meant for a particular people (the Israelites) at a particular point in history (between the Exodus and the coming of Christ) which advocates a violent death as a solution to acts deemed sinful to the Deity but legal to the state.

Only the bit that in some translations has been interpreted to refer to only penetrative sex between men (with one dressed as a woman) and all homosexual acts including lesbianism.

The bit that crazed evangelicals dish out whenever they want to damn something happening in the secular world which is not allowed within the closed doors of their religion (though often the speaker in question is blowing male prostitutes while high on drugs).

It's not in anyway equatable with spraying bleach into mens eyes and pouring bleach into another man's mouth.

Of course it isn't.  Cuz if it was, you'd look no better than those you want to change.

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

I judge all of you.

I would NOT want to see what Frink's bible looks like, LOL.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

More scratched recordness :

Warb either ignore me or don't ignore me.

Ignoring me means not replying to what is quoted either as if you can't read everything I post you won't get the larger context.

In this case the context is men having bleach sprayed into their eyes and faces and I wasn't bashing Christianity as you would read if I wasn't on ignore. Quite the contrary, if anything I'm defending the philosophy of Christ from the bigotry of the culture it rose from.

Or am I on ignore as you seem to pop up over the shield of the ignore feature to throw comments at me in your supposed ignorance?

Author
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Only the bit that is apparently obsolete and only ever was meant for a particular people (the Israelites) at a particular point in history (between the Exodus and the coming of Christ) which advocates a violent death as a solution to acts deemed sinful to the Deity but legal to the state.

Only the bit that in some translations has been interpreted to refer to only penetrative sex between men (with one dressed as a woman) and all homosexual acts including lesbianism.

The bit that crazed evangelicals dish out whenever they want to damn something happening in the secular world which is not allowed within the closed doors of their religion (though often the speaker in question is blowing male prostitutes while high on drugs).

It's not in anyway equatable with spraying bleach into mens eyes and pouring bleach into another man's mouth.

Of course it isn't.  Cuz if it was, you'd look no better than those you want to change.

 Of course at least we can agree on that.

Author
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

TV's Frink said:

I judge all of you.

I would NOT want to see what Frink's bible looks like, LOL.

 It's pretty much the same but with a beard.

Author
Time

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Only the bit that is apparently obsolete and only ever was meant for a particular people (the Israelites) at a particular point in history (between the Exodus and the coming of Christ) which advocates a violent death as a solution to acts deemed sinful to the Deity but legal to the state.

Only the bit that in some translations has been interpreted to refer to only penetrative sex between men (with one dressed as a woman) and all homosexual acts including lesbianism.

The bit that crazed evangelicals dish out whenever they want to damn something happening in the secular world which is not allowed within the closed doors of their religion (though often the speaker in question is blowing male prostitutes while high on drugs).

It's not in anyway equatable with spraying bleach into mens eyes and pouring bleach into another man's mouth.

Of course it isn't.  Cuz if it was, you'd look no better than those you want to change.

 Of course at least we can agree on that.

It's basic premise of "change what you don't like" is the same.

Author
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Only the bit that is apparently obsolete and only ever was meant for a particular people (the Israelites) at a particular point in history (between the Exodus and the coming of Christ) which advocates a violent death as a solution to acts deemed sinful to the Deity but legal to the state.

Only the bit that in some translations has been interpreted to refer to only penetrative sex between men (with one dressed as a woman) and all homosexual acts including lesbianism.

The bit that crazed evangelicals dish out whenever they want to damn something happening in the secular world which is not allowed within the closed doors of their religion (though often the speaker in question is blowing male prostitutes while high on drugs).

It's not in anyway equatable with spraying bleach into mens eyes and pouring bleach into another man's mouth.

Of course it isn't.  Cuz if it was, you'd look no better than those you want to change.

 Of course at least we can agree on that.

It's basic premise of "change what you don't like" is the same.

No... one is altering the emphasis away from something considered not currently relevant by believers and the other is pouring bleach into a living human being. See the subtle difference it's hard to spot I agree but it's there if you still have eyes to see it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Only the bit that is apparently obsolete and only ever was meant for a particular people (the Israelites) at a particular point in history (between the Exodus and the coming of Christ) which advocates a violent death as a solution to acts deemed sinful to the Deity but legal to the state.

