I'm Christian, Unless You're Gay

[Darkwing Duck]

thejeff wrote:

Are you seriously arguing that gays came out of the closet because they were attacked by Christians?

Nothing to do with the general opening of tolerance and sexuality starting in the 60s?
Anita Bryant didn't start her campaign until almost a decade after Stonewall. The world was already changing. I suspect Anita Bryant (and her ilk) were more backlash than cause.
Then came AIDS and it was pretty much come out of the closet and fight or die.

I'm saying that many of them were dragged out of the closet by the Religious Reich only to find support among others who had similarly been dragged out as well as those who just got pissed off by the injustice. Some of these people in the open became rolemodels for the following generation.

[thejeff]

Darkwing Duck wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Are you seriously arguing that gays came out of the closet because they were attacked by Christians?

Nothing to do with the general opening of tolerance and sexuality starting in the 60s?
Anita Bryant didn't start her campaign until almost a decade after Stonewall. The world was already changing. I suspect Anita Bryant (and her ilk) were more backlash than cause.
Then came AIDS and it was pretty much come out of the closet and fight or die.

I'm saying that many of them were dragged out of the closet by the Religious Reich only to find support among others who had similarly been dragged out as well as those who just got pissed off by the injustice. Some of these people in the open became rolemodels for the following generation.

Now that statement seems true. It hardly leads to

Quote:

Gay marriage would not even be considered as an option, if not for the whackjob wingnut branch of Christianity.

[ciretose]

Darkwing Duck wrote:

I'm saying that many of them were dragged out of the closet by the Religious Reich only to find support among others who had similarly been dragged out as well as those who just got pissed off by the injustice. Some of these people in the open became rolemodels for the following generation.

They were only in the closet in the first place because of religious intolerance.

Your entire argument about minority oppression ignores the fact that the factionalism occurred through religious indoctrination.

If logic and reason trumped religion, there would be no closet in the first place.

[Darkwing Duck]

thejeff wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

thejeff wrote:

As I said, I'm well aware that there are churches that accept LGBTs. I was asking, if "there are a whole lot of churches and Christian leadership fighting for equality and respect for gays" and "the whole anti-homosexuality meme" is just "the crazy fringe of Christianity", why don't the non-crazy fringe ones have anything like the influence of the crazies?

It is hard to see the anti-homosexual interpretation as "crazy fringe", when it's doctrine for the Catholic Church, the largest single denomination in the US and the majority denomination world wide. Nor is it at all rare in Protestant denominations. None of that means it isn't crazy or not a gross misinterpretation, but it's hard to call it fringe.

I'd call a church which openly accepts gays, gay marriage, and gay leadership "fighting for equality and respect for gays". Understand that the fight for equality among gays is not the same as the fight for equality among blacks (for example). Gays can hide in the closet and, when they do, they aren't going to be fighting for equality. The first step in a fight for equality is for gays to have a safe place where they can be themselves and, then, accept themselves.

These churches provide that.

In your world, can anyone do anything without religion? The bad churches forced gays out of the closet and the good ones protected them, leading to the wonderful place we are today.

In my world, gays responded to a greater respect for personal private sexuality, the same movement that allowed contraception, no-fault divorce and abortion, by organizing and demanding the same rights for themselves. Churches mostly fought this tooth and nail, but sometimes, eventually tolerated it.

I was really hoping for more.

I think its fair to say that if you graph LGBT-centric political activism over time, you see an inflection point around Stonewall and Anita Bryant. You see another inflection point around the early 1980s and Reagan's lack of response to AIDS. You can't remove the Religious Reich from either of those events.

[Darkwing Duck]

ciretose wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

I'm saying that many of them were dragged out of the closet by the Religious Reich only to find support among others who had similarly been dragged out as well as those who just got pissed off by the injustice. Some of these people in the open became rolemodels for the following generation.

They were only in the closet in the first place because of religious intolerance.

Your entire argument about minority oppression ignores the fact that the factionalism occurred through religious indoctrination.

