Can we all agree to give up all responsibility for our actions but base our lives on something more entertaining? Maybe Stephen King's The Stand or The Shining? Breaking Badeth?
Where is the homophobia, Mark. Are you saying it is not possible for a gay man, or lesbian woman to embrace God?
Seems pretty narrow minded, if you ask me.
From some online dictionary site
nar·row-mind·ed (nr-mndd)
adj.
Lacking tolerance, breadth of view, or sympathy; petty.
narrow-minded·ly adv.
narrow-minded·ness n.
Now, from Romans 1:16-32
"gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves"
"for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature"
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another"
So, pretty clear there that "uncleanness" "dishonour", and "against nature" are bad things.
Homosexuality is just rampant in the animal kingdom (birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it) - SOURCE : Biological Exuberance
So, since all of nature is getting all up on homogenous genital gyrations, that seems to be "nature" (also known as natural), our good friend King James either has it all ass backwards (see what I did there?), or it may just possibly be an error.....
But hey, I gave props for hatin on the daughters of sappho too!! I mean, at least it's consistent in it's ignorance and bigotry.
Mark
P.S. Sorry I didn't have time to properly APA-reference all that... but... ya... hate speak ITT
Had awesome response earlier... but forum crashing prevented reply...
LUCKILY I haz back up
From some online dictionary site
nar·row-mind·ed (nr-mndd)
adj.
Lacking tolerance, breadth of view, or sympathy; petty.
narrow-minded·ly adv.
narrow-minded·ness n.
Now, from Romans 1:16-32
"gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves"
"for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature"
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another"
So, pretty clear there that "uncleanness" "dishonour", and "against nature" are bad things.
This is just a long way around stating that the homosexual acts are deemed sinful. That is not "homophobic", it is a statement of belief.
Homosexuality is just rampant in the animal kingdom (birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it) - SOURCE : Biological Exuberance
Yes, but only in about 500 species that have been well documented. further, said behaviour does not seem to be long-lasting or permanent as it is among homo sapiens.
So, since all of nature is getting all up on homogenous genital gyrations, that seems to be "nature" (also known as natural), our good friend King James either has it all ass backwards (see what I did there?), or it may just possibly be an error.....
But hey, I gave props for hatin on the daughters of sappho too!! I mean, at least it's consistent in it's ignorance and bigotry.
Mark
P.S. Sorry I didn't have time to properly APA-reference all that... but... ya... hate speak ITT
Sorry Mark . . . the Bible states a moral code of behaviour. If you do not agree with it, that is okay. No one, certainly not God, is forcing you to adhere to it's precepts (that whole Free Will thing). But there is a difference between saying that you believe something to be wrong, and saying that those who take part in that action should be "hated". The head of the Catholic church has stated that he does not judge gays, that it is not up to him to do so. Nor does the Church "hate" gays. But that's okay, keep believing as you will, and misrepresenting the Church's position. That is the narrow mindedness to which I was referring.
So, pretty clear there that "uncleanness" "dishonour", and "against nature" are bad things.
This is just a long way around stating that the homosexual acts are deemed sinful. That is not "homophobic", it is a statement of belief.
Ah. Statements of belief compartmentalizing and segregating a particular group of people, lowering or deeming them to be undesirable or somehow wrong.. gotcha. Excuse my earlier book reference, I have a more fitting one then....
Homosexuality is just rampant in the animal kingdom (birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it) - SOURCE : Biological Exuberance
Yes, but only in about 500 species that have been well documented. further, said behaviour does not seem to be long-lasting or permanent as it is among homo sapiens.
This is 100% incorrect. Every species has shown and been documented in homosexual pairings, from people to mosquitos to lions and tigers and bears. Both in the wild and captivity. Further, many species (albeit not all) have demonstrated life-long pairings. So, not sure where you got this little gem, but it is complete bullshit.
Sorry Mark . . . the Bible states a moral code of behaviour. If you do not agree with it, that is okay. No one, certainly not God, is forcing you to adhere to it's precepts (that whole Free Will thing). But there is a difference between saying that you believe something to be wrong, and saying that those who take part in that action should be "hated". The head of the Catholic church has stated that he does not judge gays, that it is not up to him to do so. Nor does the Church "hate" gays. But that's okay, keep believing as you will, and misrepresenting the Church's position. That is the narrow mindedness to which I was referring.
