Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

I'm Christian, Unless You're Gay


Off-Topic Discussions

701 to 750 of 1,199 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Aretas wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Aretas wrote:

Looking at one sentence, or even an entire passage in any text, disconnected from the whole document and hence out of context, inevitably distorts the overall truth and total or comprehensive meaning of that text. Consequently, the sweeping conclusions and myriad implications you draw from this isolated example out of context have limited, if any, validity.

Feel free to provide the context.

But when you say "I find it crazy to assert that Christianity oppresses woman." I find the texts above support the argument pretty well, meaning that it is far from "crazy" to assert Christianity oppressed women.

I'm not the one providing the text or making the assertion that Christianity is evil, or against woman. Ask the other poster.

Later!

I'm not the on providing the text.

I didn't write the bible.

I just read it.


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
Stuff

If I say "The rain is why I no longer leave the windows in my car down while im at work", is that an insult to the rain?

I can understand how that can be perceived as an insult, but it was only a comment born of truth. Someone who exhibited similar behavior caused a person to seek more answers elsewhere, and he believes Christanity is no longer for him.

It's unfortunate, but it is what it is.

I'd be more concerned about the un-Christian behavior that drove a brother from Christ than the insult.

Complete Nonsense.

People are not objects and have choices in their actions.

It was specifically referencing DD in a negative manner regarding the positions he holds and the way he acts.

That is an insult. Trying to argue otherwise is complete nonsense.

In fact, the very end of the above post continues to make the point. It is saying that umbral reaver was driven away from Christianity by people who claimed Christianity but acted otherwise. Saying those were people like DD is insulting DD.

Not an insult is more nonsense.

It's not complete nonsense.

The rain example is of cause and effect.
X behavior led to Y person no longer being Christian.
Again, if the text had been "It's because of bad Muslims like Bin laden, I am no longer a Muslim" is that an insult to Bin Laden or a sweeping brush statement of all Muslims?
NO, it isn't. It's statement of fact.
If Bin Laden was offended, then that more speaks to guilt over his behavior being called out than anything else, and if he weren't dead, he could probably reflect on that and amend his behavior accordingly to act in a way more in-line with Islam, were he willing to.

Liberty's Edge

Aretas, what you seem to be missing is that a question can be inflammatory.

"Why are group X such horrible human beings?" is an extremely inflammatory statement. (With pretty much any group inserted for group X.) Ditto attacking the leader of a movement, you may not insult the posters directly, but that doesn't mean you haven't been inflammatory.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Aretas,
Did you really just compare people who support Obama to the followers of the North Korean regime? And you claim everyone else is being inflammatory? Riiiiight. Matthew 7: 3-5 applies, I believe.


XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
I think most people have mislayed their unhappiness with Jews,onto the Christians. It is they who conform to the first 5 books of the Old Testament most rigorously,that seems to be the source for everybodys out of context snippets they like to use against Christians. Just an observation.

The problem with that observation is that there are plenty of Christians who do use those same out of context snippets to justify oppressing women (or gays or blacks or whoever they want to oppress.)

I try to avoid the Bible quote wars because I don't really care about what Christians should theoretically do. I care about what Christians do, especially when it affects the rest of us.

Unfortunately, the prime public voices supporting prejudice against homosexuals in the US are Christians. (Other religions fill the same role elsewhere.) Not all Christians or even Christian organizations do so, but Christian institutions have been far more dominant in the fight against gay rights than for them. Not just in the current argument over marriage, but dating back to times when you could go to jail for homosexual acts.


[Plays his trolling theme song.]

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Aretas wrote:


Posting that we need a Statesman first or a Politician is not inflammatory. One person attempted to answer that question. Instead of talking about that I had to spend my time responding to accusations about my intent.

Actually you posted

"The economy, race relations, foreign affairs just to name a few have seriously gotten worse under his watch.

People are talking about topics that distract us from the real problems facing our nation.

