RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (39) < ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 >   
  Topic: Vox Day: Alpha Fail., Rich veins of untapped Tard< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Rob R.



Posts: 12
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2011,22:03   

One has to wonder why Dr. Elsberry, founder of this site and a devout Christian, never seems to reply in these types of exchnages.  Let some believer argue that nature shows a sign of being created/designed... he's there.  Believers are all idiots whom follow bronze-aged ignorant sheep herders... and it's all whistling winds and tumblin' tumbleweeds.  Dover is so five years ago... what are you doing, exactly?

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2011,22:21   

Quote
Bullshit.  Ever read the Illiad?  The Oddesy?  The moral lessons in the Greek myths?   How about the viking myths?  No?  I'm not surprised.


Quite familiar with all.  Forgot to add this link earlier.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2011,22:25   

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,22:21)
Quote
Bullshit.  Ever read the Illiad?  The Oddesy?  The moral lessons in the Greek myths?   How about the viking myths?  No?  I'm not surprised.


Quite familiar with all.  Forgot to add this link earlier.

Excellent, so you admit that your earlier statements were wrong.

Glad we could clear that up.  The Bible is NOT the earliest font of the morality tale.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2011,22:38   

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,21:33)
Ogre, I don't even know how to respond to your posts.  They seems so absurd to me that it's hard to fathom what is going on in your head.  I don't mean to be rude, I'm just saying that what we've read and how we view it is so entirely different that I have no idea how to even discuss the issues with you.  

Just for the record.  I've read every word of the Bible many times, as well as sat through a 2 year study that went through every word of the Bible.  My current Pastor encourages everyone to bring their Bible each Sunday as we go through several verses or chapters each week.  The next 12 weeks we will be covering the book of John.  I'm not Catholic, so maybe you're picturing something entirely different than what we hear each Sunday.  I've been a member of 6 different churches and visited many others.  It's impossible for me to understand how you can read scripture and come to the conclusions that you do.  It's as though you scan and pull out what you feel is repulsive and skim through the rest without a thought.  

So much of what you claim God commanded was actually stories telling about what happened to Biblical figures thoughout their life.  They made good choices, they made mistakes, they weren't perfect.  We learn from their history. That's the beauty of the Bible.  It's characters were far from perfect, which gives us hope as well.  

I'm sorry, but I don't get you. at all.

Yes, I know.  On the other hand, I know exactly why you cannot understand me.  You think you have the ability to question, but you don't.  You think you have the ability to think critically, but you do not.

Here, take the story of the centurion to your pastor.  Ask for an explanation.  Now, there three choices to what he says:

1) It's a different interpretation of events from a different perspective.  Fine, then the Bible is not inerrant.  

2) He will make up a story about how God can change minds or something like that; in which case ask for evidence that this is the case.

3) He will say that it's not important to the meaning of the Bible... in which case, one wonders why it's in the Bible anyway.

You still haven't answered my simple question.  Why don't you use the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible, which is the only Bible that contains all of the books.  You say you aren't Catholic, that's fine, but why haven't you read any of their books?

You haven't read 1 and 2 Maccabees?  What about Prayer of Manasseh?  1 and 2 Esdras?  What about the 3 Meqabyan books?

Do you even realize that your Bible as you know it didn't exist until about 400 AD (actually 28th of August 397)?

Honestly, though, that's neither here nor there and you haven't answered yet and I suspect you never will.

Back to morality.

What is the the source of your personal morality?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2011,22:44   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 29 2011,22:25)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,22:21)
Quote
Bullshit.  Ever read the Illiad?  The Oddesy?  The moral lessons in the Greek myths?   How about the viking myths?  No?  I'm not surprised.


Quite familiar with all.  Forgot to add this link earlier.

Excellent, so you admit that your earlier statements were wrong.

Glad we could clear that up.  The Bible is NOT the earliest font of the morality tale.

lol...I never claimed it was the "earliest font of morality tale".  I stated that "No other text from antiquity provides as much moral content as the Bible."  I also provided steps as to why I believe our earliest source of morality came via the God of scripture.

