Bible Thumpers Fight For Right To Discriminate

Kynisk Sokol

Ancient Mariner
April 10, 2006

ATLANTA Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.

Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.

Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.

With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.

The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian."

In that spirit, the Christian Legal Society, an association of judges and lawyers, has formed a national group to challenge tolerance policies in federal court. Several nonprofit law firms backed by major ministries such as Focus on the Family and Campus Crusade for Christ already take on such cases for free.

The legal argument is straightforward: Policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians. Evangelicals have been suspended for wearing anti-gay T-shirts to high school, fired for denouncing Gay Pride Month at work, reprimanded for refusing to attend diversity training. When they protest tolerance codes, they're labeled intolerant.

A recent survey by the Anti-Defamation League found that 64% of American adults including 80% of evangelical Christians agreed with the statement "Religion is under attack in this country."

"The message is, you're free to worship as you like, but don't you dare talk about it outside the four walls of your church," said Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Assn. Center for Law and Policy, which represents Christians who feel harassed.

Critics dismiss such talk as a right-wing fundraising ploy. "They're trying to develop a persecution complex," said Jeremy Gunn, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

Others fear the banner of religious liberty could be used to justify all manner of harassment.

"What if a person felt their religious view was that African Americans shouldn't mingle with Caucasians, or that women shouldn't work?" asked Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal.

Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.

By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists. He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians.

"Think how marginalized racists are," said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom. "If we don't address this now, it will only get worse."

Christians are fighting back in a case involving Every Nation Campus Ministries at California State University. Student members of the ministry on the Long Beach and San Diego campuses say their mission is to model a virtuous lifestyle for their peers. They will not accept as members gays, lesbians or anyone who considers homosexuality "a natural part of God's created order."

Legal analysts agree that the ministry, as a private organization, has every right to exclude gays; the Supreme Court affirmed that principle in a case involving the Boy Scouts in 2000. At issue is whether the university must grant official recognition to a student group that discriminates.

The students say denying them recognition and its attendant benefits, such as funding violates their free-speech rights and discriminates against their conservative theology. Christian groups at public colleges in other states have sued using similar arguments. Several of those lawsuits were settled out of court, with the groups prevailing.

In California, however, the university may have a strong defense in court. The California Supreme Court recently ruled that the city of Berkeley was justified in denying subsidies to the Boy Scouts because of that group's exclusionary policies. Eddie L. Washington, the lawyer representing Cal State, argues the same standard should apply to the university.

"We're certainly not going to fund discrimination," Washington said.

As they step up their legal campaign, conservative Christians face uncertain prospects. The 1st Amendment guarantees Americans "free exercise" of religion. In practice, though, the ground rules shift depending on the situation.

In a 2004 case, for instance, an AT&T Broadband employee won the right to express his religious convictions by refusing to sign a pledge to "respect and value the differences among us." As long as the employee wasn't harassing co-workers, the company had to make accommodations for his faith, a federal judge in Colorado ruled.

That same year, however, a federal judge in Idaho ruled that Hewlett-Packard Co. was justified in firing an employee who posted Bible verses condemning homosexuality on his cubicle. The verses, clearly visible from the hall, harassed gay employees and made it difficult for the company to meet its goal of attracting a diverse workforce, the judge ruled.

In the public schools, an Ohio middle school student last year won the right to wear a T-shirt that proclaimed: "Homosexuality is a sin! Islam is a lie! Abortion is murder!" But a teen-ager in Kentucky lost in federal court when he tried to exempt himself from a school program on gay tolerance on the grounds that it violated his religious beliefs.

In their lawsuit against Georgia Tech, Malhotra and her co-plaintiff, a devout Jewish student named Orit Sklar, request unspecified damages. But they say their main goal is to force the university to be more tolerant of religious viewpoints. The lawsuit was filed by the Alliance Defense Fund, a nonprofit law firm that focuses on religious liberty cases.

Malhotra said she had been reprimanded by college deans several times in the last few years for expressing conservative religious and political views. When she protested a campus production of "The Vagina Monologues" with a display condemning feminism, the administration asked her to paint over part of it.

She caused another stir with a letter to the gay activists who organized an event known as Coming Out Week in the fall of 2004. Malhotra sent the letter on behalf of the Georgia Tech College Republicans, which she chairs; she said several members of the executive board helped write it.

