Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Why did you vote for Obama?
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #361687 is a reply to message #361543] |
Sat, 06 December 2008 15:55   |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote |
Washington and Jefferson were deists. I don't know about any other president, but those two were deists.
|
more importantly, they were secularists. As for being deists, that's not so surprising considering the stranglehold religion has had on every aspect of life, most importantly education, for so long... which we're only just now beginning to shake off and which is being desperately opposed (see: creationism).
I can't help but chuckle when religious apologists (not that you are one) say things like: "insert-scientist-or-human-rights-trailblazer-here was religious". Firstly, like I said, religion has had a stranglehold on education for centuries. Secondly, back then it was pretty fucking dangerous not to be religious, so it was probably wise to make an outward show of belief even if you were bright enough to see through the veil. Now it's not quite so harmful to your personal safety to be the wrong religion (unless you live in the more Islamic countries, obviously) but it can still be rather perilous to your career.
(Thirdly, religion can usually be trusted to stand firmly in the way of said scientific and humanitarian developments, but as the saying goes... if you can't beat them, pretend they joined you)
| u6795 wrote on Wed, 03 December 2008 15:41 |
Christianity is a little more lenient in many aspects than Islam (I'm in no way denying its violent past) and many of its ideals are aligned with the ideals of American politics. Probably explains why almost all (or all, I forget) of our Presidents so far have been Christian.
|
I would argue otherwise; see my reply to cheesesoda. I very much doubt that every American politician who professes to be a Christian actually is; they just suspect (probably correctly) that it would be political suicide to point out that the Emperor's naked.
I shake my head sadly at the endless whining about how America can finally progress to the point where they might have a black (or woman) President. Who knows, one of these days you might be able to elect secular politicians.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Sat, 06 December 2008 15:57] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #361718 is a reply to message #361641] |
Sat, 06 December 2008 23:18 |
 |
Ma1kel
Messages: 956
Registered: July 2005
Location: Kingdom of the Netherland...
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Darkknight wrote on Sat, 06 December 2008 12:00 |
| Ma1kel wrote on Sat, 06 December 2008 09:08 |
| u6795 wrote on Fri, 05 December 2008 15:38 |
| Ma1kel wrote on Fri, 05 December 2008 09:47 |
| u6795 wrote on Wed, 03 December 2008 15:41 |
| cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 03 December 2008 11:49 |
The vast majority of Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong, and they work tirelessly to keep Gay Marriage illegal. That doesn't mean, however, that there are no sane Christians deserving of a vote. Even if Obama is/was a Muslim, if he keeps his faith's teachings from mixing with government, then I don't see the problem.
|
The thing with Islam is that it's insanely strict, so if a Muslim were elected President or any high office in America he'd be forced to make the choice of taking huge amounts of flak from his religious community or the political community for his choices. Basically, god or country. Hopefully by running for public office a Muslim would have already made the choice for country.
|
Toggle SpoilerSame with Christianity and pretty much every other kind of that bullshit.
|
Christianity is a little more lenient in many aspects than Islam (I'm in no way denying its violent past) and many of its ideals are aligned with the ideals of American politics. Probably explains why almost all (or all, I forget) of our Presidents so far have been Christian.
I think religion is evil in and of itself, though, I'm just sayin.
|
They're both based on Judaism. But nobody takes christianity seriously so...
|
i guess I'm a nobody then
|
good luck stoning infidels and adulterers (includes divorced people)
Dutch to English
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #361777 is a reply to message #361718] |
Sun, 07 December 2008 08:26 |
 |
DarkKnight
Messages: 754
Registered: May 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Ma1kel wrote on Sun, 07 December 2008 00:18 |
| Darkknight wrote on Sat, 06 December 2008 12:00 |
| Ma1kel wrote on Sat, 06 December 2008 09:08 |
| u6795 wrote on Fri, 05 December 2008 15:38 |
| Ma1kel wrote on Fri, 05 December 2008 09:47 |
| u6795 wrote on Wed, 03 December 2008 15:41 |
| cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 03 December 2008 11:49 |
The vast majority of Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong, and they work tirelessly to keep Gay Marriage illegal. That doesn't mean, however, that there are no sane Christians deserving of a vote. Even if Obama is/was a Muslim, if he keeps his faith's teachings from mixing with government, then I don't see the problem.
|
The thing with Islam is that it's insanely strict, so if a Muslim were elected President or any high office in America he'd be forced to make the choice of taking huge amounts of flak from his religious community or the political community for his choices. Basically, god or country. Hopefully by running for public office a Muslim would have already made the choice for country.
|
Toggle SpoilerSame with Christianity and pretty much every other kind of that bullshit.
|
Christianity is a little more lenient in many aspects than Islam (I'm in no way denying its violent past) and many of its ideals are aligned with the ideals of American politics. Probably explains why almost all (or all, I forget) of our Presidents so far have been Christian.
I think religion is evil in and of itself, though, I'm just sayin.
|
They're both based on Judaism. But nobody takes christianity seriously so...
|
i guess I'm a nobody then
|
good luck stoning infidels and adulterers (includes divorced people)
|
Yeah thats the only thing us Christians do 
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #361782 is a reply to message #361779] |
Sun, 07 December 2008 08:35 |
 |
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 07 December 2008 09:31 |
You're SUPPOSED to, though. That's what he's getting at.
|
If you read the Gospels and what Christ taught, it is completely the opposite. (Read story of Christ/the stone throwers/ and adultress woman.) By doing so, Christ basically invalidated stoning since no one is pure and all are worthy of forgivness.
edit: added sentence.
[Updated on: Sun, 07 December 2008 08:43] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #361821 is a reply to message #357510] |
Sun, 07 December 2008 09:55 |
|
|
Are you SERIOUSLY oblivious to the Leviticus laws?
It's a sin to get a tattoo (Leviticus 19:28). We shall not eat the flesh of shell fish (Leviticus 11:9-12). We must, also, keep three feasts: Feast of Unleavened Bread, Feast of Harvest, and Feast of Ungathering (Exodus 23:14-17). All those that work on Saturday (Sabbath) shall be put to death, too (Numbers 15:32-35). Oh, bestiality and homosexuality is the same sin as having sex with a woman on her period, too (Leviticus 20:13-18).
No, I didn't include the verses for what you're asking. I'm too lazy, so I just copied what I wrote a couple of days ago.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #361847 is a reply to message #361782] |
Sun, 07 December 2008 12:03 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Darkknight wrote |
really?? please show me where we are supposed to do this
|
Hold on, you said you take Christianity seriously, and you haven't even read the Bible?
| pawky wrote on Sun, 07 December 2008 09:35 |
If you read the Gospels and what Christ taught, it is completely the opposite. (Read story of Christ/the stone throwers/ and adultress woman.) By doing so, Christ basically invalidated stoning since no one is pure and all are worthy of forgivness.
|
What a pity that this basically means an imperfect society can never punish wrongdoing, then. It also directly contradicts God's endless and very specific instructions.
