The homophobic thread :>

[Seth Milner]

You're picking based on your personal phobias and bigotry.

No, you're cherry-picking scripture now based on your anti-Christian phobias and bigotry.

Nice try.
Now your denials begins. I figured that before I weighed in too heavily in this pissing contest that I am inexperienced in, I would do a bit of studying up on your Christophobic bigotry. (yeah that's a new word I learned) It seems your hatred towards religion has you doing a bit of cherry-picking on your own.

The New Testament has only the one directive against homosexuality. And it's not Jesus's teachings; it's from Paul, who converted a few years after Jesus's death. Jesus had nothing to say on the matter. Which is probably why major branches of Christianity don't have a problem with it.
Wait a minute!! The New Testament?? Back up! You're one who's been whining about beards, mixed fabrics, menstrual periods, etc. Where in the NT are those laws or directives covered?
If the churches condone homosexuality or "don't have a problem with it"; according to the Bible they preach and teach from, then they've got a bigger problem than "it", unless, of course, they're preaching and teaching LIES. I stated earlier that, again according to the Bible, Jesus IS God (the Holy Spirit, Ghost, or whatever) Therefore, God had already spoken concerning the depravity of homosexuality in the OT. Jesus was a NT character, and Paul preached Jesus' grace and forgiveness of sin for those WILLING to live a clean Godly life. The women speaking in church that you so adamantly cherry-pick, is to point out that a man is the head of his house, and the woman is not to take a leadership role over a Godly man. (I know I'm going to get hammered over that, so before y'all even start, I didn't write it and I don't give a damn how you interpret it or personally feel about.)

I'm not the one claiming to live according to the Bible.
You got that shit right; but then, neither am I. I'm only defending myself and my postings from a bigoted jerk.

I support NEITHER of the two (anti-homosexuality, anti-woman) directives.
Neither do other of the devil's demons and they don't cherry-pick which directives to not support. The Bible spoke of you when it stated: Romans 1:24-25
24 .. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25 .. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator

Yes, there are certainly a few directives that I'd support.
Sure you do. The ones you cherry-pick.

Yes, I do support Jesus's overall message of peace and kindness to one's fellow human beings (which you and Mr.B seem to have missed.)
Uh...about that "goddamned stupid" remark you're so famous for . . . did Jesus give you that as a message of "peace and kindness"?
In what I have read in many of Mr. B's posts, he's nothing like you (or any of the others that cursed and put him down.) Where he spoke of what he believed to be religious in nature, you, Vrede, Boatrocker, and Something Left were the most vocal. I suppose those actions too, was an "overall message of peace and kindness to one's fellow human being"? You're right; I missed that.

That's a simple acknowledgement that while not religious, not treating it as orders from a god, there are parts that I like and parts that I don't.
The parts you don't like are the one's that a God who supposedly is the Creator, that you don't believe in, laid down a set of Laws that condemned man's depravity, dishonesty, and dis-accord with one another, and the spoken consequences of their actions. You feel man should live anyway he likes as long as "it doesn't hurt anyone else"; to hell with how others are influenced by their actions.

The parts you like are . . . well, as an atheist, there are none.

I have my own beliefs and ethics,
Beliefs I can understand, Ethics? That a laugh.

and of some biblical teachings (or a given interpretation of biblical teachings), great.
Providing, of course, however they're interpreted, they suit YOU and what YOU want to believe, or however YOU choose to live.

That's not faith, and it's not being a Christian.
See there? That's YOUR interpretation and judgment. You've given YOUR interpretation, or opinion, on how YOU think a Christian should live, or follow Biblical Scripture. I don't know of anyone who's seen Jesus, God, or an angel; but they believe in them; that's FAITH. Keeping their faith and adhering to Biblical teachings is being a Christian. That's MY interpretation or opinion.

But listen up: That's what Mr.B does too.
...and Mr. B, from what little bit I've garnered from his postings, is a helluva sight better off than you or me.