The letter referred to the campus gay rights group Pride Alliance as a "sex club that can't even manage to be tasteful." It went on to say that it was "ludicrous" for Georgia Tech to help fund the Pride Alliance.

The letter berated students who come out publicly as gay, saying they subject others on campus to "a constant barrage of homosexuality."

"If gays want to be tolerated, they should knock off the political propaganda," the letter said.

The student activist who received the letter, Felix Hu, described it as "rude, unfair, presumptuous" and disturbing enough that Pride Alliance forwarded it to a college administrator. Soon after, Malhotra said, she was called in to a dean's office. Students can be expelled for intolerant speech, but she said she was only reprimanded.

Still, she said, the incident has left her afraid to speak freely. She's even reluctant to aggressively advertise the campus lectures she arranges on living by the Bible. "Whenever I've spoken out against a certain lifestyle, the first thing I'm told is 'You're being intolerant, you're being negative, you're creating a hostile campus environment,' " Malhotra said.

A Georgia Tech spokeswoman would not comment on the lawsuit or on Malhotra's disciplinary record, but she said the university encouraged students to debate freely, "as long as they're not promoting violence or harassing anyone."

The open question is what constitutes harassment, what's a sincere expression of faith and what to do when they overlap.

"There really is confusion out there," said Charles C. Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, which is affiliated with Vanderbilt University. "Finding common ground sounds good. But the reality is, a lot of people on all sides have a stake in the fight."

Well, there was a similar thread a while back wasn't there, but I thought "why not?". [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/happy.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\"^_^\" border=\"0\" alt=\"happy.gif\" /] Let the ranting begin!

NP:Deströyer 666 - Sons Of Perdition
 
[!--quoteo(post=134644:date=Apr 12 2006, 08:34 PM:name=Black Dragon)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Black Dragon @ Apr 12 2006, 08:34 PM) [snapback]134644[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
[img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/happy.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\"^_^\" border=\"0\" alt=\"happy.gif\" /] Let the ranting begin!
[/quote]

Not quite a rant but here it goes.

I'll have to say I'm with the religious people. That's not because I'm anti-homosexuality but because I think there's a line drawn between discrimination and freedom of speech.
Dicrimination says not to speak of differences if someone finds your opinion offending. Freedom of speech says you can speak your mind. Of course this doesn't mean I think everybody can be racist and discriminate without thinking about what they're saying.
There is a difference between roughly generalised discrimination and saying something is different and let others know what you think of it. The first way is more offensive in most cases but in this case I guess the other way does enough damage.
I think it is allowed to "discriminate" [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/ohmy.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":o\" border=\"0\" alt=\"ohmy.gif\" /] because of what you believe or because you have a decent opinion about it, not because you want to hurt people. So I think the Christians have thought about what they're saying and thus have the right to speak their mind.
 
I'll have to say I'm with Bunkle and the religious people. It's about time somebody did something (as wrong as this looks to me... gaybashing that is) about laws and policies restricting speech... I also see it as something that would have happened sooner or later, you can only go so far before people start lashing back at you... in this case not being able to say what you think.
 
[!--quoteo(post=134813:date=Apr 14 2006, 03:58 AM:name=Child of the Grave)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Child of the Grave @ Apr 14 2006, 03:58 AM) [snapback]134813[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
I sure hope this dosen't turn into another "Religion Yet Again" thread.
[/quote]
I'm anxiously awaiting Maverick's reply in this thread [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/sleep.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\"-_-\" border=\"0\" alt=\"sleep.gif\" /]
He has the right to discriminate against n00bs so why can't religious types do the same thing? ::
 
I would partly agree with the Evangelists on this (for once!). They have a right to protest against homosexuality, if they belive that it is wrong. Surely the citizens of the UK and US had (and used!) the right to protest against an illegal war that they considered wrong? Why then should the churches have their free speech so strictly oppressed? On the other hand, I believe that as free choice is a 'God-given gift', the extreme sensationalism of the American Conservative Church's views is oppressive, as well; if you don't think homosexuality is right (personally, I belive it's the individual's choice, as much as the idea of homosexuality repels me), you should have the right to say, 'I don't think these people should be doing what they're doing', but not in such strong terms as the Church is saying-and openly restricting homsexual membership is wrong-Christ died for everyone, so everyone should have the right to worship.

