Episcopal parishes in Virginia plan to place themselves under the leadership of the Anglican archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, who has called the growing acceptance of gay relationships a "satanic attack" on the church, and who supports legislation in his country that would make it illegal for gay men and lesbians to form organizations, read gay literature or eat together in a restaurant.
As I've said before, let those who want to march in lockstep to a gospel of hate go their own way. That such as Akinola is even awarded prominent standing within the Anglican Communion would make me question why anyone who embraces the gospel message would want to be affiliated with such a body at all.
More. Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson nails it.
And more, here.
214 Comments for “Church of Hate.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The willingness of the Virginia congregations to accept the moral authority of such a man, together with James Dobson’s misuse of reputable social science studies in his Time magazine column, are just the most recent examples of the moral bankruptcy of the religious right. The religious right is dangerous, and I suspect that increasing numbers of straight folks are waking up to that fact.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Time for James to show up and blame the split on the gay community choosing flamboyant homosexuals for its leaders…
posted by James on
OK, here I am!
I really, really dislike Peter Akinola. He really does not grasp Jesus’ compassion. I can’t imagine lining my church up with him. I hope we get to keep these parishs’ buildings so it’s clear they are not part of our church.
Our church is working very hard to be a welcoming place for gays. And not just because we need choir directors, either. But at the same time we offer acceptance, we offer accountability. God’s plan for healthy sex is within the boundaries of a lifelong, sexually exclusive partnership–gay or straight. The Episcopal church recognizes the long and winding road some take to get there, but that is still the ideal. Our vows–the vows I hope to take someday–still say “forsaking all others, ’til death do us part.” My criticism of the gay community is their lack of willingness to take those vows seriously.
posted by Tim on
“My criticism of the gay community is their lack of willingness to take those vows seriously.”
How many straight people take that seriously ?
posted by dr on
“Our church is working very hard to be a welcoming place for gays.”
So will your minister marry a same gender couple? Or is this a we love you, but what you might do in bed disgusts us and God situation?
posted by RON on
(1 CORINTHIANS 5: 9,10) “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdon of God? Do not be deceived, Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals nor sodomites, (v 10) nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” Can it be more plain and simple than that or is it to hard to grasp. yes you can love the sinner but also hate, dislike, diagree HIS/HER sin at the sametime, that is possible to do. (SIN IS SIN according 1 CORINTHIANS 5:9-10) there’s no gray lines.
posted by Tim on
All humans are sinners. So what’s your point ?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The willingness of the Virginia congregations to accept the moral authority of such a man, together with James Dobson’s misuse of reputable social science studies in his Time magazine column, are just the most recent examples of the moral bankruptcy of the religious right.
Yes, because, you know, so many people agree with Gene Robinson that the Apostle John was Jesus’s gay lover, and that his congregation needs to hear about his high school sexual fantasies as part of his sermon, and that he should support his fellow gays and say nothing when they advocate banning religion outright, call his parishoners “hateful lemmings”, call the Scripture “fairy tales”, claim that monogamous and faithful “normal” couples are “Stepford wives”, says his congregants are “ignorant” and “superstitious” because they believe in God and are religious, and that gays who think similarly are inferior because they have “failed to throw off the yoke of oppression”.
So, simply put, the choice to Anglicans is this: you can have a gay bishop who supports ridiculing everything you believe, or you can have one who supports what you believe but doesn’t like gays. Granted, there are many liberals out there who think it’s more important that a bishop be gay, but the vast majority of them prefer that a bishop actually believe, profess, and defend the religious teachings from which he claims authority.
Robinson is the perfect bishop for the gay left, as Mel White is the perfect pastor; tokens that can be hauled out for public display, but will not say a word as you mock everything for which they allegedly stand.
The Anglican Communion ain’t the gay left.
posted by dr on
“but the vast majority of them prefer that a bishop actually believe, profess, and defend the religious teachings from which he claims authority.”
Problem- He was elected by his congregation. I guess he was good enough for them.
Plus, all the incidents you mentioned are either made up, or ripped out of context. I read about the incident where he supposedly claimed that John was Jesus’s lover. It was obviously a joke. In fact, anyone not looking to distort the sermon to shriek about the gay left could have seen that.
