- Time
- Post link
At least he’s using human formatting…
The Person in Question
Religion — Page 57
- Time
- Post link
You lost me there.
I was lost at,
"jediknightsuzini said:"
- Time
- Post link
frink,
i find your characterization
of people using non standard
formatting offensive.
we just want to stand out
a little bit and i find the
norm boring.
later,
-yhwx
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
frink,
i find your characterization
of people using non standard
formatting offensive.
we just want to stand out
a little bit and i find the
norm boring.
later,
-yhwx
Wait: Does this count under the team accounts mocking and chiding rule?
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
So it’s “love the sinner, hate the sin,” which has been identified as hypocritical and bigoted on this forum.
Considering the source is a group that has a tradition going back centuries of punishing the sinners with torture and death when the founding principle is being without sin before casting a stone and removing the plank from your own eye, it’s sort of odd to be used as retort against people who like some of the individuals who might say it but dislike aspects of the organisation that prompts them to.
Honestly just ditch the torture porn in your holy books denounce the torture, past, present and future and get on with being happy on Sunday or whatever day is special to you.
The group you describe is the perfect opposite of Christianity. The scriptures warned that they would co-opt, and the Luciferian Mystery Babylonian priests…
You lost me there.
Do you really think that, at the time of transition to state religion, the experienced elite pagan mystery cult priests decided to just go quietly into that good night?
- Time
- Post link
The group you describe is the perfect opposite of Christianity. The scriptures warned that they would co-opt, and the Luciferian Mystery Babylonian priests…
You lost me there.
Do you really think that the literate, elite, pagan mystery cult priests…
You lost me there.
- Time
- Post link
Yay, the ultra-conservative, fundamentalist, conspiracy theorist returns.
- Time
- Post link
Maybe they’re all the same person. . . .
- Time
- Post link
lawl
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
I respect all religions unless they violate human rights. For example, I disrespect an aspect of LDS belief that men can only have the priesthood and that in the “Family Proclmation” the church prefers stay at home moms and working fathers. I will not respect that area of their belief system because they are sexist principles.
- Time
- Post link
[Lord Haseo] said: (post/id/960187)
Some of us don’t hate you (as in Christians) just the Religion itself so that is in no way bigotry.
[Darth Lucas] said: (post/id/960228)
Hell I’ll say it. I hate Islam. I hate Christianity. I hate Judaism. I hate religion.
That being said, some of my best friends are Muslim, Christian, and Jewish. I do not judge a person based on their religion, rather on their actions, but especially where those actions are (good or bad) fueled by religion.
[yhwx] said: (post/id/960229)
I guess hating religion in general is OK. I may be under that category.
[Jeebus] said: (post/id/963229)
The difference is that “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is usually referring to homosexuality. In that case, the ‘sin’ is a part of who they are, and something they can’t change. Religion is a belief, that can indeed be changed.
How many of the tolerant, anti-bigotry atheists/agnostics rushed to the defense of religion when these statements were made? How many found them offensive?
I waited a few days for the conversation to die down (besides, I haven’t had time to post anything anyway). I chose a thread that I knew was frequented by many of the same posters as in my Religion thread. I deliberately chose the word “hate” as opposed to “dislike,” “am disappointed,” etc. I broad brushed all of black culture at a sensitive time, in spite of my admiration of many aspects of black culture. I deliberately chose aspects of black culture that do tend to be disappointing, but certainly are not universal. And I deliberately made the distinction between black culture (which can be changed, is instilled since childhood, and ultimately is a choice to remain with or abandon) and black people. I made a perfect analogy among friends who should know me well enough to know that I did not mean what I said. And I gave you all enough to get up in arms over it. To what end?
I simply illustrated that it is still bigotry to generalize the way some have towards religion, that genetic inheritance and identity through culture and religion (which in and of itself is a culture) are not so different that bigotry is not an inappropriate label for those who discriminate and hate.
My friends on this board, I wish I could share in great detail the peace that I was able to give a patient this very day due to our shared religion. You may hate all you like, may justify your reasoning all you like, and condemn that which you will never make any legitimate effort to understand. But at the end of the day, anyone who called me racist for my insincere but illustrative comments earlier indeed have demonstrated that there is an acceptable bigotry among many atheists. It is unfortunate, as I respect many good atheists.
