Post by: gronned on October 22, 2007, 07:05:00 PM
I just wonder what your opinions on the matter is.
Personally I'm very ambivalent(as usual) on the matter. Because in a sense, I really can't even see why it's on the agenda at all. Why do gay people want to be married at all? It's honestly beyond me.
AFAIK the bible is quite clear of what it thinks of gay people, so why they think they should have any right to be part of a marriage supported by the bible is not only stupid, but very illogical. God doesn't like them, deal with it.
But as I'm not a christian(atheist) and generally of full support for homosexuals in society, I'd definitely be pro gay marriage. As the church is such a powerful institution, and being officially against homosexuals it automatically works as a discriminative force against gay people even outside the religion, which I find very sad.
For me though there's "personally" even a third aspect. I dislike every theist religion and I'd do as much as I can trying to wipe them out. I don't show much or any respect for these religions, apart from possibly the practitioners of them. So, in a sense, this is a win-win-situation. If the gay people are allowed marriage, the priest may get pissed, and if I'm lucky, they won't exercise their job as expected, therefore potentially weakening the religion. But, if the gay people are being rejected marriage, I definitely think there will be a fairly strong number of people fleeing the religion. The only downside to that is that it may become a too narrow-minded religion, where people will take things to the extreme.
The reason I dislike most religions is mostly because of the extremism some will take, particularly Islam right now, even though christians and christian terrorism scares me too(IRA).
The only religion I'm not really against is Buddhism, as it's an atheist "religion" without extremism (maybe among "regular" buddhists, but not real dhamma-preaching buddhists). I find it hard to dislike religions that genuinely preach non-violence.
Post by: PhatIrishBastard on October 23, 2007, 11:05:00 AM
QUOTE(gronned @ Oct 22 2007, 08:05 PM) 
Personally I'm very ambivalent(as usual) on the matter. Because in a sense, I really can't even see why it's on the agenda at all. Why do gay people want to be married at all? It's honestly beyond me.
AFAIK the bible is quite clear of what it thinks of gay people, so why they think they should have any right to be part of a marriage supported by the bible is not only stupid, but very illogical. God doesn't like them, deal with it.
The GOD doesn't like anyone objection is a little off base. GOD loves everyone, there are just people who choose not to love GOD.
I imagine you probably would find it hard to sacrifice your only son for a bunch of undeserving liars, thieves, and killers (the 12 tribe variety) not to mention the Gentiles, commonly referred to as dogs by the Hebrews (the afforementioned undeserving liars, thieves, and killers).
This concept has often escaped my full understanding at times, yet I still have as yet not to grasp the evolve from apes myth. Given the utter lack of archaeological evidence. But this argument is rooted more within Satan than scientific discovery.
QUOTE(gronned @ Oct 22 2007, 08:05 PM)
But as I'm not a christian(atheist) and generally of full support for homosexuals in society, I'd definitely be pro gay marriage. As the church is such a powerful institution, and being officially against homosexuals it automatically works as a discriminative force against gay people even outside the religion, which I find very sad.
I call myself Christian, and after watching a well publicized documentary(years ago) starring Pedro from the Real World who died of AIDS, it only underscored my contempt of homosexuality.
I wouldn't wish the lifestyle, upon my worst enemy. But with that said I wouldnt tie one to a fence post and beat him to death either. I take as much issue with these people as with gays.
AIDS was born from the homosexual movement. You may not be old enough to remember the G.R.I.D. days (Gay Related Immuno Deficiency). GRID was the unpolitically correct first name of AIDS, in the years before its urban mythification
. "And the Band Played on", is a good read on the origins of HIV/AIDS and its spread. I forget the movie production name, it may have same title.
QUOTE(gronned @ Oct 22 2007, 08:05 PM)
For me though there's "personally" even a third aspect. I dislike every theist religion and I'd do as much as I can trying to wipe them out. I don't show much or any respect for these religions, apart from possibly the practitioners of them. So, in a sense, this is a win-win-situation. If the gay people are allowed marriage, the priest may get pissed, and if I'm lucky, they won't exercise their job as expected, therefore potentially weakening the religion. But, if the gay people are being rejected marriage, I definitely think there will be a fairly strong number of people fleeing the religion. The only downside to that is that it may become a too narrow-minded religion, where people will take things to the extreme.
IMO marriage is an act between man and woman. If I can marry another man why cant I marry my pet parrot. You really don't want to open that can of worms.
If you still believe anything a priest tells you in the year 2007, you deserve what you get (i.e. C
ck in you bum).QUOTE(gronned @ Oct 22 2007, 08:05 PM)
The reason I dislike most religions is mostly because of the extremism some will take, particularly Islam right now, even though christians and christian terrorism scares me too(IRA).
Cmon ,now you mean the Britons have the sole copyright on religious demagogy. Where would the world be without those that exploited men, women, and children just because (St. Ides, Paul, The Virgin Mary, Judas,, Rudulph Guliani) told them. We wouldnt have cable TV, spam, xbox 360, or meth whores.
P.S. I cant believe they have not put the McCann's on the rack to find that little girls body. Clumps of her hair in the trunk of the rental car, that they rented weeks after her "disappearance"
Post by: gronned on October 23, 2007, 01:19:00 PM
QUOTE(PhatIrishBastard @ Oct 23 2007, 07:41 PM)
The GOD doesn't like anyone objection is a little off base. GOD loves everyone, there are just people who choose not to love GOD.