As for forgiveness, if I sin somehow and the price of my forgiveness is the torture and execution of somebody else (man or a divine being), I'd rather be unforgiven.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #361851 is a reply to message #357510] |
Sun, 07 December 2008 12:52 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
btw pawky, I'd quite like a response to this, cos you said you would and haven't yet
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
I have no problem with gays and their lifestyle. But gay marriage is not just an issue that affects only gays. It asks cooperation from the majority by urging them to change their value system.
|
No, it doesn't. It DOES NOT, repeat DOES NOT, affect you no matter how determined some people are to wish it did. You do not have to change your value system.
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
The reason? Not that the majority is being oppressive. It's far from that. I don't think it is appropriate to suggest that this is a case where a certain majority is oppressing the minority. It is also not too fair to suggest that this issue is comparable to the issue of women voters and Blacks.
|
Women perhaps; you're dead wrong to say it's not comparable to racial intolerance. The reason your country is so backward in the field of equal rights on sexuality is pretty much exactly the same reason it took you so fucking disgracefully long to get equal rights on grounds of race. Namely religion.
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
If you think this is the majority oppressing a minority, I would say it is merely a false illusion. It is more the case of the majority reacting to the threat of eventual subjugation by a minority in the near future.
|
As opposed to the subjugation that religion has imposed upon pretty much every society throughout history wherever and whenever it has the strength to be able to?
Including your country right now?
That is real subjugation. "Eventual subjugation" by a homosexual minority? You're crazy.
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
Christian parents want to impart Christian values to their kids. This applies to people of all faiths.
|
Yep, and the irony is the people who do this immoral action (indoctrination of children) are always the same dipshits who keep whining about homosexuality on "moral" grounds, even though there has never, ever been a convincing moral argument against homosexuality. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
When in the future (if gay marriages are "legalized"), their kid asks them why one of his friends has 2 dads or 2 moms, what the heck are they going to say? You have got to be quite bigoted and indifferent if you do not see the conflict of ideals there.
|
As opposed to someone asking me why my parents think the world was made in a week by a celestial superbeing 6000 years ago? I personally think it would be far less embarrassing to have two dads.
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
Saying "boooo religion" is not a good approach to solve the problem.
|
It's a good start, since religion is once again standing firmly in the way of progress.
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
Sure it is inferred but they do not want to impose anything...they just will not cooperate with gay marriage and amend their lifestyle to accept it because it severely compromises their value system.
|
I'll just repeat the fact that it does not "compromise" your value system, no matter how hard you have convinced yourself it does. You do not even have to "accept" it if you want...
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
I probably won't cooperate either. I could care less if you lived right next to my house and played with a dick the night before but then when you bring your kid along with his other dad to the bustop in the morning, I don't want to be anywhere nearby with MY kid.
|
I hear you, I don't particularly want to be around intolerant religious nutcases either; difference is you don't see me saying that it "compromises my value system" when a Christian walks past.
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
I know you would say I am a "blowhard" and "intolerant" but then again, I believe in my Creator and the rules set forth.
|
You stone people to death for working on the Sabbath?
You think envy belongs in the 10 Commandments shortlist, but rape and slavery and cruelty to children don't?
You think someone can be punished for a crime committed by someone else?
You think the path to forgiveness is the torture and execution of someone else?
This is what your Bible says. I would go so far as to call these things morally despicable, and yet the same people who get their "morals" from such a nightmarish book love to rant about homosexuality on "moral" grounds (as if there has ever been a convincing moral argument against homosexuality... which there hasn't). Oh, the irony... I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
|
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #361857 is a reply to message #361487] |
Sun, 07 December 2008 13:31 |
 |
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Whoop, forgot to reply to this.
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 05 December 2008 02:21 |
On the contrary; I'm very carefully distinguishing those Muslims who are prone to violence, combat against human rights and science and progress etc - from those who aren't.
When people say that lovely line "not all Muslims are terrorists", they really don't know what Islam is all about; how it started and what it commands its followers to do. Like these people, I am careful to make the distinction - but I'm a little clearer on what the distinction actually is.
Islam specifically instructs its followers to carry out violence against non-Muslims. If you're a Muslim, this is what you are commanded to do, repeatedly and unambiguously. And perhaps you don't check the news often but this instruction is being followed all over the world on a daily basis.
|
And there's plenty of other religions who just so happen to be instructed to commit violence. Or, y'know, those who don't really follow religion. Or if they do, it's incredibly loosely. Yeah, only the Muslims commit violence, amirite?
I understand why you dislike the Muslim extremism, and it pisses me off, too. But, there are some who perceive it differently. I mean, shit, should I tell you you're a angsty little teenager because a good lot of atheists are angsty little teenagers?
For the most part, Muslims just so happen to be in the spotlight of hatred right now, and you're kind of just falling into that crowd. Look at it from more perspectives than just what you see.
Toggle Spoiler| Scrin wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 13:22 |
| cAmpa wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 12:45 |
Scrin, stop pming people to get the building bars.
|
FUCK YOU AND THIS SHIT GAME WITH YOUR SCRIPTS!!! I HAVE ASKING YOU AND ANOTHER NOOBS HERE ABOUT HELP WITH THAT BUILDING ICONS FEATURES FOR YEARS, BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING ME AND KEEP WRITE SHIT, SO BURN YOU AND YOUR ASSLICKERS FRIENDS, THIS TIME I'M NOT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!   
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #361864 is a reply to message #361857] |
Sun, 07 December 2008 13:53 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Cabal8616 wrote on Sun, 07 December 2008 14:31 |
And there's plenty of other religions who just so happen to be instructed to commit violence.
|
Yes, I'd not say otherwise, although right now the death toll in the name of Islam is a great deal higher than the others.
| Cabal8616 wrote on Sun, 07 December 2008 14:31 |
Or, y'know, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao) don't really follow religion. Or if they do, it's incredibly loosely. Yeah, only the Muslims commit violence, amirite?
|
Read my earlier post about atheism. Just because you find an atheist who does something bad, it doesn't mean atheism is bad, it doesn't mean atheism is responsible for what they did. Equally, I would not say Islam is bad just because a Muslim does something bad.
BUT, and don't skip over this: if a Muslim does something bad WHEN THE ISLAMIC HOLY BOOKS SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCT HIM TO DO IT, you absolutely can (indeed, you must) fault Islam. This is the difference; there is no atheist holy book, there is nobody telling you you must carry out acts of violence against innocent bystanders, etc. You're mistaking atheism for just another religion; it's not. it's the LACK of a religion, it means you can figure out your morality for yourself instead of going by the unsupported and contradictory writings of people who, at the time the books were written, clearly didn't know much about the world we live in.