In the same sermon/speach/whatever, he referenced his sexuality. He didn’t talk about his sex life, just about life experiances in general. I didn’t realize that was taboo for a minister.
As for the rest of the quotes, as far as I can tell, you, or other conservatives, have simply made them up. The only google hits on those quotes were actually links back to here, where you claim he said them.
So there we have it. Robinson wasn’t ridiculing anything. He made a mildly off-color joke and talked about real world experiances to his church. The VA churches have joined with a hateful, spiteful little man, supposedly because of Robinson, who is not their Bishop.
But don’t let that stop you for blaming gays for homophobia. Next on ND30’s list- how the East Village makes Iran hang gay teenagers.
posted by NorthDallasRetard on
Don’t even try to call out ND30, dr. His lies and blind hatred at all the phantom “lefties” that fill his head are all he has to hold onto. Just read his rants with a jaundiced eye and try not to take him too seriously, it’s obvious he’s not really being serious anyway.
posted by alex on
I think that it is telling that they are Virginia congregations that believe that we should all live under the values of a third world bishop.
posted by dr on
Also, I forgot to mention, this has NOTHING to due with the fact that the Episcopal Church recently elevated a woman to the position of Presiding Bishop. Nothing at all. They’re completely not using one more acceptable bigotry to mask a less acceptable one. Nope. Religious fundementalists would never, ever be so deceptive.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Problem- He was elected by his congregation. I guess he was good enough for them.
Of course. There are always going to be gays out there who believe that Jesus was gay, and there are always going to be liberals out there who don’t care about blasphemy as long as the person doing and supporting the blaspheming meets their diversity quota.
But unfortunately, that’s not the majority of Anglicans. They tend to be touchy about people like Robinson, and especially about the gays he supports, who want to ban religion, call the religious “hateful lemmings”, call the Scriptures “fairy tales”, etc.
What you like to call “homophobia”, Dr, is very little more than the natural reaction of people to your antireligious bigotry. You’re merely using the fact that you’re gay as some sort of smokescreen for it.
posted by Tim on
For a supposed Christian, NDT, you’re really full of hate and bitterness. I feel sorry for you.
posted by Tim on
It’s always refreshing when you meet a person who truely follows Christ’s teaching. Loving, non-judgemental people who truely believe inloving your neighbor as yourself.
Personally, I’m an athiest. I try to follow the golden rule. I Christ came back to earth, he would be truely appalled at what is done in his name.
posted by James on
I don’t like Peter Akinola–I don’t like Gene Robinson, either, for the reasons ND30 mentioned. I am a gay man who believes the Creeds and Scripture in an orthodox way. The passage from Corinthians quoted above, even from the most inerrantist Biblical standpoint, does not use the word “homosexual.” That is the translator’s choice, and it is misleading. The words in the Bible which refer to homosexual behavior have to do with Roman customs and prostitution, not two men in a lifelong, monogamous relationship.
Even the oft-quoted passage in Romans breaks down this way–1. It starts by describing heterosexual men. 2. These straight men rejected God. 3. These straight men worshipped idols. 4. God then left these straight men to their own devices, and their lusts overcame them. 5. They lusted after what was not natural to them–being heterosexual, they lusted after each other. Therefore, this passage has nothing to do with Christian men who are naturally homosexual in orientation forming lifelong, monogamous relationships based on love, not lust, and which are blessed by God. You don’t have to be a liberal to refute anti-gay religious bigotry–you just have to be a better scholar. People like Peter Akinola are misusing the Bible to support their own prejudices.
Oh, and I don’t like Mel White, either. I’m so glad I can say that. I’m glad whenever there’s a Christian witness of any kind, but his brand of Christianity is too flamboyant and exotic for me.
posted by dr on
“But unfortunately, that’s not the majority of Anglicans. They tend to be touchy about people like Robinson, and especially about the gays he supports, who want to ban religion, call the religious “hateful lemmings”, call the Scriptures “fairy tales”, etc. ”
Provide quotes or shut the fuck up about it.
“What you like to call “homophobia”, Dr, is very little more than the natural reaction of people to your antireligious bigotry. You’re merely using the fact that you’re gay as some sort of smokescreen for it.”
