|
Post by Hunny on Sept 7, 2013 16:53:40 GMT
Well the bible was SO specific when enumerating the details of things that it says stuff like "who was the son of, who was the son of, who was the son of..." or other insanely specific descriptions of food items, etc), that I'm convinced when they said kill the men and bury them, they would have said women too if they had any thought at all about hating lesbians. I do find it relevant that it's missing. For that reason, and because men wrote it and it fits their M.O.. This is evidence, to me.
As for religion - God, specifically - you have to delude convince yourself ("believe") that it's real because there's no proof. That makes it something willfully IMAGINED. Literally.
I cant see that people choosing to believe in unprovable things should be protected the way minorities are. A minority is real. You can touch a minority. They're physical real people, born that way genetically even. - while someone who convinces themself something unprovable is real...well that's not unlike people who vote republican, for instance. They BELIEVE in something. (most of which isnt true, all of which is subjective). So they're not a genetically produced type of human (as a minority is), they're more like people who got certain ideas in their head along the way. So do they deserve the same kind of anti-discriminatory protections as a hispanic gets, eg?
That's what I meant by "gay people are real, while religion is imaginary".
I could go further too and point out that people's individual interpretations of various religions are like snowflakes -> no two people actually ever believe in the exact same religion really. They all concoct some personal differences in it.
So this shows even further that religion IS WHAT PEOPLE IMAGINE, ie, "imaginary". *shrug*
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Sept 7, 2013 19:53:18 GMT
Well the bible was SO specific when enumerating the details of things that it says stuff like "who was the son of, who was the son of, who was the son of..." or other insanely specific descriptions of food items, etc), that I'm convinced when they said kill the men and bury them, they would have said women too if they had any thought at all about hating lesbians. I do find it relevant that it's missing. For that reason, and because men wrote it and it fits their M.O.. This is evidence, to me. As for religion - God, specifically - you have to delude convince yourself ("believe") that it's real because there's no proof. That makes it something willfully IMAGINED. Literally. I cant see that people choosing to believe in unprovable things should be protected the way minorities are. A minority is real. You can touch a minority. They're physical real people, born that way genetically even. - while someone who convinces themself something unprovable is real...well that's not unlike people who vote republican, for instance. They BELIEVE in something. (most of which isnt true, all of which is subjective). So they're not a genetically produced type of human (as a minority is), they're more like people who got certain ideas in their head along the way. So do they deserve the same kind of anti-discriminatory protections as a hispanic gets, eg? That's what I meant by "gay people are real, while religion is imaginary". I could go further too and point out that people's individual interpretations of various religions are like snowflakes -> no two people actually ever believe in the exact same religion really. They all concoct some personal differences in it. So this shows even further that religion IS WHAT PEOPLE IMAGINE, ie, "imaginary". *shrug* If you want to look at it logically atheism is just as much a case of 'going beyond the evidence' as theism. You don't KNOW there isn't a God anymore than I KNOW that there is. I've had many strange events in my life which because of my beliefs I attribute to God. So has Mike who's an agnostic but he doesn't attribute them to God. And he agrees with me that atheism is just as much a leap of faith as religious belief. Now for the question of lesbianism and the Bible. I'd have to do a lot of digging to see if I could find any passages that seemed relevant but the argument from analogy is one that has been used a lot (not only by theologians) and it seems to me that IF you are antigay you'll probably be antilesbian as well. Now we come to the question of proof. What do you mean by proof? What would you accept as proof if it was offered? Where is the proof that George Washington existed? Or William the Conqueror? Or Louis XIV? Or Alexander the Great? Or Karl Marx? How do you know that the 'accounts' given about them by contemporaries and subsequent historians aren't just all made up fairy stories? How do you know they aren't just myths invented by people? And when you have evidence that could be interpreted in a religious way it's not irrational to choose to take the interpretation that fits in with your beliefs rather than the opposite. It IS irrational to DENY facts that don't fit in with your beliefs but that applies every bit as much to atheists as it does to believers. And some of the atheists I've come across put forward pretty much nothing beyond prejudice and bigotry rather than rational arguments. So have some of the theists but in my experience except on the lunatic fringe you're more likely to get a religious believer trying to defend God rationally than an atheist trying to defend his position rationally. Atheists too often assume that only an idiot could possibly believe in God and that therefore it's beneath them to offer rational arguments for their beliefs. Who's behaving more rationally - the dogmatic atheist or the tolerant, questioning believer?