As for your three examples, you picked some pretty odd ones. Hitler was religious; he repeatedly stated in public that the reason he hated Jews so much was because he was a Christian and he held them responsible for deicide, something the Bible readily accommodates. (You might argue that he was simply pretending to be a Christian in order to gain public support, but even if you want to argue this, it hardly works in Christianity's favour or works against atheism)
Stalin personally wasn't religious, but his regime absolutely was, as was Mao's.
| Cabal8616 wrote on Sun, 07 December 2008 14:31 |
I understand why you dislike the Muslim extremism, and it pisses me off, too. But, there are some who perceive it differently. I mean, shit, should I tell you you're a angsty little teenager because a good lot of atheists are angsty little teenagers?
|
No, because there is no positive ideological connection between myself and any other atheist you care to name. Simply the fact that neither of us believe in a god doesn't mean shit. If you don't believe in the tooth fairy and neither does Stalin, that doesn't mean you have a damn thing in common.
| Cabal8616 wrote on Sun, 07 December 2008 14:31 |
For the most part, Muslims just so happen to be in the spotlight of hatred right now, and you're kind of just falling into that crowd. Look at it from more perspectives than just what you see.
|
This doesn't make any kind of sense. I'm not falling into a crowd, I'm looking at the staggering death toll being racked up in the name of Islam, I'm looking at the fanatical opposition to human rights and scientific progress. As for "Muslims being in the spotlight of hatred", you don't know me very well. I don't seek to criminalise somebody for their religion; that's thoughtcrime. The idea that you can be convicted because of what you think is wholly repellent to me, and it's yet another gripe I have against several religions who do exactly that.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Sun, 07 December 2008 14:22] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #361925 is a reply to message #361897] |
Sun, 07 December 2008 23:27 |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
I have no problem with gays and their lifestyle. But gay marriage is not just an issue that affects only gays. It asks cooperation from the majority by urging them to change their value system.
|
No, it doesn't. It DOES NOT, repeat DOES NOT, affect you no matter how determined some people are to wish it did. You do not have to change your value system.
|
If we don't change, we are called bigots, fools, and homophobes. Christian marriage commisioners, police officers have lost their jobs for their religious views because obviously they are "discriminating." That's the new excuse to throw dirt at us.
We are forced to change our value system if we don't adapt. The progressives love to pout off like as we we are the ones being oppressive but they don't realise their own oppressive ways towards Christians.
You probably heard of eharmony.com (a dating service for men and women). Well, a homosexual man filed a lawsuit against them accusing them of discriminating because they rejected his homosexaul application. Guess what? The guy took them to court and eharmony settled the case paying for expensive changes to their service to include dating service for gays! Way to shove it down our throats. Still think we don't have to change?
eharmony is a business run by a Christian...not a public service. And if he chose not to settle the case and open up a newer site, he would have faced other lawsuits as well (that's how liberals operate; using the court system to shut down any opposing school of thought)...but I think he was a wimp for giving in.
Still think we don't have to change? They will file suits and sue us heavily for discriminating. And they have the huge monetary support to drag us to the courts.
Take the case of a homosexual pair that deliberatly choose a New Jersey public (non-taxpaying) church to get married. The church refused and they were dragged to court...the court ordered that the church perform the marriage ceremony since they are public/don't pay taxes OR start paying taxes to avoid performing the homosexual marriage.
The church chose the latter; they decided to pay taxes. Of all the hundreds of other places nearby where this homosexual pair could have gotten married, they specifically choose this church knowing they will be refused so they can drag them to court.
This applies to each individual Christian. We are forced to hold our mouth while it is forcefully opened to stuff worldy views down our throat. And if we so much as raise our voice, we are instantly called "insert-next-popular-word-here."
But the moment we agree with them (in essence abandoning our faith), we have nothing to worry! So I would think my initial statement is correct; we are forced to change our values or face the consequences; the latter of which many have chosen to do.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
The reason? Not that the majority is being oppressive. It's far from that. I don't think it is appropriate to suggest that this is a case where a certain majority is oppressing the minority. It is also not too fair to suggest that this issue is comparable to the issue of women voters and Blacks.
|
Women perhaps; you're dead wrong to say it's not comparable to racial intolerance. The reason your country is so backward in the field of equal rights on sexuality is pretty much exactly the same reason it took you so fucking disgracefully long to get equal rights on grounds of race. Namely religion.
|
The entire slave trade was fueled by greed. Of course, you have a point in bringing up religion. For the Bible does not condemn slavery...it provides instructions to govern slaves. But it was not racial slavery the Bible is talking about...back in the day, it was common practice for anybody to become a slave to pay off debts etc...then there were slaves captured during war.
As for racial slavery, the man most responsible for misguiding would be the god of evolution Darwin who shamelessly and wrongly said the following:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [aborigine] and the gorilla.
Makes the Bible look lightyears more tolerant regarding slaves compared to the ravenings of a disillusioned freakster whose word most people believe to be true.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
If you think this is the majority oppressing a minority, I would say it is merely a false illusion. It is more the case of the majority reacting to the threat of eventual subjugation by a minority in the near future.
|
As opposed to the subjugation that religion has imposed upon pretty much every society throughout history wherever and whenever it has the strength to be able to?
Including your country right now?
That is real subjugation. "Eventual subjugation" by a homosexual minority? You're crazy.
|
You can refer to the first part of this post to see why I am not crazy when I mentioned the threat of eventual subjugation by homosexuals...my fault I did not mention the gleeful progressives who stand behind homosexuals ready to jump on Christians at a moment's notice.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
Christian parents want to impart Christian values to their kids. This applies to people of all faiths.
|
Yep, and the irony is the people who do this immoral action (indoctrination of children) are always the same dipshits who keep whining about homosexuality on "moral" grounds, even though there has never, ever been a convincing moral argument against homosexuality. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.
|
What indoctrination? I am Christian not a murderer. I won't be teaching my kid to kill, just to guide him/her in a way I know works and provides great stability and stay out of trouble.
Funniest part about homosexuality is that how unnatural it is.
A man and a woman are naturally capable of making love and have the external sexual organs to do so...homosexuals do not; they will end up with a swollen anus/rectum. If homosexuality was intended by "nature" I would think there would be a provision for homosexuals to show love on a physical level as a male and female are capable of.
But we don't see it...other than falling into a close friendship and forcing everyone around them (with money/bashing expertise/court costs help from 21st century progressives) to acknowledge their love as natural, homosexuals have nothing else naturally going for them that even comes close to convincing.
Not to mention that if every child being born on this planet from this minute onwards is naturally homosexual, we will be looking at the end of the human race due to inability to reproduce.  Quite unnatural isn't it?
Of course, they are free to do what they please (I can't stop it and don't want to) but I won't acknowledge/approve their act. Homosexuals want a kind of approval Christians cannot give...hence the increased attacks/nitpicking on our Scripture in attempts to undermine it.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
When in the future (if gay marriages are "legalized"), their kid asks them why one of his friends has 2 dads or 2 moms, what the heck are they going to say? You have got to be quite bigoted and indifferent if you do not see the conflict of ideals there.
|
As opposed to someone asking me why my parents think the world was made in a week by a celestial superbeing 6000 years ago? I personally think it would be far less embarrassing to have two dads.
|
A celestial superbeing making everything is far less embarrasing then saying we are products of a mighty big bangin' celestial fart...a theory that still has to come out with it's golden gun. Trust me, my kids won't lose face.