If logic and reason trumped religion, there would be no closet in the first place.

I'm well aware of your penchant to blame every bad thing on reigion. I was caught out in the rain today. I'm pretty sure that was religion's fault.

[ciretose]

Darkwing Duck wrote:

I'm well aware of your penchant to blame every bad thing on reigion. I was caught out in the rain today. I'm pretty sure that was religion's fault.

Well, if God wanted it to rain...

I am not blaming every bad thing on religion. I'm saying if people worried less about what some magical invisible being wanted them to do and instead used logic and reason as their guide, the world would be a better place.

In the meantime, perhaps I will take this approach going forward.

[Darkwing Duck]

thejeff wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Are you seriously arguing that gays came out of the closet because they were attacked by Christians?

Nothing to do with the general opening of tolerance and sexuality starting in the 60s?
Anita Bryant didn't start her campaign until almost a decade after Stonewall. The world was already changing. I suspect Anita Bryant (and her ilk) were more backlash than cause.
Then came AIDS and it was pretty much come out of the closet and fight or die.

I'm saying that many of them were dragged out of the closet by the Religious Reich only to find support among others who had similarly been dragged out as well as those who just got pissed off by the injustice. Some of these people in the open became rolemodels for the following generation.

Now that statement seems true. It hardly leads to

Quote:

Gay marriage would not even be considered as an option, if not for the whackjob wingnut branch of Christianity.

And how do you think they would have fought for gay marriage if they didn't have that support network out of the closet?

[Aretas]

ciretose wrote:

XxAnthraxusxX wrote:

It is Christians, if anybody, who are under attack and being persecuted here in the United States and the World at large.

Do you actually believe this, or are you trolling. Because if you are arguing Christians are persecuted more than other religions, that kind of cognitive dissonance is amazing.

Wow, this post is amazing. All these attacks are not in war, they are an attempt to religiously cleanse the area of Christians. I invite you to look it up for yourself.

Egypt: Coptic Christians are literally being bombed before, during and after they attend Church.

Iraq: Aside from the sectarian Islamic violence, the Christian community is under constant attack. Arab Christians and Assyrians are all fleeing this country.

Nigeria: Most recently 150 people died when Muslim fanatics bombed a packed congregation on Easter.

Indonesia: More of the same.

These are just some recent examples. I'm not sure if your a student of history but the middle east of was not always Muslim. The Christians were systematically driven out.
Lebanon was until recently a Christian land. Thanks to Hezbollah and other crazies the Christian community is a twindling one.

[Darkwing Duck]

ciretose wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

I'm well aware of your penchant to blame every bad thing on reigion. I was caught out in the rain today. I'm pretty sure that was religion's fault.

Well, if God wanted it to rain...

I am not blaming every bad thing on religion. I'm saying if people worried less about what some magical invisible being wanted them to do and instead used logic and reason as their guide, the world would be a better place.

In the meantime, perhaps I will take this approach going forward.

So, those are the only options? Everyone outside the church behaves according to strict logic and reason? Or did you make a false dilemna - another pointless rhetorical trick?

[Darkwing Duck]

Aretas wrote:

ciretose wrote:

XxAnthraxusxX wrote:

It is Christians, if anybody, who are under attack and being persecuted here in the United States and the World at large.

Do you actually believe this, or are you trolling. Because if you are arguing Christians are persecuted more than other religions, that kind of cognitive dissonance is amazing.

Wow, this post is amazing. All these attacks are not in war, they are an attempt to religiously cleanse the area of Christians. I invite you to look it up for yourself.

Egypt: Coptic Christians are literally being bombed before, during and after they attend Church.

Iraq: Aside from the sectarian Islamic violence, the Christian community is under constant attack. Arab Christians and Assyrians are all fleeing this country.

Nigeria: Most recently 150 people died when Muslim fanatics bombed a packed congregation on Easter.

Indonesia: More of the same.

