Religion — Page 63

TV’s Frink said:

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.

And that is okay. Just don’t hate the religion for a few sticking points. Society is changing and people are becoming more tolerant. And my points are valid for good reason. We have to define right and wrong as a society, and our definition is in the midst of great change. And I’m okay with that. But there is still so much good religion contributes as its adherents struggle to make sense between their understanding of a changing society and interpretation of God’s intent. Even if they oppose homosexuality as an action, Jesus was very clear that the sin is not as important as the person, and Christians should be as willing to dine with sinners as Christ was. It was the intolerant, rigid interpreters of the law that Christ condemned.

TV’s Frink 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.

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.

Fair enough. But most atheists hate God, hate the belief in him, hate religion, and chalk it all up to hate, in their own hypocritical, hate-filled generalization. And that’s what his comments came off as to me. God is quite loving. We humans are at fault.

My point has never been that religion does not contribute good. I’m simply railing against hate the sin / love the sinner.

darth_ender said:

But most atheists hate God

How can you hate something that doesn’t exist?

I hope he isn’t leading into one of those “Atheists secretly believe in God” things.

I’m sure he means you must hate God if you don’t believe in God.

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

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.

I really hope that the modern-day Pharisees will come to see things differently. I believe loving our neighbors should always prevail as God’s second highest law (to loving him of course), trumping any interpretation of what is sin.

I’ve made it this far so it’s unlikely I’m leaving. So long as this thread stays entertaining or at the very least informative.

He’s right, I’m not an atheist, I secretly hate god because he killed my dog.

Lord Haseo said:

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:

darth_ender said:

Lord Haseo said:

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.

Well, I literally am out of time. But I can’t help but laugh at your (over)reaction. Mark my words, I’ll give you a good reply. But meanwhile, rest assured that I am calm, and you are not, which is an indication of who is truly overly sensitive.

Note to ywhx, this last bit is ad hominem, as it does not address the issue, but merely attempts to defeat argument by attacking the man. I point this out to you because you, feeling like Lord Haseo, would not point out his faults. To really hold a legitimate point of view, you must be willing to challenge your own views. I do not see you as willing to do so.

I hate God because he won’t give me a small loan of a million dollars.

darth_ender said:

Lord Haseo said:

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:

darth_ender said:

Lord Haseo said:

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.

Well, I literally am out of time. But I can’t help but laugh at your (over)reaction. Mark my words, I’ll give you a good reply. But meanwhile, rest assured that I am calm, and you are not, which is an indication of who is truly overly sensitive.

Note to ywhx, this last bit is ad hominem, as it does not address the issue, but merely attempts to defeat argument by attacking the man. I point this out to you because you, feeling like Lord Haseo, would not point out his faults. To really hold a legitimate point of view, you must be willing to challenge your own views. I do not see you as willing to do so.

Ok

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

Other than not wanting to be discriminated against or looked down upon (or told they’re a sinner), I don’t see why.

I have a few people in mind that I once knew personally. If they were scared of being called a sinner, then gay acts are the least of their actions that need to changed.

Not sure I follow. I’m not asking you to elaborate on the details, but perhaps you can explain it to me better.

And what on earth do you mean by “maybe they want to settle down.” How does that have anything to do with your orientation?

I think you’re relatively ignorant of the role subversiveness plays in homosexuality for a lot of people.

It’s certainly possible, I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying. Perhaps you can elaborate.

darth_ender said:

Well, I literally am out of time. But I can’t help but laugh at your (over)reaction. Mark my words, I’ll give you a good reply. But meanwhile, rest assured that I am calm, and you are not, which is an indication of who is truly overly sensitive.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

Note to ywhx, this last bit is ad hominem, as it does not address the issue, but merely attempts to defeat argument by attacking the man. I point this out to you because you, feeling like Lord Haseo, would not point out his faults. To really hold a legitimate point of view, you must be willing to challenge your own views. I do not see you as willing to do so.

I am always willing to change my views. I always view my opinions as in a box and can be changed at any time.

Why not a purse? Or a backpack? Or a briefcase?

I think it’s funny when two people go at each other calling each other mad.

“Why are you so mad, dude, calm down.”

“I’m not mad, you’re obviously mad and projecting your madness onto me, just calm down dude.”

“Woah dude, calm down, no need to get so mad.”