But, 90% of the time, I would agree with anyone who says that the Conservative Christians speak complete and utter crap. :: They frequently parade their literal and thoughtless interperetation of the Bible as the 'sole truth' and completely look down on every other sector of society. Bigots.

Interestingly, the main verses condemning homsexuality come from the Old Testament, mainly Leviticus. This book was the law of the Jews, the members of the First Covenant (or Old Testament) between God and Abraham. To my knowledge, there is no explicit condemnation of homsexual sex in the New Testament (and note, I say homosexual sex here; most of the Conservatives are generalising all homosexuals as being as sexually active as prostitutes, not realising that many homosexual relationships (the idea I would agree with) are built more on love than sex), which is supposedly the Convenant that changed all the old laws. Also, any condemnation of homosexuality in the epistles is by the apostles, not Jesus, and refers to homosexual acts, not homosexuality itself (much the same way that the same letters condemn sexual immorality, not heterosexual relationships as a whole). So, following the New Testament (and we must remember that there are many subtleties of language that have been lost through translation along the way), there is no condemnation of homosexual love, only 'those that practice homosexual acts', much the same way as sexual immorality is condemned. My reading is; if a homosexual couple are married and have a stable relationship with as much sexual intercourse as a normal heterosexual couple would have, what's the problem? Do we take away their rights because of a vague and over-generalised view in a Book that is widely accepted to have been written by Conservative Jews (notably, the laws most of all-you can bet any money that not all of the laws in Leviticus are God's own word!)
Now, today, Christians don't accept many of the old laws, viewing them as outdated and irrelevant, after Christ's sacrifice. And with good cause-some of them include regular animal sacrifice (made unnecessary by Christ's sacrifice), the purification/destruction of any item of clothing found to have mildew (yes, you would have to take it to a priest to get it cleansed :: ), and the right to enslave other human beings, in addition to condemning homsexuality. Are the evangelists then saying that we should follow these laws as well? Talk about narrow-minded, not to mention selective interperetation! It's nearly as bad as the Islamic states such as Iran, with their ridiculous exclusion of women from society and almost-medieval laws regarding crime and punishment. While I agree with freedom of expression, including the right to follow whatever religion you believe in, when you take it so far as to ignore (or openly condemn!) any new thinking or other religion, it is no longer religion, but a political dogma with the facade of religion.

And, as a final note, has recent research into genetics not indicated that homsexuality may be partly due to a genetic mutation in certain individuals, and so be 'Nature' rather than 'Nurture'? If so, then the Evangelist's arguments go straight out the window.

But all this is just my interperetation-don't take it as law (well, we all know certain people will be cynical of my views, don't we, Mav [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\";)\" border=\"0\" alt=\"wink.gif\" /] )

Damnit! There goes my 'I-will-not-rant' resolution :: . Now I've just got to wait for Mav/Per/SMX to rip this apart....*winces*

[!--quoteo(post=134825:date=Apr 14 2006, 11:43 AM:name=Conor)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Conor @ Apr 14 2006, 11:43 AM) [snapback]134825[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
He [Mav] has the right to discriminate against n00bs so why can't religious types do the same thing? ::
[/quote]
Yes, well you never hear the n00bs trying to stand up for themselves, now do you? [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\";)\" border=\"0\" alt=\"wink.gif\" /]
 
As long as they stick to just voicing their opinions and not infringing on the rights of people they disagree with, methinks they're in the right.

Freedom of speech trumps.
 
[!--quoteo(post=134836:date=Apr 14 2006, 03:38 PM:name=IronDuke)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(IronDuke @ Apr 14 2006, 03:38 PM) [snapback]134836[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
As long as they stick to just voicing their opinions and not infringing on the rights of people they disagree with, methinks they're in the right.

Freedom of speech trumps.
[/quote]

[!--quoteo(post=134644:date=Apr 12 2006, 07:34 PM:name=Black Dragon)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Black Dragon @ Apr 12 2006, 07:34 PM) [snapback]134644[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.
[/quote]

Does that sound like mild voicing of opinions to you? :: . Whatever about their rights to disagree with homosexuality, should the rest of us not have a right to be tolerant instead?
 