Go back and carefully read what I actually wrote.  You're doing to my posts what you seem to regularly do to scripture.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2011,22:49   

Quote
Do you even realize that your Bible as you know it didn't exist until about 400 AD (actually 28th of August 397)?


Have you ever read the writings of the fathers of the early church?  If you haven't, you certainly should.  In their writing, you will find that the books we consider the inherent word of God were established long before Constantine.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2011,23:09   

You are on record believing that human beings can exist independent of a moral code.  Explain.

Since all the Greek myths are attempts to explain moral behavior, explain how the Bible contains more moralizing.  I assume you can do so since you are "very familiar" with all of them.  Of course, you're also "very familiar" with science.  (See what happened there?  A quote and a scare all at once.)

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4381
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,01:05   

Quote (Rob R. @ Aug. 29 2011,22:03)
One has to wonder why Dr. Elsberry, founder of this site and a devout Christian, never seems to reply in these types of exchnages.  Let some believer argue that nature shows a sign of being created/designed... he's there.  Believers are all idiots whom follow bronze-aged ignorant sheep herders... and it's all whistling winds and tumblin' tumbleweeds.  Dover is so five years ago... what are you doing, exactly?


If people want to believe I'm an idiot of some stripe (and there are certainly enough of those folks out there, as a search engine will attest), well, there isn't a lot that I can do to change their mind by arguing theology; it isn't what I've been trained in.

I contribute to discussions where I think I can make some difference. I object to people pushing plain error and would like to let them know exactly why busted apologetics are harmful. If the "breathtaking inanity" factor were dialed down from 11 or beyond, I think that that would help people get along better. It may not be much in the overall scheme of things, but it's something.

As for what I've been doing lately, I'm trying to keep financially solvent (you might have noticed that there is a recession on) and make some progress on getting data written up and published. Pardon me if these are not the ways that you'd like me to spend my time.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
midwifetoad



Posts: 3512
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,04:19   

Quote
Have you ever read the writings of the fathers of the early church?  If you haven't, you certainly should.  In their writing, you will find that the books we consider the inherent word of God were established long before Constantine.


But there were far more books before Constantine, not to mention about 50 separate religions have similar messiah and resurrection themes.

Christianity won out due to the raw naked power of the emperor. Why do you suppose different sects of Christianity have different lists of inspired books?

It's not a stretch to include Islam as a descendant of Christianity. It's not particularly more distant than Mormonism. Just one more revelation.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Cubist



Posts: 333
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,05:16   

Quote (Rob R. @ Aug. 29 2011,22:03)
One has to wonder why Dr. Elsberry, founder of this site and a devout Christian, never seems to reply in these types of exchnages.  Let some believer argue that nature shows a sign of being created/designed... he's there.  Believers are all idiots whom follow bronze-aged ignorant sheep herders... and it's all whistling winds and tumblin' tumbleweeds.  Dover is so five years ago... what are you doing, exactly?

Perhaps Dr. Elsberry takes Proverbs 27:17 more seriously than some of his co-religionists. Maybe he thinks that Christians should give more than cursory lip-service to the notion of being truthseekers. It could be that he's concerned about the lake of fire God has waiting for false witnesses. Or perhaps he feels that when Christians talk bullshit about mundane, worldly matters which can be confirmed or denied by mundane, worldly means, not only does it make unbelievers less receptive to anything else Christians might have to say (especially those spiritual assertions which a body would have to take Christians' word for!), but also, it tends to make unbelievers think Christians are stupid, ignorant, deluded, dishonest, or some combination of all four. Dr. Elsberry might even feel that if Christians are going to make noise about having access to some sort of 'higher knowledge' and/or 'higher morality', it would behoove Christians to bloody well act like it, as opposed to acting like flagrantly deceitful weasels.
And Dover may be 'five years ago', but ID-pushers don't seem to have given up on their dreams of ramming ID down the throats of innocent highschool and gradeschool students, so opposing ID is every bit as relevant now as it was when the lying Creationists of Dover were getting their asses sued and losing in court.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,05:19   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 30 2011,07:05)
[SNIP]

I object to people pushing plain error and would like to let them know exactly why busted apologetics are harmful. If the "breathtaking inanity" factor were dialed down from 11 or beyond, I think that that would help people get along better. It may not be much in the overall scheme of things, but it's something.