Yeah, if one seriously believe they choose their sexuality, I'd agree. But I doubt you question your heterosexual urge, just as homosexuals don't. Who'd ever choose being gay when you know how badly society will treat you?
QUOTE
This concept has often escaped my full understanding at times, yet I still have as yet not to grasp the evolve from apes myth. Given the utter lack of archaeological evidence. But this argument is rooted more within Satan than scientific discovery.
How convenient.. What you're saying here is actually the full answer to why people believe in God(s) in the first place. When we can't find the answer to a tough question, we "always" find abstract explanations(God/satan), in order to ease our minds, I guess. However the ape "myth" is pretty hard to deny, and as much as people had to accept the earth is round, everyone eventually WILL have to believe in the theory of evolution.
QUOTE
I call myself Christian, and after watching a well publicized documentary(years ago) starring Pedro from the Real World who died of AIDS, it only underscored my contempt of homosexuality.
I wouldn't wish the lifestyle, upon my worst enemy. But with that said I wouldnt tie one to a fence post and beat him to death either. I take as much issue with these people as with gays.
AIDS was born from the homosexual movement. You may not be old enough to remember the G.R.I.D. days (Gay Related Immuno Deficiency). GRID was the unpolitically correct first name of AIDS, in the years before its urban mythification .
I wouldn't wish the lifestyle, upon my worst enemy. But with that said I wouldnt tie one to a fence post and beat him to death either. I take as much issue with these people as with gays.
AIDS was born from the homosexual movement. You may not be old enough to remember the G.R.I.D. days (Gay Related Immuno Deficiency). GRID was the unpolitically correct first name of AIDS, in the years before its urban mythification
. It wasn't changed because of it's politically incorrect name but because of the fact it was proved to spread among heterosexuals as well.. Most people having HIV/AIDS are certainly not gay.
QUOTE
IMO marriage is an act between man and woman. If I can marry another man why cant I marry my pet parrot. You really don't want to open that can of worms.
Mutual consent. A gay couple would most likely be of mutual consent. And in a sense, I don't really think I'd have an issue with you having sex with an animal, if you could PROVE mutual consent, which may be a tougher issue. If you actually would have sex with animals, I guess you'd have few human friends though =)
QUOTE
If you still believe anything a priest tells you in the year 2007, you deserve what you get (i.e. C ck in you bum).
ck in you bum).So you skip sermon too? I bet God loves you =)
QUOTE
P.S. I cant believe they have not put the McCann's on the rack to find that little girls body. Clumps of her hair in the trunk of the rental car, that they rented weeks after her "disappearance"
Figure you took it up as I made a topic on it... Personally, I actually am one of the few that believe they're innocent, but I honestly don't give a shit
Post by: crackfeen on October 23, 2007, 03:22:00 PM
QUOTE(gronned @ Oct 22 2007, 09:05 PM)
AFAIK the bible is quite clear of what it thinks of gay people, so why they think they should have any right to be part of a marriage supported by the bible is not only stupid, but very illogical. God doesn't like them, deal with it.
what people have to understand... the bible is written by men.. not god... now.. as a fictional tale, is it not at all possible that the authors contributed their own ideas and beliefs?
and i'm pretty sure before it was written, it was a collection of stories that were spread by word-of-mouth advertising... and eventually recorded... like an intercity game of telephone
an excerpt from the bible of uncyclopedia... "And Oral Roberts withdrew from the minge and let his spunk fall upon the ground, and his sin was great."
Post by: gronned on October 23, 2007, 03:55:00 PM
QUOTE(crackfeen @ Oct 23 2007, 11:58 PM)
i'm not participating in this discussion because frankly.. i don't see why people have aproblem with it.. anyways this caught my eye and i just wanted to share my views...
what people have to understand... the bible is written by men.. not god... now.. as a fictional tale, is it not at all possible that the authors contributed their own ideas and beliefs?
and i'm pretty sure before it was written, it was a collection of stories that were spread by word-of-mouth advertising... and eventually recorded... like an intercity game of telephone
Yeah, of course. Probably fairly little has to do with what Jesus himself really thought. The last parts of the bible was written approximately 110 years after Jesus died. How many stories haven't changed within a week among our own friends? Think what more than 100 years would do. Christianity could've remained a cult or most likely just vanished, but sadly it became mainstream because of Constantine.
Some morons, quite a huge amount of people, take this BS for real which is a proof of how incredibly naive and easily controlled humans are. Humans fall for everything if the rhetoric is only performed well enough. Look at Hitler with the help of Göbbels, talk about easily manipulating a whole people.
Josef Göbbels himself said: If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - which is simply what the bible is all about - a 2000 year old lie that's now reached two billion people.
Post by: damam on October 24, 2007, 03:37:00 PM
QUOTE(gronned @ Oct 22 2007, 02:05 PM)
AFAIK the bible is quite clear of what it thinks of gay people, so why they think they should have any right to be part of a marriage supported by the bible is not only stupid, but very illogical. God doesn't like them, deal with it.