He takes the parts (one specific directive, it seems), and dismisses the rest.
And you don't? You seem to have a hangup with OT Law, Paul's teachings, etc. You've whined about mixing fabrics, cutting beards, women in church, etc. while championing the "right" of a man or woman having sex with one of the same gender. Hypocrite much?

He's not being a Christian. He's not living according to the Bible and his beliefs aren't based on the Bible. He's edited the Bible to match his beliefs.
Not any that I've seen; but I have seen where you've discredited and twisted the Bible to suit YOUR disbeliefs. What I've seen is his copy and pasting Biblical scriptures; that obviously didn't come from Reader's Digest, or Newsweek. Gee whiz; I wonder where he got all that edited material? And you are a fine example of one to judge whether someone is or isn't a Christian just because they don't speak or write what YOU WANT to hear or see written.

Pointing that out doesn't make anyone anti-Christian.
You're right. It makes them a liar and a hypocrite.

I feel better about this now.

[O Really]

So to summarize:
1. Christians can say with some rationale that the Old Testament isn't fundamental to their religion because there was no Christ back then.
2. Christians can also say that even though there was no Christ back then, that since Christ is both the son of God and God incarnate, which is one and the same God who was around, the one who let there be light and carved Moses' commandments into stone.
3. These statements are mutually exclusive yet both rational interpretations.
4. If one follows theory 2, and is a believer in the inerrency of the Bible, s/he cannot accept some parts and reject others.
5. If one does not believe in the inerrency, and believes that the Bible is subject to interpretation and cultural adaptation, s/he cannot claim divine right in what parts are rejected and what are accepted.
6. Therefore...

[bannination]

So to summarize:
1. Christians can say with some rationale that the Old Testament isn't fundamental to their religion because there was no Christ back then.
2. Christians can also say that even though there was no Christ back then, that since Christ is both the son of God and God incarnate, which is one and the same God who was around, the one who let there be light and carved Moses' commandments into stone.
3. These statements are mutually exclusive yet both rational irrational interpretations.
4. If one follows theory 2, and is a believer in the inerrency of the Bible, s/he cannot accept some parts and reject others.
5. If one does not believe in the inerrency, and believes that the Bible is subject to interpretation and cultural adaptation, s/he cannot claim divine right in what parts are rejected and what are accepted.
6. Therefore...

.... but your point stands :-)

[Seth Milner]

So to summarize:
1. Christians can say with some rationale that the Old Testament isn't fundamental to their religion because there was no Christ back then.
I suppose Christians can say what they please. What I understand is that OT Law was given to the Jews long before He said nothing about homosexuality, or cutting of the beards, mixing rayon and polyester, eating bacon, etc.

2. Christians can also say that even though there was no Christ back then, that since Christ is both the son of God and God incarnate, which is one and the same God who was around, the one who let there be light and carved Moses' commandments into stone.
You wanna run that by me again?

3. These statements are mutually exclusive yet both rational interpretations.
Of course they're interpretations. Give a line of scripture to a room full of people and you'll get a room full of interpretations.

4. If one follows theory 2,
Good luck with that.

and is a believer in the inerrency of the Bible, s/he cannot accept some parts and reject others.
I suppose Christians can accept or believe what they please, just as you, I, or anyone else choose to believe. I don't accept the Bible as inerrant; but I hold a degree of respect for it's teachings and calling for clean living. I believe The Creator gave us a brain that has the capability to distinguish right from wrong, and common sense to know what acts between humans is fu*ked up.

5. If one does not believe in the inerrency, and believes that the Bible is subject to interpretation and cultural adaptation, s/he cannot claim divine right in what parts are rejected and what are accepted.
If that's what you interpret, fine. I "cherry-picked" these verses because I could not find an apple tree, so this will have to do:
Romans 1:26-32King James Version (KJV)

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

How would you interpret those verses?