President Obama in my opinion cares more about his re-election than doing the right thing for the USA."

Which is pretty inflammatory, actually.

Far more inflammatory than someone saying that hardcore followers of written christian doctrine, such as condemnation of homosexuality and the place of women, turned them off from Christianity.

Which seems to be what offended you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:

[Plays his trolling theme song.]

I prefer this one.


That is pretty awesome, Citizen Kryzbyn.


He's even a Ruskie.


Kryzbyn wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
Stuff

If I say "The rain is why I no longer leave the windows in my car down while im at work", is that an insult to the rain?

I can understand how that can be perceived as an insult, but it was only a comment born of truth. Someone who exhibited similar behavior caused a person to seek more answers elsewhere, and he believes Christanity is no longer for him.

It's unfortunate, but it is what it is.

I'd be more concerned about the un-Christian behavior that drove a brother from Christ than the insult.

Complete Nonsense.

People are not objects and have choices in their actions.

It was specifically referencing DD in a negative manner regarding the positions he holds and the way he acts.

That is an insult. Trying to argue otherwise is complete nonsense.

In fact, the very end of the above post continues to make the point. It is saying that umbral reaver was driven away from Christianity by people who claimed Christianity but acted otherwise. Saying those were people like DD is insulting DD.

Not an insult is more nonsense.

It's not complete nonsense.

The rain example is of cause and effect.
X behavior led to Y person no longer being Christian.
Again, if the text had been "It's because of bad Muslims like Bin laden, I am no longer a Muslim" is that an insult to Bin Laden or a sweeping brush statement of all Muslims?
NO, it isn't. It's statement of fact.
If Bin Laden was offended, then that more speaks to guilt over his behavior being called out than anything else, and if he weren't dead, he could probably reflect on that and amend his behavior accordingly to act in a way more in-line with Islam, were he willing to.

More nonsense.

Calling it a fact that the rain comparison is a good one for this case is nonsense.

People are not rain. Behavior by someone leading to another not being Christian is a criticism of that behavior. Directing a statement at a particular poster and stating "people like you" are the reason is an insult to that person. There is no way around that.


ShadowcatX wrote:

And once again, Ciretose has made the point I wanted to make much more elegant than I can. However, because this is the internet I'm still going to jump in.

If someone said "I investigated Wicca, and I found it isn't for me" that is neither an insult nor an inflamatory statement. If someone posted that Wicca is a sex cult, that would not be an insult to me, despite the fact that I am Wiccan. It is however, an inflammatory statement, and could be considered trolling (if there's enough Wiccans here that would get worked up over that at least). If someone posted that all Wiccans are perverts that would be an insult, an inflammatory statement, and trolling.

Of course, if someone said, people like you are why I left Wicca, it would be a swipe at you regardless of whether or not they added afterward that it caused them to further investigate then leave. The cause for further investigation was a negative factor and stating it in that manner (people like you) is a swipe at that person.


More fun stuff:

I do believe that you can call someone a "dear leader" without it being specifically a reference to North Korea.

I don't believe that Citizen Aretas's post from another thread that we're not supposed to be talking about anymore was particularly inflammatory in and of itself--but given his previous posting history I am surprised at his surprise about the reaction.

I didn't find Umbral Reaver's post particularly insulting, but I can see The Thing's point. BUT #1) I don't think a single one of you is reading it correctly. BUT #2) Darkwing Duck is a pretty outspoken individual--it seems strange for others to be taking offense on his behalf. BUT #3) I wonder if Umbral Reaver had a fair idea of what Darkwing Duck actually believes before she wrote that.

And, finally, Karl Marx famously wrote that religion is the opiate of the masses. I, for one, don't mess around with the cheap shiznit. [Bubble bubble bubble]


Or one could take it as constructive criticism and take a look at their behavior, but cest la vie.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
The cause for further investigation was a negative factor and stating it in that manner (people like you) is a swipe at that person.