These are just some recent examples. I'm not sure if your a student of history but the middle east of was not always Muslim. The Christians were systematically driven out.
Lebanon was until recently a Christian land. Thanks to Hezbollah and other crazies the Christian community is a twindling one.

All of these events are tragic. There are many groups whose death tolls from persecution are higher, but every death from persecution is a tragedy.

[ciretose]

Aretas wrote:

ciretose wrote:

XxAnthraxusxX wrote:

It is Christians, if anybody, who are under attack and being persecuted here in the United States and the World at large.

Do you actually believe this, or are you trolling. Because if you are arguing Christians are persecuted more than other religions, that kind of cognitive dissonance is amazing.

Wow, this post is amazing. All these attacks are not in war, they are an attempt to religiously cleanse the area of Christians. I invite you to look it up for yourself.

Egypt: Coptic Christians are literally being bombed before, during and after they attend Church.

Iraq: Aside from the sectarian Islamic violence, the Christian community is under constant attack. Arab Christians and Assyrians are all fleeing this country.

Nigeria: Most recently 150 people died when Muslim fanatics bombed a packed congregation on Easter.

Indonesia: More of the same.

These are just some recent examples. I'm not sure if your a student of history but the middle east of was not always Muslim. The Christians were systematically driven out.
Lebanon was until recently a Christian land. Thanks to Hezbollah and other crazies the Christian community is a twindling one.

1. They are being bombed and killed by other religious people who believe their invisible person in the sky is better, only proving my point.

If you want to see Christians do the same thing recently, look up the Catholic Churches role in Rwanda.

It isn't the christian "God" that is the problem. It is believing that an invisible person in the sky wants you to do things, regardless of reason and logic.

2. You clearly haven't read the history of each of those countries. Or of Europe and how Christianity spread. Or of the crusades.

Lebanon for example, was screwed up by the French colonial powers trying to ensure Christians held power, leading to Civil War.

[ciretose]

Darkwing Duck wrote:

So, those are the only options? Everyone outside the church behaves according to strict logic and reason? Or did you make a false dilemna - another pointless rhetorical trick?

When did wanting people to use logic and reason become a rhetorical trick?

[Darkwing Duck]

ciretose wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

So, those are the only options? Everyone outside the church behaves according to strict logic and reason? Or did you make a false dilemna - another pointless rhetorical trick?

When did wanting people to use logic and reason become a rhetorical trick?

Prove, using logic that God doesn't exist. Absence of proof isn't proof of absence, if it were, then the stars visible only with modern telescopes didn't exist until those telescopes were created. Those stars must have popped into existence magically at the precise moment we first turned telescopes towards them powerful enough to see them.

[Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll]

I stick by my whole books don't oppress people thing. In fact, I'll adopt a slogan from the NRA: "Books don't oppress people, people oppress people." Otherwise you'd imagine that the horrible treatment proscribed for women and gays and those whose cows gore passersby in Leviticus would be uniform throughout the centuries of Christianity and that obviously has not been the case (although it's been pretty uniform with the gays).

Conversely, we've never really seen in our lifetimes overwhelming numbers of Christians demonstrating to turn the other cheek in foreign affairs or to give all of their possessions to the poor, which you'd expect to find if The Bible made anyone do anything.

In other news, as tragic as the deaths of Christians in communalist violence in the Middle East is:

a) no one here, as far as I can tell, is arguing for the superiority of Islam;

b) "look how worse the Muslims are about gays and religious intolerance (now)" is a pretty piss-poor excuse; and

c) the idea that attacks on Coptics in Egypt is part of the same phenomenon of anti-Christianity in the U.S. that includes Bill Maher and "Happy Holidays" replacing "Merry Christmas" is pretty amusing.

[ciretose]

Darkwing Duck wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

So, those are the only options? Everyone outside the church behaves according to strict logic and reason? Or did you make a false dilemna - another pointless rhetorical trick?

When did wanting people to use logic and reason become a rhetorical trick?