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Sept 8, 2013 14:08:49 GMT
Well the bible was SO specific when enumerating the details of things that it says stuff like "who was the son of, who was the son of, who was the son of..." or other insanely specific descriptions of food items, etc), that I'm convinced when they said kill the men and bury them, they would have said women too if they had any thought at all about hating lesbians. I do find it relevant that it's missing. For that reason, and because men wrote it and it fits their M.O.. This is evidence, to me. As for religion - God, specifically - you have to delude convince yourself ("believe") that it's real because there's no proof. That makes it something willfully IMAGINED. Literally. I cant see that people choosing to believe in unprovable things should be protected the way minorities are. A minority is real. You can touch a minority. They're physical real people, born that way genetically even. - while someone who convinces themself something unprovable is real...well that's not unlike people who vote republican, for instance. They BELIEVE in something. (most of which isnt true, all of which is subjective). So they're not a genetically produced type of human (as a minority is), they're more like people who got certain ideas in their head along the way. So do they deserve the same kind of anti-discriminatory protections as a hispanic gets, eg? That's what I meant by "gay people are real, while religion is imaginary". I could go further too and point out that people's individual interpretations of various religions are like snowflakes -> no two people actually ever believe in the exact same religion really. They all concoct some personal differences in it. So this shows even further that religion IS WHAT PEOPLE IMAGINE, ie, "imaginary". *shrug* If you want to look at it logically atheism is just as much a case of 'going beyond the evidence' as theism. You don't KNOW there isn't a God anymore than I KNOW that there is. I've had many strange events in my life which because of my beliefs I attribute to God. So has Mike who's an agnostic but he doesn't attribute them to God. And he agrees with me that atheism is just as much a leap of faith as religious belief. Now for the question of lesbianism and the Bible. I'd have to do a lot of digging to see if I could find any passages that seemed relevant but the argument from analogy is one that has been used a lot (not only by theologians) and it seems to me that IF you are antigay you'll probably be antilesbian as well. Now we come to the question of proof. What do you mean by proof? What would you accept as proof if it was offered? Where is the proof that George Washington existed? Or William the Conqueror? Or Louis XIV? Or Alexander the Great? Or Karl Marx? How do you know that the 'accounts' given about them by contemporaries and subsequent historians aren't just all made up fairy stories? How do you know they aren't just myths invented by people? And when you have evidence that could be interpreted in a religious way it's not irrational to choose to take the interpretation that fits in with your beliefs rather than the opposite. It IS irrational to DENY facts that don't fit in with your beliefs but that applies every bit as much to atheists as it does to believers. And some of the atheists I've come across put forward pretty much nothing beyond prejudice and bigotry rather than rational arguments. So have some of the theists but in my experience except on the lunatic fringe you're more likely to get a religious believer trying to defend God rationally than an atheist trying to defend his position rationally. Atheists too often assume that only an idiot could possibly believe in God and that therefore it's beneath them to offer rational arguments for their beliefs. Who's behaving more rationally - the dogmatic atheist or the tolerant, questioning believer? Well, let's define "atheist", because you seem to assume I mean someone who says they have proof that there's no God, but the word 'atheism' only actually means "not religious". As for saying that "a god' doesnt exist, again, I didnt say that, I said the specific god described by Christianity isnt real (it's mythology) - i didnt say that "a" god of any kind might not exist. As for non-religious people putting forth "no rational arguments" - well, the problem there is those who are religious literally have NO "rational" argument to offer to a debate on the matter. EVERYTHING they "believe" is reality is merely "believed" to be real, not proven so by evidence. It's ENTIRELY subjective to suggest that an inability to explain a situation is some kind of "proof" of the existence of a god, let alone a specific one with a personality. Meanwhile, anyone non-religious who came to their conclusion by doing some investigation COULD provide overwhelming evidence that the things the bible says happened historically, either outright did not happen, or did not happen at the specific time it says they did (because the archaeology doesnt support it). Moses for example is provable as being just mythology, a fable from an oral tradition used by stone age people who could not even write yet. The story of a quarter of the population of Egypt getting up and walking out is recorded nowhere in any of the meticulously kept records of that civilization, and the area they are to have wandered in for forty years would not have supported them for forty days, as it was desert, not wilderness as the book says. I've since lost my library I collected, but I taped many hours of documentaries on what archaeology shows of biblical claims, and apparently - just as Joseph Campbell would have pointed out - it was words written down based on oral myths, it wasnt actual history being carefully recorded. The story of Genesis and Noah's flood is actually ripped off from other religions. And there are things in the New Testament that are copied from ancient Egypt, which