I see what you're doing here... but the problem is, those quotes that I pulled from Brent's reference are undeniably hateful. Dress it up however you want, but it's true. Further, the new pope Frankie there seems like a fun kinda dude, and I too heard about his little spin doctoring thing, pretty slick interview skills. Problem is though, this goes back to an example I made earlier in this whole discussion, that the church and the various peeps therein change the rules when they need.
That interview he said things like "who am I to judge" and also suggested that women should have more involvement and leadership positions in the church. Looking at the very passages that have come up between these two threads though, the women thing is counter to "god's word". But in this day and age? There is no way you can adhere to those beliefs (PUBLICLY), without a shit storm of bad PR. The solution therefore? Plausible deniability and spin doctoring. Just as I said earlier where the religious folks pick and choose the parts they want to follow of a religion, and still call themselves religious (premarital sex is in, sleeping in on Sundays is cool, gay's still unnatural, wrong, unclean). Note that of those examples, one is even on god's top ten list. Pull out the whole "man isn't perfect so we sin and just try to be... " shit all you want.
You end by saying I misrepresent the church's position, and ironically, I'm the one more accurately representing it. The original church just happens to be an outdated unnecessary organization, and those involved nowadays have evolved it into a new and exciting way to be dicks.
Actually what the Pope did was to simply reiterate Church doctrine (hate the sin, love the sinner) which has not changed, and cannot change as it is the word of God. So, it would appear you misunderstood what you read, or you misunderstand Catholic dogma.
Actually what the Pope did was to simply reiterate Church doctrine (hate the sin, love the sinner) which has not changed, and cannot change as it is the word of God. So, it would appear you misunderstood what you read, or you misunderstand Catholic dogma.
Precisely... anyone that doesn't agree is misunderstanding or misinterpreting... Jeebus Christo FTW.
Fuck that goddamn noise.
You say it's church doctrine? Yes, they say turn the other cheek and shit, but they also say gays be cray cray... you can NOT take an angle of literal or interpretive sporadically...
Bottom line, the church hates gays. The church demeans women. The church is hypocritical.
Anyone denying it is covering up their own hate speak.
Actually what the Pope did was to simply reiterate Church doctrine (hate the sin, love the sinner) which has not changed, and cannot change as it is the word of God. So, it would appear you misunderstood what you read, or you misunderstand Catholic dogma.
The Bible NT is the Word of God. And gays deserve death.....but that's not hate? Just because the pope in the last fifteen minutes changed his mind doesn't remove the damage.
Precisely... anyone that doesn't agree is misunderstanding or misinterpreting... Jeebus Christo FTW.
Fuck that goddamn noise.
You say it's church doctrine? Yes, they say turn the other cheek and shit, but they also say gays be cray cray... you can NOT take an angle of literal or interpretive sporadically...
Bottom line, the church hates gays. The church demeans women. The church is hypocritical.
Anyone denying it is covering up their own hate speak.
Mark
I an sensing anger and personal bitterness here and it seems to be directed at people of belief. If you want to twist what is being said or imply meaning that is unwarranted maybe it is time to close this thread. Just because I or anyone believes the Bible is the word if God, doesn't mean we believe it is ok to hate people. Don't make it personal. You have not come close to making the case against a creator of some sort and are picking at verses without any understanding of the Biblical narrative. And frankly I don't think your interested in learning, which is what I thought the purpose of these discussions were all about. I have learned much about your world view. It has help me understand you better.
The Bible NT is the Word of God. And gays deserve death.....but that's not hate? Just because the pope in the last fifteen minutes changed his mind doesn't remove the damage.
I an sensing anger and personal bitterness here and it seems to be directed at people of belief. If you want to twist what is being said or imply meaning that is unwarranted maybe it is time to close this thread. Just because I or anyone believes the Bible is the word if God, doesn't mean we believe it is ok to hate people. Don't make it personal. You have not come close to making the case against a creator of some sort and are picking at verses without any understanding of the Biblical narrative. And frankly I don't think your interested in learning, which is what I thought the purpose of these discussions were all about. I have learned much about your world view. It has help me understand you better.
Prophet22
Back into your hole I guess.
If you cannot see the damage that religion is doing to individuals and to the planet then there is nothing to discuss. It's not like these things need to be deeply researched, they are evident to anyone who has rudimentary knowledge about the events on this planet.
Believe whatever you like, just don't make others suffer for it.
Brent.... you are the one that quoted passages, you are the one that started a thread on atheism, you are, quite frankly the one that is trying to hide being a bible / scripture / passage to justify hate speak and overall bigotry.