Most of you will never see the good that religion offers, just like so many true racists never see the good in black people or black culture. Just like they are blinded by the facts, exaggerations, and anecdotal evidence I shared earlier, you are blinded by certain aspects of religion. But just as I enjoy listening to jazz, you will never enjoy the beauty of God bringing peace to one’s heart, as a female patient and I shared together.
Darth_ender is not a bigot. But there are bigots in this very forum, and many of them are likely convinced that they are in fact the least of the bigots. Sorry to disappoint you.
- Time
- Post link
[Jeebus] said: (post/id/963229)
The difference is that “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is usually referring to homosexuality. In that case, the ‘sin’ is a part of who they are, and something they can’t change. Religion is a belief, that can indeed be changed.
How is that anti-religion or bigoted at all?
- Time
- Post link
Oooooh…I get it. It’s the atheist version of that “Hate the sin, love the sinner” thing. Caughtcha! How progressive!
The difference is that “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is usually referring to homosexuality. In that case, the ‘sin’ is a part of who they are, and something they can’t change. Religion is a belief, that can indeed be changed.
“Your sexuality is inherently sinful and wrong, but it doesn’t change my opinion of you as a person.”
vs
“I hate Christianity, but it doesn’t change my opinion of you as a person.”
Here you justify the difference between hating a religion vs hating homosexuality if one is okay and one is not. Both are bigotry.
- Time
- Post link
Oooooh…I get it. It’s the atheist version of that “Hate the sin, love the sinner” thing. Caughtcha! How progressive!
The difference is that “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is usually referring to homosexuality. In that case, the ‘sin’ is a part of who they are, and something they can’t change. Religion is a belief, that can indeed be changed.
“Your sexuality is inherently sinful and wrong, but it doesn’t change my opinion of you as a person.”
vs
“I hate Christianity, but it doesn’t change my opinion of you as a person.”
Here you justify the difference between hating a religion vs hating homosexuality if one is okay and one is not. Both are bigotry.
Y’know, I debated whether I wanted to use the word hate there, but I went for it since it was an attempt to justify the people who said they did. That’s not my view though, I don’t hate Christianity, I don’t hate anything. There are negative aspects of Christianity, just like there are negative aspects of ‘black culture’. There are negative aspects of probably everything. Breadsticks, they’ve got a lot of carbs, but I don’t hate breadsticks.
- Time
- Post link
Well good, I’m glad to hear that. Since we have clarification following, I would still like to leave your quote, as many in fact use your hypothetical reasoning to justify their hated.
- Time
- Post link
Oooooh…I get it. It’s the atheist version of that “Hate the sin, love the sinner” thing. Caughtcha! How progressive!
The difference is that “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is usually referring to homosexuality. In that case, the ‘sin’ is a part of who they are, and something they can’t change. Religion is a belief, that can indeed be changed.
“Your sexuality is inherently sinful and wrong, but it doesn’t change my opinion of you as a person.”
vs
“I hate Christianity, but it doesn’t change my opinion of you as a person.”
I’m curious to know just how many people think homosexual attraction is a sin, because I sure don’t. It can’t be, as it’s not a choice. I do believe that sex outside of sacramental marriage is, and is very much a choice (with the obvious exception of rape).
- Time
- Post link
So it’s only valid in cases where someone has a choice?
I’m not sure I would say it that way, but I’m not really sure how I would say it.
By that logic, I can’t “hate the sin” of an individual attracted to the same sex, but I can “hate the sin” of someone having homosexual sex, right? Bear in mind that you probably don’t know my views on homosexuality (and others who’ve known me longer and think they do likely not either) so don’t bring me personally into this. It’s merely a question. Homosexual sex is in fact a choice.
Sexual relief is a requirement for humans, and if you’re gay then the only way to get that is through gay sex. It may technically be a choice, but it’s a choice in the sense that your only other option is to be unhappy/sexually frustrated.
A requirement? That’s nonsense. Most of the very celibate priests and nuns I know lead very fulfilling and happy lives. Our parish priest is one of the happiest people I know, and he’s a virgin. Also, I’m young yet, but I feel that I could live quite contentedly without ever having sex. It’s not a pressing desire at the moment (not to say that it isn’t a desire).