Plus it explains ghostly phenomenon, NDE's, and OBE's and our advanced design of our bodies which are valid credible arguments to the existence of a supernatural being and the afterlife and which Science carefully avoids since they are not observable and so they can't be possibly true.
Ghosts sound kind of "dumb" in these "modern times" don't they?But I don't care speaking my mind. I had one ghostly experience involving one of my deceased family members that is solid proof for me to believe that all that we see is not all that there is. Label me as you will.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
Sure it is inferred but they do not want to impose anything...they just will not cooperate with gay marriage and amend their lifestyle to accept it because it severely compromises their value system.
|
I'll just repeat the fact that it does not "compromise" your value system, no matter how hard you have convinced yourself it does. You do not even have to "accept" it if you want...
|
My above explanation covers this. And just to repeat myself, if we don't accept, we are put into a corner and are tightly crushed to pulp and if we do accept, we are left alone.
If you are against thoughtcrime, you would understand.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
I probably won't cooperate either. I could care less if you lived right next to my house and played with a dick the night before but then when you bring your kid along with his other dad to the bustop in the morning, I don't want to be anywhere nearby with MY kid.
|
I hear you, I don't particularly want to be around intolerant religious nutcases either; difference is you don't see me saying that it "compromises my value system" when a Christian walks past.
|
Since when did every Christian come at you with a Bible? Heck you dont even know if a person is Christian or not unless you ask him/her. I don't see how an unknown person walks by you and suddenly radiates a "Christian glow" and intrudes on your value system.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
You stone people to death for working on the Sabbath?
|
We Christians follow the teachings of Christ Who created a new covenant...it does not render the old completely useless though. Jesus worked on a Sabbath to cause an uproar among the Pharisees who wanted to punish him. He also sat and ate with sinners. Christ is all about second chances...there won't be any second chances if the person is punished instantly.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
You think envy belongs in the 10 Commandments shortlist, but rape and slavery and cruelty to children don't?
|
The 10 Commandments are not the only commandments...every other commandment is as important as the ones in the 10 Commandments.
It is envy allright and the misuse of wanting. Desire is not bad as God promises blessings (But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.Matt 6:33).
But abusing desire and feeling jealous and trying to get other's people's belongings (like how King Ahab took Naboth's vineyard) is what the 10th Commandment addresses against.
Bible also tells to not to provoke your children.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
You think someone can be punished for a crime committed by someone else?
You think the path to forgiveness is the torture and execution of someone else?
|
Not just someone, Spoony...Jesus Christ the Son of God and that's was a one-time only deal.
We had no choice...if it was just someone or anybody could sacrifice themselves anytime to get forgivness to others, then there would be no point and you can call it a joke. But it was Jesus Christ and it was not by our will but God's that He paid the price.
It makes the sacrifice of Jesus all the more important to us.
---
So Spoony, why does it bother you that we practice our Christian faith and bring up our children the same way? And what we believe? Aren't you against thoughtcrime? Why then try to endlessly counter us in these forums?
I do appreciate it you being respectable about it.
[Updated on: Sun, 07 December 2008 23:33] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #361936 is a reply to message #361925] |
Mon, 08 December 2008 03:48 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| pawky wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 00:27 |
If we don't change, we are called bigots, fools, and homophobes. Christian marriage commisioners, police officers have lost their jobs for their religious views because obviously they are "discriminating." That's the new excuse to throw dirt at us.
We are forced to change our value system if we don't adapt. The progressives love to pout off like as we we are the ones being oppressive but they don't realise their own oppressive ways towards Christians.
|
You are being oppressive. Until the day equal rights are granted on grounds of sexuality, you are oppressive to oppose them. As for being "called" a bigot, a fool or a homophobe, you think that's oppression? Hmmm ok, one side gets a word thrown at them, the other side doesn't have equal rights under the law.
| pawky wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 00:27 |
You probably heard of eharmony.com (a dating service for men and women).
|
No, but go on.
| pawky wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 00:27 |
Well, a homosexual man filed a lawsuit against them accusing them of discriminating because they rejected his homosexaul application. Guess what? The guy took them to court and eharmony settled the case paying for expensive changes to their service to include dating service for gays! Way to shove it down our throats. Still think we don't have to change?
|
This isn't an excuse to deny equal rights, it's just an example of legal bullying.
| pawky wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 00:27 |
eharmony is a business run by a Christian...not a public service. And if he chose not to settle the case and open up a newer site, he would have faced other lawsuits as well (that's how liberals operate; using the court system to shut down any opposing school of thought)...but I think he was a wimp for giving in.
Still think we don't have to change? They will file suits and sue us heavily for discriminating. And they have the huge monetary support to drag us to the courts.
|
I don't think you SHOULD have to change. Like I keep saying, I have made a suggestion which suits everybody, namely: If your religion doesn't want homosexuals marrying, then you shouldn't have to officiate at weddings within that religion. Gays can therefore find a more progressive religion, or go one step further and become an atheist. This would not require you to "change", you can think whatever you like about gay marriage; you just wouldn't be able to interfere in other peoples' lives anymore.
I don't want legal bullying by a minority of homosexuals either. But read this until you understand it: IT DOES NOT JUSTIFY HOMOSEXUALS BEING UNEQUAL UNDER THE LAW!
| pawky wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 00:27 |
This applies to each individual Christian. We are forced to hold our mouth while it is forcefully opened to stuff worldy views down our throat. And if we so much as raise our voice, we are instantly called "insert-next-popular-word-here."
But the moment we agree with them (in essence abandoning our faith), we have nothing to worry! So I would think my initial statement is correct; we are forced to change our values or face the consequences; the latter of which many have chosen to do.
|
All of this is insignificant compared to the fact that a minority of the human species does not have equal rights under the law. Here you are crying about being called a homophobe; grow the fuck up.
| pawky wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 00:27 |
Makes the Bible look lightyears more tolerant regarding slaves compared to the ravenings of a disillusioned freakster whose word most people believe to be true.
|
Believing Darwin's word? Uh no, people believe evidence. As a scientist, nobody is claiming Darwin was more than human, nobody is claiming he is infallible, nobody is claiming he could not make mistakes or be downright wrong from time to time. If anybody ever received a death threat for criticising Darwin, I have not heard of it. And as for the quote, things were very different then; specifically education and the social order. Mostly thanks to religion, this is basically what the common view was. I could show you quotes from Lincoln or Thomas Huxley which seem ruthlessly bigoted, and yet they were progressive men. If they lived today and someone said these quotes, they'd have been the first to cringe.
This is my earlier point; the progress of civilisation, in terms of human rights and scientific research, is a slow one. It's gradual. It would be REALLY NICE if the religious would stop getting in the way, and it would be even nicer if we weren't told that everything we need to know is in a book written over a thousand years ago.
What's more, even if Darwin was a bigoted racist, it doesn't mean that his scientific research was wrong!
| pawky wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 00:27 |
You can refer to the first part of this post to see why I am not crazy when I mentioned the threat of eventual subjugation by homosexuals...my fault I did not mention the gleeful progressives who stand behind homosexuals ready to jump on Christians at a moment's notice.
|
See my reply above.
| pawky wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 00:27 |
Funniest part about homosexuality is that how unnatural it is.