I'm not angry, I'm realistic. I'm not bitter, I'm observant. I'm not twisting anything, I"m honest. I'm not even judging, I'm rationalizing. Further....
Originally Posted by 800OVER View Post
The Bible NT is the Word of God. And gays deserve death.....but that's not hate? Just because the pope in the last fifteen minutes changed his mind doesn't remove the damage. No it isn't.
You have to decide if you want to post quotes, or deny your own literature. That shit you referenced is completely homophobic. Fucking own it one way or another.
No. But feel free to keep misrepresenting the truth.
The church demeans women.
Yup. that is why the second most venerated person in the Catholic church is a woman. Strike two.
The church is hypocritical.
Strike three, and you are OUT. The Catholic Church is consistent and unyielding in it's beliefs. That is probably why it receives such scorn from progressives and relativists who believe that right and wrong should change based on what the majority feels.
Anyone denying it is covering up their own hate speak.
Mark
So, because I disagree with you, I am somehow "hateful". Yeah . . . you're the open minded on in this conversation alright.
The Bible NT is the Word of God. And gays deserve death.....but that's not hate? Just because the pope in the last fifteen minutes changed his mind doesn't remove the damage.
Once again . . . the Pope has not "changed his mind in the last fifteen minutes". If you read any of the commentary about this interview (written by Catholics rather than the gushing CNN types) you would see that this interview was simply restating of Catholic dogma. That non-Catholics do not understand this is unsurprising. Some of them still think the Church hates gays
Once again . . . the Pope has not "changed his mind in the last fifteen minutes". If you read any of the commentary about this interview (written by Catholics rather than the gushing CNN types) you would see that this interview was simply restating of Catholic dogma. That non-Catholics do not understand this is unsurprising. Some of them still think the Church hates gays
Big bad Vlad Putin cites upsetting the religious as a reason for their new homophobe encouragement laws.
Mark
Yeah, and Paul Martin is a devout Catholic. Jeebus Mark, even you have to concede that citing a politician (let alone a former KGB thug like Putin) in a thread like this is almost as bad as citing myself in the strat forums.
Yeah, and Paul Martin is a devout Catholic. Jeebus Mark, even you have to concede that citing a politician (let alone a former KGB thug like Putin) in a thread like this is almost as bad as citing myself in the strat forums.
Regardless . . . pax vobiscum
Things like this, the fact they exist, is a strong case for atheism.... thought that was the topic?
Things like this, the fact they exist, is a strong case for atheism.... thought that was the topic?
Mark
Not even close . . . it just means that plenty of people SUCK at religion. And that humanity as a whole is flawed. If anything it speaks to the case for Faith.
Not even close . . . it just means that plenty of people SUCK at religion. And that humanity as a whole is flawed. If anything it speaks to the case for Faith.
Wow . . . with psychic powers like that you should start a 900 #.
But it does not change the fact that I am right. People in politics have "used" Faith for decades as a means of drumming up support, demonizing rivals, and justifying all manner of egregious policies. Says more about those involved than it does about the Faiths being misrepresented and you know it.
Wow . . . with psychic powers like that you should start a 900 #.
But it does not change the fact that I am right. People in politics have "used" Faith for decades as a means of drumming up support, demonizing rivals, and justifying all manner of egregious policies. Says more about those involved than it does about the Faiths being misrepresented and you know it.
This is my point.. you're just not taking it on a big enough scale...
People everywhere have "used" faith since the beginning of time... which is IMO one of the reasons for religion... There's no god, there's a boogeyman to keep them in check, kool-aid for the masses.
Religion is the intellectual and emotional equivalent of the fat people scooters... takes all the heavy lifting off ya, and gives me a reason to mock.
People everywhere have "used" faith since the beginning of time... which is IMO one of the reasons for religion... There's no god, there's a boogeyman to keep them in check, kool-aid for the masses.
Religion is the intellectual and emotional equivalent of the fat people scooters... takes all the heavy lifting off ya, and gives me a reason to mock.
Mark
Except that I do understand your point. You fail to acknowledge what I said about my own journey back to Faith.
True Faith is not easy . . . it is in fact incredibly hard. But the rewards are infinite in their scope.
The "boogeyman" aspect you mention, while accurate as far as it goes, is a corruption of Faith. It is also something that is so obviously pointed out and debunked as to be meaningless. You can, and have, looked upon the entire argument of Failure of man v. failure of Faith as some sort of sidestepping of responsibility but I would argue that it is about putting responsibility where it belongs.
