Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is normal to be disgusted by deviant immoral behavior.
Our Judicial branch is infested with liberal activists.
You make a mockery of noble, just civil rights efforts by trying to foist your perversions on society.
Proverbs 6:16
There are six things that the Lord hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies,
and one who sows discord among brothers.
Apparently it is people like you who are an abomination unto God.
Do you worship the zombie wizard from the ancient Hebrew legends?
I wonder how scorn and atheism are related? If people who naturally tend to mock and scorn things are drawn to atheism or if atheism turns some into a mocking scornful person?
Because terms like this are not to advance conversation so much as insult. It's like Christians calling Muhammad "The pedophile murderer" or even something more mild like "The polygamous slave-owner." The point is just to insult not better educate yourself.
Granted it might be because as an atheist or non-theist you are often not simply not partaking of a thing you are defined in opposition to a thing. Older non-Internet atheists would evaluate religion the way I evaluate non-Christian religions, but the younger Internet generation of them aren't interested in that. The Internet is inherently impersonal to some degree and that detachment might encourage a reduction in empathy. At least to those you communicate with online. It's possible you'd never talk in such a snide and obnoxious manner in real life. Although it's also possible that you just are a scornful mocking person disinterested by nature or choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Why is the zombie wizard so interested in how we use our genitals? It seems a little petty if you ask me.
Jesus wasn't really obsessed with sex and religion isn't that obsessed with sex. People are obsessed with sex. The Pope or the Ecumenical Patriarch or the President of the Mormons or whatever could write entire books that have one paragraph on sex and their views on sex is what will get news.
Sex is discussed more than some things because it's a core natural drive that generally has more emotional significance than eating or defecating. Sexual misconduct can lead to complications, illnesses, and so forth. Pretty much every society has some rules or taboos on sex. What bothers the secular person isn't that Christianity goes on about sex, it doesn't necessarily (my current priest is like the only one I've seen really bring up Church teaching on birth control and one of the few to discuss sexual ethics at all and even he mostly discusses other things), but that orthodox Christian views on sex are not views you find acceptable or reasonable.
If preachers or priests focused sexual criticisms on incest, even for infertile people, and necrophilia you'd likely not care. Those taboos, presumably, fit your taboos whether they're based in reason or not. (True the dead can not consent, but neither can vibrators or blow-up dolls and I doubt many atheists have a problem with those mindless things being used for sex) Or if they were against 30-year-old men marrying 14-year-old girls, a fairly common practice until modern times, that taboo would also likely fit your taboo or that of other atheists anyway. It's the idea of people having a different sexual ethos to the one you find modern that's offensive. And your personal offense does not have to effect another culture at all nor should it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Wouldn't it have been better if he would have focused on things like "banning slavery" instead of reinforcing the importance of cutting the skin off my little boys penis?
You couldn't have banned slavery in ancient Rome. Ancient China tried it during Christ's lifetime, the Wang Mang usurpation, and it didn't work even though the Chinese were less dependent on slave labor than Rome.
And where does Christ even discuss circumcision? By the sixteenth century Christians in Europe even deemed circumcision "Judaizing" and castigated the Ethiopians for doing it.
I was referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Salt Lake City-headquartered Church), and not one of its 100 or so offshoots. The absolutely fastest way an LDS person can get excommunicated from the Church is to enter into a polygamous relationship. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it.[/quote]
I wonder how scorn and atheism are related? If people who naturally tend to mock and scorn things are drawn to atheism or if atheism turns some into a mocking scornful person?
Because terms like this are not to advance conversation so much as insult. It's like Christians calling Muhammad "The pedophile murderer" or even something more mild like "The polygamous slave-owner." The point is just to insult not better educate yourself.
Granted it might be because as an atheist or non-theist you are often not simply not partaking of a thing you are defined in opposition to a thing. Older non-Internet atheists would evaluate religion the way I evaluate non-Christian religions, but the younger Internet generation of them aren't interested in that. The Internet is inherently impersonal to some degree and that detachment might encourage a reduction in empathy. At least to those you communicate with online. It's possible you'd never talk in such a snide and obnoxious manner in real life. Although it's also possible that you just are a scornful mocking person disinterested by nature or choice.
Jesus wasn't really obsessed with sex and religion isn't that obsessed with sex. People are obsessed with sex. The Pope or the Ecumenical Patriarch or the President of the Mormons or whatever could write entire books that have one paragraph on sex and their views on sex is what will get news.
Sex is discussed more than some things because it's a core natural drive that generally has more emotional significance than eating or defecating. Sexual misconduct can lead to complications, illnesses, and so forth. Pretty much every society has some rules or taboos on sex. What bothers the secular person isn't that Christianity goes on about sex, it doesn't necessarily (my current priest is like the only one I've seen really bring up Church teaching on birth control and one of the few to discuss sexual ethics at all and even he mostly discusses other things), but that orthodox Christian views on sex are not views you find acceptable or reasonable.