Prove, using logic that God doesn't exist. Absence of proof isn't proof of absence, if it were, then the stars visible only with modern telescopes didn't exist until those telescopes were created. Those stars must have popped into existence magically at the precise moment we first turned telescopes towards them powerful enough to see them.

Prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

I wrote a few pages back that both an all knowing and all powerful god were logical fallacies, leaving us with the potential for really powerful really smart beings, who despite this great power and intellect, allow evil to exist and can only convince, at best, 33% of the worlds population to follow a given faith.

So why would I consider what an imaginary creature who may or may not exist wants me to do more than I would use logic and reason to guide the choices of my life?

Why would I expect a governing body to?

[thejeff]

Aretas wrote:

ciretose wrote:

XxAnthraxusxX wrote:

It is Christians, if anybody, who are under attack and being persecuted here in the United States and the World at large.

Do you actually believe this, or are you trolling. Because if you are arguing Christians are persecuted more than other religions, that kind of cognitive dissonance is amazing.

Wow, this post is amazing. All these attacks are not in war, they are an attempt to religiously cleanse the area of Christians. I invite you to look it up for yourself.

Egypt: Coptic Christians are literally being bombed before, during and after they attend Church.

Iraq: Aside from the sectarian Islamic violence, the Christian community is under constant attack. Arab Christians and Assyrians are all fleeing this country.

Nigeria: Most recently 150 people died when Muslim fanatics bombed a packed congregation on Easter.

Indonesia: More of the same.

These are just some recent examples. I'm not sure if your a student of history but the middle east of was not always Muslim. The Christians were systematically driven out.
Lebanon was until recently a Christian land. Thanks to Hezbollah and other crazies the Christian community is a twindling one.

Yeah there's some bad stuff going on in the world and some of it is aimed at Christians.

That's not the same as "It is Christians, if anybody, who are under attack and being persecuted here in the United States and the World at large."

So you've established, and I agree, that there are places in the world where Christians are persecuted. I could quibble with some of your examples and introduce counter examples where other religions are persecuted, but I'll let it go.
How about the US? Do you agree that it's Christians who are under attack and persecuted here? Cause that's the part that's cognitive dissonance to me.

[Darkwing Duck]

ciretose wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

So, those are the only options? Everyone outside the church behaves according to strict logic and reason? Or did you make a false dilemna - another pointless rhetorical trick?

When did wanting people to use logic and reason become a rhetorical trick?

Prove, using logic that God doesn't exist. Absence of proof isn't proof of absence, if it were, then the stars visible only with modern telescopes didn't exist until those telescopes were created. Those stars must have popped into existence magically at the precise moment we first turned telescopes towards them powerful enough to see them.

Prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

I wrote a few pages back that both an all knowing and all powerful god were logical fallacies, leaving us with the potential for really powerful really smart beings, who despite this great power and intellect, allow evil to exist and can only convince, at best, 33% of the worlds population to follow a given faith.

So why would I consider what an imaginary creature who may or may not exist wants me to do more than I would use logic and reason to guide the choices of my life?

Why would I expect a governing body to?

I can neither prove, nor disprove, that the flying spaghetti monster exists. I have a very "live and let live" attitude about it and its followers. I'm not driven to go on at great length about how its non-existence is the only logical option (while, simultaneously, unable to provide logical proof of its non-existence).

The only logical answer to "does the flying spaghetti monster exist?" is "I don't know".

[thejeff]

Darkwing Duck wrote:

I think its fair to say that if you graph LGBT-centric political activism over time, you see an inflection point around Stonewall and Anita Bryant. You see another inflection point around the early 1980s and Reagan's lack of response to AIDS. You can't remove the Religious Reich from either of those events.

Stonewall - 1969

Anita Bryant's campaign - 1977
Reagan/AIDS - early 80s.

Bryant and Reagan are closer than Stonewall and Bryant.

Bryant and Reagan are part of the same backlash. The same backlash against all of the Sexual Revolution changes.

Without the backlash and without the opposition, would gays have just been content with staying (partly) in the closet or would they have gone ahead and built on the victories they'd already won?
It seems like a silly question to me. Why stop?