[SNIP]

Absolument!

Maybe FTK can reflect on the words of Thomas Jefferson (admittedly on a slightly different topic):

Quote
...But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.


1) No one with a functioning brain who can give it even a moment's calm, rational thought gives a gibbering Dalek doodoo about what anyone believes. Go to it! Go to your churches, FTK, read your bible, pray, don't have abortions, don't understand basic science*, do no harm and you will have a friend in me. Extend your personal, private beliefs beyond that sphere and I will....

{Dramatic pause}

....argue with you. I know, persecution right? Guess what though, you get to do the same with me! How cool is that?

2) Here's a couple from Gandhi for you, not that I agree with everything the bloke says, but he's hit the nail on the head regarding this point.

Quote
Be the change you want to see in the world.


Quote
I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.


And here's the KJV of your own Holy Bible, Matthew 7:5:

Quote
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.


Your attempts at relativism and shifting the burden of proof are, as I have said before, hilarious. Since we have all covered this ground before many times, it pains me to say it again, but I, and others, do not simply believe the various theories of evolution and facts associated with such biology are true, we instead accept them as being provisionally true based on the available data. That might seem to you like a fine hair to split, but it is the crux of the issue. Regardless of what misinformation you have from pastors and other such sundry, pompous pious personages, we are simply not arriving at our conclusions via the same means.

If you cannot grasp that the reason scientists accept the facts and theories of evolutionary biology is EXACTLY the same reason that your car mechanic accepts the engineering principles required to fix your car, or the same reason you accept the medical principles that underpin the treatments your doctor gives you, or the electronic principles that make the computer you are reading this on work, then you are truly mistaken. And mistaken in the most pernicious manner.

So before you project, yet again...yet nauseatingly again, your own callow thought processes onto others, try to grasp the fact that it really, really, REALLY might be you that's mistaken here. Trust me when I say the entire scientific community does this on a professional basis every single day. Evolutionary biology has not been arrived at by some belief system, it has been demonstrated time and again. The various creationist claims of your "Big Tent" chums simply have not. Worse, regardless of what you think, they have been refuted utterly on every occasion...as indeed have the "logical" arguments for your (or any) deity. Wesley's point about apologetics is vital to YOU here, not to me. Every time you, or one of your dribbling creationist effluvium merchants, puts out some hideously simple apologia for your deity, it opens your deity up to disproof, to destruction as a claimed entity.

If instead you restricted your claims to faith, i.e. the simple fact that you believe in a specific deity on faith alone, then no damage could come to your beliefs. Whilst I have no truck with such epistemology, and we could argue over its value, at least I'd defend your right to espouse such to my death. But the moment you claim your deity is factually demonstrable, then people (rightly) question that claim.

3) As per usual you are "big on claims, light on evidence and reasoning". As Wes says, you want a better response, try actually acting with some intellectual integrity and ability and you might be amazed.

But I've said all this before only to be ignored, so fly my electrons, fly. You are wasted in the desert of FTK's brain.

Louis

*I'd argue this does harm, but meh, we can carry a few rubes.

--------------
Bye.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,07:05   

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,22:44)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 29 2011,22:25)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,22:21)
 
Quote
Bullshit.  Ever read the Illiad?  The Oddesy?  The moral lessons in the Greek myths?   How about the viking myths?  No?  I'm not surprised.


Quite familiar with all.  Forgot to add this link earlier.

Excellent, so you admit that your earlier statements were wrong.

Glad we could clear that up.  The Bible is NOT the earliest font of the morality tale.

lol...I never claimed it was the "earliest font of morality tale".  I stated that "No other text from antiquity provides as much moral content as the Bible."  I also provided steps as to why I believe our earliest source of morality came via the God of scripture.