Actually the "Old Testament" is quite clear on homosexuality. As are most churches. But Christianity and the new testament is very very very unclear on how it feels about homosexuality. When Christ came and died for us, he also abolished the majority of the laws in the torah. Most people take the pivot point to be Acts 10:15 - When G-d commanded peter to eat of all foods because he has made everything clean. This has far greater implications that I wont get into here. Basically, unless one of the apostles re-affirmed a law in leviticus it is generally considered to be null and void. For example, circumcision is no longer practiced nor do we stone adulters. Most people believe that Paul re-affirmed that homosexuality is out of line in I Corinthians 6:9-10 and in Romans 1:27. But that is pretty unclear. In Romans 1:27 it sounds more like he was actually talking about pederasty and extra-marital affairs, not homosexuality perse. In I Corinthians 6:9-10, the texts were almost certainly mis-translated. The words used were very obscure, and the translator probably took a guess. Even today we dont exactly know the meaning of the words. We have a gist of what he was trying to say, but not absolute certainty, but most importantly we know he was not talking about homosexuality.
Also, christ never talked about homosexuality. . . and that should speak volumes.
my view on gay marriage:
The implications of a state recognized gay marriage may be different for sweden, but I have no problems with civil gay marriage in theory. Some things are really quite basic and quite justifiable such as wanting to be at the bedside of your lover as they die (something only given to married couples).
I definitely believe that the law should not force churches to do this sort of service. If the sect in question believes its wrong, then leave them alone.
The details I am really worried about is when it concerns children. Before I had my daughter, i really could not have cared less, however watching her grow up has firmly changed my mind. I now believe that the absolute best enviroment for a child is to have in-house role models from both sexes ie a man and a woman. I am a bit torn on this though, because obviously any loving home whether it be a single parent or a gay couple is better than the foster system. Once gay marriage becomes amended, we may not be able to legally select heterosexual couples over homosexual couples for child placement simply because all things being equael they are homosexual. I have problems with that.
Post by: gronned on October 25, 2007, 12:42:00 PM
QUOTE(damam @ Oct 25 2007, 12:13 AM)
Actually the "Old Testament" is quite clear on homosexuality. As are most churches. But Christianity and the new testament is very very very unclear on how it feels about homosexuality. When Christ came and died for us, he also abolished the majority of the laws in the torah. Most people take the pivot point to be Acts 10:15 - When G-d commanded peter to eat of all foods because he has made everything clean. This has far greater implications that I wont get into here. Basically, unless one of the apostles re-affirmed a law in leviticus it is generally considered to be null and void. For example, circumcision is no longer practiced nor do we stone adulters. Most people believe that Paul re-affirmed that homosexuality is out of line in I Corinthians 6:9-10 and in Romans 1:27. But that is pretty unclear. In Romans 1:27 it sounds more like he was actually talking about pederasty and extra-marital affairs, not homosexuality perse. In I Corinthians 6:9-10, the texts were almost certainly mis-translated. The words used were very obscure, and the translator probably took a guess. Even today we dont exactly know the meaning of the words. We have a gist of what he was trying to say, but not absolute certainty, but most importantly we know he was not talking about homosexuality.
I've never read the bible, so I don't know. Despite the old testament being before jesus lived, isn't it as holy as the new testament for christians? If it says homosexuality is a sin, shouldn't it be a sin then? And even if the new testament actually is unclear on the matter, it doesn't really have to matter as most practitioners(virtually all I know, at least) seem to think christianity officially is against homosexuality.
QUOTE
Also, christ never talked about homosexuality. . . and that should speak volumes.
Well, if he never cared to bring up such a controversial matter, I also think it speaks volume - of his homophobia. Jesus talked about everything he felt important, but left out homosexuality which was a big no no back then?!? If he didn't dislike them, he obviously must have been a chicken not daring to bring the matter up. Hope you don't get angry with me, but from my p.o.v. I can only draw that conclusion.QUOTE
my view on gay marriage:
The implications of a state recognized gay marriage may be different for sweden, but I have no problems with civil gay marriage in theory. Some things are really quite basic and quite justifiable such as wanting to be at the bedside of your lover as they die (something only given to married couples).
I definitely believe that the law should not force churches to do this sort of service. If the sect in question believes its wrong, then leave them alone.
The details I am really worried about is when it concerns children. Before I had my daughter, i really could not have cared less, however watching her grow up has firmly changed my mind. I now believe that the absolute best enviroment for a child is to have in-house role models from both sexes ie a man and a woman. I am a bit torn on this though, because obviously any loving home whether it be a single parent or a gay couple is better than the foster system. Once gay marriage becomes amended, we may not be able to legally select heterosexual couples over homosexual couples for child placement simply because all things being equael they are homosexual. I have problems with that.
The implications of a state recognized gay marriage may be different for sweden, but I have no problems with civil gay marriage in theory. Some things are really quite basic and quite justifiable such as wanting to be at the bedside of your lover as they die (something only given to married couples).
I definitely believe that the law should not force churches to do this sort of service. If the sect in question believes its wrong, then leave them alone.
The details I am really worried about is when it concerns children. Before I had my daughter, i really could not have cared less, however watching her grow up has firmly changed my mind. I now believe that the absolute best enviroment for a child is to have in-house role models from both sexes ie a man and a woman. I am a bit torn on this though, because obviously any loving home whether it be a single parent or a gay couple is better than the foster system. Once gay marriage becomes amended, we may not be able to legally select heterosexual couples over homosexual couples for child placement simply because all things being equael they are homosexual. I have problems with that.
I agree on most points, and I'm also a bit unclear on the adoption issue. But I think I heard of a study saying there really only were positive things about having gay parents.. If I also remember correctly it was feminists who had done the study, so it probably shouldn't be taken seriously. Obviously heaps of gay couples would like to adopt a kid, but I'm very skeptical, of numerous reasons.