So let's assume that homophobic sexists were the reason I actually picked up a bible, read it, found its teachings objectionable, and rejected the church.

And lets assume someone is saying the texts of the bible are to be read literally.

My saying that people like that are why I left the church would be accurate, even if the person may feel insulted.

Sometimes the truth hurts.


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

More nonsense.
Calling it a fact that the rain comparison is a good one for this case is nonsense.

People are not rain. Behavior by someone leading to another not being Christian is a criticism of that...

I did not call the rain example fact, I said that it was a fact that a person's behavior caused a person to question his faith to a point he left it.

It may technicly be an insult, but when it's also the truth...who's at fault? They guy calling a spade a spade, or the person who's behavior is the issue?


thejeff wrote:
XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
I think most people have mislayed their unhappiness with Jews,onto the Christians. It is they who conform to the first 5 books of the Old Testament most rigorously,that seems to be the source for everybodys out of context snippets they like to use against Christians. Just an observation.

The problem with that observation is that there are plenty of Christians who do use those same out of context snippets to justify oppressing women (or gays or blacks or whoever they want to oppress.)

I try to avoid the Bible quote wars because I don't really care about what Christians should theoretically do. I care about what Christians do, especially when it affects the rest of us.

Unfortunately, the prime public voices supporting prejudice against homosexuals in the US are Christians. (Other religions fill the same role elsewhere.) Not all Christians or even Christian organizations do so, but Christian institutions have been far more dominant in the fight against gay rights than for them. Not just in the current argument over marriage, but dating back to times when you could go to jail for homosexual acts.

It makes sense since 78% of Americans identify with some brand of Christianity.


ciretose wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
The cause for further investigation was a negative factor and stating it in that manner (people like you) is a swipe at that person.

So let's assume that homophobic sexists were the reason I actually picked up a bible, read it, found its teachings objectionable, and rejected the church.

And lets assume someone is saying the texts of the bible are to be read literally.

My saying that people like that are why I left the church would be accurate, even if the person may feel insulted.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

You really need to pay more attention to what is being stated.

I said that if that is what you are stating then fine just don't pretend otherwise. On the previous page I stated:

Quote:


If one wishes to say, "I am insulting those jack asses because they deserve it for their actions, then fine. But, don't pretend that one isn't being insulted or that they are just reading into things that aren't there and don't complain if others respond in a manner that eventually leads to the thread being closed.

But, to go farther about this:

"My saying that people like that are why I left the church would be accurate, even if the person may feel insulted.

Sometimes the truth hurts."

...is that is not what was stated. Rather than "people like that" it was "people like Darkwing Duck"

Posters are arguing that is not a swipe at Darkwing Duck. Nonsense.


ciretose wrote:
Aretas wrote:


Posting that we need a Statesman first or a Politician is not inflammatory. One person attempted to answer that question. Instead of talking about that I had to spend my time responding to accusations about my intent.

Actually you posted

"The economy, race relations, foreign affairs just to name a few have seriously gotten worse under his watch.

People are talking about topics that distract us from the real problems facing our nation.

President Obama in my opinion cares more about his re-election than doing the right thing for the USA."

Which is pretty inflammatory, actually.

Far more inflammatory than someone saying that hardcore followers of written christian doctrine, such as condemnation of homosexuality and the place of women, turned them off from Christianity.

You left this part out...

"Where are you Mr. President? We need a statesman NOT a politician"
Which seems to be what offended you.


Kryzbyn wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

More nonsense.
Calling it a fact that the rain comparison is a good one for this case is nonsense.

People are not rain. Behavior by someone leading to another not being Christian is a criticism of that...

I did not call the rain example fact, I said that it was a fact that a person's behavior caused a person to question his faith to a point he left it.

It may technicly be an insult, but when it's also the truth...who's at fault? They guy calling a spade a spade, or the person who's behavior is the issue?