A man and a woman are naturally capable of making love and have the external sexual organs to do so...homosexuals do not; they will end up with a swollen anus/rectum. If homosexuality was intended by "nature" I would think there would be a provision for homosexuals to show love on a physical level as a male and female are capable of.
|
It's still less unnatural than Christianity. As for the "it's not natural" argument, it fails utterly.
Given that homosexuality is not a choice (because it isn't), we have to conclude that either nature or God created homosexuals. If it was God, then who are you to argue with him? If it was nature, then presumably I should be disallowed from marriage too. After all, I don't want kids. Don't ask me why; I just don't. Perhaps this goes against nature in the sense that I will not be propagating my DNA, but that is not a justification to deny me equal rights under the law.
Oh, and by the way, there's also fellatio and handjobs.
| pawky wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 00:27 |
But we don't see it...other than falling into a close friendship and forcing everyone around them (with money/bashing expertise/court costs help from 21st century progressives) to acknowledge their love as natural, homosexuals have nothing else naturally going for them that even comes close to convincing.
|
So let me get this straight.
After being a persecuted minority throughout all of history, a handful of them fighting back means the rest of them still don't deserve equal rights.
Your arrogance and stupidity is absolutely staggering.
| pawky wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 00:27 |
Not to mention that if every child being born on this planet from this minute onwards is naturally homosexual, we will be looking at the end of the human race due to inability to reproduce. Quite unnatural isn't it?
|
The exact same thing would happen if every child was born male, or female, and yet I would not argue that this proves anything or is a justification for oppressive laws. Still, that's a little less statistically improbable, given that the odds of being homosexual are, I dunno, 1 in 30 or something (I don't have the figures, but that'll do) compared to the odds of being male are about as good as a flip of a coin.
Furthermore, unless you have some kind of eugenics program in mind (which would rather seem to be quarrelling with God's design, wouldn't it...?) then no law is going to make fewer people be homosexual.
| pawky wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 00:27 |
Of course, they are free to do what they please (I can't stop it and don't want to) but I won't acknowledge/approve their act. Homosexuals want a kind of approval Christians cannot give...hence the increased attacks/nitpicking on our Scripture in attempts to undermine it.
|
I don't care if they get Christian approval; they need society's approval, which they currently do not have under the law. Like I said, you carry on disallowing gay marriage in your own church for all I care.
| pawky wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 00:27 |
A celestial superbeing making everything is far less embarrasing then saying we are products of a mighty big bangin' celestial fart...a theory that still has to come out with it's golden gun. Trust me, my kids won't lose face.
|
Oh, you criticise lack of a "golden gun" when there has never, EVER, EVER been the slightest evidence for creationism. Once again the religious seem to think the rules of evidence only apply to the other side. It's like a chess game where you tell me I can't take any of your pieces or move on your half of the board, it really is.
It also seems you are mistaking truth for comfort. You may find it comforting to believe that the world and the human race were designed by a God. That does not make it true.
| pawky wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 00:27 |
Plus it explains ghostly phenomenon, NDE's, and OBE's and our advanced design of our bodies which are valid credible arguments to the existence of a supernatural being and the afterlife and which Science carefully avoids since they are not observable and so they can't be possibly true.
|
What the fuck? No, it doesn't explain them, it's the absence of an explanation. Don't understand something? Say God did it! This isn't science, this isn't knowledge, it's a get-out-of-having-to-say-you-don't-know card. It also demonstrates my earlier point that the religious only apply the laws of evidence to the opposition, i.e. scientists who say things the religious don't like to hear.
Like I said, science (like the advance of human rights) is gradually progressive. When the Bible was written, we didn't know much about the world at all. For example, we now know that the earth is spherical, still cooling, has a molten core and fissures in its crust, and a turbulent weather system. We also know about bacteria and whatnot. These things explain stuff like hurricanes, earthquakes, diseases. When the Bible was written, we didn't know any of that, so it was pardonable (in my view) to come up with an explanation like "it was the wrath of a celestial super-bully". There probably wasn't a better explanation knocking about at the time. Still, it was never anything more than guesswork, and now we have far better explanations with evidence to back them up.
You see miracles; I see things we don't understand yet. Science hasn't finished, we haven't finished understanding the world, but religion has never made any decent contribution to the cause, and more often than not has actively stood in the way, as it still does.
Let me illustrate my point with a simple example. Someone asks: why are plants green? You make some case about photosynthesis and chlorophyll etc. I say it was all farted out by an invisible lobster who created the world, who declared that plants must be green.
Let's say someone examines your claim and finds that it's pretty good, near the mark, but with a few missing pieces. I would then say "Hah! Your theory fails, THEREFORE MINE IS CORRECT! Not only that, but EVERYTHING ELSE I'VE EVER SAID ABOUT THE LOBSTER IS CORRECT TOO!"
You see, even if some evidence for a celestial superbeing creating the world did crop up, what makes you assume it was Yahweh? Why not the flying spaghetti monster or the pink unicorn? That would be more comforting to me, considering the staggeringly evil nature of Yahweh as he is depicted in the Bible, and yet I would not argue that this said anything about how much truth there is to it.
| pawky wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 00:27 |
My above explanation covers this.
|
No, it doesn't.
| pawky wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 00:27 |
And just to repeat myself, if we don't accept, we are put into a corner and are tightly crushed to pulp and if we do accept, we are left alone.
|
Yeah, that's right, you pass yourself off as a cringing oppressed minority. Homosexuals, they're the oppressed minority, and I'll say it again; THEY DO NOT HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW. Whereas someone on the internet called you homophobic and you have the staggering bollock-brained stupidity to think YOU ARE THE VICTIM HERE.
| pawky wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 00:27 |
We Christians follow the teachings of Christ Who created a new covenant...it does not render the old completely useless though.
|
Yes, it does. It means the previous specific instructions from God are WRONG. Get that word, WRONG. Either you are allowed to work on the Sabbath or you are not. God was wrong or Jesus is wrong, pick one. But then, they're supposed to be the same guy anyway aren't they, for all the "sense" that makes.
| pawky wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 00:27 |
The 10 Commandments are not the only commandments...every other commandment is as important as the ones in the 10 Commandments.
|
So why are they called the "ten commandments"? Why are these the only ones religious fanatics want prominently displayed in courts and classrooms?
| pawky wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 00:27 |
But abusing desire and feeling jealous and trying to get other's people's belongings (like how King Ahab took Naboth's vineyard) is what the 10th Commandment addresses against.
|
No, it doesn't. The 10th commandment does not prohibit theft, actively taking someone else's property. It prohibits WANTING someone else's property. Pure thoughtcrime.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
You think someone can be punished for a crime committed by someone else?
|
You haven't answered this part, by the way; the point is made again and again and again and again in the Bible.
| pawky wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 00:27 |
| Quote: |
You think the path to forgiveness is the torture and execution of someone else?
|
Not just someone, Spoony...Jesus Christ the Son of God and that's was a one-time only deal.
|
It's also an absolutely disgusting moral concept. Whether he was a man or a God or the son of God makes no difference. The idea that I can be forgiven thanks to the torture and execution of someone else is DESPICABLE. Get that word, DESPICABLE. Assuming the whole crucifixion business happened at all (a generous assumption), I would rather be unforgiven than gain redemption through the punishment of somebody else.