Post by: PhatIrishBastard on October 25, 2007, 12:54:00 PM
QUOTE(damam @ Oct 24 2007, 05:13 PM)
When G-d commanded peter to eat of all foods because he has made everything clean. This has far greater implications that I wont get into here. Basically, unless one of the apostles re-affirmed a law in leviticus it is generally considered to be null and void.
No not really within the context of what was happening this intervention it is quite unambiguous.
God gave Peter the vision you speak about as an Olive branch to Greeks, Hebrews were very bigoted towards Greeks and many of the apostles were viewed hypocritically for recognizing Greek culture.
When challenged by the synagogue's of Satan, with their piety for the Laws of Moses, Jesus states he came to complete the Old Testament Laws not abolish them.
Funny as soon as i read this I thought of Romans 1:24-27, not by name but by message.
QUOTE(damam @ Oct 24 2007, 05:13 PM)
But that is pretty unclear. In Romans 1:27 it sounds more like he was actually talking about pederasty and extra-marital affairs, not homosexuality perse.
Also, christ never talked about homosexuality. . . and that should speak volumes.
QUOTE
Romans 24:
Therefore God also gave them up to cleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie,...
Therefore God also gave them up to cleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie,...
QUOTE
Romans 26:
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
QUOTE
Romans 27:
Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
This is how my KJV New Test. reads. You be the judge, appears crystal clear to me.
QUOTE
Romans 24:
......who exchanged the truth of God for the lie,...
......who exchanged the truth of God for the lie,...
Go read it for yourself and develop your own informed opinion.
QUOTE(damam @ Oct 24 2007, 05:13 PM)
For example, circumcision is no longer practiced nor do we stone adulters.
[Secret] I am circumsized[/secret]
QUOTE(damam @ Oct 24 2007, 05:13 PM)
hate crime legislation:
Idaho as a whole is very anti-"hate crime" legislation for numerous reasons. Probably the biggest reason being that their is a general belief that segragating a group out and giving them an elevated status in the eyes of the law only serves to promote inequality as a whole in the community at large.
As Ghandi said, "It is not possible to achieve equality and tolerance by instituting policies of preference and exclusion. The result will only be more preference and more exclusion."
Not my words but my belief, I tend to apply this principle across the full spectrum, not just when it suits my agenda.
The truth and not the lie, can be applied to all of society. You can "will it a maximum."
I guess using your logic we should ignore the old testament and O.T. prophesy that has yet to pass also.
Post by: cerealkillajme on October 25, 2007, 02:29:00 PM
I personally don't have a problem with homosexuals as long as they respect the rules (like not hitting on a heterosexual, swear I could have killed a guy one night for a comment he made to me, grrrr). One of my best friends for 10 or so years is a lesbian as well, so I certainly don't hate them.
My view on gay marriage though is that a marriage is a union between 2 people, not strictly a man and a woman. If 2 people love each other and both agree they want to be married, I see no reason to deny them of that. Yes marriage may be a religious thing and I'm atheist, but I do celebrate the traditions and holidays that my parents raised me on and since marriage is tied to our legal system in so many ways I feel marriage should not be denied to any couple that both agree to marriage.
Just think of how many ways that homosexuals are being screwed if they can't be married.
No spouse coverage with insurance
No tax break for a married couple
As stated above, no seeing your spouse on their deathbed
Can you imagine your partner is hurt and just arrived at the hospital and they deny you being able to see them by saying "i'm sorry, only family members allowed"
You have to do something for your spouse and you go there and they won't let you do w/e it is cause "you need to be married"
And I'm sure there are thousands of other things they get screwed on that I can't think of now.
To me 2 homosexuals getting married is no different than a black and white couple, a fat and skinny couple, a blonde and a brunette couple, a green eyes and brown eyes couple, etc. The one thing all those couple share in common is that they love each other, and in my eyes, that's all that really matters.
And it's funny how our society changes over the years. Now we look back and can't believe segregation took place, that women didn't have equal rights only 50 years ago, and several other things. We'll probably look back 50 years from now and be astonished that gays were not given equal rights (if and when they are given equal rights).
I do have to say (even with my very open view to gay marriage) that I don't really know how to feel about a homosexual couple adopting a child. I'm not really going to get into that as I haven't really thought much about it.
Post by: damam on November 16, 2007, 04:53:00 PM
QUOTE(gronned @ Oct 25 2007, 08:18 AM)
I've never read the bible, so I don't know. Despite the old testament being before jesus lived, isn't it as holy as the new testament for christians? If it says homosexuality is a sin, shouldn't it be a sin then? And even if the new testament actually is unclear on the matter, it doesn't really have to matter as most practitioners(virtually all I know, at least) seem to think christianity officially is against homosexuality.
no its not on equael grounds. if it were, people would still live by the laws of liviticus. granted however, most christians are anti-homosexual.
QUOTE(gronned @ Oct 25 2007, 08:18 AM)
Well, if he never cared to bring up such a controversial matter, I also think it speaks volume - of his homophobia. Jesus talked about everything he felt important, but left out homosexuality which was a big no no back then?!? If he didn't dislike them, he obviously must have been a chicken not daring to bring the matter up. Hope you don't get angry with me, but from my p.o.v. I can only draw that conclusion.