Go back and carefully read what I actually wrote.  You're doing to my posts what you seem to regularly do to scripture.

Quote
From written documents that we DO have, the most logical explanation is that morality was ultimately established by God.  No other text from antiquity provides as much moral content as the Bible.  According to those texts, our sense of morality was intact from the beginning.  Trial, error, sin  and the results of those helped established that. Oral tradition as well as documentation of events were passed down throughout the generations, and at one point the Jews put together what was to become the OT which combined these historical accounts.  Reject any part or the totality of scripture, but you have nothing that *proves* morality was originally established by other means entirely.
 http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=5752;st=990#entry193681

You're right, you claimed that the Judean God is the font of all morality... of course, He didn't exist before the oral traditions of the Bible too.

As we have established, morality tales existed long before the Bible, Christianity, and even Judea.  Heck actual morality existed long before the Bible, Christianity, and even Judea.  I've read Clan of the Cave Bear.

I'm not doing anything to your posts and your Bible that you shouldn't do.  That is think logically about them.

So which is it FtK?  Is the Bible literally inerrant or is it open to interpretation?

It cannot be both.

BTW: What I'm doing here is showing you the complete inanity of the Biblical position.  It very simply doesn't work.  The only position you can take with the Bible is "I believe", which is most definitely not scientific.  

Any (and I mean any) other claims from the Bible or Christian religion can and will be tested.  Except for a few minor quibbles, they are all found wanting.  i.e. there is no evidence for any of it.

There is zero external evidence that the Judeans were held as slaves in Egypt.  There is zero external evidence of Solomon's temple.  There is zero external evidence of Jesus.

There is actually pretty good external evidence of Paul, which is a good thing, since your entire religion is based on him.

But I digress.  You are making claims.  We are showing those claims to be false.  You then ignore, make up stories, or move the goalpost about those claims.  Just as you do for science.  

You claimed that God is the font of all morality, yet that morality existed long before God.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2040
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,08:39   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2011,03:19)
(snip)

Bravo.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,09:53   

In many ways, I think the bible is one of the ultimate magic books.

Do good deeds: "yeah, I followed those teachings in this and this and this verse, since the bible is truth"

Do bad deeds*: "yeah, I followed those teachings in this and this and this verse, since the bible is truth"

Someone does something horrible: "yeah, he misinterpreted this and this and this verse, since the bible is truth, except when it's not. Or he's a closet atheist/muslim"

Easy stuff, really.

So, FTK, do you eat shrimps or lobster? Do you stone your kids to death if they disobey you?

Damn! We've been around this crap for years. It's getting boring...


*Please note none of the followers will ever admit to do bad deeds.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3512
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,10:25   

Quote
do you eat shrimps or lobster? Do you stone your kids to death if they disobey you?


That's unfair. You have to realize that absolute morality is relative to time, place and the current wind direction.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,10:47   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 30 2011,10:25)
Quote
do you eat shrimps or lobster? Do you stone your kids to death if they disobey you?


That's unfair. You have to realize that absolute morality is relative to time, place and the current wind direction.

Which is EXACTLY the entire fucking point.

FtK eats shellfish and doesn't own slaves and can wear cotton blends because our SOCIETY and our CULTURE have decided that such things are moral or immoral.

God has nothing to do with it.  

My grandchildren will probably grow up in a society that doesn't even consider sexual orientation as anything to even think about (well mostly, there will still probably be fundamentalist Christians, even in a 100 years, brainwashing is like that).  

It's because the majority of the US society has come to accept homosexuals.  It happens simply because more of them come out and the guy you spent the last 12 years next to in your cube tells you he's been gay since he was 17.  Holy crap, he's still a real person and suddenly, you can't quite condemn homosexuals anymore (it's much funnier when that person is also a deacon at the local church).

Society and culture evolve.  Just like biological evolution.  And just like biological evolution, society and culture do NOT spring from the ground fully formed.  We have the baggage of the last several thousand years of culture and we have to adapt to our new environment.