predates the period the story was supposed to have happened in...so it's truly a tangled mish mush of "stories" being used and re-used, and then mangled together into something else... Science does not support the existence of the "god" described by the Judeo-Christian tradition. it in fact, shows again and again that the biblical words were not correct. I had a problem with that, back when i was still questioning. Is there no God at all? Well..I cant say that. Because I cant prove it. But I can say that "man never invented a God he didn't like". (ie, all religions have been mental inventions of creatures seeking relief from fears of insignificance and death) (and also to credify the authority of the one or few in charge). There have been many religions, but they're just myths civilizations use for those purposes. And then people take them too literally, and use them as permission to think or do horrible things. I'd also point out that, like civilizations, religions have a lifespan. They are concocted, serve their purpose, get convoluted until they become meaningless, and then are replaced with a newer code designed to apply to the conditions of the new time it's intended for. So if you look, history shows that there have been MANY religions, and that as a rule, man considers those that came before to be "myth", and the one he's valuing still currently as "real". Provided that we dont destroy ourselves before the future comes, Christianity will die out, and a new code of explanation will replace it. That's what history shows happens. It shows we can expect that. Is there any value to saying "how can I be sure there was a George Washington?" (thus implying 'how can we trust history at all?')? I don't think so. I think it's an exceedingly thin argument offered for lack of a good one. I DO know the 19th century mode of transportation was horses. My house was built in that time. It has a building where the animals were kept. And I can go to a car show and see the entire evolution of the automobile. Just as elsewhere I can see the remains of the carts and buggies the horses would pull in that era. Also I DO know someone invented electricity, because we HAVE electricity. etcetera mm...Dont let me trod on your beliefs Lin, though, because I wouldnt want to offend you in a million years, and I know people's individual belief systems are very important to them. I just think though that the character plays which religions offer were never meant to be taken as real, they were meant as fables...fictional tales that portray an important moral or lesson. One could throw out the books that whole countries murder each other over completely, and have no book at all, and still be quite spiritual, and still have a comforting empowering sense of being connected to the universe which spawned us and is much greater than us and still entirely unexplained. There's nothing wrong with spirituality. I just think the books though should go, because though they claim to be the sacred LOVING instructions of the entity that created the whole universe, they seem to be filled end to end with awful things! and disprovable accounts of history, and they're used for warring over and treating people very badly. If these religions were really about LOVE, love is what they would instruct. I'm sure of that. Just as I'm sure that there isnt a giant threatening omnipotence in the sky, that created gays genetically just so he could tell others he created to kill them. The books are bad. Very bad. People should just put them in a pile and throw a match. Honest. Improvement might happen if we did. (and like I said, historically, Christianity is merely the CURRENT dominant religion, and it will complete its life cycle and be replaced, and as to its life cycle it is actually on the down slope now.)
|
|
|
Post by synonym on Sept 8, 2013 17:14:51 GMT
And I might point out that the bible did not say anything about lesbians (because it was written by men and men find lesbianism titillating) As do women. Everyone knows that most women are bi-curious, deep down. On a more serious note, while Leviticus may have spoken only of men with men, I believe there are other passages that deal with homosexuality as a whole. St Paul or somebody's letters, I think. My memory is hazy but there is more than just Leviticus, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Sept 8, 2013 18:18:43 GMT
Actually, I often suspect a man started that rumor, as it would be something he'd like to think, but who am I to disagree with science!
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Sept 8, 2013 18:32:43 GMT
I found these mentions of it....
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
Okay, I wanted further explanation of what's in bold, I found this (but it's just someone's interpretation)(what isnt though):
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections,.... Because of their idolatrous practices, God left them to very dishonourable actions, sodomitical ones, both among the men and women: for even the women did change the natural use into that which is against nature; either by prostituting themselves to, and complying with the "sodomitical" embraces of men, in a way that is against nature (h); or by making use of such ways and methods with themselves, or other women, to gratify their lusts, which were never designed by nature for such an use"
Ok, so there is NOT a mention of lesbianism in Romans, but there are people who would embellish the language to suggest there is. Well, all I'm interested in is what's in the book, not embellishment by people with agendas and imaginations.
Alright, so far, I havent found a bible passage that mentions women doing women.
mm
I dont have a bible to look in! Otherwise I'd look up Rom. 1:26-28 and make sure it says nothing specifically about lesbianism. Maybe someone else could look for us.
Again, we're only interested in what the book says, not people's imaginations about the words "meanings".
