Bible Thumpers Fight For Right To Discriminate
- Thread starter Kynisk Sokol
- Start date
Black Ace
Trooper
[!--quoteo(post=135008:date=Apr 17 2006, 04:03 AM:name=Black Dragon)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Black Dragon @ Apr 17 2006, 04:03 AM) [snapback]135008[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
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...
[/quote]
Can I quote you on that one? ::
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...
[/quote]
Can I quote you on that one? ::
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
No you can't because it is wrong. Yes it was created by the poor and weak, but not to gain power over the powerful, everybody on this board knows early Christians were persecuted, martyred and were actually peaceful. It wasn't until constantine, a member of the "powerful" seeked to unify the empire with it that Christianity became "mainstream". In other words the "powerful" themselves adopted it, it wasn't forced upon them by the "weak" nor were they conquered by them, so to say that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard....
I'd argue that the underground force of Christianity had grown to the point where it made political sense to seek unification of the Empire and the Religion. However, I firmly believe Constantine was a true conversion, and that if it had been any other man there, we'd never have seen it. Interesting, eh?
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
[!--quoteo(post=135204:date=Apr 19 2006, 01:20 PM:name=LooseCannon)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(LooseCannon @ Apr 19 2006, 01:20 PM) [snapback]135204[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
I firmly believe Constantine was a true conversion, and that if it had been any other man there, we'd never have seen it. Interesting, eh?
[/quote]
That's up for debate since he wasn't baptised until his deathbed... so i'm not even going there.
I firmly believe Constantine was a true conversion, and that if it had been any other man there, we'd never have seen it. Interesting, eh?
[/quote]
That's up for debate since he wasn't baptised until his deathbed... so i'm not even going there.
Of course he wasn't! He was still Emperor...didn't want to get baptised and *outlawed* till he was dying. He wanted to advance the cause of Christianity but without looking weak to all his rivals...
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
That's what is up for debate [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\"
\" border=\"0\" alt=\"biggrin.gif\" /], what exactly were his motives and why did he wait that long, and that is why, despite what you may know, think, believe... I'm not going into it.
\" border=\"0\" alt=\"biggrin.gif\" /], what exactly were his motives and why did he wait that long, and that is why, despite what you may know, think, believe... I'm not going into it.
SneakySneaky
Trooper
[!--quoteo(post=135328:date=Apr 20 2006, 11:48 PM:name=Onhell)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Apr 20 2006, 11:48 PM) [snapback]135328[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
That's what is up for debate [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\"\" border=\"0\" alt=\"biggrin.gif\" /], what exactly were his motives and why did he wait that long, and that is why, despite what you may know, think, believe... I'm not going into it.
[/quote]
What he did was a cunning move. He supported Christianity because the "one and only God" teaching suited his "one and only Emperor" one. He helped Christians so he could help himself as an Emperor. He didn't become a Christian until his last hours, because he didn't want to lose the Pagans' support.
That's what is up for debate [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\"
\" border=\"0\" alt=\"biggrin.gif\" /], what exactly were his motives and why did he wait that long, and that is why, despite what you may know, think, believe... I'm not going into it.[/quote]
What he did was a cunning move. He supported Christianity because the "one and only God" teaching suited his "one and only Emperor" one. He helped Christians so he could help himself as an Emperor. He didn't become a Christian until his last hours, because he didn't want to lose the Pagans' support.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I do not know if Constantines conversion in itself was true or not. And I don't care either. However, what I do know is that Constantine was a cool and calculating power-hungry son of a... camel, if you like. His public support of Christianity was nothing but a considered move: It was the dynamic driving force of the bulk of the Roman population at that time. Wherever imperial power had a stronghold, and wherever there was any sort of turmoil, there they were. I'm not saying that the Christians were responsible for all that, but they were present in every bigger metropolitan centre. The Roman Empire was a very urbanised one, in a much bigger way than there had ever been before and would be for a long time afterwards. The bulk of the population lived in cities like Rome, Antiochia, Carthage or Alexandria, and all the big cities were huge centres for the new faith. Paganism was considered "old" and "outdated", practiced only by the high society and the peasants in the rural areas. Constantine put his money on the horse of the future, and he won. That's all.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I didn't find it funny at all. This case was about beliefs and I think you may believe what you want if it makes you a better person. If someone thinks homosexuals are sinners but would be honest at all occasions for the same reason that's better than robbing someone of his beliefs and make him lost again.
Laughing at someone because of his religion is the lowest point you can get, strict religious people often lead a cleaner life than hedonists, humanists, atheists etc. and you shouldn't force them to throw that away because their texts aren't scientificly correct.
Laughing at someone because of his religion is the lowest point you can get, strict religious people often lead a cleaner life than hedonists, humanists, atheists etc. and you shouldn't force them to throw that away because their texts aren't scientificly correct.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Thanks, Silky for pointing out hypocrisy incarnate: Laura Schlessinger (I won't grant her the title of "Dr.", as she's a shame for anyone who is a doctor). If she had her ways, we'd go back to the Dark Ages of the Inquisition, and it's also really sad to see kiddos like Bunkle -- who don't know any better, obviously -- condone such a pathetic attitude.
This sentence:
Oh, for those who don't know "Dr. Laura", just know that she used to be a nice girl before she turned into an acrimonious old bat spurting hatred in the name of some preposterous god. (warning: 18+ link!)
This sentence:
really gives me the shivers. The Hitler Youths were brainwashed to spurt out the same kind of dangerous nonsense...