I agree on most points, and I'm also a bit unclear on the adoption issue. But I think I heard of a study saying there really only were positive things about having gay parents.. If I also remember correctly it was feminists who had done the study, so it probably shouldn't be taken seriously. Obviously heaps of gay couples would like to adopt a kid, but I'm very skeptical, of numerous reasons.
that is a very ethnocentric p.o.v. just because it is controversial today, does not mean it was controversial back then or controversial in his social milieu. quiet simply put, there may have been no matter to bring up.
@PhatIrishBastard
i know that many would like to believe that the KJV is the end all - but that is not the case. I trust the KJV so far as it is accurately traslated. When it comes to Romans 1:24-27, paul is not condemning homosexuality, he is condemning extramarital affairs. The same with onan. G-d was condemning being unobedient - not masterbation. that is my oppinion. "para physin" in particular. if it truly meant that than g-d would be unnatural (Romans 11:24)
as for the rest of what you said - I suppose i could be hypicrital their, but you will have to say more to show me my error
Post by: gronned on November 17, 2007, 03:41:00 AM
QUOTE(damam @ Nov 17 2007, 01:29 AM)
no its not on equael grounds. if it were, people would still live by the laws of liviticus. granted however, most christians are anti-homosexual.
that is a very ethnocentric p.o.v. just because it is controversial today, does not mean it was controversial back then or controversial in his social milieu. quiet simply put, there may have been no matter to bring up.
I still think it's a tad strange he didn't mention it, considering Jesus was God he must've known it'd become a major topic today at least(in a preemptive effect =)).
A really interesting book I'm reading now is Richard Dawkins "The God delusion". I bet you've at least heard of it. Apart from his annoyingly narcissistic views of his own opinions, he really has something to say on the matter. I met a lady who didn't want to read it because she claimed it was a tool Satan used to flirt with her. That's her standard, convenient comment whenever someone challenges her faith, yet she's always trying to get me to read the bible...
Post by: damam on November 18, 2007, 11:58:00 AM
QUOTE(gronned @ Nov 17 2007, 12:17 AM)
A really interesting book I'm reading now is Richard Dawkins "The God delusion". I bet you've at least heard of it. Apart from his annoyingly narcissistic views of his own opinions, he really has something to say on the matter. I met a lady who didn't want to read it because she claimed it was a tool Satan used to flirt with her. That's her standard, convenient comment whenever someone challenges her faith, yet she's always trying to get me to read the bible...
Have not read it. i have probably read a two dozen or so like it though. I am also familiar with "the selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins (read it in college).
QUOTE(gronned @ Nov 17 2007, 12:17 AM)
Apart from his annoyingly narcissistic views of his own opinions
i think that this is reason enough to believe that atheism wont solve anything either. Also, I believe that South Park did a really good response to "The God delusion" called "Go God Go". Its a two part series. Its really pretty funny. Find a means of watching it at all costs.
your friend seems a bit strange . . .
Post by: gronned on November 25, 2007, 08:22:00 AM
I don't know in what way they'd make anyone feel it was constructive criticism as to why God(s) should exist though. The only interesting part was why anything would be better if there were no religions.
Personally though, I'm certain the world would be more at peace without any religions. Muslim suicide bombers would never exist, because first off there's no heaven for them and secondly they won't be isolated with 72 girls that don't know shit about sex.
What can I say, I'm not comfortable with the thought of dying and then there's nothing of me, but making up ludicrous ideas of what could happen when I die is not the solution.
Millions upon millions of people have been killed in the name of religion.
I thought religions were there to save people, not kill them. And when religion is the biggest threat to my life, I will not accept that muslims want to kill me because I don't believe in their bullshit.
It's important the smartest people are outspoken with their atheism, because they're the ones that have influence over the common man. E.g. people still seem to think Einstein was religious, which is actually a big problem. So you have to convert to atheism Damam =) I promise you, you won't lose any morals by converting, atheists are nice people too!
Please read the book as it's the most elaborate book on the matter I've come across.
Post by: damam on November 25, 2007, 04:45:00 PM
however, i think that the world would be just as violent without religion. That was part of the point of the South Park episode. And I agree with it. Science and logic without compassion can be used to justify some really horrendous things.
The greatest killers of the last century stalin, hitler, Benito Mussolini, and other totalitarians all tended towards atheistic beliefs. Thats not a condemnation of atheism. Only a suggestion that it would not lead to the green fields, sunshine, and flowers that you are seeking.
sure we may not have jihadi bombers, but we would probably have something else in its place (eco-terrorists?). And in comparison to stalin, hitler, Benito Mussolini, etc their impact on ending human lives has been negligable.
This post has been edited by damam: Nov 26 2007, 12:57 AM
Post by: crackfeen on November 26, 2007, 04:54:00 PM
QUOTE(damam @ Nov 25 2007, 06:45 PM)
i have no doubts that atheist are swell people too. I was an atheist, after all, for most of my life
however, i think that the world would be just as violent without religion. That was part of the point of the South Park episode. And I agree with it. Science and logic without compassion can be used to justify some really horrendous things.
The greatest killers of the last century stalin, hitler, Benito Mussolini, and other totalitarians all tended towards atheistic beliefs. Thats not a condemnation of atheism. Only a suggestion that it would not lead to the green fields, sunshine, and flowers that you are seeking.
sure we may not have jihadi bombers, but we would probably have something else in its place (eco-terrorists?). And in comparison to stalin, hitler, Benito Mussolini, etc their impact on ending human lives has been negligable.
science and logic without compassion? what happened to the compassion? do athiests feel no compassion? come now spud junior... what would spud senior think about this... you don't need religion for general empathy.. but you need a balance between logic and emotion....
are you sure that we want peace? how do you feel about overpopulation?