Religions have mostly kept up.  The majority of religion unambiguously accept science (including evolution).  Some religions even accept homosexuality.  Many more 'accept the people, but not the practice'.  Of course, those same religions also don't accept ANY practice of sex outside of marriage, so that's not really a dig on homosexuality.

In 40 years, I'll be the majority of religions are fully accepting of homosexuality... if only to keep their flagging numbers up.

Societies change.  Culture changes.  What's moral and immoral changes.  Religions change.  The universe is built on change.

Then gives up people like FtK who thinks that what's good 2000 years ago is good now (except for the beating of slaves, and selling of daughters, , and sacrifice, and cannibalism, and eating shellfish, etc. etc. etc.)

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,14:14   

Quote
In 40 years, I'll be the majority of religions are fully accepting of homosexuality... if only to keep their flagging numbers up.


I'm thinking probably not.  Homosexuality is nothing new, and over the ages it's never led to acceptance of the practise as particularly moral.  

But, then again, maybe you're right and the tide will finally change and allow for a variety of sexual practises to bloom and gain acceptance.  Time will tell.

Bear in mind that my *personal* belief is that homosexuality is a choice for many, as well as a biological trait in a number of folks.  I don't accept the practise as moral, but I certainly would not reject a person who is homosexual, cause them harm, or lower myself to name calling in a derogatory manner.  Neither would I turn them away form my church.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,14:18   

Thanks for telling us homosexuality isn't new, we'd never have known. [/sarcasm]

How is consenting sex between capable adults "immoral" FTK? Why is the sex that two consenting, consenting homosexual people enjoy more/less/differently moral than the sex that two consenting, consenting homosexual people enjoy?

Louis

Edit: Homosexuality =/= paedophilia. Nor is it anything like it. Thank you for your concern, your homophobia and hatred has been noted, pathetic, transparent false protestations to the contrary.

--------------
Bye.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2168
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,14:18   

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 30 2011,12:14)
Quote
In 40 years, I'll be the majority of religions are fully accepting of homosexuality... if only to keep their flagging numbers up.


I'm thinking probably not.  Homosexuality is nothing new, and over the ages it's never led to acceptance of the practise as particularly moral.  

But, then again, maybe you're right and the tide will finally change and allow for a variety of sexual practises to bloom and gain acceptance.  Time will tell.

Bear in mind that my *personal* belief is that homosexuality is a choice for many, as well as a biological trait in a number of folks.  I don't accept the practise as moral, but I certainly would not reject a person who is homosexual, cause them harm, or lower myself to name calling in a derogatory manner.  Neither would I turn them away form my church.

FTK's great-great-great granny, 1800:
Quote
Slavery is nothing new, and over the ages it's never led to condemnation of the practise as particularly immoral.


--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,14:31   

Louis, just out of mild curiosity, where have I ever spoken of personal hatred or condoned hatred in regard to homosexuality?  Back up your false conclusions with some kind of proof or keep your inaccurate thoughts to yourself.

If we choose to hate homosexuals, treat them poorly or chase them from the churches for immorality, we'd not only lose them, but the entire congregation.  There isn't a person alive who hasn't engaged in immoral acts at some time in their lives.  That's why we're there.  Churches aren't full of saints, they are full of sinners.  Hate the acts, love the people.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3512
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,14:34   

You conveniently lose track of even recent history.

Any inclination that churches may have to accept homosexuals is a very recent thing forced on them from outside, and not something arrives at by reading scripture.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
JohnW



Posts: 2168
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,14:40   

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 30 2011,12:31)
Louis, just out of mild curiosity, where have I ever spoken of personal hatred or condoned hatred in regard to homosexuality?  Back up your false conclusions with some kind of proof or keep your inaccurate thoughts to yourself.

If we choose to hate homosexuals, treat them poorly or chase them from the churches for immorality, we'd not only lose them, but the entire congregation.  There isn't a person alive who hasn't engaged in immoral acts at some time in their lives.  That's why we're there.  Churches aren't full of saints, they are full of sinners.  Hate the acts, love the people.