[Aretas]

ciretose wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

I'm well aware of your penchant to blame every bad thing on reigion. I was caught out in the rain today. I'm pretty sure that was religion's fault.

Well, if God wanted it to rain...

I am not blaming every bad thing on religion. I'm saying if people worried less about what some magical invisible being wanted them to do and instead used logic and reason as their guide, the world would be a better place.

In the meantime, perhaps I will take this approach going forward.

This is the precise reason these threads should never get off the ground. I'm not using the same condescending rhetoric to put down anyone elses beliefs.

Moderators stop emboldening this behavior.

@ ciretose: Your the troll & a jerk. You do not create a fun and friendly place on the boards.

[TriOmegaZero]

I'm sorry Aretas, but neither do you.

[Darkwing Duck]

While I certainly don't agree with ciretose' posts nor with the manner in which he's written them, his opinions don't harm anyone. The same can hardly be said of some other posters' opinions which support politics in the real world which cause certain groups of people (gays in this case considering the topic's title) to be treated as second-class citizens. To compare ciretose' opinion to these others is laughable.

[Andrew Turner]

Darkwing Duck wrote:

I'm well aware of your penchant to blame every bad thing on reigion. I was caught out in the rain today. I'm pretty sure that was religion's fault.

ciretose wrote:

Well, if God wanted it to rain...

I am not blaming every bad thing on religion. I'm saying if people worried less about what some magical invisible being wanted them to do and instead used logic and reason as their guide, the world would be a better place.

In the meantime, perhaps I will take this approach going forward.

Aretas wrote:

This is the precise reason these threads should never get off the ground. I'm not using the same condescending rhetoric to put down anyone elses beliefs.

Moderators stop emboldening this behavior.

@ ciretose: Your the troll & a jerk. You do not create a fun and friendly place on the boards.

Aretas, why don't you just hide this thread and stay away from it if such innocuous things as the above referenced post so seriously offend you?

I can't imagine what it must be like to role-play Dungeons and Dragons with you. I can guess it's a lot like choreographing a ballet troupe of hippos in combat boots across a stage of priceless Faberge eggs, in the dark.

[Dogbladewarrior]

Andrew Turner wrote:

I can't imagine what it must be like to role-play Dungeons and Dragons with you. I can guess it's a lot like choreographing a ballet troupe of hippos in combat boots across a stage of priceless Faberge eggs, in the dark.

Ahahahaha!

[ShadowcatX]

Darkwing Duck wrote:

Gays can hide in the closet and, when they do, they aren't going to be fighting for equality.

Wow. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[ShadowcatX]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

[Samnell]

ShadowcatX wrote:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

This deserves a link. And yes, that is Theoden King.

[Aretas]

Andrew Turner wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

I'm well aware of your penchant to blame every bad thing on reigion. I was caught out in the rain today. I'm pretty sure that was religion's fault.

ciretose wrote:

Well, if God wanted it to rain...

I am not blaming every bad thing on religion. I'm saying if people worried less about what some magical invisible being wanted them to do and instead used logic and reason as their guide, the world would be a better place.

In the meantime, perhaps I will take this approach going forward.

Aretas wrote:

This is the precise reason these threads should never get off the ground. I'm not using the same condescending rhetoric to put down anyone elses beliefs.

Moderators stop emboldening this behavior.

@ ciretose: Your the troll & a jerk. You do not create a fun and friendly place on the boards.

Aretas, why don't you just hide this thread and stay away from it if such innocuous things as the above referenced post so seriously offend you?

I can't imagine what it must be like to role-play Dungeons and Dragons with you. I can guess it's a lot like choreographing a ballet troupe of hippos in combat boots across a stage of priceless Faberge eggs, in the dark.

You know I really don't find his remarks personally offensive. I have tougher skin than that.

Let him vomit all he wants. He has a battle axe to grind.
My point is this, why have rules of conduct on the boards if they do not apply to Christianity?