The point is that umbral reaver did not (merely) say "people doing that" caused me to leave but rather specifically called out Darkwing Duck. That is an insult. Personal attacks, truthful or not, are against the ules and can result in locks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
I think most people have mislayed their unhappiness with Jews,onto the Christians. It is they who conform to the first 5 books of the Old Testament most rigorously,that seems to be the source for everybodys out of context snippets they like to use against Christians. Just an observation.

No.

And also, Jews have had enough problems with Christians shifting the blame for things onto them, please don't try and make it worse.


Aretas wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Unfortunately, the prime public voices supporting prejudice against homosexuals in the US are Christians. (Other religions fill the same role elsewhere.) Not all Christians or even Christian organizations do so, but Christian institutions have been far more dominant in the fight against gay rights than for them. Not just in the current argument over marriage, but dating back to times when you could go to jail for homosexual acts.

It makes sense since 78% of Americans identify with some brand of Christianity.

I read this as a non sequitir, Citizen Aretas.

78% of Americans identify as Christians, therefore Christianity is the prime public voice supporting anti-gay bigotry doesn't make any sense to me.

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:
Looking at one sentence, or even an entire passage in any text, disconnected from the whole document and hence out of context, inevitably distorts the overall truth and total or comprehensive meaning of that text. Consequently, the sweeping conclusions and myriad implications you draw from this isolated example out of context have limited, if any, validity.

A few problems

First of all, the text you quoted is from Galatians, which was written by Paul, which is only Jesus's say so on Pauls say so.

Secondly, the bible is a very long book written by a large number of authors spread across time and space. It is neither united nor cohesive. The bible can be interpreted with various amounts of shoehorning into saying almost anything you want. It is not the unbelievers job to decide that your particular brand of Christianity is the "real" one and the brand that does something they don't like must therefore be fake. You cannot justifiably get angry with the unbelievers for not spotting you in the crowd when you're saying "Here! I'm the real Spartacus!... and so are the other people standing next to you.

At best the unbeliever can say that a particular brand of Christianity is so inconsistent with the bible as to no longer be Christianity. You think that the bibles overall message of love and tolerance outweighs any of the myriad of passages to the contrary. I and most unbelievers would say that the myriad of passages to the contrary make the alleged overall message of love and tolerance a myth. If you wonder why we think that Christianity is a negative influence on people the answer isn't with us: its with the bible and with your fellow Christians.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:

It makes sense since 78% of Americans identify with some brand of Christianity.

Yet only 33% worldwide, according to that same Wikipedia page I presume we are both looking at.

But oddly, there are 698 Red Lobster locations worldwide, despite it being an "abomination"

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Aretas wrote:

You left this part out...
"Where are you Mr. President? We need a statesman NOT a politician"
Which seems to be what offended you.

Actually none of it offended me. I'm not that sensitive. I just thought it was silly and wrong, which is why I gave you a real example of poor statesmanship from Reagan.


Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:
Aretas wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Unfortunately, the prime public voices supporting prejudice against homosexuals in the US are Christians. (Other religions fill the same role elsewhere.) Not all Christians or even Christian organizations do so, but Christian institutions have been far more dominant in the fight against gay rights than for them. Not just in the current argument over marriage, but dating back to times when you could go to jail for homosexual acts.
It makes sense since 78% of Americans identify with some brand of Christianity.

I read this as a non sequitir, Citizen Aretas.

78% of Americans identify as Christians, therefore Christianity is the prime public voice supporting anti-gay bigotry doesn't make any sense to me.

Yeah, that makes no sense to me either. If I'd said that the debate over gay rights was between Christian groups, then that response would have made sense. But I didn't, because it isn't.

Many gay rights supporters are Christian and there are more and more churches that don't have a problem with it, but Christian churches have never been a major force behind the movement.
They have definitely been the main opposition.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:

Hold on there cowboy! I never said or implied the above statement. I find it crazy to assert that Christianity oppresses woman. Didn't you & Vice President Biden get the memo fromo the White house? The so called fake "war on woman" is a over.

