Religion — Page 61

darth_ender said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Christianity (or at least Christianity based solely on the Bible) is inherently “anti-gay” in the sense that it claims homosexual relations are ungodly. I don’t see how any churches can honestly get around the fact that it’s made clear in both New and Old Testaments.

If you interpret it as the literal word of God as it fell flawlessly from his lips to parchment, then it is. But many faiths actually hold more liberal interpretations. I’m sure you don’t believe women shouldn’t speak at all in church.

Or have authority over a man. That’s pretty important too.

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.

moviefreakedmind said:

Not all gay people want to be gay.

I’m curious if you know anyone who is gay but doesn’t want to be. What does this even mean? That’s like saying a giraffe wants to be a cow.

JEDIT: More curious if Bingo knows anyone who doesn’t want to be gay.

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.

However, are you obstinately devoted to your view? Are you intolerant of religion (and by extension, its adherents)? Are you expressing prejudice based on your perspective and a limited sample? Are you singling out a particular group? Note that while racial or ethnic groups are given as an example, they are not the definitive recipients of bigotry. Have you expressed hatred towards that group?

The answer to each question is yes. And then you have the audacity to say that the definition doesn’t support my accusations.

Most humorously, however, is your insistence on my sensitivity. While at times I’ve become quite upset on these very boards for what some have written, I have not even had my pulse quicken. I may have been harsh in my wording, but such was not out of anger. I actually can see decent conversations with an atheist like Jeebus. I have enjoyed many conversations with CP3S in the past, a very adamant atheist. But you literally offer nothing useful in your debates thus far. And you literally, in very definition, are a bigot. I’m sorry, but this you have demonstrated quite vividly, and your sensitivity to my use of the term only further highlights the reality of that bigotry in your heart.

yhwx said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Not all gay people want to be gay.

Pardon?

I think that Milo Yiannopolous guy doesn’t want to be gay, but he also thinks being gay is a choice, so I’m not sure how he reconciles the two in his mind.

Well if you think being gay is a choice, and you don’t want to be gay, just don’t be gay.

Of course that’s nonsense…

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. 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?

Today our society has changed, and I think a certain amount of embrace to societal change should be accepted among religious groups. They may disagree on a certain level, but that does not mean they have to be intolerant.

In my mind, the mistake of modern religious believers is the unwillingness to consider a changing message from God to a different people at a different time to meet their needs. How many Christians believe that divorce and remarrying for reasons other than adultery is in fact adultery?

yhwx said:

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.

Please tell me how. The first sentence is quite accurate, as that is how his approach has always been. The second sentence is sarcastic, but still accurately reflects the attitude he has postured. But I never said he was wrong because he was arrogant. I have insulted him, then systematically argued his points. You could use some debating skills yourself, young grasshopper. And please, unless you can contribute something useful instead of being the little tag-along who dittos everything someone else has said, I have little time to reply to you. I’m very short on time as it is.

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.

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.

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.

This is why religion is harmful to society. People will justify crazy actions because “God” commanded them to do so (ISIS). And now we are seeing certain Christians apply this thinking. Religion hinges on throwing logic away. The bible preaches that you should show trust to Gods commands no matter the consequences. For example, God commanded a man to kill his own son to prove his loyalty. Apply that on a 21st century basis. Some old crackpot Christian says he will kill his son to prove his allegiance to God. That is some sick shit.

Most of Gods actions in the Old Testament prove how much of a asshole he is if he exists.

Let me ask you an honest pair of questions. Yes, of course there will be follow-up, though it may be several days before I can spare a few minutes to return to this. Here they are:

Has religion contributed any evil to this world? Please cite examples, and be fair.
Has atheism contributed any evil to this world? Please cite examples, and be fair.

As a side note, I’d be interested in seeing how impartial you can be, while still promoting your POV.

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

You’re right, they don’t.

For the record, the answers to your questions are yes, not relevant yet but no, yes, don’t care but think it’s stupid, yes but don’t think it should be law, yes but it wouldn’t bother me the other way if that’s what society decided was appropriate, no.

the fact I am trying to point out is that you do in fact try to tell people how their sex lives should be. 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?

I’m not. I’m telling current society what is wrong.

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.

That’s what I would say, and I’m sure what joe meant. If God exists, he/she/it is not an asshole by definition. But the God that many people choose to believe in sure seems like an asshole about certain things.

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. 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?

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

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?

darthrush said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The Crusades are a go-to thing to complain about.

For good reason.

Let’s all generalize how evil atheists are based on the crimes of the Soviet Union and North Korea, everyone!