I am honest enough to admit that my Faith is not as strong as it should be. I am a failed Catholic, but I am hopeful of one day renewing my Faith. That is not an abdication of responsibility, nor is it weakness (well, weakness of Faith, perhaps). It is rather a desire for greater strength in upholding and representing my Faith so that, in the end, I can face my Creator with a clear conscience and a pure heart.
Not even close . . . it just means that plenty of people SUCK at religion. And that humanity as a whole is flawed. If anything it speaks to the case for Faith.
lmao
when you are outsmarted by Mark surely you must concede your argument
Wow . . . with psychic powers like that you should start a 900 #.
But it does not change the fact that I am right. People in politics have "used" Faith for decades as a means of drumming up support, demonizing rivals, and justifying all manner of egregious policies. Says more about those involved than it does about the Faiths being misrepresented and you know it.
unlike people in charge of religious organizations...time to open your eyes
Once again . . . the Pope has not "changed his mind in the last fifteen minutes". If you read any of the commentary about this interview (written by Catholics rather than the gushing CNN types) you would see that this interview was simply restating of Catholic dogma. That non-Catholics do not understand this is unsurprising. Some of them still think the Church hates gays
"you’re living in a world of make-believe! With flowers and bells and leprechauns and magic frogs with funny little hats." HJS
As do we all. A dog can be trained, as can a host of other lower animals. A person can be trained to respond in certain ways as well. It means nothing . . . a person who regurgitates scripture flawlessly is no more righteous than the person who ignores the teachings of Christ.
Matthew 7 15-20
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. you will know them by their fruits. Do men gather fruits from thorn bushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown in the fire. Therefore by their fruits shall ye know them.
Comments
Had awesome response earlier... but forum crashing prevented reply...
LUCKILY I haz back up
From some online dictionary site
nar·row-mind·ed (nr-mndd)
adj.
Lacking tolerance, breadth of view, or sympathy; petty.
narrow-minded·ly adv.
narrow-minded·ness n.
Now, from Romans 1:16-32
"gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves"
"for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature"
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another"
So, pretty clear there that "uncleanness" "dishonour", and "against nature" are bad things.
Homosexuality is just rampant in the animal kingdom (birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it) - SOURCE : Biological Exuberance
So, since all of nature is getting all up on homogenous genital gyrations, that seems to be "nature" (also known as natural), our good friend King James either has it all ass backwards (see what I did there?), or it may just possibly be an error.....
But hey, I gave props for hatin on the daughters of sappho too!! I mean, at least it's consistent in it's ignorance and bigotry.
Mark
P.S. Sorry I didn't have time to properly APA-reference all that... but... ya... hate speak ITT
Sorry Mark . . . the Bible states a moral code of behaviour. If you do not agree with it, that is okay. No one, certainly not God, is forcing you to adhere to it's precepts (that whole Free Will thing). But there is a difference between saying that you believe something to be wrong, and saying that those who take part in that action should be "hated". The head of the Catholic church has stated that he does not judge gays, that it is not up to him to do so. Nor does the Church "hate" gays. But that's okay, keep believing as you will, and misrepresenting the Church's position. That is the narrow mindedness to which I was referring.
That interview he said things like "who am I to judge" and also suggested that women should have more involvement and leadership positions in the church. Looking at the very passages that have come up between these two threads though, the women thing is counter to "god's word". But in this day and age? There is no way you can adhere to those beliefs (PUBLICLY), without a shit storm of bad PR. The solution therefore? Plausible deniability and spin doctoring. Just as I said earlier where the religious folks pick and choose the parts they want to follow of a religion, and still call themselves religious (premarital sex is in, sleeping in on Sundays is cool, gay's still unnatural, wrong, unclean). Note that of those examples, one is even on god's top ten list. Pull out the whole "man isn't perfect so we sin and just try to be... " shit all you want.
You end by saying I misrepresent the church's position, and ironically, I'm the one more accurately representing it. The original church just happens to be an outdated unnecessary organization, and those involved nowadays have evolved it into a new and exciting way to be dicks.
Mark
Precisely... anyone that doesn't agree is misunderstanding or misinterpreting... Jeebus Christo FTW.
Fuck that goddamn noise.
You say it's church doctrine? Yes, they say turn the other cheek and shit, but they also say gays be cray cray... you can NOT take an angle of literal or interpretive sporadically...
Bottom line, the church hates gays. The church demeans women. The church is hypocritical.
Anyone denying it is covering up their own hate speak.