You speak about how Christianity killed...

The Catholic church is actively trying to deny women access to birth control.

Here's some information about how birth control has valid medical benefits:

Link
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5
Link 6

The Catholic Church isn't alone in their opposition. A Baptist, a Lutheran and a Jew (all men) all testified against giving women contraception in front of congress.

Men in charge of religious organizations should have nothing to do with determining what type of medical treatment is available to women.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Aretas wrote:

Hold on there cowboy! I never said or implied the above statement. I find it crazy to assert that Christianity oppresses woman. Didn't you & Vice President Biden get the memo fromo the White house? The so called fake "war on woman" is a over.

You speak about how Christianity killed...

The Catholic Church isn't alone in their opposition. A Baptist, a Lutheran and a Jew (all men) all testified against giving women contraception in front of congress.

Men in charge of religious organizations should have nothing to do with determining what type of medical treatment is available to women.

Of course, if that's the same Congressional hearing I'm thinking of, no women were allowed to testify. Not like they might have anything relevant to say.

Just shut up and let the menfolk decide for you.


Dogbladewarrior wrote:


You know Jean-Paul for an Internet Troll you are strangely reasonable.

Hello, Dogbladewarrior, nice to meet you. You seem pretty reasonable, too. I saw you (up above? somewhere else?) being nice to Darkwing Duck, which, I have to admit, is not a tactic that has been tried in quite a while.

@Comrade Jeff--As one leftie to another, I don't have lots of great things to say about America and its churches, but, you have to give even the Devil his due: It'd be hard to imagine the Abolitionist movement, the Civil Rights Movement, or, come to think of it, most of the "progressive" movements we both love so much post-1830 without religious figures like, oh, John Brown and Malcolm X (hee hee!).

Not so much gay rights. Which, imho, is really silly. Where you put your genitals at night seems like such an insignificant detail in a world full of murder, rapine, genocide and capitalism (hee hee!), that if there were a divine being, I don't see how they could even bring themselves to care.

There is a strange and powerful voodoo surrounding that whole butt sex thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:
Dogbladewarrior wrote:


You know Jean-Paul for an Internet Troll you are strangely reasonable.

Hello, Dogbladewarrior, nice to meet you. You seem pretty reasonable, too. I saw you (up above? somewhere else?) being nice to Darkwing Duck, which, I have to admit, is not a tactic that has been tried in quite a while.

@Comrade Jeff--As one leftie to another, I don't have lots of great things to say about America and its churches, but, you have to give even the Devil his due: It'd be hard to imagine the Abolitionist movement, the Civil Rights Movement, or, come to think of it, most of the "progressive" movements we both love so much post-1830 without religious figures like, oh, John Brown and Malcolm X (hee hee!).

Not so much gay rights. Which, imho, is really silly. Where you put your genitals at night seems like such an insignificant detail in a world full of murder, rapine, genocide and capitalism (hee hee!), that if there were a divine being, I don't see how they could even bring themselves to care.

There is a strange and powerful voodoo surrounding that whole butt sex thing.

Sex in general has powerful voodoo. As the opposition to birth control shows.

But yes, churches in the US have done many good things. That's why, in addition to some vain attempt to be on-topic for this thread, I spoke to gay rights specifically.

I'm not sure if the churches have changed or if gay rights is just a step too far. A little of both, most likely.
The rise of the right-wing Christian movement and its ties to the Republican party has been poisonous for the country. And for religion.


Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:
Dogbladewarrior wrote:


You know Jean-Paul for an Internet Troll you are strangely reasonable.

Hello, Dogbladewarrior, nice to meet you. You seem pretty reasonable, too. I saw you (up above? somewhere else?) being nice to Darkwing Duck, which, I have to admit, is not a tactic that has been tried in quite a while.