Post by: gronned on November 27, 2007, 10:43:00 AM
QUOTE(damam @ Nov 26 2007, 12:45 AM)
i have no doubts that atheist are swell people too. I was an atheist, after all, for most of my life
however, i think that the world would be just as violent without religion. That was part of the point of the South Park episode. And I agree with it. Science and logic without compassion can be used to justify some really horrendous things.
The greatest killers of the last century stalin, hitler, Benito Mussolini, and other totalitarians all tended towards atheistic beliefs. Thats not a condemnation of atheism. Only a suggestion that it would not lead to the green fields, sunshine, and flowers that you are seeking.
sure we may not have jihadi bombers, but we would probably have something else in its place (eco-terrorists?). And in comparison to stalin, hitler, Benito Mussolini, etc their impact on ending human lives has been negligable.
Hitler was a devout catholic though, but you could easily replace him with Mao who killed an estimate of 60-80 million of his own people. Sure, communism has killed an enormous amount of people and it's not theistic, but communism is dead and will hopefully remain so for a long time.
USA is actually the biggest problem when it comes to religion. For some peculiar reason americans are very religious, when Europe is waking up more and more, how could that be? It's very strange as the pattern shows that wealth generally decrease religious tendencies. If USA would have been more atheist, it'd be a great signal to the rest of the world that the richest continents are the least religious.
"Christianity is the truth and islam is fake and awful" - "Islam is the truth and christianity is fake and awful" The only conclusion a sane person can draw is that both are fakes, as both can't be right.
The Quran and bible are interesting as psychological tests. Simply put, if one person claims to have seen a God of some kind, he's considered crazy, but when a million people think there's a specific god, they're not crazy. Try to look at the religions from a different perspective and you can't stop laughing over how ridiculous it all is. Some people devote their whole lives to religions that are completely fake... waste of time?
Even if my country is very atheistic, my generation is a bit stupid, and now that we've received a ridiculous amount of war refugees(thanks a lot Bush) who bring Islam over here, I'm afraid they will get some swedes fooled too. There's even been a muslim group who wanted to bring some Sharia-laws in here!
The best way to get rid of religions is to not give it any space, the school kids today don't have to visit church much and the schools don't have any religious preaching anymore, which seem to have a good effect, so we have to make sure the muslim refugees won't be given any space.
/I just rant a lot, making my text very arrhythmic =) Even if no ones reading it I like to write to get my thoughts together, I guess a lot of people do the same?
Post by: throwingks on November 28, 2007, 01:21:00 PM
People are born with their sexual orientation. Be is straight, gay, or bi-sexual. Some gays lie to themselves, just as some straights lie to themselves.
With such an uneducated post, I would be willing to bet, you are lying to yourself about your orientation.
P.S. I have a gay cousin, who has never had anything happen to him, such as the things you say. In fact, his brother (3 years younger) had him pegged as gay, since his earliest childhood memories. He is now in his early 20s.
Post by: gcskate27 on November 28, 2007, 03:37:00 PM
*by and large, obviously ive met some 'good' christians, but theyre strangely in the minority...
Post by: gcskate27 on November 28, 2007, 04:22:00 PM
i dont think i really need to say anything more on this...
*but i will anyway...
QUOTE(chalosf)
What does this have to do with Christians
hmmm, dunno what could a debate on gay marriage have to do with christians...? i totally forgot its that crazy group of athiests thats so strongly opposed to the thought of gays being given the right to wed... silly me...
im assuming youre a young teen given your grammar and your uneducated, and obviously parroted, beliefs... itd do you a world of good to try and develop an open mind... when you hear an idea, decide for yourself if its true, dont base your opinion on what someone else says... and yes, that includes the bible...
QUOTE(chalosf)
don't mix there believes with the norm,don't change laws to accommodate there beleives, the same way they want to remove God from everything now because its not everyones believes
do you not see how that idea contradicts itself? group x shouldnt have special laws but group y can... all groups being equal, and they fucking damn sure are, how does this make any sense?
personally i couldnt care less if gays are given the right to wed as long as they ARE given civil unions with all benefits that are given to 'normal' couples...
QUOTE(chalosf)
done blame human stupidity on a religion
i sure as hell dont but its amazing how often the two coincide...
Post by: gronned on November 28, 2007, 04:31:00 PM
Even if it would be true(which I'M certain it's not), why shouldn't they be allowed to exercise their homosexual acts anyway? Because you think God says so?
But what if you're wrong? What if the words from a book written more than 1800 years ago by people who had never met Jesus were actually wrong? Then it's a little sad to dislike homosexuality with no other reason than from a book with zero credibility.
Homosexuality has been acceptable several times during the known history actually, most notably in ancient Greece. Whether it was mutual all the time is arguable, yet it was apparently seen as acceptable.
Post by: gronned on November 28, 2007, 05:02:00 PM
QUOTE(chalosf @ Nov 29 2007, 01:19 AM)
Why do you keep bringing up the bible and God into the argument. I'm talking as a normal person, not a religious person. If homosexuality was acceptable then we would not be having this argument, they would not need to be "fighting" for rights that they think they should get. The nation and world would not be divided on the topic if it was acceptable. In fact if it was acceptable and normal then there would be no need for a law or separate rights for gay people, it would already be understood that they are part of society like everyone else.