If preachers or priests focused sexual criticisms on incest, even for infertile people, and necrophilia you'd likely not care. Those taboos, presumably, fit your taboos whether they're based in reason or not. (True the dead can not consent, but neither can vibrators or blow-up dolls and I doubt many atheists have a problem with those mindless things being used for sex) Or if they were against 30-year-old men marrying 14-year-old girls, a fairly common practice until modern times, that taboo would also likely fit your taboo or that of other atheists anyway. It's the idea of people having a different sexual ethos to the one you find modern that's offensive. And your personal offense does not have to effect another culture at all nor should it.
You couldn't have banned slavery in ancient Rome. Ancient China tried it during Christ's lifetime, the Wang Mang usurpation, and it didn't work even though the Chinese were less dependent on slave labor than Rome.
And where does Christ even discuss circumcision? By the sixteenth century Christians in Europe even deemed circumcision "Judaizing" and castigated the Ethiopians for doing it.
You shouldn't have taken my post literally.
It was meant to demonstrate that I don't find that posters ideas worthy of respect, and I think his posts were deserving of the ridicule I heaped on him. He spewed hatred based on his bigoted and selective understanding of fundamentalist Christianity. I'm not going to treat that argument with more dignity than it deserves, because it might lend it undue credibility.
It is unfortunate that it would offend even the non-fundamentalist, but you have to understand that not all arguments that make sense against fundamentalist will be appealing to moderates. And the tone of my argument will change depending on the tone of the post I'm responding to.
Occasionally, a fundamentalist position will deserve scorn, where a more moderate position would not.
A religious issue - Gay people are children of God and should be respected as such.
A moral issue - it is immoral to hate or discriminate against gay people.
A legal issue - Homosexuality is not against the law (Supreme Court decision Lawrence Vs. Texas 2003), can serve openly in the military, and discriminating against them is illegal in many jurisdictions.
A civil rights issue - there is an ongoing civil rights struggle on behalf of the LGBT community to achieve equality in employment, housing, public accommodations, marriage, etc.
If I could rep you a million times, it still wouldn't be enough.
But back to the immediate for a moment. Society has had it with whiney gay activists. There are real problems facing this country and your problems are not high at all on the list of priorities. You've gone as far as you can go and the "future" will see many of your "gains" rolled back. Strut and puff now and imagine you are favored by the majority. You are not. It's just the PC game and you're not the focus of much attention anymore.
Are you a member of Fred Phelp's cult? You sure fit the mold.
It was meant to demonstrate that I don't find that posters ideas worthy of respect, and I think his posts were deserving of the ridicule I heaped on him. He spewed hatred based on his bigoted and selective understanding of fundamentalist Christianity. I'm not going to treat that argument with more dignity than it deserves, because it might lend it undue credibility.
It is unfortunate that it would offend even the non-fundamentalist, but you have to understand that not all arguments that make sense against fundamentalist will be appealing to moderates. And the tone of my argument will change depending on the tone of the post I'm responding to.
Occasionally, a fundamentalist position will deserve scorn, where a more moderate position would not.
I kind of understand that, but some of the insults you were doing were going to kind of hit even some of the most modernistic and liberal of Christians. (Which I'm admittedly not, liberal that is, but I'm not fundamentalist either)
It would be like if I went off on one of the Muslims here with the insults of Muhammad I mentioned. The insults I chose were based on somewhat credible ideas of his life too, but even if honest I'd still be uncomfortable as such characterizations are unfair and I do know of some Muslims online I respect. (Something can be honest and unfair. Calling George Washington a slave-owning aristocrat who married for money and killed innocent Iroquois wouldn't precisely be untrue, but it would be misleading as it disregards other things about him) Plus I love some Yusef Lateef tunes, although he's Ahmadi and most Muslims deem them heretics.
The term marriage is a religous term. Marriage is a religous practice belongs to religion.
Please forgive me and pray for me please because I do not won't to be intolerant of anyone, I have no right to be intolerant of others.
I just don't understand why the gay community insist having the term "marriage."
I don't know why religious people don't want to share the term "marriage". Sharing is caring, as they say.
Besides, marriage is more of a societal thing, if anything. If there was any religious connotations behind it, it sure is lost now. Religion does not own the term marriage. Besides, straight married people use the term "being married" without having any religious affiliations. What does that make them?
So I'm not sure why religious people are so hung over on the word "marriage" being used by gays?
I really think the Bible needs to be edited to fit with what some modern Christians believe.
What could we change here? I know: "Let he who is with sin throw as many damn stones as he pleases" "Always judge everyone and don't worry about thyself." We'll also completely remove the Sermon on the Mount, because the person who gave it clearly doesn't matter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