Howdy, how are you? You might be talking about when I commented on his revelation of what his medical situation with his back is, which just sounds like a terrible situation. Empathy for terrible situations tend to trump arguments in how I respond to people most of the time. That often seems to be how people in the real world respond too. I'm new to chatting on the internet so it's prolly just a case of me not developing myself a proper troll hide yet.


Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:
Aretas wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Unfortunately, the prime public voices supporting prejudice against homosexuals in the US are Christians. (Other religions fill the same role elsewhere.) Not all Christians or even Christian organizations do so, but Christian institutions have been far more dominant in the fight against gay rights than for them. Not just in the current argument over marriage, but dating back to times when you could go to jail for homosexual acts.

It makes sense since 78% of Americans identify with some brand of Christianity.

I read this as a non sequitir, Citizen Aretas.

78% of Americans identify as Christians, therefore Christianity is the prime public voice supporting anti-gay bigotry doesn't make any sense to me.

Well how homophobic is a nation that is 78% Christian and IS tolerant to whatever lifestyle you choose? Not at all.

I believe its a testament to what Christianity is all about. IMO.

Scarab Sages

Aretas wrote:
It was not "Trolling". I would much appreciate that you cease accusing me of that. I was expressing my opinion and was looking for some constructive dialogue. Instead I got bashed.

It was trolling. No tmatter how you put it. You made non-verifiable statements and when asked couldn't or wouldn't provide anything resembling a coherent argument. Much like what you're doing now.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Dogbladewarrior wrote:


Howdy, how are you? You might be talking about when I commented on his revelation of what his medical situation with his back is, which just sounds like a terrible situation. Empathy for terrible situations tend to trump arguments in how I respond to people most of the time. That often seems to be how people in the real world respond too. I'm new to chatting on the internet so it's prolly just a case of me not developing myself a proper troll hide yet.

Come to the Dark Side...we have full medical and dental!

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Aretas wrote:

Well how homophobic is a nation that is 78% Christian and IS tolerant to whatever lifestyle you choose? Not at all.
I believe its a testament to what Christianity is all about. IMO.

Really.

An ideology don't get a cookie for not being genocidal this time when it has a track record.

A few decades back, I would be killed for typing what I am typing. Hell, depending on where I go where I go...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:

Well how homophobic is a nation that is 78% Christian and IS tolerant to whatever lifestyle you choose? Not at all.

I believe its a testament to what Christianity is all about. IMO.

40+ years of hard work and slowly growing acceptance, opposed at every step by many Christian leaders. Still without full rights or acceptance.

That's a testament to how tolerant Christianity is?

And notice the "lifestyle" and "choose" buzzwords in there? Cute.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:

Well how homophobic is a nation that is 78% Christian and IS tolerant to whatever lifestyle you choose? Not at all.

I believe its a testament to what Christianity is all about. IMO.

Actually, very. Thankfully, there's this thing called the Constitution. If not for that...

My grandparents were ordained ministers so I have a pretty good working knowledge of the bible. Yes, it oppresses women. Yes, it oppresses gays. Yes, it blames the jews for the death of "Christ". Where I live at, there are now 3 laws on the books that ban gay marriage. A law just passed that will close down 17 to 20 of the 24 clinics that provide abortion. There is a war on women. And for the most part, it's driven by christianity.

Paul is considered cannon and an authority. What he wrote is what "God" said. What is in the Bible is considered the Holy Word of God by the early church fathers and is inline with what they thought of Jesus' message.

It was people LIKE DD that really pushed me into studying it. And the more I studied, the more I questioned, the more I found the glaring contradictions, the less I became impressed until I finally had enough.


Irontruth wrote:
Aretas wrote:

Hold on there cowboy! I never said or implied the above statement. I find it crazy to assert that Christianity oppresses woman. Didn't you & Vice President Biden get the memo fromo the White house? The so called fake "war on woman" is a over.

You speak about how Christianity killed...

The Catholic church is actively trying to deny women access to birth control.