Well that was easy.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,14:58   

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 30 2011,20:31)
Louis, just out of mild curiosity, where have I ever spoken of personal hatred or condoned hatred in regard to homosexuality?  Back up your false conclusions with some kind of proof or keep your inaccurate thoughts to yourself.

If we choose to hate homosexuals, treat them poorly or chase them from the churches for immorality, we'd not only lose them, but the entire congregation.  There isn't a person alive who hasn't engaged in immoral acts at some time in their lives.  That's why we're there.  Churches aren't full of saints, they are full of sinners.  Hate the acts, love the people.

Equating homosexuality with paedophilia, or putting homosexuality on some slippery sexual slope to "other sexual practises" like paedophilia, this is an absolute expression of hatred/homophobia. You are running together the consensual acts of adult homosexuals with the sexual exploitation/abuse of non-consenting (by definition), pre-pubescent minors. Or are paedophiles "just another persecuted minority" FTK? Claiming that homosexuality between adults is of a type with sexual predation/abuse by an adult on a minor is to equate the harmless practises of consenting homosexual adults with the demonstrably harmful practises of adults perpetrating sex upon pre-pubescent minors incapable of being able to consent. You are damning by association. The two are not alike in the way you are trying to pretend they are.

Hint: you don't have to swear, shout, beat up or burn homosexuals to demonstrate your hatred of them. Simply denying them, or attempting to deny them the same civil rights you enjoy (like for example the right to adopt and marry equally under the law) because of their consensual adult sexual practises is sufficient. It's exactly what racists did/do to various ethnic groups before the various civil rights movements.

Just because you aren't Fred Phelps, it doesn't mean you're not a homophobe. Your hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty are not fooling anyone.

Louis

Edit: I notice you avoid the question in the post and substance as usual to act wounded. You're a homophobe FTK. Start with the massive beam in your own immoral eye, don't bother to pick the mote out of anyone else's.

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,15:04   

find another picture please this one is burning holes in my monitor display!!!!  AAAAHHHHHHHH MUST BLEACH EYEBALLS

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,15:33   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2011,14:58)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 30 2011,20:31)
Louis, just out of mild curiosity, where have I ever spoken of personal hatred or condoned hatred in regard to homosexuality?  Back up your false conclusions with some kind of proof or keep your inaccurate thoughts to yourself.

If we choose to hate homosexuals, treat them poorly or chase them from the churches for immorality, we'd not only lose them, but the entire congregation.  There isn't a person alive who hasn't engaged in immoral acts at some time in their lives.  That's why we're there.  Churches aren't full of saints, they are full of sinners.  Hate the acts, love the people.

Equating homosexuality with paedophilia, or putting homosexuality on some slippery sexual slope to "other sexual practises" like paedophilia, this is an absolute expression of hatred/homophobia. You are running together the consensual acts of adult homosexuals with the sexual exploitation/abuse of non-consenting (by definition), pre-pubescent minors. Or are paedophiles "just another persecuted minority" FTK? Claiming that homosexuality between adults is of a type with sexual predation/abuse by an adult on a minor is to equate the harmless practises of consenting homosexual adults with the demonstrably harmful practises of adults perpetrating sex upon pre-pubescent minors incapable of being able to consent. You are damning by association. The two are not alike in the way you are trying to pretend they are.

Hint: you don't have to swear, shout, beat up or burn homosexuals to demonstrate your hatred of them. Simply denying them, or attempting to deny them the same civil rights you enjoy (like for example the right to adopt and marry equally under the law) because of their consensual adult sexual practises is sufficient. It's exactly what racists did/do to various ethnic groups before the various civil rights movements.

Just because you aren't Fred Phelps, it doesn't mean you're not a homophobe. Your hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty is not fooling anyone.

Louis

Edit: I notice you avoid the question in the post and substance as usual to act wounded. You're a fucking homophobe FTK. Start with the massive beam in your own immoral eye, don't bother to pick the mote out of anyone else's.