I’m sorry calling a spade a spade is so offensive to you. I’m also sorry you can’t see that religious homophobia has been around for a very long time, and feel the need to call out people who confront it. That’s not bigotry, that’s speaking the truth.
“I don’t like Gene Robinson, either, for the reasons ND30 mentioned.”
I’d like to hear you state those reasons in your own words. What creeds has he repudiated? How has he broken with an interpretation of Scripture? Please provide links.
posted by CPT_Doom on
But unfortunately, that’s not the majority of Anglicans. They tend to be touchy about people like Robinson, and especially about the gays he supports, who want to ban religion, call the religious “hateful lemmings”, call the Scriptures “fairy tales”, etc.
ND30 is completely correct that the Anglican “church” (being raised Roman Catholic, we were taught to question the authenticity of these heretical offshoots of the true Church – the Roman one) must be free to set their own theology and standards for their “priests” and “bishops.” However, criticizing Mr. Robinson specifically, as well as characterizing all those gays (and presumably straights) who support him as being “anti-religious,” is exactly the kind of bigotry that the rabbi Jesus of Nazareth fought against. If Mr. Robinson, because of his individual actions, is not fit to be a bishop, then fine, he as an individual should not have been elected. But to use Mr. Robinson, or any gay person or stereotype, to argue that no gays are fit for membership in the church, is bigotry, pure and simple. Just as the rabbi taught in the parable of the Good Samaritan, even though someone may live an “immoral” life according to your religious beliefs, that does not mean they must automatically be considered inferior, unworthy, etc. Yet that is exactly what people like Akinola promote, and that is despicable. I really wonder how these breakaway churches are going to function in modern human society if they are going to follow Akinola’s theology – does this mean their congregants can’t work with gay people? can’t be served by gay waiters and waitresses? can’t have gay teachers instructing their students? How unworthy will these churches find gay people, and how far will they be willing to go to force their bigotry on a society that is rapidly rejecting it?
(1 CORINTHIANS 5: 9,10) “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdon of God? Do not be deceived, Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals nor sodomites, (v 10) nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” Can it be more plain and simple than that or is it to hard to grasp. yes you can love the sinner but also hate, dislike, diagree HIS/HER sin at the sametime, that is possible to do. (SIN IS SIN according 1 CORINTHIANS 5:9-10) there’s no gray lines.
I will never understand why people like Ron, who quote Saul, also known as Paul, a man who never met the rabbi Jesus of Nazareth, call themselves “Christians.” Since their religion is not based on the teachings of that rabbi, but rather interpretations of those teachings made by a relatively ignorant man in the first century CE (he was foisted on the non-Jewish communities of early Christians because of his disagreements with the true apostles), why don’t they just refer to themselves as “Paulists,” because that is what they are.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Provide quotes or shut the fuck up about it.
Here’s a hint; google “Elton John” and “hateful lemming”.
Or you can just go back over here and take a look.
Then we’ll talk.
posted by dr on
Yeah. That’s from Elton John. Not a Bishop from NH. Try again. And be honest this time.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Unfortunately, dr, you missed the point.
Who do you think most loudly condemned Elton John’s words — Bishop Akinola, or Gene Robinson?
In fact, have you EVER seen Gene Robinson speak out against antireligious bigotry, especially among gays?
I guess he’s too busy talking about his Jesus and John sex fantasies.
Anglicans recognize this, you know; unfortunately for Robinson, more of them are concerned with their faith and their religious beliefs than they are in meeting their minority quota.
posted by dr on
Or maybe they simply don’t give a damn what a British celebrity says. That’s the simplest answer, and they would explain why only a handful of churches in VA are leaving the congregation. Or maybe its that anti-religious bigotry is a boogie man that fundementalists trot out to defend their own bigotry.
“Oh no, someone said something silly, our faith is in peril! If only our bishop would respond!”
Most people simply don’t give a damn. Those that pretend to care have an agenda, like yours, which is to try shout down anyone from confronting religious bigotry.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “Anglicans recognize this, you know; unfortunately for Robinson, more of them are concerned with their faith and their religious beliefs than they are in meeting their minority quota.”