However, this was an interesting comment I found... When asked what that passage means, a Yahoo Answers member wrote:
"Religious conservatives frequently focus on it as a -- perhaps the -- main anti-homosexual passage in the Bible. One reason is that these verses are the only ones that refer to same-sex behavior by both men or women. Conservatives generally condemn all homosexual behavior as an unnatural, abnormal perversion. They frequently consider homosexuality as "chosen", changeable, and related to childhood sexual abuse or inadequate parenting, Some feel that it is further linked to all types of evil behavior up to and including suicide.
Less conservative Christians accept the findings of human sexuality researchers that there are three normal and natural sexual orientations among humans and all other mammals: heterosexuality among the majority and bisexuality and homosexuality among minorities. Thus, some liberals do not interpret the terms "natural" and "nature" in this passage as absolute terms. They believe that it is normal for a heterosexual person to be attracted to a person of the opposite gender, just as it is normal for a gay or lesbian person to be attracted to a person of the same gender. They consider abnormal sex to involve sexual activity which is in violation of a person's basic nature -- something that goes against their sexual orientation."
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Sept 8, 2013 18:50:46 GMT
...I gotta' say, just reading the language that book uses, as if this "god" character is the ultimate COP we're supposed to fear. It's stomach-turning really. Ridiculous - for some men in a cave to claim such absolute authority over all of mankind, and then for people thousands of years later to still be listening to their maniacal self-important ramblings.
MEN wrote this book, and as with all religions that are concocted, one of the purposes of a religious code is to credify the authority of the tyrant in charge. SOCIAL CONTROL is one of the typical purposes of a religion. And these guys were on a roll, seeking to impose that, and based on their personal likes and dislikes!
No "god" ever SPOKE, or in any way gave, these words to someone to write down on his behalf. They are a human invention.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Sept 8, 2013 22:13:48 GMT
I'm a bit nonplussed by this irrational rant, Hunny.
It's also very long and I'm going to have to take some time to refute what you say paragraph by paragraph.
But you certainly DON'T 'know' that there is no God any more than I know that there is one.
Your belief is just as much an act of faith as mine.
I think you're getting bogged down on the gay angle rather than looking at the wider picture and you're taking a huge swipe at an Aunt Sally you've set up and defined for yourself.
But I'll be back and give you a detailed answer!
|
|
|
Post by synonym on Sept 8, 2013 22:20:22 GMT
Practicing lesbians are "fornicators". So they care covered by one of the quotes.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Sept 9, 2013 18:29:41 GMT
I'm a bit nonplussed by this irrational rant, Hunny. It's also very long and I'm going to have to take some time to refute what you say paragraph by paragraph. But you certainly DON'T 'know' that there is no God any more than I know that there is one. Your belief is just as much an act of faith as mine. I think you're getting bogged down on the gay angle rather than looking at the wider picture and you're taking a huge swipe at an Aunt Sally you've set up and defined for yourself. But I'll be back and give you a detailed answer! Well, when you do, keep in mind, I never said it's knowable that there's "NO god".I said there's a great deal of evidence that the Christian god is mythology..old, irrelevant to our time, stone-age mythology. I also expressed a concern for your feelings. And I think if you're calling what I so carefully delineated an "irrational rant" you might just be a little mad at me somehow. All I can tell ya' is not everybody's a Christian. Not everybody thinks it's real. (You know what would make me happy if it was real? Bhuddism because it says there is no "bad". Or Hinduism because it says we live in returning lives which is a lovely egalitarian thought, and one which lets our crappy lives seem ok, because there's always next time...those are interesting. But Christianity is about war and patriarchy and judgmentality and unnatural repression and the threat of being tortured endlessly by a skyborn monster which calls that "loving" us. I'm puzzled myself...as to why people would pick THAT particular religion, when they're picking. In fact it's one of the things that suggests to me that religions are imaginary because people go past the lack of proof of any kind and jump right to the unreasonable conclusion that - though there are and have been so many religions - they just HAPPENED to be born in the one time, and in the one exact location, where those people actually knew which the real god was and what he was like correctly. What an amazing stroke of luck that is, eh?!(And of course, woe to all those poor other people (ie, everyone everywhere else on the planet, and at all other times in history)..because they weren't so lucky and dont know who the real god is (and will no doubt go to hell for it). THIS - to me - is what 'irrationality' is. The lack of logic in it.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Sept 9, 2013 19:13:52 GMT
Practicing lesbians are "fornicators". So they care covered by one of the quotes. I question that. The argument against homosexual marriage is that it's biblically not what "marriage" is. Well "marriage" entails sexual intercourse. And 'fornication' is intercourse outside marriage. So -> I question if "fornication", as used in that passage, doesnt actually just refer to male-female copulation. I mean a lot of careful detail is usually put into deciphering the meanings of the language used in bible passages - so...I'm not convinced that the term "fornicating" refers to anything other than hetero copulation. Oh and this may be beside the point, but - why the hell were those people SO uptight about sex back then? What was their problem?? Logically I could show that they could just as easily have concluded sex was GOOD, and nothing but natural, and to be celebrated (and in places, in fact, that's just what people did), but these particular folks, they decided it was downright evil, and had to be tightly constrained.