Mark
The Bible NT is the Word of God. And gays deserve death.....but that's not hate? Just because the pope in the last fifteen minutes changed his mind doesn't remove the damage.
I an sensing anger and personal bitterness here and it seems to be directed at people of belief. If you want to twist what is being said or imply meaning that is unwarranted maybe it is time to close this thread. Just because I or anyone believes the Bible is the word if God, doesn't mean we believe it is ok to hate people. Don't make it personal. You have not come close to making the case against a creator of some sort and are picking at verses without any understanding of the Biblical narrative. And frankly I don't think your interested in learning, which is what I thought the purpose of these discussions were all about. I have learned much about your world view. It has help me understand you better.
Prophet22
No it isn't.
Back into your hole I guess.
If you cannot see the damage that religion is doing to individuals and to the planet then there is nothing to discuss. It's not like these things need to be deeply researched, they are evident to anyone who has rudimentary knowledge about the events on this planet.
Believe whatever you like, just don't make others suffer for it.
Hate speech disguised as religion in this thread.
Brent.... you are the one that quoted passages, you are the one that started a thread on atheism, you are, quite frankly the one that is trying to hide being a bible / scripture / passage to justify hate speak and overall bigotry.
I'm not angry, I'm realistic. I'm not bitter, I'm observant. I'm not twisting anything, I"m honest. I'm not even judging, I'm rationalizing. Further....
You have to decide if you want to post quotes, or deny your own literature. That shit you referenced is completely homophobic. Fucking own it one way or another.
Mark
So, because I disagree with you, I am somehow "hateful". Yeah . . . you're the open minded on in this conversation alright.
Once again . . . the Pope has not "changed his mind in the last fifteen minutes". If you read any of the commentary about this interview (written by Catholics rather than the gushing CNN types) you would see that this interview was simply restating of Catholic dogma. That non-Catholics do not understand this is unsurprising. Some of them still think the Church hates gays
How could the Church hate gays?
You'll figure it out.
#inbeforeclaimsthatmanisflawed #newathashtags lol
Mark
Yeah, and Paul Martin is a devout Catholic. Jeebus Mark, even you have to concede that citing a politician (let alone a former KGB thug like Putin) in a thread like this is almost as bad as citing myself in the strat forums.
Regardless . . . pax vobiscum
Things like this, the fact they exist, is a strong case for atheism.... thought that was the topic?
Mark
Not even close . . . it just means that plenty of people SUCK at religion. And that humanity as a whole is flawed. If anything it speaks to the case for Faith.
Mark
But it does not change the fact that I am right. People in politics have "used" Faith for decades as a means of drumming up support, demonizing rivals, and justifying all manner of egregious policies. Says more about those involved than it does about the Faiths being misrepresented and you know it.
This is my point.. you're just not taking it on a big enough scale...
People everywhere have "used" faith since the beginning of time... which is IMO one of the reasons for religion... There's no god, there's a boogeyman to keep them in check, kool-aid for the masses.
Religion is the intellectual and emotional equivalent of the fat people scooters... takes all the heavy lifting off ya, and gives me a reason to mock.
#withgodonourside #dylanhaditright
Mark
Except that I do understand your point. You fail to acknowledge what I said about my own journey back to Faith.
True Faith is not easy . . . it is in fact incredibly hard. But the rewards are infinite in their scope.
The "boogeyman" aspect you mention, while accurate as far as it goes, is a corruption of Faith. It is also something that is so obviously pointed out and debunked as to be meaningless. You can, and have, looked upon the entire argument of Failure of man v. failure of Faith as some sort of sidestepping of responsibility but I would argue that it is about putting responsibility where it belongs.
I am honest enough to admit that my Faith is not as strong as it should be. I am a failed Catholic, but I am hopeful of one day renewing my Faith. That is not an abdication of responsibility, nor is it weakness (well, weakness of Faith, perhaps). It is rather a desire for greater strength in upholding and representing my Faith so that, in the end, I can face my Creator with a clear conscience and a pure heart.
lmao
when you are outsmarted by Mark surely you must concede your argument
#2birdsonestone
unlike people in charge of religious organizations...time to open your eyes
"you’re living in a world of make-believe! With flowers and bells and leprechauns and magic frogs with funny little hats." HJS
feeling silly yet?
#brainwashed
No, do you?
Matthew 7 15-20
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. you will know them by their fruits. Do men gather fruits from thorn bushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown in the fire. Therefore by their fruits shall ye know them.