Huh? What is your point here? From what I can tell you are delusional and borderline psychotic so asking you to flesh out a point might be a zero-sum folly. But, really, what the hell does your post above mean? You need to take some time off away from the keyboard because you have completely lost it. If you have such deep undying hatred for homosexuals, why post on gay websites?
posted by Craig2 on
Fortunately, most New Zealand Anglicans don’t want to be in close proximity with the Barely Anglican Right, so are likely to side with mainstream Episcopalians and Canadian Anglicans than Akinola and his entourage.
Craig2
Wellington,
New Zealand
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That’s the simplest answer, and they would explain why only a handful of churches in VA are leaving the congregation.
You must not have read the whole article, especially the part which talks about the numerous other churches that are considering and/or planning the same thing. And that also doesn’t take into consideration all of the different national churches outside the United States, several of whom have made it clear that they don’t think much of Gene Robinson and his fellow antireligious bigots and blasphemers, nor will they suffer in silence to meet a diversity quota.
And for ColoradoPatriot, just as an aside; my point is that more people care about whether or not their pastor follows and preaches their religion than they do whether s/he is gay, straight, or anything else. Robinson is an example of the opposite, in which liberals thought they could get away with promoting a blasphemer and supporter of antireligious bigotry in the name of “diversity”.
They forgot that, unlike them, other churches actually value the Scriptures, and don’t consider them, as do gays, to be “fairy tales”, or that religion should be banned, or that religious people are all “hateful lemmings”.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “Robinson is an example of the opposite, in which liberals thought they could get away with promoting a blasphemer and supporter of antireligious bigotry in the name of “diversity”.
They forgot that, unlike them, other churches actually value the Scriptures, and don’t consider them, as do gays, to be “fairy tales”, or that religion should be banned, or that religious people are all “hateful lemmings”.”
What? You lost me again…Liberals (according to you, liberal gays) elected Robinson because he is a blasphemer? Do gays run the Episcopal Church or did they commit some sort of fraud on the rest of the parishners? Is Elton John a member of the Episcopal church? Why are you so hung up on the British man’s opinion? Surely you don’t honestly believe that he speaks for anyone but himself (and even then I don’t see what his quote has to do with Robinson or the Episcopal Church). Are you saying that gays (I assume you are speaking of ALL gays besides yourself) would infiltrate a church for years and years until they held a majority and then vote in a “antireligious bigot”? Why would “gays” do that? More importantly, where do you buy your tinfoil hats?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Liberals (according to you, liberal gays) elected Robinson because he is a blasphemer?
No, they chose him because he’s gay.
The fact that he was a blasphemer was inconvenient, but let’s face facts; given that the vast majority of gays are antireligious bigots, there weren’t many candidates, and certainly not many, if ANY, who weren’t like Robinson.
posted by James on
I agree with ND30 so much on this thread that I am tempted to say, “You go, girlfriend (snap!)” –but I refrain.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “given that the vast majority of gays are antireligious bigots…”
Please site a source for this assertion other than your own delusional blog. You seem to have a problem with facts and proper documentation, you should probably work on that before you post more hate-filled lies. You do realize that your delusional rants and your multiple lies hurts your credibility don’t you?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “there weren’t many candidates, and certainly not many, if ANY, who weren’t like Robinson.”
What? Could you please rephrase that in a way that makes some sort of sense? What exactly do you mean by “like Robinson?” Are you saying that most Episcopals are antireligious bigot gay blasphemers? Care to site a study on Episcopal beliefs that backs up your statement?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I gave two examples of gays and antireligious bigotry right above, thank you. Start with those.
What exactly do you mean by “like Robinson?” Are you saying that most Episcopals are antireligious bigot gay blasphemers?
Hardly.
My point was that the Anglicans wanted to elect a gay bishop.
The talent pool is very thin to start with because most gays are antireligious bigots. About the best they could find was Robinson, and he’s a blasphemer.