6. Therefore...
Therefore ...

[Seth Milner]

So to summarize:
1. Christians can say with some rationale that the Old Testament isn't fundamental to their religion because there was no Christ back then.
2. Christians can also say that even though there was no Christ back then, that since Christ is both the son of God and God incarnate, which is one and the same God who was around, the one who let there be light and carved Moses' commandments into stone.
3. These statements are mutually exclusive yet both rational irrational interpretations.
4. If one follows theory 2, and is a believer in the inerrency of the Bible, s/he cannot accept some parts and reject others.
5. If one does not believe in the inerrency, and believes that the Bible is subject to interpretation and cultural adaptation, s/he cannot claim divine right in what parts are rejected and what are accepted.
6. Therefore...

.... but your point stands :-)

And that's YOUR interpretation which you are totally free to express. Whether you're right or wrong; well...

[bannination]

So to summarize:
1. Christians can say with some rationale that the Old Testament isn't fundamental to their religion because there was no Christ back then.
2. Christians can also say that even though there was no Christ back then, that since Christ is both the son of God and God incarnate, which is one and the same God who was around, the one who let there be light and carved Moses' commandments into stone.
3. These statements are mutually exclusive yet both rational irrational interpretations.
4. If one follows theory 2, and is a believer in the inerrency of the Bible, s/he cannot accept some parts and reject others.
5. If one does not believe in the inerrency, and believes that the Bible is subject to interpretation and cultural adaptation, s/he cannot claim divine right in what parts are rejected and what are accepted.
6. Therefore...

.... but your point stands :-)

And that's YOUR interpretation which you are totally free to express. Whether you're right or wrong; well...

No, it's not my interpretation it is an irrational belief. Otherwise it would be science, not faith.

[O Really]

Well, I used "rational" as related to logical or reasonable deductions from the facts available, without offering any opinion on whether the facts themselves are true. But yes, it works either way, creating a conundrum that prevents any universal understanding of what is theoretically universal truth.

[Seth Milner]

No, it's not my interpretation it is an irrational belief. Otherwise it would be science, not faith.

But it's your belief that it is an irrational belief; nothing scientific about that. You ridicule a Christian's faith and/or belief because you don't believe or have a faith in what they believe.

Well, I used "rational" as related to logical or reasonable deductions from the facts available, without offering any opinion on whether the facts themselves are true. But yes, it works either way, creating a conundrum that prevents any universal understanding of what is theoretically universal truth.

Religion is a mystery to me. I don't have a total unbelief because of my not fully understanding how someone can grasp and keep a faith in something/someone not seen . . . however I do not condemn or ridicule what they believe.

As far as the subject of this thread goes, as it's being related to religious belief, it's not rocket surgery; but it is pure common sense to know that a man's physical makeup is not, nor was designed, either by evolutionary process or intelligent design, for sex in the same manner as that between a man and a woman.

[Vrede too]

I just figured Seth had a thing for dancing men....

Nttawwt.

[O Really]

. . . however I do not condemn or ridicule what they believe.

.

And that was the center of my question - why not? What makes religious beliefs exempt from ridicule when other beliefs are not? And what if the religious belief is not one of the majority mainstream type? Is it still exempt from your ridicule? Are you sure?

[bannination]

But it's your belief that it is an irrational belief; nothing scientific about that. You ridicule a Christian's faith and/or belief because you don't believe or have a faith in what they believe.

It's not my belief, rational thoughts are those of logic and reason. Faith by definition is irrational. From the dictionary - Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof

If an adult believes in the easter bunny, by definition that belief is irrational. That's not an opinion.

[Vrede too]

Seth Milner fails English, again.

[Seth Milner]

Seth Milner fails English, again.®

ohhh....ohhhh.....ohhhhh..... I've been so terribly insulted! The Superstar InSultmaster has struck again!

You're slipping. I thought you could do better than that.

[Seth Milner]

. . . however I do not condemn or ridicule what they believe.