See, I believe sins or crimes or whatever you want to call them can be forgiven, but only if you freely accept your error and you, you yourself, are willing to make amends. I can barely express my revulsion at the doctrine of Christ dying for our sins; there simply aren't words in the English language capable of expressing it.
Not only that, but if I reject this barbaric drivel on moral grouds (which I do), I'm told that I have an eternity of torture in store for me after I die. And you want to teach this to children and call it morality. I'll take my chances, though... like I said, if the price of my redemption is the torture and execution of somebody else, I'd rather be unforgiven. So who's the better man, you or I?
Actually, maybe the fact he was God (whatever sense that makes) does make a difference. A quick read of the Old Testament (again, assuming it's true) shows God to be the most evil entity that ever existed. Maybe the crucifixion was punishment for everything God did, albeit a relatively lenient one.
| pawky wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 00:27 |
So Spoony, why does it bother you that we practice our Christian faith and bring up our children the same way? And what we believe? Aren't you against thoughtcrime? Why then try to endlessly counter us in these forums?
|
Have you read a single damn word I've said?
I don't care what you believe, no matter how ridiculous (or barbaric) it seems to me, as long as you leave other people alone. As long as you don't use those "beliefs" to oppress others, or claim undeserved privileges. There's a line in the sand. Believing whatever the hell you like doesn't cross the line; interfering in other peoples' lives does.
You go ahead and dislike homosexuals for all I care. When you support oppressive laws condemning them as inferior citizens, you've crossed the line.
You go ahead and believe the world was created 6000 years ago by a celestial superbeing, despite the absolute lack of evidence for it, for all I care. When you teach this to an impressionable child as though it were a fact, you've crossed the line. My secondary school wasn't religious, it was supposedly secular, and yet the laughable fiction that was "taught" us in religious education classes was taught with the absolute same certainty as what was taught in physics and biology and chemistry. If the teacher ever said "by the way class, there's no proof any of this ever happened, a great deal of proof that it didn't, and a lot of it contradicts the other bits, and a staggering amount of blood has been shed over it all" then I must have been off sick that day.
But you've never actually thought about the rights of your future children, have you? How about the right not to have your intellectual growth stunted?
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Mon, 08 December 2008 05:17] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #361941 is a reply to message #357510] |
Mon, 08 December 2008 04:41 |
 |
u6795
Messages: 1261
Registered: March 2006
Location: Maryland
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I agree almost entirely with Spoony here. Catholicism particularly (as I'm not sure how many other Christian denominations do this) irks me because of their forced indoctrination of children. They're against abortion, one of the reasons being there is no choice on the child's part- however, ironically, they're totally okay with raising a child in Catholicism only and majorly shielding them from information about other religions (I would know, this is happening to me right now,) and then use the excuse OH IT'S ONLY UNTIL YOU'RE 18 AND THEN YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICES. That's absolutely stupid. By the time you turn 18 most kids are brainwashed, and never had a choice whatsoever. It's disgusting.
Also I didn't see Frontier Psychologist's(Surth? I forget) edit way back on the first page, so just incase he reads this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_High_Energy_Laser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_laser
Gotta go right now but maybe I'll add on to this later
yeah
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #361942 is a reply to message #361941] |
Mon, 08 December 2008 04:51 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
Catholicism is even worse; the doctrine of original sin is completely appalling.
What kind of moral teaching has it that you can be punished for a sin committed by someone else? Again, assuming the Adam business happened (STAGGERINGLY unlikely), how moral is it to hold a remote descendant responsible for his crime (a relatively minor one at that) Like I said, the point is made again and again in the Bible.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #361945 is a reply to message #357510] |
Mon, 08 December 2008 06:16 |
 |
Jecht
Messages: 3156
Registered: September 2004
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
Sigh, even after telling someone I wouldn't post because I used to put too much time and effort into these forums in the past...here I go again.
It seems to me like many of your fears towards Christianity are misplaced everyone. Many see Christianity as a tool to oppress the masses through their faith and promise of paradise in the afterlife. While some would seek to do this, the whole of Christianity is a very good thing.
I challenge any who would refute what I just said to attend your local large church. I say large church because it will allow you to attend without bringing attention to the congregation that a new person is there, you'll blend in. Attend one service every Sunday for one month with an open mind. My church does much in the way of charity. Not only that, but non-believers are extremely welcome to attend service. The pastors do not look down upon you from their high-horse, and they even admit to their various sins they've committed in their life. In other words, they profess to be just as imperfect as everyone else.
Again, if you've attended for one month with an open mind then at least you've tried to get to know Christianity. If you still don't see eye to eye with it, then hopefully God will change your mind later. While you're on this earth it's never too late to have your name written in the Book of Life.
I believe the Leviticus comment from the previous post by Jake was well explained by pawny. If you'd like to learn more, I'd recommend you read one of the first three books of the new testament for further information regarding Jesus and the Pharisees.
Last but not least, please stop claiming Darkknight is some sort of racist. I've known him for quite a while and we've had an amalgam of different people, from different walks of life amongst us in our old clan we were in together, and he was accepting of all.
As for Barack Obama. While my ideals weren't completely in-line with his(only 42% according to a test I have taken actually(procon.org)), I believe he could very well be a good president.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #361946 is a reply to message #361925] |
Mon, 08 December 2008 06:18 |
|
Ma1kel
Messages: 956
Registered: July 2005
Location: Kingdom of the Netherland...
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| pawky wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 02:27 |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
I have no problem with gays and their lifestyle. But gay marriage is not just an issue that affects only gays. It asks cooperation from the majority by urging them to change their value system.
|
No, it doesn't. It DOES NOT, repeat DOES NOT, affect you no matter how determined some people are to wish it did. You do not have to change your value system.
|
If we don't change, we are called bigots, fools, and homophobes. Christian marriage commisioners, police officers have lost their jobs for their religious views because obviously they are "discriminating." That's the new excuse to throw dirt at us.
We are forced to change our value system if we don't adapt. The progressives love to pout off like as we we are the ones being oppressive but they don't realise their own oppressive ways towards Christians.
You probably heard of eharmony.com (a dating service for men and women). Well, a homosexual man filed a lawsuit against them accusing them of discriminating because they rejected his homosexaul application. Guess what? The guy took them to court and eharmony settled the case paying for expensive changes to their service to include dating service for gays! Way to shove it down our throats. Still think we don't have to change?
eharmony is a business run by a Christian...not a public service. And if he chose not to settle the case and open up a newer site, he would have faced other lawsuits as well (that's how liberals operate; using the court system to shut down any opposing school of thought)...but I think he was a wimp for giving in.