That’s what you get when your main consideration for choosing a bishop is their minority status.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
The only thing you “proved” is that Elton John once said something offensive to you. How does this prove that most gays are antireligious bigots? Do you have any proof other than random statements in blog talkbacks? Didn’t think so. Please stop posting lies and then backing up those lies with links to your own blog…that is further proof of your dishonesty and bankrupt morals.
posted by dalea on
According to a survery done by marketers on gay religious by GLCensus Partner (www.glcensus.org) Study – A Syracuse University and OpusComm Group research Partnership, something is now known about gay religious practices and beliefs. Per the study, gay people break down pretty much the way Americans in general break down by religious affiliation. Here is something from the survey:
With 8,831 respondents, the 2002-2003 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census is the largest and most comprehensive GLBT consumer study ever conducted. Prepared by GLCensus Partners (Syracuse University and OpusComm Group), the annual study fills the growing need among manufacturers and service providers for detailed information on consumer behavior and preferences of the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender (GLBT) community.
Of those respondents who answered both the religious affiliation and currently practicing questions, there are 11 religions with 200 or more members. Among these, the highest percentage of those saying they are practicing members of their respective religions are: Pagan (84.6%), Metropolitan Community Church (79.4%), Unitarian (66.7%), Episcopal (57.6%) and Jewish (47.5%).
The survey can be found here: http://glcensus.org/press/08062003.html
The conductors of the survey are marketers. They make their living or fail based on the quality of their results. This group has been around a long time, with a long string of very successful results. The question about religion was asked as a side issue in surveys on general g&l consumer preferences. Since their findings on g&l preferences in products have consistently been found to be reliable, there is no real reason to expect the results on religion not to be.
Interestingly, the market researchers go gay and lesbian. They do not schlep in bisexual, questioning on and on. Just g&l.
It appears from this that about 2/3rds of us are at least nominally religious. What I find truly fascinating is that looking at those who are actively religious the most numerous are Catholics, followed by Pagans. Really there are more active gay & lesbian Pagans than Episcopalians. (Multiply the % affiliated by the %active to arrive at this finding.)
posted by dalea on
Just when did the Episcopalians become a church defined by adhering to very specific doctrines? It is my understanding that Anglicanism in general is a ‘broad’ church open to a very wide range of Christianities. The technical term is ‘latitudinarian’.
Which is what came from being a national church ‘by law established’. In a country torn by centuries of religious strife. The national church simply became open to all sorts of religious expression by necessity. Looking at the Episcopal diversity, it is not at all clear to me why this hooha is coming up now. Except some right wing loons who are financing it.
One classic thread of Anglicanism is called Anglo-Catholocism, or the High Church Party. Bishop Robinson seems to be affiliated with that group. As have many gays over the years: Waugh, Maughm, Forrester. The High Church Party does away with all the tedious Bilbical haggling and hair splitting by finding its inspiration, and practice, in the demonstrably older practices of the Mass, the Eucharist, the Scaraments and the Tradition of the Church.
From this viewpoint, the Bible does not create the Church. The early Church created the Bible, as a commentary on its liturgy and practices and as a source book for stories. Since the Bible did not assume its current form until the 16th century while the form of the Mass has existed since before the reign of Diocletian, this strikes me as entirely realistic. And factual. All of which seems to be the position taken by the ‘liberals’ in this discussion. The ‘liberals’ appear to be following truly ancient paths; the ‘conservative’ appear to follow a modern path that began just over 100 years ago.
The idea of Bible supremacy has to be a modern notion. Because it depends on widespread literacy and the technology to produce books. Which did not exist prior to about 1500 CE. Or seriously in the Western World much before 1850. Indeed the idea of ‘fundamentalism’ did not come into existence intil the 1890’s.
So, when did the Anglican/Episcopal church commit to Biblical Inerrancy? Never happened. The dissenters are modernists, the liberals are traditionalist.
posted by Antaeus on
“I guess he’s too busy talking about his Jesus and John sex fantasies.” ND30 keeps saying that as if it scandalized him. But Robinson said no such thing – and yes, I checked the article you provided so many posts back. I’m surprised nobody called you on it. Gene Robinson merely pointed out that Jesus was closest to his disciples, twelve celibates. That was his “family”, not a nuclear one in which he filled the suburban cradle. Nowhere did Robinson fuel fantasies or allege the gayness of Jesus, which is a perfectly fine opinion, anyway.