Well you can still be tolerant with the gays, but if they would force me to take "gay acceptance courses" or something like that I'd be pretty pissed off to! If I want to be tollerant I don't need them to tell me what words I can and can't use... it's my right to offend someone, and it's their right to offend me [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/sleep.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\"-_-\" border=\"0\" alt=\"sleep.gif\" /]
 
Those Christians can of course speak their mind, but let me tell you one thing: what they're doing IS against their religion! If anyone of those assholes knows what Christianity is about, they wouldn't be behaving this way. Christianity means to love your neighboor, no matter who he is. And since God created mankind, he is responsible for the creation of gays or lesbians. And they shouldn't claim that homosexuality is sinful. Had they read their damn Bible, they'd see that God created Adam and Eve only. Adam and Eve had two sons. Now I wonder, since the whole of mankind are descendants of those two persons, how on earth did their two sons have children? In the Bible it says that they found their women, but we've got no clue how these women were created! Certainly not by God! So, the only logical explanation to that would be that Adam and Eve had a few more private moments and created those two women. So in fact Cain and Abel ( the two sons ) had sex with their sisters! I believe the church declares having sex with your sibling a sin, am I wrong? Also in the Bible it says: Thou shall not judge. And one more thing: I'm not gay. I may be radical in words and indeed I can't say that the idea of someone being gay won't bother me. But who am I to judge such a person?
 
[!--quoteo(post=134843:date=Apr 14 2006, 05:25 PM:name=SneakySneaky)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(SneakySneaky @ Apr 14 2006, 05:25 PM) [snapback]134843[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Those Christians can of course speak their mind, but let me tell you one thing: what they're doing IS against their religion! If anyone of those assholes knows what Christianity is about, they wouldn't be behaving this way. Christianity means to love your neighboor, no matter who he is. And since God created mankind, he is responsible for the creation of gays or lesbians. And they shouldn't claim that homosexuality is sinful. Had they read their damn Bible, they'd see that God created Adam and Eve only. Adam and Eve had two sons. Now I wonder, since the whole of mankind are descendants of those two persons, how on earth did their two sons have children? In the Bible it says that they found their women, but we've got no clue how these women were created! Certainly not by God! So, the only logical explanation to that would be that Adam and Eve had a few more private moments and created those two women. So in fact Cain and Abel ( the two sons ) had sex with their sisters! I believe the church declares having sex with your sibling a sin, am I wrong? Also in the Bible it says: Thou shall not judge. And one more thing: I'm not gay. I may be radical in words and indeed I can't say that the idea of someone being gay won't bother me. But who am I to judge such a person?
[/quote]
Christians don't follow the Old Testament word for word. We know that Adam and Eve is just a story. Some people who claim to be hardline Christians that take justification for their actions from all over the Bible will of course find contradictions. Christians follow the example Christ left for us, the way of the new Testament. He supposedly turned the Old Testament on it's head.

As I said, most of us do not take the full book literally. It is up to each individual as to how he/she interpretes the Bibl.
I knew this was going to turn into another religion thread. ::
 
[!--quoteo(post=134843:date=Apr 14 2006, 05:25 PM:name=SneakySneaky)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(SneakySneaky @ Apr 14 2006, 05:25 PM) [snapback]134843[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Those Christians can of course speak their mind, but let me tell you one thing: what they're doing IS against their religion! If anyone of those assholes knows what Christianity is about, they wouldn't be behaving this way. Christianity means to love your neighboor, no matter who he is. And since God created mankind, he is responsible for the creation of gays or lesbians. And they shouldn't claim that homosexuality is sinful. Had they read their damn Bible, they'd see that God created Adam and Eve only. Adam and Eve had two sons. Now I wonder, since the whole of mankind are descendants of those two persons, how on earth did their two sons have children? In the Bible it says that they found their women, but we've got no clue how these women were created! Certainly not by God! So, the only logical explanation to that would be that Adam and Eve had a few more private moments and created those two women. So in fact Cain and Abel ( the two sons ) had sex with their sisters! I believe the church declares having sex with your sibling a sin, am I wrong? Also in the Bible it says: Thou shall not judge. And one more thing: I'm not gay. I may be radical in words and indeed I can't say that the idea of someone being gay won't bother me. But who am I to judge such a person?
[/quote]