I have been reading threads and posts for a long time. These boards are not an exercise in free speech, they are totally censored by the moderators.
There is a liberal bias & Christianity is public enemy #1. Thats my observation and humble opinion.

Thank you for saying Dungeons & Dragons!

[Aretas]

Samnell wrote:

ShadowcatX wrote:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

This deserves a link. And yes, that is Theoden King.

Things that make you go hmmmmm.

Yes! That is Theoden King! Bad ass.

[Aretas]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I'm sorry Aretas, but neither do you.

Maybe you just don't know me well enough.

See you around!

[Paul Watson]

Aretas wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I'm sorry Aretas, but neither do you.

Maybe you just don't know me well enough.

See you around!

Maybe you don't know the people you're ranting about well enough, either.

[Aretas]

Paul Watson wrote:

Aretas wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I'm sorry Aretas, but neither do you.

Maybe you just don't know me well enough.

See you around!

Maybe you don't know the people you're ranting about well enough, either.

I'll take it one post at a time.

[Shifty]

Aretas wrote:

My point is this, why have rules of conduct on the boards if they do not apply to Christianity?

I have been reading threads and posts for a long time. These boards are not an exercise in free speech, they are totally censored by the moderators.
There is a liberal bias & Christianity is public enemy #1. Thats my observation and humble opinion.

Well you see I would suggest that there probably is a liberal bias and there probably is a view Christianity (on an institutional level) is the enemy because they, conservative Christian organisations, spent the better part of a couple of decades vindictively and viciously attacking firstly our preferred hobby, and then us as group of hobbyists.

Some of us recall the mass media mainstream stomping those CC's gave us through the 80's and 90's, stompings that are still being carried out today as well - it's hard to forgive and forget the character assassinations and vilification of us, Devil Worshippers and Heathens playing an occult game that will no doubt send us all to Hell. Frankly that they didn't like us wasn't the problem, the problem was they had enough organisational power to kick the hobby in the teeth in their fit of moral panic.

http://www.crcbermuda.com/satans-attacks/childrens-entertainment/469-the-da ngers-of-role-playing-games

That being said,

We didn't have as much money floating around to fight back like the rockbands did.

Aretas wrote:

Thank you for saying Dungeons & Dragons!

And had the CC's had their way, those two words would never be said aloud.

[TriOmegaZero]

Aretas wrote:

I'll take it one post at a time.

Indeed, I have taken your posts one at a time. And I find myself off put each time. They read as humorless and confrontational.

[Shifty]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

They read as humorless and confrontational.

Geez TOZ, I'm not used to you being so direct...

:p

[Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll]

Samnell wrote:

ShadowcatX wrote:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

This deserves a link. And yes, that is Theoden King.

Now, if you can find a video of someone reciting De rarum natura, I'd be impressed.

???

[Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll]

"Dungeons & Dragons" is three words, Shifty.

[Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll]

Aretas, I'm going to just try this one more time because since you haven't acknowledged my posts on the matter (just like you have never acknowledged that there were, in fact, people in your thread who also didn't like Obama): do you or do you not understand that that thread was closed because people were being mean to you and NOT because you were attacking the liberals' lider maximo?

Also, there probably is a liberal bias to these boards, which is too bad. I've been trying for the past year to tilt that bias to a revolutionary socialist one, but it isn't working.

[Shifty]

Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:

"Dungeons & Dragons" is three words, Shifty.

Fail.

An epershand (&) is a logogram.

Trollolol.

[Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll]

Not fail.

A logogram is a grapheme that represents, wait for it, a WORD!

Also, you can't "say" a logogram!

But Trollolo is a pretty awesome song.

[Shifty]

It represents a word, but its not actually a word.

So I was right.

There were only two words...and a symbol.

But not three words.

U mad?

[Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll]

Angry or insane?

[ciretose]

Darkwing Duck wrote:

I can neither prove, nor disprove, that the flying spaghetti monster exists. I have a very "live and let live" attitude about it and its followers. I'm not driven to go on at great length about how its non-existence is the only logical option (while, simultaneously, unable to provide logical proof of its non-existence).