Oh, for those who don't know "Dr. Laura", just know that she used to be a nice girl before she turned into an acrimonious old bat spurting hatred in the name of some preposterous god. (warning: 18+ link!)
Silky said:No offense to LC or IronDuke offended, by the way.
WTF? Me, a Christian conservative?!
Just so you know...
My sister's an atheist.
My other sister's a baptist.
My dad was an anglican, and my mom was a Catholic, but both are now Wiccan.
I'm a diest.
All right folks, here it is once and for all.
The vast preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that sexual preference is a trait we're born with. To claim that one particular preference makes a person a "sinner" is akin to saying that someone with green eyes or someone who grows up to be taller than average could be a "sinner".
Fighting for the right to act on such beliefs is discrimination of the worst sort, and people who wish to act upon such beliefs are despicable.
This is why I haven't replied in this thread until now. I'm sure my above statements will piss some people off. But until someone shows me convincing and credible evidence that sexual preference is not genetically determined, I stand by the above.
The vast preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that sexual preference is a trait we're born with. To claim that one particular preference makes a person a "sinner" is akin to saying that someone with green eyes or someone who grows up to be taller than average could be a "sinner".
Fighting for the right to act on such beliefs is discrimination of the worst sort, and people who wish to act upon such beliefs are despicable.
This is why I haven't replied in this thread until now. I'm sure my above statements will piss some people off. But until someone shows me convincing and credible evidence that sexual preference is not genetically determined, I stand by the above.
A
Anonymous
Guest
SinisterMinisterX said:
Sorry, mate, but there's no evidence either way so far. Besides, what would be the point? Should liking a style of music or painting or anything that has to do with taste (including sexual orientation) be genetically determined to be credible? I'd be in favour of letting people do what they like as long as they don't harm others. Homosexuals don't harm anyone and are actively useful to a sometimes ungrateful society (Alan Turing anyone?) like the rest of us. Those who blame others, claiming to hold the truth from some unlikely god and promoting hatred in its name, *are* the real danger to this world.
I was under the impression that there is substantial anecdotal evidence that most gay people have been gay as long as they've been aware of their sexuality. I admit, this isn't the kind of evidence that would stand up to scientific scrutiny. Nonetheless, it's available and shouldn't be entirely discounted until we have something better.
Aside from that minor detail, I completely agree. I might even have to give you a praise for what you just said, Mav.
Aside from that minor detail, I completely agree. I might even have to give you a praise for what you just said, Mav.
Raven
Ancient Mariner
LooseCannon said:
No, sorry. You, a Canadian. In case you didn't look at the link, the title was 'Why Can't I own a Canadian?'. Pretty bad joke, sorry. :-[
Maverick said:Oh, for those who don't know "Dr. Laura", just know that she used to be a nice girl before she turned into an acrimonious old bat spurting hatred in the name of some preposterous god. (warning: 18+ link!)
Hmmm...how did you find that site, Mav?
I suppose this just goes to show some conservatives beliefs that they can repress any view or value they like, if they can claim 'religious' justification...which is often very selective in which [insert appropriate religious text] passages it references to...it's this abuse of trust and viewpoints that is turning people away from religion today. I myself disagree with organised religion (not least because our local priest is about 80 and forgets half the mass...
)
A
Anonymous
Guest
I admit I was wrong at that point. But if you look at priests for example, they're clean nowadays, there are exceptions of course. But what I mean is that it isn't wrong to believe in something that doesn't make any sense if it still makes you a better person.
On-topic again. I agree homosexual people don't harm anyone but Christians are Christians and they do what is said in the Bible and if the Bible says homosexuals are sinners then we can't do anything about it. Now I changed my mind, Christians may not say homosexuals are sinners because it says so in the Bible. People have their own thoughts about how things work and what's right and wrong, for Christians that is the Bible. We live how those thoughts say and that's all fine, Christians read and act the Bible but that still does not give them more right to say homosexuals are sinners than the average prejudicial arse.
Still something is protesting in the back of my head. What I said was in short "Thoughts are fine, but keep them to yourself". Now if you can't say what you really think, does that make it any better. This brings me back to square one, hiding the truth isn't making any progression and if there isn't progression people will never be allowed to say what they think. That is against the right of freedom of speech.
Discrimination versus Freedom of speech. I think it's what your ethical responses choose but I still don't know.
On-topic again. I agree homosexual people don't harm anyone but Christians are Christians and they do what is said in the Bible and if the Bible says homosexuals are sinners then we can't do anything about it. Now I changed my mind, Christians may not say homosexuals are sinners because it says so in the Bible. People have their own thoughts about how things work and what's right and wrong, for Christians that is the Bible. We live how those thoughts say and that's all fine, Christians read and act the Bible but that still does not give them more right to say homosexuals are sinners than the average prejudicial arse.
Still something is protesting in the back of my head. What I said was in short "Thoughts are fine, but keep them to yourself". Now if you can't say what you really think, does that make it any better. This brings me back to square one, hiding the truth isn't making any progression and if there isn't progression people will never be allowed to say what they think. That is against the right of freedom of speech.
Discrimination versus Freedom of speech. I think it's what your ethical responses choose but I still don't know.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I believe in God and no, it doesn't make me a better person. :-[Bunkle said:
In what way?Bunkle said:
I'm sure most homosexuals harm someone at one point or another, just as I do and you too, Bunkle. But not *because* we are homosexuals (or straight). If someone thinks some people harm him with their sole existence, he reminds me of a certain Austrian born German politician...
What truth do you mean?Bunkle said:
Anyway, my idea of the truth was posted by Mav above (pun intended
).