The creation story in Genesis is widely believed to be an allegory. The Hebrew scholars, who wrote the Bible, would not have understood such concepts as 'evolution' or 'genetics', so this story was their version of events. Who knows? Maybe God (and let's just assume such a God exists for a minute, Mav [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":P\" border=\"0\" alt=\"tongue.gif\" /] ) let that story be written down so that mankind would later come up with the Darwinian evolution theory (Rule of Thumb No 1.: God likes us to find/sort out stuff for ourselves). But the entire human population could not have come from two human beings. Even if you argue that Adam and Eve were immortal in the garden of Eden and would not have been afflicted by disease, after they were expelled there were still only two of them. Even if the entire pre-flood population of Earth had been breeding like rabbits ( :: ), there still would not have been as large a population as the Old Testament indicates. Adam and Eve are more likely to be tribes or races of early people, or perhaps leaders of the first humans than sole inhabitants of the earth themselves. And the Garden of Eden is perhaps a state of spirit rather than a place. So, when Eve sins, they don't get chucked out of Eden, Eden simply alters to become the world as we know it.
Of course, all of the early part of Genesis could have simply been written by the early scholars in order to answer their questions, in which case we don't know the true Creation Story (even Mav and Per will have to admit that the Big Bang Theory is only a theory, with unanswered questions)

And incest is genetically abhorrent and taboo in most religions because it is genetically unfavourable. It limits variation and increases the chance of a genetic disorder remaining in the family (and let's not mention the teeth and banjos... [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\";)\" border=\"0\" alt=\"wink.gif\" /] )

I'm going to try and stop posting on this thread now (one of my friends estimated I've written about 2k words in 3 posts on this site and board on last.fm), but the attitudes of these 'bible-thumpers' are exactly why I dislike religion nowadays, and why people like Mav and SMX are so ill-inclinced towards Christians. It's the inability to admit that your holy text was written and translated by humans and therefore liable to errors that annoys me, as well as their literal interperetations. These people would never have passed an English comprehension exercise in my day (Oooh, I had a Black Dragon moment there for a minute...I came over all funny... :: )

@Conor: Nope, it's not a religion thread like the good ol' days until Per starts throwing Herodotus at us [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\";)\" border=\"0\" alt=\"wink.gif\" /]
Seriously, though, we've all wise up and become more accepting since then. I doubt another argument that size will happen. And this discussion (if it doesn't go off-topic) is less controversial; less biblical and more ethical.
 
[!--quoteo(post=134844:date=Apr 14 2006, 07:42 PM:name=Conor)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Conor @ Apr 14 2006, 07:42 PM) [snapback]134844[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Christians don't follow the Old Testament word for word. We know that Adam and Eve is just a story.
[/quote]
I know that most Christians believe Genesis to be an allegory. But there are a lot that take it literally.

[!--quoteo(post=134846:date=Apr 14 2006, 08:01 PM:name=Silky)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Silky @ Apr 14 2006, 08:01 PM) [snapback]134846[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
The creation story in Genesis is widely believed to be an allegory. The Hebrew scholars, who wrote the Bible, would not have understood such concepts as 'evolution' or 'genetics', so this story was their version of events. Who knows? Maybe God (and let's just assume such a God exists for a minute, Mav [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":P\" border=\"0\" alt=\"tongue.gif\" /] ) let that story be written down so that mankind would later come up with the Darwinian evolution theory (Rule of Thumb No 1.: God likes us to find/sort out stuff for ourselves). But the entire human population could not have come from two human beings.

@Conor: Nope, it's not a religion thread like the good ol' days until Per starts throwing Herodotus at us [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\";)\" border=\"0\" alt=\"wink.gif\" /]
Seriously, though, we've all wise up and become more accepting since then. I doubt another argument that size will happen. And this discussion (if it doesn't go off-topic) is less controversial; less biblical and more ethical.
[/quote]
Agree on that last one. I personally believe it to be allegorical and can't accept that God was happy one day and created the universe. Of course I can't deny that there doesn't exist some higher form of intelligence. But I just can't accept the Darwinian theory either (Mav please forgive me [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":P\" border=\"0\" alt=\"tongue.gif\" /] ). Why? Well, I think that nature wouldn't be so "stupid" as to let only one species evolute and become superior, thus not belonging to any food chain, and end up destroying it's creator.
 