Only the bit that in some translations has been interpreted to refer to only penetrative sex between men (with one dressed as a woman) and all homosexual acts including lesbianism.

The bit that crazed evangelicals dish out whenever they want to damn something happening in the secular world which is not allowed within the closed doors of their religion (though often the speaker in question is blowing male prostitutes while high on drugs).

It's not in anyway equatable with spraying bleach into mens eyes and pouring bleach into another man's mouth.

Of course it isn't.  Cuz if it was, you'd look no better than those you want to change.

 Of course at least we can agree on that.

It's basic premise of "change what you don't like" is the same.

No... one is altering the emphasis away from something considered not currently relevant by believers and the other is pouring bleach into a living human being. See the subtle difference it's hard to spot I agree but it's there if you still have eyes to see it.

I agree that the physical position is different but the underlying message of both can create the same amount of damage mentally and emotionally to either side. 

As far as I'm concerned the bible is as irrelevant as being gay because neither should define a persons being.  We are all individuals, gay or straight.  We all bleed red.  We all feel pain and hurt.  Either scenario creates a discord in the fabric of beings .... and we have no idea how the outcome will affect the future, regardless of what we like to think would or should happen. 

Author
Time

Only the bible text as it currently stands and is frequently promoted has a stoning to death passage where as it's not a general tenet of homosexuality that anyone be stoned, bleached or boiled (though there is a bit of debate on the Brazilian Wax position).

Author
Time

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV's Frink said:

I judge all of you.

I would NOT want to see what Frink's bible looks like, LOL.

 It's pretty much the same but with a beard.

 My wife is not a beard!

*sobs*

Author
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

I am agnostic so all this religious discussion is somewhat distant to me. 

Oddly, some people want to cleanse people with bleach while others want to cleanse the bible by tampering with it's text, a book written thousands of years ago by different people with no real-time existence with Jesus.

I'd say each side sounds more alike than they care to admit.  This is just an observation based on postings above, it is not a judgement of anyone or their beliefs.

 What? I read your post 14 times, and I either can't grasp your syntax or its the single stupiest thing I've ever read.

Author
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

It's fairly simple really, you want to change an entire religion by altering it's text to fit your view of the world while others want to alter human beings by pouring bleach on them so they fit their view of the world.

You want to censor an entire religion and others want to censor an entire section of the population.

Seems even odds to me, a horse a piece.

 Nope. After reading this one I'm sure. Its the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Author
Time

And you have every right to your opinion TheBoost. 

Author
Time

Of course he does. It doesn't involve putting bleach in anyone's eyes or pelting people with stones.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Bingowings said:

Of course he does. It doesn't involve putting bleach in anyone's eyes or pelting people with stones.

I have not now, nor will I ever, condone such acts towards anyone.  I also would never condone forcing my view of the world on to others for any reason.  

Author
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Of course he does. It doesn't involve putting bleach in anyone's eyes or pelting people with stones.

I have not now, nor will I ever, condone such acts towards anyone.  I also would never condone forcing my view of the world on to others for any reason.  

Not even if it's a preference for not having bleach or stones placed where you would rather not?

Author
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Of course he does. It doesn't involve putting bleach in anyone's eyes or pelting people with stones.

I have not now, nor will I ever, condone such acts towards anyone.  I also would never condone forcing my view of the world on to others for any reason.  

 So you're cool with serial killer views of the world.  Interesting.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

that is not what he said, he said wouldn't force his view of the world on others.  

There are many views and opinions with which I am not "cool"  with, but I am for free speech, even for serial killers.

Author
Time

But you aren't cool with people spraying bleach into people's eyes and mouth right? If you were want to distance yourself from that sort of activity not having it in your organisations manifesto is probably a good idea right?

What he was saying or at least seemed to be saying was trying to get people to do that is the same sort of activity as bleaching people who you see as a social contaminant.

Which I don't for a moment believe you agree with, unless I'm wrong which is very possible.

Author
Time

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Of course he does. It doesn't involve putting bleach in anyone's eyes or pelting people with stones.

I have not now, nor will I ever, condone such acts towards anyone.  I also would never condone forcing my view of the world on to others for any reason.  

Not even if it's a preference for not having bleach or stones placed where you would rather not?

No, no, and No.  Which part of that is difficult to understand?