And that was the center of my question - why not?
Why should I? What have I to gain? What would be my purpose other than to present myself as a bully? Why should I punch a kid around on the playground because he wore a shirt I didn't like?

What makes religious beliefs exempt from ridicule when other beliefs are not?
I can't tell you. I haven't chosen any religious beliefs to ridicule. (or not)

And what if the religious belief is not one of the majority mainstream type? Is it still exempt from your ridicule? Are you sure?
Again, I don't have the answer. Why should anyone's religious beliefs be ridiculed? Why should anyone, as a person, be ridiculed because they have a belief that someone else doesn't? (see the shirt remark above)

[Seth Milner]

But it's your belief that it is an irrational belief; nothing scientific about that. You ridicule a Christian's faith and/or belief because you don't believe or have a faith in what they believe.

It's not my belief, rational thoughts are those of logic and reason. Faith by definition is irrational. From the dictionary - Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof. If an adult believes in the easter bunny, by definition that belief is irrational. That's not an opinion.

So?

[Seth Milner]

I just figured Seth had a thing for dancing men....

Nttawwt.

As long as you're happy . . .

[O Really]

Again, I don't have the answer. Why should anyone's religious beliefs be ridiculed? Why should anyone, as a person, be ridiculed because they have a belief that someone else doesn't? (see the shirt remark above)

[/quote]
I'm not talking about rudeness or cruelty, like calling somebody an imbecile to their face, or even instigating a big confrontation. But people ridicule beliefs all the time. Even beliefs (supported by science) that we're having climate change. People who believe in astrology, numerology, tarot cards, ouiji boards get ridiculed and their sincerely held beliefs are not granted the same level of consideration as equally unsupported beliefs of mainstream religions. People who follow religions of the past or those out of the mainstream, such as Wicca, T'ao, etc. are regularly dismissed from the protection given religious beliefs of, for example, Protestant denominations. So in your view, any belief held to be religious is equally protected? And beliefs that are not religious? Are you serious that you hold the value of the beliefs of the Church of Bodily Modification at the same level as Presbyterians? Excuse me if I'm dubious.

[Seth Milner]

Again, I don't have the answer. Why should anyone's religious beliefs be ridiculed? Why should anyone, as a person, be ridiculed because they have a belief that someone else doesn't? (see the shirt remark above)

I'm not talking about rudeness or cruelty, like calling somebody an imbecile to their face, or even instigating a big confrontation. But people ridicule beliefs all the time. Even beliefs (supported by science) that we're having climate change. People who believe in astrology, numerology, tarot cards, ouiji boards get ridiculed and their sincerely held beliefs are not granted the same level of consideration as equally unsupported beliefs of mainstream religions. People who follow religions of the past or those out of the mainstream, such as Wicca, T'ao, etc. are regularly dismissed from the protection given religious beliefs of, for example, Protestant denominations. So in your view, any belief held to be religious is equally protected? And beliefs that are not religious? Are you serious that you hold the value of the beliefs of the Church of Bodily Modification at the same level as Presbyterians? Excuse me if I'm dubious.

I am rapidly losing interest in this subject line because I'm getting in over my head. The subject has veered away from the original argument dealing with the thread title, and I am not one to be discussing religion. I guess I failed English again.®

[O Really]

I am rapidly losing interest in this subject line because I'm getting in over my head. The subject has veered away from the original argument dealing with the thread title, and I am not one to be discussing religion. I guess I failed English again.®

You can't be over your head in discussing your own opinions. I'm not looking for theological analysis. I just wonder why beliefs deemed "religious" that appear ridiculous on the face, such as "6,000 year old Earth", are considered protected from the same ridicule heaped upon non-religious beliefs, such as "never was a holocaust."

[Vrede too]

You can't be over your head in discussing your own opinions....

Maybe Seth Milner can since his prime (only?) goal here is to childishly provoke rather than to engage in adult discussion. That's why he flops so often when we respond with facts, logic and requests for him to explain his positions.