[!--quoteo(post=134852:date=Apr 14 2006, 07:51 PM:name=SneakySneaky)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(SneakySneaky @ Apr 14 2006, 07:51 PM) [snapback]134852[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
But I just can't accept the Darwinian theory either (Mav please forgive me [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":P\" border=\"0\" alt=\"tongue.gif\" /] ). Why? Well, I think that nature wouldn't be so "stupid" as to let only one species evolute and become superior, thus not belonging to any food chain, and end up destroying it's creator.
[/quote]
That's quite a good argument, I've never looked at it from that angle.
But humans do belong to a food chain, they just so happen to be on the top of it. And Darwin did come up with the "survival of the fittest" idea and Humans seem to be the only species able to survive in any part of the planet, thus making them the fittest and most dominant.
 
[!--quoteo(post=134873:date=Apr 14 2006, 11:25 PM:name=Albie)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Albie @ Apr 14 2006, 11:25 PM) [snapback]134873[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
That's quite a good argument, I've never looked at it from that angle.
But humans do belong to a food chain, they just so happen to be on the top of it. And Darwin did come up with the "survival of the fittest" idea and Humans seem to be the only species able to survive in any part of the planet, thus making them the fittest and most dominant.
[/quote]
Agreed on that last one. But logic would have it that there is no species on top of any food chain in order to keep life balanced. Although the bigger animals eat the smaller, there are always some species that "beat" those bigger animals. For man that is not true. His intellince makes him dominant, and balance can't be kept.
 
[!--quoteo(post=134844:date=Apr 14 2006, 05:42 PM:name=Conor)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Conor @ Apr 14 2006, 05:42 PM) [snapback]134844[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
He [Christ] supposedly turned the Old Testament on it's head.
[/quote]

Wrong, He himself said he came to fulfill the law, not to change it...
 
[!--quoteo(post=134879:date=Apr 15 2006, 01:19 AM:name=Onhell)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Apr 15 2006, 01:19 AM) [snapback]134879[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Wrong, He himself said he came to fulfill the law, not to change it...
[/quote]
Did he not re-interperet some of the laws on the Torah?
 
[!--quoteo(post=134876:date=Apr 14 2006, 11:04 PM:name=SneakySneaky)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(SneakySneaky @ Apr 14 2006, 11:04 PM) [snapback]134876[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Agreed on that last one. But logic would have it that there is no species on top of any food chain in order to keep life balanced. Although the bigger animals eat the smaller, there are always some species that "beat" those bigger animals. For man that is not true. His intellince makes him dominant, and balance can't be kept.
[/quote]
This is the reason why Man started to farm, to keep the balance.

And then the cows started to ask us to eat more chicken! [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\";)\" border=\"0\" alt=\"wink.gif\" /]
 
[!--quoteo(post=134879:date=Apr 15 2006, 01:19 AM:name=Onhell)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Apr 15 2006, 01:19 AM) [snapback]134879[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Wrong, He himself said he came to fulfill the law, not to change it...
[/quote]
*sigh* I'm not getting into a religious debate again.
 
not a debate, a clarification and the cool part is you can look it up to verify it. if you have a version with Christ's words in red it will be easier. [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":D\" border=\"0\" alt=\"biggrin.gif\" /]
 
[!--quoteo(post=134835:date=Apr 14 2006, 03:16 PM:name=Silky)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Silky @ Apr 14 2006, 03:16 PM) [snapback]134835[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
They have a right to protest against homosexuality, if they belive that it is wrong.[/quote]

Another trait of these people. False morals and subsequent egoism (superiority of the moral). Used by the weak for the purposes of power, sublimating the strong to the lowest common denominator. Christianity is a cult that was created and used by the weak, who could otherwise not gain dominance, to gain power and wealth, through fear, violence, guilt tactics and persuasion, causing, mainly through nature-defying morality, the submission of the strong and the degeneration of mankind. Okay, I'm going to take a lot of heat for this but there's no turning back now...
 
Back
Top