- Time
- Post link
Oooooh…I get it. It’s the atheist version of that “Hate the sin, love the sinner” thing. Caughtcha! How progressive!
The difference is that “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is usually referring to homosexuality. In that case, the ‘sin’ is a part of who they are, and something they can’t change. Religion is a belief, that can indeed be changed.
“Your sexuality is inherently sinful and wrong, but it doesn’t change my opinion of you as a person.”
vs
“I hate Christianity, but it doesn’t change my opinion of you as a person.”
I’m curious to know just how many people think homosexual attraction is a sin, because I sure don’t. It can’t be, as it’s not a choice. I do believe that sex outside of sacramental marriage is, and is very much a choice (with the obvious exception of rape).
As always, how very convenient for those of us who are allowed sacramental marriage.
- Time
- Post link
So it’s only valid in cases where someone has a choice?
I’m not sure I would say it that way, but I’m not really sure how I would say it.
By that logic, I can’t “hate the sin” of an individual attracted to the same sex, but I can “hate the sin” of someone having homosexual sex, right? Bear in mind that you probably don’t know my views on homosexuality (and others who’ve known me longer and think they do likely not either) so don’t bring me personally into this. It’s merely a question. Homosexual sex is in fact a choice.
Sexual relief is a requirement for humans, and if you’re gay then the only way to get that is through gay sex. It may technically be a choice, but it’s a choice in the sense that your only other option is to be unhappy/sexually frustrated.
A requirement? That’s nonsense. Most of the very celibate priests and nuns I know lead very fulfilling and happy lives. Our parish priest is one of the happiest people I know, and he’s a virgin. Also, I’m young yet, but I feel that I could live quite contentedly without ever having sex. It’s not a pressing desire at the moment (not to say that it isn’t a desire).
And God declared that eating pizza is not a sin…unless you’re black! Sorry black people, I’m sure you’ll miss pizza, but hey, it’s certainly not a requirement.
- Time
- Post link
Becoming a priest, nun, or monk is a choice. Celibacy is not imposed on anyone, but those who choose it seem to get by just fine. Black people, on the other hand, do not choose to be black.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
[Jeebus] said: (post/id/963229)
The difference is that “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is usually referring to homosexuality. In that case, the ‘sin’ is a part of who they are, and something they can’t change. Religion is a belief, that can indeed be changed.
How is that anti-religion or bigoted at all?
Because he’s religious and the only way in his mind that he can see people hating religion is being afflicted with the symptoms of being a zealot or having dogmatic hatred. So I guess if you hate the feminazi rhetoric that means you’re bigoted because reasons.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Becoming a priest, nun, or monk is a choice. Celibacy is not imposed on anyone, but those who choose it seem to get by just fine. Black people, on the other hand, do not choose to be black.
Some opt to be not black : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20444798
There is a history of people using the celebate status of those roles to hide shamed sexual preferences or hidden desires. But it’s a question of Catholicism ethics. It has no biblical endorsement but people know the score when they join up.
- Time
- Post link
It certainly isn’t easy being celibate and virgin, but it is possible. Hopefully people will feel more comfortable being open about their sexuality, now that it is becoming less stigmatized, and avoid feeling they have to sign up for the religious life to escape the pressure to marry.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Becoming a priest, nun, or monk is a choice. Celibacy is not imposed on anyone, but those who choose it seem to get by just fine. Black people, on the other hand, do not choose to be black.
Obviously I was exaggerating for effect. But you’re exactly right, being celibate is a choice. So God creates heterosexuals and homosexuals, and he tells heterosexuals they have a choice about having sex or not having sex, and either choice is ok as long as they’re married (or not priests). He tells homosexuals they have no choice.
Sounds reasonable.
- Time
- Post link
[Jeebus] said: (post/id/963229)
The difference is that “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is usually referring to homosexuality. In that case, the ‘sin’ is a part of who they are, and something they can’t change. Religion is a belief, that can indeed be changed.
How is that anti-religion or bigoted at all?
Because he’s religious and the only way in his mind that he can see people hating religion is being afflicted with the symptoms of being a zealot or having dogmatic hatred. So I guess if you hate the feminazi rhetoric that means you’re bigoted because reasons.
Very intelligent post. Since you do not actually argue my points with any skill, I’ll just continue believing I was right about you.