Whatever Louis.  You have no idea how I live my life or whom I associate with and how.  If we really got down to it, I probably have more homosexual friends than you do.  What I feel is far from hate for them or anyone else...you included.

Next....read the link on ancient Greece.  It wasn't a far jump from homosexuality to pedophilia.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10006
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,15:38   

Wowsers!

Hmmm - does doggy style lead to anal? Are they joined by a slippery slope?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Robin



Posts: 1422
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,15:42   

[quote=Ftk,Aug. 29 2011,14:32]
Quote (Robin @ Aug. 29 2011,13:18)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,12:19)

The problem is, FtK, that a book devoted to "moral standards" should not contain any[ morally ambiguous or relative conditions. The fact that the bible does so makes not just those odd passages suspect, but also reduces (and in many cases outright removes) the credibility of any potentially "morally instructive" passages. Why? Because such ambiguous passages create conflict with the very "morally instructive" passages themselves.

Lots of things in life are ambiguous.  That doesn't mean we reject them outright.  We THINK them through.  Not everything in life is automatically black and white, but rather depends on discernment to make sense of the matter.

If you read through the arguments in the links I provided, you cannot suggest that those arguments must be rejected outright just because *your* sense of "morality"  and what a "god" would do in every situation won't allow it.  

Again, it's interesting that so much of Darwinian evolution is based upon the same type of rationalizing arguments, yet you *believe* you have rock solids fact.  Then you turn around and automatically reject my rationalization of scripture even though it makes logical sense to so many.  

It's ok that you believe what you do, but you can't condemn others who think differently when it's quite obvious that we are all using the same type of reasoning.

So now the bible is just a non-divine, man-made, nothing-but-normal book? I mean, if you're going to compare it to "lots of things in life"...

There in lies the rub with your response - you want your cake and to eat too. Sorry, that doesn't wash. If your bible is a moral standard, it isn't "lots of things in life" - it's the one and only moral standard. And if it is this moral standard, then it can't be vague on the moral representations. That would be...wait for it...the essence of being a standard.

And of course I can reject the arguments in your links, not because of what I believe, but because they contradict the definition of a standard and yet are arguing the opposite. That's just absurdity and I reject them on that basis alone.

Oh...and there's nothing "logical" about "scripture", FtK. That's why it requires "faith" to follow it. The fact that you think there's some similarity between the approach to your belief rationalizations and evolution demonstrates you really don't have a handle on either. Pity.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
JohnW



Posts: 2168
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,15:49   

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 30 2011,13:33)
Whatever Louis.  You have no idea how I live my life or whom I associate with and how.  If we really got down to it, I probably have more homosexual friends than you do.  What I feel is far from hate for them or anyone else...you included.

Next....read the link on ancient Greece.  It wasn't a far jump from homosexuality to pedophilia.

Well that settles it.  She probably has more gay friends than Louis*.  And she doesn't hate them, just their acts (which presumably means they'd be closer friends if they stopped doing Teh Gay).  Sounds positively homophilic to me.

And if you're seriously arguing** that homosexuality -> pedophilia, F: Are you familiar with the phrase "child bride"?  Were they victims of Teh Gay too?


* Data not shown

** And when I see anything this ridiculous, I can't help suspecting she's been Poe-ing us all this time.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,15:51   

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 30 2011,21:33)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2011,14:58)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 30 2011,20:31)
Louis, just out of mild curiosity, where have I ever spoken of personal hatred or condoned hatred in regard to homosexuality?  Back up your false conclusions with some kind of proof or keep your inaccurate thoughts to yourself.

If we choose to hate homosexuals, treat them poorly or chase them from the churches for immorality, we'd not only lose them, but the entire congregation.  There isn't a person alive who hasn't engaged in immoral acts at some time in their lives.  That's why we're there.  Churches aren't full of saints, they are full of sinners.  Hate the acts, love the people.