Well you talked about divine help for them, so it seemed natural.
No, I'm quite aware homosexuality isn't very acceptable, that's why there's the need for debate so they eventually will be accepted. I don't find homosexuality "natural" either, I cringe when I think of homosexual acts, but I still utmost respect their feelings. They apparently cringe when they think about heterosexual acts too, but I doubt they'll start bullying us for our "disgusting" behaviour.
Post by: gcskate27 on November 28, 2007, 05:09:00 PM
QUOTE(chalosf @ Nov 28 2007, 06:19 PM)
If homosexuality was acceptable then we would not be having this argument, they would not need to be "fighting" for rights that they think they should get.
and thats the point... homosexuality has been around for at least as long as people have and almost certainly before... its an act between two CONSENTING people that harms no one, so why shouldnt it be accepted?
i think elderly people having sex is gross, as would most 'normal' people; should they not have any rights as well?
Post by: throwingks on November 28, 2007, 07:01:00 PM
I believe homosexuality is equal to, if not a bit better than, breeding without love. But, both are allowed by Mother Nature. Homosexuals hurt no one, where a loveless union hurts their children.
The only people that have ever spoken out about it, are people that believe in Gods, and try to guess their God(s)' way of viewing things.
I believe that anyone who makes detrimental false statements to be more mentally inept than any homosexual. The real jackasses, the ones who are wrong, are the ones who choose to blanketly discriminate against someone that is not like them. I.E. you.
I still stand by my previous statement that you are hiding something from yourself. Your posts only solidify my belief. And, I firmly believe you owe your "out" family members, including yourself, an apology, and let them live happily.
Post by: Tripme on November 28, 2007, 09:16:00 PM
It makes no sense to me. Why are so many people devoting so much time to try and control someone else's life choices (be they consious or natural)?
This is such a dumb debate
Post by: gcskate27 on November 29, 2007, 04:10:00 AM
QUOTE(chalosf @ Nov 28 2007, 07:14 PM)
Thats not my argument, regular couples have anal sex which I also find disgusting but it doesn't make abnormal.
it serves no natural function, ie reproduction, so how is that any different to homosexual sex? your arguments are weak and contradictory...
Post by: hamwbone on November 29, 2007, 06:06:00 AM
---====Nature is not Perfect...===---
Chalosf, "why mess with nature"? How can gribble like that come out of your mouth? Every thing man has created is in your words "against nature." Go look in you medicine cabinet and tell me what you find. All kinds of pills to fight natures way of telling you your body is in pain, pills that fix your diarrhea because you are dehydrated and pills because your doctor said your cholesterol is to high. Try taking away your wife's pills to control her menstrual cycle, see how she likes. Go one step further - sex is obviously for fornication. You say a penis and a vagina are for making kids. Well next time you strap on a condom you are "going against nature" as you say. All that wasted sperm... Pity.... Oh, did you also notice that humans are the ONLY creatures on earth to wear clothes? Should we all be naked? Nature didn't give me enough fur anyway, maybe you are an exception. (I'm only guessing because of your Neanderthal way of reasoning.) Why make polluting vehicles? We all have legs to transport ourselves.
---===Acceptable to Society? Who is Society?===---
Then you go to say it wrong because it is not acceptable by the majority of a society. Most societies today are based on a god or gods or some specific religion, that is why it must be brought into the conversation! Unacceptable behavior is an opinion based on beliefs from which they were taught!!! Get that in your head!!! If social normality was the only choice a human could make there would have been ZERO advances in technology. On an even farther stretch, if social normality was mandatory in the first stages of life on this planet evolution may have never even happened. Fish aren't supposed to walk on land! derrrrrr.....
---===Explanation for being Gay?===---
As far as gay being a choice or not there is no right or wrong answer. It could be upbringing, it could be choice or it could be DNA damaged caused by cosmic radiation to bodily cells either in the person or a past ancestor. Either way, people are natural beings of this earth, so what action if any action could be unnatural? There aren't any microchips in homosexuals making them be gay. Nature makes mistakes, buddy.
-=ME=-
If any one wants to know I am an at home Christian. I have my own beliefs which I base of some of the bible teaching but I also choose to not agree with a lot of what they have to say. I some times find it hard to trust a book which was interpreted by man. I think so many church goers are hypocrites of what they preach to their death that I choose not to congregate with them. Not to say I'm not a hypocrite, I just feel that so many of the think they are better then people that don't go to church. How can I can I tell another man or woman what to do when the night before broke 6.5 of the 10 commandments. I like to make it what I want it to be. So, don't type cast all christians or religious people as narrow minded, ignorant idiots. Some of them are just weak like you and like to stick to something they believe in. Every one has to believe in some thing, makes them feel good.
Please anyone feel free to respond or criticize me.
I even have my self worked out, opinions change.I am partial to hating one group of people though... DONT ORDER YOUR PIZZA WITH FUCKING PINEAPPLE ON IT!!!!!
Post by: crackfeen on November 29, 2007, 10:04:00 AM
you know.. i was gonna contribute to the post but that pretty much sums up most of what i had to say...
i don't know why nobody mentions it, but what about oral sex? anal is a touchy subject because it's a personal choice that can be unpleasant or painful if not done right..... has anybody ever actually turned down oral? equally unnatural and equally wrong... but nobody ever brings it up in discussions against homosexuality.