Still think we don't have to change? They will file suits and sue us heavily for discriminating. And they have the huge monetary support to drag us to the courts.
Take the case of a homosexual pair that deliberatly choose a New Jersey public (non-taxpaying) church to get married. The church refused and they were dragged to court...the court ordered that the church perform the marriage ceremony since they are public/don't pay taxes OR start paying taxes to avoid performing the homosexual marriage.
The church chose the latter; they decided to pay taxes. Of all the hundreds of other places nearby where this homosexual pair could have gotten married, they specifically choose this church knowing they will be refused so they can drag them to court.
This applies to each individual Christian. We are forced to hold our mouth while it is forcefully opened to stuff worldy views down our throat. And if we so much as raise our voice, we are instantly called "insert-next-popular-word-here."
But the moment we agree with them (in essence abandoning our faith), we have nothing to worry! So I would think my initial statement is correct; we are forced to change our values or face the consequences; the latter of which many have chosen to do.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
The reason? Not that the majority is being oppressive. It's far from that. I don't think it is appropriate to suggest that this is a case where a certain majority is oppressing the minority. It is also not too fair to suggest that this issue is comparable to the issue of women voters and Blacks.
|
Women perhaps; you're dead wrong to say it's not comparable to racial intolerance. The reason your country is so backward in the field of equal rights on sexuality is pretty much exactly the same reason it took you so fucking disgracefully long to get equal rights on grounds of race. Namely religion.
|
The entire slave trade was fueled by greed. Of course, you have a point in bringing up religion. For the Bible does not condemn slavery...it provides instructions to govern slaves. But it was not racial slavery the Bible is talking about...back in the day, it was common practice for anybody to become a slave to pay off debts etc...then there were slaves captured during war.
As for racial slavery, the man most responsible for misguiding would be the god of evolution Darwin who shamelessly and wrongly said the following:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [aborigine] and the gorilla.
Makes the Bible look lightyears more tolerant regarding slaves compared to the ravenings of a disillusioned freakster whose word most people believe to be true.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
If you think this is the majority oppressing a minority, I would say it is merely a false illusion. It is more the case of the majority reacting to the threat of eventual subjugation by a minority in the near future.
|
As opposed to the subjugation that religion has imposed upon pretty much every society throughout history wherever and whenever it has the strength to be able to?
Including your country right now?
That is real subjugation. "Eventual subjugation" by a homosexual minority? You're crazy.
|
You can refer to the first part of this post to see why I am not crazy when I mentioned the threat of eventual subjugation by homosexuals...my fault I did not mention the gleeful progressives who stand behind homosexuals ready to jump on Christians at a moment's notice.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
Christian parents want to impart Christian values to their kids. This applies to people of all faiths.
|
Yep, and the irony is the people who do this immoral action (indoctrination of children) are always the same dipshits who keep whining about homosexuality on "moral" grounds, even though there has never, ever been a convincing moral argument against homosexuality. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.
|
What indoctrination? I am Christian not a murderer. I won't be teaching my kid to kill, just to guide him/her in a way I know works and provides great stability and stay out of trouble.
Funniest part about homosexuality is that how unnatural it is.
A man and a woman are naturally capable of making love and have the external sexual organs to do so...homosexuals do not; they will end up with a swollen anus/rectum. If homosexuality was intended by "nature" I would think there would be a provision for homosexuals to show love on a physical level as a male and female are capable of.
But we don't see it...other than falling into a close friendship and forcing everyone around them (with money/bashing expertise/court costs help from 21st century progressives) to acknowledge their love as natural, homosexuals have nothing else naturally going for them that even comes close to convincing.
Not to mention that if every child being born on this planet from this minute onwards is naturally homosexual, we will be looking at the end of the human race due to inability to reproduce. Quite unnatural isn't it?
Of course, they are free to do what they please (I can't stop it and don't want to) but I won't acknowledge/approve their act. Homosexuals want a kind of approval Christians cannot give...hence the increased attacks/nitpicking on our Scripture in attempts to undermine it.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
When in the future (if gay marriages are "legalized"), their kid asks them why one of his friends has 2 dads or 2 moms, what the heck are they going to say? You have got to be quite bigoted and indifferent if you do not see the conflict of ideals there.
|
As opposed to someone asking me why my parents think the world was made in a week by a celestial superbeing 6000 years ago? I personally think it would be far less embarrassing to have two dads.
|
A celestial superbeing making everything is far less embarrasing then saying we are products of a mighty big bangin' celestial fart...a theory that still has to come out with it's golden gun. Trust me, my kids won't lose face.
Plus it explains ghostly phenomenon, NDE's, and OBE's and our advanced design of our bodies which are valid credible arguments to the existence of a supernatural being and the afterlife and which Science carefully avoids since they are not observable and so they can't be possibly true.
Ghosts sound kind of "dumb" in these "modern times" don't they?But I don't care speaking my mind. I had one ghostly experience involving one of my deceased family members that is solid proof for me to believe that all that we see is not all that there is. Label me as you will.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
Sure it is inferred but they do not want to impose anything...they just will not cooperate with gay marriage and amend their lifestyle to accept it because it severely compromises their value system.
|
I'll just repeat the fact that it does not "compromise" your value system, no matter how hard you have convinced yourself it does. You do not even have to "accept" it if you want...
|
My above explanation covers this. And just to repeat myself, if we don't accept, we are put into a corner and are tightly crushed to pulp and if we do accept, we are left alone.
If you are against thoughtcrime, you would understand.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
I probably won't cooperate either. I could care less if you lived right next to my house and played with a dick the night before but then when you bring your kid along with his other dad to the bustop in the morning, I don't want to be anywhere nearby with MY kid.
|
I hear you, I don't particularly want to be around intolerant religious nutcases either; difference is you don't see me saying that it "compromises my value system" when a Christian walks past.
|
Since when did every Christian come at you with a Bible? Heck you dont even know if a person is Christian or not unless you ask him/her. I don't see how an unknown person walks by you and suddenly radiates a "Christian glow" and intrudes on your value system.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
You stone people to death for working on the Sabbath?
|
We Christians follow the teachings of Christ Who created a new covenant...it does not render the old completely useless though. Jesus worked on a Sabbath to cause an uproar among the Pharisees who wanted to punish him. He also sat and ate with sinners. Christ is all about second chances...there won't be any second chances if the person is punished instantly.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
You think envy belongs in the 10 Commandments shortlist, but rape and slavery and cruelty to children don't?
|
The 10 Commandments are not the only commandments...every other commandment is as important as the ones in the 10 Commandments.
It is envy allright and the misuse of wanting. Desire is not bad as God promises blessings (But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.Matt 6:33).
But abusing desire and feeling jealous and trying to get other's people's belongings (like how King Ahab took Naboth's vineyard) is what the 10th Commandment addresses against.
Bible also tells to not to provoke your children.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:22 |
You think someone can be punished for a crime committed by someone else?