Equating homosexuality with paedophilia, or putting homosexuality on some slippery sexual slope to "other sexual practises" like paedophilia, this is an absolute expression of hatred/homophobia. You are running together the consensual acts of adult homosexuals with the sexual exploitation/abuse of non-consenting (by definition), pre-pubescent minors. Or are paedophiles "just another persecuted minority" FTK? Claiming that homosexuality between adults is of a type with sexual predation/abuse by an adult on a minor is to equate the harmless practises of consenting homosexual adults with the demonstrably harmful practises of adults perpetrating sex upon pre-pubescent minors incapable of being able to consent. You are damning by association. The two are not alike in the way you are trying to pretend they are.

Hint: you don't have to swear, shout, beat up or burn homosexuals to demonstrate your hatred of them. Simply denying them, or attempting to deny them the same civil rights you enjoy (like for example the right to adopt and marry equally under the law) because of their consensual adult sexual practises is sufficient. It's exactly what racists did/do to various ethnic groups before the various civil rights movements.

Just because you aren't Fred Phelps, it doesn't mean you're not a homophobe. Your hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty is not fooling anyone.

Louis

Edit: I notice you avoid the question in the post and substance as usual to act wounded. You're a fucking homophobe FTK. Start with the massive beam in your own immoral eye, don't bother to pick the mote out of anyone else's.

Whatever Louis.  You have no idea how I live my life or whom I associate with and how.  If we really got down to it, I probably have more homosexual friends than you do.  What I feel is far from hate for them or anyone else...you included.

Next....read the link on ancient Greece.  It wasn't a far jump from homosexuality to pedophilia.

Oh for the love of....

1) Having homosexual "friends" (however much I doubt this in your case) does not mean you are not a homophobe.

2) I couldn't actually care less how you live your life. I am dealing with the claims you present HERE. The claims you present here are in essence (and in this instance) homophobic claims, pretty standard ones actually. You make homophobic claims, you are a homophobe. Stop making homophobic claims....

3) Some homosexuals engage in paedophilia, so do some heterosexuals. The sexuality is independent of it.

4) Believe me when I say that I am more than aware of the practises of (certain) Ancient Greek city states, I studied Classics for most of my young life and the literature of the time is not unfamiliar. You are deliberately ignoring a huge amount of societal and cultural factors in your equation of these practises with some slippery slope which conveniently reinforces your prejudices. You are trying to pretend that homosexuality leads to paedophilia AGAIN. False FTK. Sorry. If you don't believe this, then tour around Aegean sea of the times you mention and look at Sapphic worship, or the differences between Athenian and Spartan cultures. Or how homosexuality was treated in Persia. Your link, as usual misses the mark. It wasn't the simple fact of homosexuality (or its tolerance) that dictated the practises of that time and place, rather a series of (complex) cultural, tribal and historical precedents. Unlike you, I'm not trying to gainsay someone on the internet to reinforce my prejudices, so I'll let you go and do your own research. Ha, that'll happen sometime soon.

Oh and while I'm at it, learn the difference between pederasty, paedophilia and ephebephilia. It's important.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2011,16:16   

Quote
You are trying to pretend that homosexuality leads to paedophilia AGAIN.


Not sure what exactly you're alluding to in the first sentence.  If you are suggesting that I am stating that the specific acceptance of homosexuality alone will lead people to move on to pedophilia because it's in some way linked, then that is absolutely not the case I'm making.  There are many other sexually immoral acts that are not accepted that would strive for acceptance as well.  I'm throwing pedophilia out as an example.  Open the door, in other words....

Quote
False FTK. Sorry. If you don't believe this, then tour around Aegean sea of the times you mention and look at Sapphic worship, or the differences between Athenian and Spartan cultures. Or how homosexuality was treated in Persia. Your link, as usual misses the mark. It wasn't the simple fact of homosexuality (or its tolerance) that dictated the practises of that time and place, rather a series of (complex) cultural, tribal and historical precedents.



Also find it interesting that you take into consideration "(complex) cultural, tribal and historical precedents" when discussing this issue, but when I state the same considerations when making my case that God is not immoral because of instances in ancient Israel where He commanded battle between tribes, you toss them off as not particularly relevant.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
  1157 replies since July 31 2008,17:11 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (39) < ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]