Post by: chalosf on November 29, 2007, 12:15:00 PM
QUOTE(hamwbone @ Nov 29 2007, 05:42 AM) 
What people do behind closed doors is their business and theirs alone. Why should any one be concerned with what they are doing. Reason? It's an easy way for those who are to lazy and afraid to get off their keyboards and drop their microphones. Wanna feel powerful? Leave your house and go pick up some trash off the highway, go mentor a child or try raising a buck for charity.
If gay people kept it behind close doors I would not give rats ass what they did but they don't, there in the streets, specially here in San Francisco and crying for rights they should not have. Not only that but our public schools are teaching our kids that its normal. I have a 4 year old and a 2 year old and as a parent its disturbing to have to worry about this on top of all the other problems in schools. They want to force there believes into my kids like its there right which I will never accept,
Post by: gronned on November 29, 2007, 12:03:00 PM
QUOTE(chalosf @ Nov 29 2007, 08:15 PM)
If gay people kept it behind close doors I would not give rats ass what they did but they don't, there in the streets, specially here in San Francisco and crying for rights they should not have. Not only that but our public schools are teaching our kids that its normal. I have a 4 year old and a 2 year old and as a parent its disturbing to have to worry about this on top of all the other problems in schools. They want to force there believes into my kids like its there right which I will never accept,
I hope you'll one day realize what you said now. You have a very scary view on humanity and I think you fit less in society than gay people ever will. I hope you'll get some perspectives on this.
Post by: crackfeen on November 29, 2007, 01:57:00 PM
QUOTE(gronned @ Nov 29 2007, 02:39 PM)
I hope you'll one day realize what you said now. You have a very scary view on humanity and I think you fit less in society than gay people ever will. I hope you'll get some perspectives on this.
now now... freedom of speech applies.. and everyone is entitled to their own opinion...
however this though process is roughly equivalent to the concept that blacks aren't real people and are nothing more than free source of labor for farmlands...
hey chalosf how do you feel about slavery? did them darkies deserve freedom because i'll have you know they are very different from us my arian brother
and as far as "crying for rights they shouldn't have" ... why exactly shouldn't they have them? what is your primary reason aside from "it's wrong" because that's not really an explation... in argument terms that's about the same as plugging your ears and yelling lalalalalalalalalalalalala
Post by: chalosf on November 29, 2007, 03:45:00 PM
QUOTE(crackfeen @ Nov 29 2007, 01:33 PM)
now now... freedom of speech applies.. and everyone is entitled to their own opinion...
however this though process is roughly equivalent to the concept that blacks aren't real people and are nothing more than free source of labor for farmlands...
hey chalosf how do you feel about slavery? did them darkies deserve freedom because i'll have you know they are very different from us my arian brother
and as far as "crying for rights they shouldn't have" ... why exactly shouldn't they have them? what is your primary reason aside from "it's wrong" because that's not really an explation... in argument terms that's about the same as plugging your ears and yelling lalalalalalalalalalalalala
Well if I were black I would take that as an insult. Being Black/African American is a Race/Heritage that you are born with, any hatred for races or skin color is of course stupid. Comparing it to someone who chooses to be gay is a horrible example which alot of black people find offensive. No one is born Gay, its a choice just like you choose to be a good person or a bad person.
My problem with rights is that once you include gay people then there is no more point of having rights/laws, its like giving rights to a pedophile. I don't see homosexuality as a sin but more like a crime (sound stupid but thats the best way I can put it), its just not right. I don't hate homosexuals, as people they are just like anyone else, there are good gay people and bad gay people, I just truly believe that any gay person can change and there is bad or a sexual reason for them being gay/
This post has been edited by chalosf: Nov 29 2007, 11:47 PM
Post by: gronned on November 29, 2007, 03:34:00 PM
QUOTE(chalosf @ Nov 29 2007, 11:45 PM)
Well if I were black I would take that as an insult. Being Black/African American is a Race/Heritage that you are born with, any hatred for races or skin color is of course stupid. Comparing it to someone who chooses to be gay is a horrible example which alot of black people find offensive. No one is born Gay, its a choice just like you choose to be a good person or a bad person.
Homosexuality is about consenting adults, pedophelia is not. That's a major difference.
So what you're saying is that if I get some mental issues, I may potentially become gay?
What if you're wrong? Then you've hurt a lot of people for something they couldn't help being.
You claim homosexuality is a choice but you don't exactly provide a bullet-proof theory of how that could be. Considering it's a very touchy issue, I wouldn't dare to be so certain. What's your reason for believing this?
Post by: crackfeen on November 29, 2007, 04:45:00 PM
no offense, but your arguments are a logical nightmare... during the course of your arguments in just about every post you've made one type of logical fallacy or another
and let's be clear about this... there's nothing illegal about being homosexual... it's just a matter of marriage... and once again, even if you're right (though studies show otherwise) but even if homosexuality is a choice, if two consenting gay men or women want to be together... why shouldn't they
Post by: damam on November 29, 2007, 06:55:00 PM
lets entertain your hypothesis that being hetero, homo or bi is a choice, what is the harm in what anyone chooses? What damage is being done to your children? to you? to society. What is your ultimate concern here?
Post by: gcskate27 on November 29, 2007, 09:43:00 PM