What drove them to that conclusion? Any history buffs here that could answer that?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Sept 9, 2013 21:30:41 GMT
Christianity is NOT about war, patriarchy, judgementality and unnatural repression.
Nor do most Christians believe in eternal torment.
I'd say you'd been too influenced by Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants rather than (like me and the majority of Protestants I know) humane, caring, egalitarian and compassionate people who believe in live and let live if no one else gets hurt.
Look, I'm not a theologian but what you say seems to me far more a case of raw emotion pouring out than any kind of rational argument.
|
|
|
Post by synonym on Sept 10, 2013 14:26:01 GMT
Oh and this may be beside the point, but - why the hell were those people SO uptight about sex back then? What was their problem?? Logically I could show that they could just as easily have concluded sex was GOOD, and nothing but natural, and to be celebrated (and in places, in fact, that's just what people did), but these particular folks, they decided it was downright evil, and had to be tightly constrained.
What drove them to that conclusion? Any history buffs here that could answer that? Which Christian churches see sex as evil, fullstop? They may see it as wrong in certain contexts, but not all (same as the rest of us). In others it is quite fine and dandy. Why do societies censure most things. They spot a link between a behavior and bad or undesirable consequences. Keeping sex within marriage avoids unwanted pregnancies and children born outside of stable committed relationships. With interpretations there may not be a definitive answer. The Catholics have interpreted sex as a gift from God for the purposes of procreation, and so any sex artificially closed off from this is a sin. I am sure they have their interpretations for this.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2013 16:29:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Sept 10, 2013 16:47:48 GMT
Oh and this may be beside the point, but - why the hell were those people SO uptight about sex back then? What was their problem?? Logically I could show that they could just as easily have concluded sex was GOOD, and nothing but natural, and to be celebrated (and in places, in fact, that's just what people did), but these particular folks, they decided it was downright evil, and had to be tightly constrained.
What drove them to that conclusion? Any history buffs here that could answer that? Which Christian churches see sex as evil, fullstop? They may see it as wrong in certain contexts, but not all (same as the rest of us). In others it is quite fine and dandy. Well, this is one of the endless list of problems in integrity that Christianity has: everyone feels free to take the book (the "sacred word of God") and throw it out and replace it with ideas that seem palatable to them. If the bible was God's word - and excuses aside, it is alleged by christianity itself to be that - then it wouldn't be subject to "interpretation". Anyway -> it's the bible that speaks in creepy repressive ways about sexuality. What the churches say means nothing, and should mean nothing, because they just hypocritically go against their own rules and make things up to please themselves). Why do societies censure most things. They spot a link between a behavior and bad or undesirable consequences. Keeping sex within marriage avoids unwanted pregnancies and children born outside of stable committed relationships. Yep. Whenever man invents a religion, part of its purpose is always social control (and having their authority justified).
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Sept 10, 2013 17:19:40 GMT
Christianity is NOT about war, patriarchy, judgementality and unnatural repression. Nor do most Christians believe in eternal torment. I'd say you'd been too influenced by Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants rather than (like me and the majority of Protestants I know) humane, caring, egalitarian and compassionate people who believe in live and let live if no one else gets hurt. Look, I'm not a theologian but what you say seems to me far more a case of raw emotion pouring out than any kind of rational argument. Well, I guess I'm supposed to be insulted here? You say my words are "irrational". But let's be honest. 'Rational' means adhering to logic. And I did just that, exclusively and well. In fact one cant really be an atheist without being someone who insists on rationality and nothing else. And rationality is just the opposite of defending unproven things as if they're real, which is what you're wanting to do. These two statements ->"Christianity is NOT about war, patriarchy, judgementality and unnatural repression." ->"Nor do most Christians believe in eternal torment."are not just incorrect, they are flat out denial of what is. (How could you POSSIBLY suggest the bible does not recommend repression, and doesnt actually threaten people with hell, and that the religion itself isn't patriarchal? No one can say those things. They just aren't true! So who is being 'irrational' here? Which one of us is really 'emotionally motivated'? -saying untruths, and being a bit insulting, to shut the conversation down. Because...to tell a woman she's "just being emotional" in order to disparage and disqualify her logic, is a trick usually used by men to be sexist and demeaning and exclusionary. So, yea...my guess is I'm supposed to be insulted. And shut down. I work hard to spur a conversation and you shut it down. *frowny face* You know I wouldn't want to make you feel bad in any slight way, ever, right? well...I think maybe I managed to, because I've been presenting logic which could threaten the solidity of your belief system, and maybe I shouldn't have done that. I just thought I saw a good discussion starting up, and we need that.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Sept 10, 2013 19:30:21 GMT
Hunny, I'm sure you know the difference between an opinion and a fact.