The only logical answer to "does the flying spaghetti monster exist?" is "I don't know".

On this we agree. But now the next step is where I say I'm not going to subject the rest of the world to following tenets if the only reason given is that an invisible man in the sky said so.

Most of the tenets of the major religions also make logical sense. There was a reason for the strange food laws to exist in a world prior to refrigeration.

But we don't live in that world anymore. So you need to provide more basis that "The bible says". Particularly when they bible says so many things that society as a whole now finds abhorrent.

Like I said up thread, I dig most of what Jesus was preaching. Take care of the poor, love your neighbor, turn the other cheek...all good stuff for a moral life.

How some of his followers have cherry picked passages that they agree with while ignoring those they don't and saying they act not out of their personal beliefs, but at the direction of "God"...not so much.

[ciretose]

Darkwing Duck wrote:

While I certainly don't agree with ciretose' posts nor with the manner in which he's written them, his opinions don't harm anyone. The same can hardly be said of some other posters' opinions which support politics in the real world which cause certain groups of people (gays in this case considering the topic's title) to be treated as second-class citizens. To compare ciretose' opinion to these others is laughable.

I feel similarly toward Darkwing's posts. He has an opinion, he is defending it, but he isn't projecting it on others.

My impression of his posts is that he feels there is merit and value in belief in the unexplainable and adherence to doctrine has value beyond the negatives that may come with the abuses of it.

I don't entirely disagree with the value. You would be surprised to know my wife is a christian (Formerly Southern Baptist, now episcopal) and that she takes my daughter to church every week, with my blessing.

I went to church growing up. Hell, I went to vacation bible school over the summer.

But I don't believe in "God" and I am offended when policy that governs us is based on religion rather than reason in the same way that if I told you we were following the Talmud or Sharia law, I would hope you would be offended.

All governance should be based in logic and reason, not theology. All morality should be based in logic and reason, not theology.

I am ok with my Daughter going to the Episcopal Church she goes to because the church is a tolerant church that teaches values that I agree with. Like I said, Jesus was a cool guy, if my daughter wants to be like him, great.

I was not ok with her going to a hateful church that twists and cherry picks doctrine. Which is why my wife is no longer Southern Baptist.

[Sanakht Inaros]

XxAnthraxusxX wrote:

In alot of Muslim countries, gays are slain with impunity. Let's make sure we hate on the Christians who might look down on their sexual practices and lifestyle, and not the religion who bashes in their heads with rocks....

As a Christian i do not personally care what other's believe, as that is well beyond my control. I do not force my beliefs on anyone and if at all possible i avoid conflict of any kind. It saddens me to see my faith under full scale attack by the popular media, but at the end of the day i am powerless to combat such hatred. Truth be told i think the homosexuals are totally mistaken as to who is being oppressed. I am more of the assumption that it is people of faith, and not the gays who are being persecuted. No one can speak against gays and get away with it, whereas Christians are maligned at every turn with impunity. So spare me the "woe is me i am so oppressed" stance that so many homosexuals seem to take.

lol...This is another thing I see wrong with christianity. They've been playing the victim card for so long now that it's ingrained. They seem to have forgotten that they were and are still the majority and really have no sense of history.

"And so we ask for peace for the gods of our fathers, for the gods of our native land. It is reasonable that whatever each of us worships is really to be considered one and the same. We gaze up at the same stars, the sky covers us all, the same universe compasses us. What does it matter what practical systems we adopt in our search for the truth. Not by one avenue only can we arrive at so tremendous a secret." (Quintus Aurelius Symmachus (C.E. c. 340-402), Roman senator. Letter, written 384, to the Christian Emperor Valentinian II, pleading for religious tolerance.)

Before that, it were the christians that were begging that. Once christians took power, the very religious tolerance that they so preach, goes out the window.

Sorry, but I whole heartedly reject the christians right to play victim here in the U.S.