Here's some information about how birth control has valid medical benefits:

Link
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5
Link 6

The Catholic Church isn't alone in their opposition. A Baptist, a Lutheran and a Jew (all men) all testified against giving women contraception in front of congress.

Men in charge of religious organizations should have nothing to do with determining what type of medical treatment is available to women.

From what I believe the "Church" is not against woman using birth control. They are against government mandating they provide free contraceptives in their health care plans. We do get into a 1st ammendment issue.

Also, if a woman wishes to use contraceptives they can purchase them outside of their health care plan. They do understand if the work for a private entity they will have to abide by their rules, not try to usurp them. IMO.

TTYL


Quote:

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Those are the last two paragraphs of the Declaration of Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union. They seem pretty confident that God is on their side and their interpretation (that slavery was a moral and right thing) had a religious background.

The Texas document had this passage:

Quote:
That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

In math (generally speaking), when a value appears on both sides of an equation, it is no longer necessary.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Aretas wrote:

Well how homophobic is a nation that is 78% Christian and IS tolerant to whatever lifestyle you choose? Not at all.

I believe its a testament to what Christianity is all about. IMO.

40+ years of hard work and slowly growing acceptance, opposed at every step by many Christian leaders. Still without full rights or acceptance.

That's a testament to how tolerant Christianity is?

And notice the "lifestyle" and "choose" buzzwords in there? Cute.

Should we really complain about Aretas citing the treatment of non-heterosexuals in the US as a testament to the virtues of Christianity? It seems he's making our argument for us. Maybe thanks are in order.

Liberty's Edge

ciretose wrote:

Yet only 33% worldwide, according to that same Wikipedia page I presume we are both looking at.

But oddly, there are 698 Red Lobster locations worldwide, despite it being an "abomination"

In the sake of fairness, food prohibitions were specifically lifted in the new testament in a vision of Peter. I don't recall where, precisely.


Aretas wrote:


From what I believe the "Church" is not against woman using birth control. They are against government mandating they provide free contraceptives in their health care plans. We do get into a 1st ammendment issue.
Also, if a woman wishes to use contraceptives they can purchase them outside of their health care plan. They do understand if the work for a private entity they will have to abide by their rules, not try to usurp them. IMO.

TTYL

According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church birth control is a sin. Abstinence, or periodic abstinence during fertile times is acceptable. Any artificial methods are out.

Most American Catholics ignore this.

Scarab Sages

Aretas wrote:


From what I believe the "Church" is not against woman using birth control. They are against government mandating they provide free contraceptives in their health care plans. We do get into a 1st ammendment issue.
Also, if a woman wishes to use contraceptives they can purchase them outside of their health care plan. They do understand if the work for a private entity they will have to abide by their rules, not try to usurp them. IMO.

TTYL

Really? You seriously believe that? Where did you grow up? The Catholic Church has always been against the use of birth control.

Look at what is going on in the Christian community in Africa. American Evangelicals are pushing the Ugandian "Kill The Gays" bill knowing full well that they can't do it here, they want to do it there. They teach that condoms are HOW you get HIV/AIDS.

Except for the name of God, Christianity and Islam share a lot of the same beliefs.

Liberty's Edge

Aretas wrote:

Well how homophobic is a nation that is 78% Christian and IS tolerant to whatever lifestyle you choose? Not at all.

I believe its a testament to what Christianity is all about. IMO.

So America passed a law allowing gays to marry? Wow. I missed that. Link please?


Aretas wrote:

From what I believe the "Church" is not against woman using birth control. They are against government mandating they provide free contraceptives in their health care plans. We do get into a 1st ammendment issue.

Also, if a woman wishes to use contraceptives they can purchase them outside of their health care plan. They do understand if the work for a private entity they will have to abide by their rules, not try to usurp them. IMO.

TTYL

Let me make sure I'm getting this right. You believe that religious beliefs are sufficient grounds to deny an employee access to medical coverage?

701 to 750 of 1,199 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / I'm Christian, Unless You're Gay All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.