It's simply NOT a 'fact' that Christianity is all about war, repression, patriarchy and so on; it's an opinion.
Quite honestly my life is in a mess right now as my family problems seem to get worse and worse; one troubled door closes and another disaster opens.
So I'm not really in the mood for arguing especially not with someone I like and respect; I've got far more important issues to deal with in real life.
But if you want to talk logic then to claim that there is no God is just as much an act of faith - and therefore on your own principles irrational - as claiming that there is one.
You and I are both passionate and feisty individuals and I often disagree with what you say. That's fine; as I've said often a discussion board where no one disagrees gets boring as hell.
But I honestly think you're trying to demonise 'Christianity' (as if only ONE model of that existed) in the same way that racists try to demonise blacks, Jews, or whatever other ethnic group they prefer to hate.
I have relatives who are Quakers for example who would be frankly astonished by your description of them as being supporters of war and repression.
I have a next-door neighbour who is a Jehovah's Witness who would be equally amazed at your diatribe.
Now I freely admit I am a Christian; I'm a Low Church Protestant Church of England Christian.
I was raised as a Presbyterian and turned against it because it was too extreme for my taste.
I also dislike Catholicism intensely because no Catholic is capable of independent thought (they have to wait to be TOLD what they're allowed to think by the Bishop of Rome).
And I've met a few so-called 'Evangelicals' who seem to me arrogant, dogmatic and intolerant.
But the overwhelming MAJORITY of Christians feel like ME and NOT like the extremists.
Just as the overwhelming MAJORITY of atheists do NOT feel a constant need to try and intimidate, browbeat or insult religious believers. I've had loads of good chats with atheists who DON'T assume I must be a brainwashed bimbo for believing in God and who honestly try to persuade me with rational arguments.
All I WILL say (if you're going to start using argumenta ad hominem) is that NO atheist regime in the world is or ever HAS been tolerant of dissent. The Soviet Union, Cambodia, China, North Korea, Eastern Europe before the fall of the Berlin Wall - all atheist regimes and all active persecutors of religious believers (and of course of political dissenters too).
So let's have a bit of honesty and proportion and a recognition that being a religious believer does NOT mean that you are a total moron.
And I'm very hurt that you even imagined I was trying to insult you. I can't imagine how you could possibly think I'd want to do that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 20:23:15 GMT
You own a business that caters to the public. You can not discriminate for any reason. If you don't believe you can do that.....go into a different business. Seriously......you are only baking a cake.....you are not officiating over their wedding....or even attending it.....what is the big deal? Do you know what happens to every cake you make......have they ever seen some bachelorette parties and what happens there? Why not just bake the cake? That is what a bakery is expected to do, bake cakes. If you allow this sort of discrimination what is next?
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Sept 12, 2013 16:18:39 GMT
I think we've gone overboard on political correctness.
In a free country, it should be OK not to like someone or some group. If the bakery owner doesn't like gays getting married, I think that's OK. The gays probably don't like him either.
It is phony baloney for the government to legislate and dictate values and morals. Free speech is a core right. We should not make laws requiring everyone to smile and pretend they like everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 11:59:27 GMT
I think we've gone overboard on political correctness. In a free country, it should be OK not to like someone or some group. If the bakery owner doesn't like gays getting married, I think that's OK. The gays probably don't like him either. It is phony baloney for the government to legislate and dictate values and morals. Free speech is a core right. We should not make laws requiring everyone to smile and pretend they like everyone. you should be able to go into a cake shop and order a cake and not be judged by the owners of the shop.Instead the bakery owners made this couple feel like they were beneath them some how or not as worthy or good as them and that sucks.
|
|