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.
The point is that calling it a sin can (in certain deranged people’s minds) justify hate and violence, and that makes it hate by extension at the least.
True that. I would prefer intolerance over violence any day.
Yes, you’ve well established your preference for intolerance many times.
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?
You’re talking to the guy who used to model (and still occasionally does!) his appearance off of these two:
So yeah, I know plenty of gay people, some of whom have chosen to live straight.
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.
The Person in Question
darth_ender said:
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.
Unwarranted assumption is unwarranted. I have never said or even fucking alluded to any of that so you are once again pulling things from ass.
However, are you obstinately devoted to your view?
Nope. Like everything my view is subject to change. In this case it is very very unlikely that someone could convince me that a book the calls for the death of everyone who is not a straight believer of Yahweh, demeans women, is a perversion of reality as Science has so clearly pointed out etc. is anything worth while in this day and age.
Are you intolerant of religion (and by extension, its adherents)?
This is the part where I say I hate Religion and not it’s people due to the fact I have had a multitude of friends and former girlfriends who are religious and my family members who I love dearly are nearly all religious. And then you’ll pull out that “so you hate sin and not the sinner” and to that weak argument I have only this to say.
That’s like me saying that someone who hates GoT must hate all of it’s fans by proxy which is shows you have the inability to accept other people’s opinions regarding what you’re fond of. Something like that is akin to a mindset of a child which is rather sad because there’s a good chance you are far older than I am.
Furthermore, that baffling argument is not even comparable to something like murder, rape or thievery which are truly detestable acts and simply being religious is not even close.
Are you expressing prejudice based on your perspective and a limited sample?
If I hadn’t of said that there were good things about the Bible and just fixated on the negative then yes. But on the other hand I have also said those things can be found in other mediums.
Are you singling out a particular group?
A book is a group. Since when?
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.
Sensitive ass lol
EDIT:
True that. I would prefer intolerance over violence any day.
Yes, you’ve well established your preference for intolerance many times.
^
I guess Star Wars isn’t the only subject that reverts the minds of seemingly mature people into that of entitled, sensitive, pompous and irrational children.
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?
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. You can hide it but I don’t see how you can change it.
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.
[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.
There’s nothing to really argue. You’re throwing out baseless claims because you’re overly sensitive about your religion.
Nothing to argue? More likely you’re too lazy or stupid to formulate a coherent argument.
And not all religions, even within Christianity, are as anti-gay as you portray. But then, that would avoid stereotyping religion.
There were some branches of Hinduism that didn’t mind it. Greek paganism and the British end of Quakerism but generally speaking almost all religions are down on homosexuality, even the Buddhists.
Many atheist groups have been in the past as well. But that doesn’t mean any of them have to stay that way. I personally hope for much more tolerance.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
Has atheism contributed any evil to this world? Please cite examples, and be fair.
Not that I know of, but I assume you’re gonna refer to the Communist regime of Stalin. As far as I know, the actions of Stalin were not committed in the name of atheism, he did it because he wanted power. Stripping people’s religion from them was an effective demoralization tactic, so that’s what he did. And it’s not like communist Russia was a godless society, their god was the state. Bear in mind, I don’t know a whole lot about communist Russia.
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.
All I believe for sure is that you won’t fool the children of the revolution. I don’t see how verses relating to homosexuality in the Bible could be interpreted any other way than as condemning. I’m under the impression that the line in 1 Tim. is referring to woman pastors/church leaders. There are instances in Acts relating to female missionaries and church servicewomen.
I’m just saying that I believe the Bible is the word of God as conveyed by mortals, and thus may be subject to human error.
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.
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?
The Person in Question
I’m just saying that I believe the Bible is the word of God as conveyed by mortals, and thus may be subject to human error.
I’m not sure that you got my T. Rex reference, but it’s all good, get it on (bang a gong). In all seriousness though, how can the Bible be the word of God if it’s corrupted by mortals? You have no idea what is and isn’t properly preserved.
The Person in Question
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.
I’m just saying that I believe the Bible is the word of God as conveyed by mortals, and thus may be subject to human error.
In all seriousness though, how can the Bible be the word of God if it’s corrupted by mortals? You have no idea what is and isn’t properly preserved.
lol
I never said it was a choice.
The Person in Question
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!’
Very good. You see my point, whether you realize it or not.
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 have insulted him, then systematically argued his points.
You did.
Someone get this man a medal!
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.
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.
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.
I never said it was a choice.
So you’re saying someone could be born gay but want to be straight? Other than not wanting to be discriminated against or looked down upon (or told they’re a sinner), I don’t see why. You don’t have to be straight to be a parent. And what on earth do you mean by “maybe they want to settle down.” How does that have anything to do with your orientation?
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.
Sadly you are right. I believe we can still teach intolerant religious folks to be more tolerant without hating the religion and the good it does and the many noble qualities of many of its believers.
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?
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.
I only hate them for it when their interpretation promotes hate.
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.
I’ll leave the statistical analysis to you. All I have is anecdotal evidence, and you love to crunch numbers.
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?