Edited for clarification.

[ciretose]

Aretas wrote:

I have been reading threads and posts for a long time. These boards are not an exercise in free speech, they are totally censored by the moderators.
There is a liberal bias & Christianity is public enemy #1. Thats my observation and humble opinion.

A "liberal bias" if defined by people who don't agree with you, maybe. But then again, reality has a well known liberal bias.

And Christianity is far from public enemy number one. I will bet the majority of people on here are Christians.

But intolerance is enemy number one in a community that have been called "Satan worshipers" by Right Wing Christian groups like BADD.

I consider the forum a great place to have ideas peer reviewed.

[Hitdice]

This is funny, if only very slightly pertinent to the original subject of the thread. Well, the tiny newsbox sidebar is relevant, at least.

It's true that we shouldn't generalize or rely on stereotypes, but there is a group which self identifies as Christian and seems to endorse ignorance as an indoctrinated point of view. I never understood why the religious fundamentalists didn't push Theistic Evolution rather than Intelligent Design, and a political agenda is the only answer that occurs to me.

[Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll]

Hee hee!

[KitsuneSoup]

I just wish I could be Christian and not lumped in with all the others. I'm tolerant, intelligent, and while I have faith, it's in people as much as it is in God. I don't pray for magical healing from the stars, but if God is willing to nudge the surgeon's hand from time to time, that's cool.

But I have too many friends that are have had so many bad experiences with Christians, or that are their own personal brand of atheist (where their atheism is a religion, or it's not atheism, it's just Christian-bashing), or just plain believe that Christians have to be idiot Westboro jacks, that I find myself giving up on trying to convince them that you can be a person of faith while not being a hate-mongering fifth grader, and instead just be a loving, peaceful person.

There are a number of posts that are "this is the problem with Christians", "This is why I hate Christians", etc. I understand it's currently still chic to hate Christians. Do you hate the people, or do you hate the church? Do you hate the message, or do you hate the doctrine?

And I know, I know. There's always someone that's going to stand up and say, "But Kistune, you amazing stallion, /you're/ tolerant. /You/ love. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about how the church or a community treats people." I'm not blind to that, honest. No, I don't have the power to stop it on a grand scale, but I will stop and have stopped it if I see it happening. I can be there for the people that were mistreated. I don't have to participate in the bashing on either side. Even if I never affect a change in the world, I can know that I care about people, and do what I can to stop the injustices when and where I see them. Wasn't it the "hippies" that said "Think Globally, Act Locally"? I have my grand wishes for tolerance and understanding, but I'm realistic. I just want people to be happy around me, and if it ripples outward, which I believe it does, maybe a change can happen.

Reading a lot of these posts, I see some very open-minded people in both directions (gays are okay, and so are Christians!) that I am happy to be here.

[Darkwing Duck]

ciretose wrote:

I am offended when policy that governs us is based on religion

As am I.

1.) Jesus said give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's.

2.) When you entangle church and state, the church becomes legalistic. Jesus spent his life fighting against legalism in religion

3.) Believing that religious teachings require the enforcement of politics shows a deep lack of faith in those religious teachings. If the religious teachings are valid, they should be able to stand on their own. If they aren't valid, then we (Christians) should return to the Bible to make sure that we are interpreting it correctly.

4.) The founding fathers of our country who were Christian (that is, the ones who were Christian) believed that both church and government are both better off by keeping them separate. I agree with them.

I find the self-identified 'Christian' social conservatives in politics to be an affront to Christianity verging on being, if not actually being, blasphemy.

[ciretose]

KitsuneSoup wrote:

There are a number of posts that are "this is the problem with Christians", "This is why I hate Christians", etc. I understand it's currently still chic to hate Christians. Do you hate the people, or do you hate the church? Do you hate the message, or do you hate the doctrine?

Tolerant Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc...are all fine. Hell I married one :)

When they want the doctrine of their church to be law I have to live by, purely because it is the doctrine of their church, I have a problem.

That is the line, period.