You think the path to forgiveness is the torture and execution of someone else?
|
Not just someone, Spoony...Jesus Christ the Son of God and that's was a one-time only deal.
We had no choice...if it was just someone or anybody could sacrifice themselves anytime to get forgivness to others, then there would be no point and you can call it a joke. But it was Jesus Christ and it was not by our will but God's that He paid the price.
It makes the sacrifice of Jesus all the more important to us.
---
So Spoony, why does it bother you that we practice our Christian faith and bring up our children the same way? And what we believe? Aren't you against thoughtcrime? Why then try to endlessly counter us in these forums?
I do appreciate it you being respectable about it.
|
Logical fallacies, check! Out-of-context quote, check! Loaded questions, check!
Nice way to keep up with the stereotype. fyi the full quote is:
"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies -- between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae -- between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly xterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. 2nd edn., London, John Murray, 1882, p. 156)
Spoony should quit trying to speak some sense in these people.
Dutch to English
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #361949 is a reply to message #357510] |
Mon, 08 December 2008 06:44 |
|
|
This is getting to be a stupid discussion.
The fact here is simple: pawky is wrong about thinking it's proper to legislate morality. If you don't like what the world has to offer, shield yourself and your future children. Don't force the government to shield mine or me. Hell, don't force the government to OPPRESS others because you want to be shielded.
If you're going to go off of Christ's teachings to love one another and treat each other with respect, you're going to want to realize what you're actually doing. Christ hung around prostitutes and tax collectors. He was far from someone who judged others, yet here you are judging others, and I thought you were supposed to be MORE like Christ.
Nobody's saying that you can't have your morals and beliefs. In fact, we all need a set of morals. Those who don't are sociopaths, and they're dangerous, but just because people don't have Christian values doesn't mean they should be punished for it. I find it funny that heterosexual sociopaths can marry, but homosexuals can't. If the issue is morality, shouldn't someone with NO morals be oppressed instead of someone with a different set of morals?
From what I skimmed of pawky's posts, it seems to me he thinks that children will be indoctrinated and private individuals/organizations will be punished for having preferences. That's just not the case of the majority. Sure, just like there are radical conservative Christians, there are liberals to counter that with thrice the stupidity. Still, that's not the case for the majority of either side. Most people just want to live their lives. Most people have no intention of wearing everything about them on their sleeves. Nobody should look to the minority of ANY group and base their assumptions off of that.
Just the other day, I received an email from a conservative Christian email newsletter (someone must have signed me up, I know I sure as Hell wouldn't have). It was all about protecting CHRISTIANS from homosexuals and their supporters for their PERSECUTION of CHRISTIANS. It cited one email where a radical idiot was being threatening. It was such disgusting propaganda that I immediately deleted the email. I'm sure it's still in gmail's trash, if anyone wants a copy of it.
I'm certainly no relativist, I don't believe that every set of morals is "correct". I believe there to be absolutes. However, I don't feel that any of these morals should be legislated. The only laws on the books should be to limit the scope of government and to maximize the rights for everyone. Heterosexual Christians don't have the right to not be offended, nor do they have the right to oppress. However, homosexuals HAVE been given the right to pursue happiness, just as heterosexuals have.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #361950 is a reply to message #361949] |
Mon, 08 December 2008 06:51 |
|
Jecht
Messages: 3156
Registered: September 2004
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 14:44 |
This is getting to be a stupid discussion.
The fact here is simple: pawky is wrong about thinking it's proper to legislate morality. If you don't like what the world has to offer, shield yourself and your future children. Don't force the government to shield mine or me. Hell, don't force the government to OPPRESS others because you want to be shielded.
If you're going to go off of Christ's teachings to love one another and treat each other with respect, you're going to want to realize what you're actually doing. Christ hung around prostitutes and tax collectors. He was far from someone who judged others, yet here you are judging others, and I thought you were supposed to be MORE like Christ.
Nobody's saying that you can't have your morals and beliefs. In fact, we all need a set of morals. Those who don't are sociopaths, and they're dangerous, but just because people don't have Christian values doesn't mean they should be punished for it. I find it funny that heterosexual sociopaths can marry, but homosexuals can't. If the issue is morality, shouldn't someone with NO morals be oppressed instead of someone with a different set of morals?
From what I skimmed of pawky's posts, it seems to me he thinks that children will be indoctrinated and private individuals/organizations will be punished for having preferences. That's just not the case of the majority. Sure, just like there are radical conservative Christians, there are liberals to counter that with thrice the stupidity. Still, that's not the case for the majority of either side. Most people just want to live their lives. Most people have no intention of wearing everything about them on their sleeves. Nobody should look to the minority of ANY group and base their assumptions off of that.
Just the other day, I received an email from a conservative Christian email newsletter (someone must have signed me up, I know I sure as Hell wouldn't have). It was all about protecting CHRISTIANS from homosexuals and their supporters for their PERSECUTION of CHRISTIANS. It cited one email where a radical idiot was being threatening. It was such disgusting propaganda that I immediately deleted the email. I'm sure it's still in gmail's trash, if anyone wants a copy of it.
I'm certainly no relativist, I don't believe that every set of morals is "correct". I believe there to be absolutes. However, I don't feel that any of these morals should be legislated. The only laws on the books should be to limit the scope of government and to maximize the rights for everyone. Heterosexual Christians don't have the right to not be offended, nor do they have the right to oppress. However, homosexuals HAVE been given the right to pursue happiness, just as heterosexuals have.
|
I very much agree with you Jake. Morality should not be legislated, it should be chosen. I used to believe that morality should be forced upon people, but it's really something that one must dictate for one's own self.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #361960 is a reply to message #357510] |
Mon, 08 December 2008 08:28 |
|
Jecht
Messages: 3156
Registered: September 2004
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
I see the logic in oppression, but the insurmountable flaw in politically forced-coercion methods (oppression) is that it directly births revolution. Eventually the masses will no longer tolerate the restrictive regulations of the few elite, and the process will right itself...so to speak.
I'm still against Gay marriage, but not against Gay rights. In my personal opinion (this is why I'm not a politician), I believe marriage stems from religion and is separate. I'll just be content for now to let politicians interpret what they see fit is a right granted by the constitution. I'll let scientists hash out whether it's a choice or biological. I'm in Information Systems, so i'll deal with that field.
Oppressors want ultimate control over many people, and ignorantly they believe dated management styles will hold up, even though they've failed a thousand times over. These reasons are why I like America's Constitution so much. Change occurs slowly, and requires many different people seeing eye to eye. Change can happen, but it must be on the basis of the (representative) majority. Unfortunately, I'm recently seeing a flaw in this system - the political parties. Our current president and our future president-elect has thus far left me...disenfranchised. I didn't like McCain or Palin either. I definitely hope the president-elect will change my mind though. The rebound of the economy is the largest step. If he does a good job turning the country around then he'll have my vote come 2012. If it's excuses much like our current Governor of Michigan, then I'll choose another candidate.
[Updated on: Mon, 08 December 2008 08:39] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri May 03 04:37:08 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01380 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