What is dismaying is how ND30 feigns “shock, shock” at the very concept – and on a gay site. I doubt he’s even a believer – but like Ralph Reed merely sought an absolutist, spiritual cover for his politics. Belial, get thee behind me!
posted by raj on
As shown here (“US millionaire bankrolls crusade against gay Anglican priests,” The (UK) Guardian, Sunday October 12, 2003) and here (“Avenging angel of the religious right: Quirky millionaire Howard Ahmanson Jr. is on a mission from God to stop gay marriage, fight evolution, defeat “liberal” churches — and reelect George W. Bush,” Salon, Jan. 6, 2004) (and possibly elsewhere), this brou-ha-ha in the Episcopalian church did not come out of the blue. It was specifically instigated by far right-wing interests financed by nutty multi-millionaire-by-inheritance Howard Ahmanson to defeat liberal churches. Ahmanson had been a devotee of R. J. Rushdooney’s Christian Reconstructionism, which, of course, advocates execution of gay people.
Those who were financed by Ahmanson have used tactics that would have made Josef Goebbels proud to foment dissent in the Episcopalean ranks.
posted by raj on
Antaeus | December 19, 2006, 7:39am |
“I guess he’s too busy talking about his Jesus and John sex fantasies.” ND30 keeps saying that as if it scandalized him.
Did NDXXX really write that? It says more about NDXXX’s rather fetid and scatological imagination than anything else.
I guess that my referring to him as NDXXX is more correct than I would have imagined.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Nice try, Antaneus, but this is what Robinson said:
In answer to a question from the congregation about how the acceptance of homosexuality could be squared with the scriptural emphasis on redemption for sins, the Bishop replied: “Interestingly enough, in this day of traditional family values, this man that we follow was single, as far as we know, travelled with a bunch of men, had a disciple who was known as ‘the one whom Jesus loved’ and said my family is not my mother and father, my family is those who do the will of God. None of us likes those harsh words. That’s who Jesus is, that’s who he was at heart, in his earthly life.”
Now why else would he bring up that whole “disciple who Jesus loved” thing, as well as the fact that Jesus “travelled with a bunch of men” in response to a question specifically related to homosexuality? It isn’t even Scripturally correct, given that Jesus had many female disciples as well.
Robinson tried to paint Jesus as gay to rationalize his own sex life, and it backfired rather remarkably.
And what I find entertaining, Antaeus, is that, despite your insistence that there’s “nothing wrong” with claiming that Jesus is gay, that you have to try to claim that Robinson wasn’t saying that. Robinson was reinforcing what you believe — why can’t you support it?
Or is it because you leftists who like to accuse others of pushing propaganda are afraid to let people know what you believe?
posted by Don Norte on
The religious right is under attack as more and more gays and lesbians in positions of power are “outed” or “open” about their sexual orientation. I am seeing a movement to create an environment of hate and using this sort of religious propaganda to control free thinking in the name of GOD. Oppression is plain un-christian regardless of your faith.
posted by NorthDallasRetard on
Further proof of ND30’s inability to grasp complex (and even not-so-complex) ideas. Why is it that you can’t seem to communicate with anyone without resorting to personal attacks (hehe…I know this is odd coming from someone who posts under a name that is indeed a personal attack, however justified)? You again post this quote from Robinson and act like we should all be outraged (OUTRAGED!!!) by this act of faux-blasphemy. Robinson was pointing out facts about Jesus and his disciples (and yes, one was described as “the one Jesus loved”) that have beed bandied about for centuries…there is nothing outrageous or blasphemous here. Your attempts to paint Robinson as some sort of radical (anti-) Christian is as laughable as your other tired retorts and conspiracy theories. What do you seek to gain from your hateful diatribes here? I think you just want to get more hits to your pitiful and stupid blog…why else would you endlessly link to it and claim it as your “proof”? Please stop resorting to attacks and lies on this board, you are doing nothing and are making yourself a laughing-stock. Please seek help for your psychotic delusions.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
One classic thread of Anglicanism is called Anglo-Catholocism, or the High Church Party. Bishop Robinson seems to be affiliated with that group. As have many gays over the years: Waugh, Maughm, Forrester. The High Church Party does away with all the tedious Bilbical haggling and hair splitting by finding its inspiration, and practice, in the demonstrably older practices of the Mass, the Eucharist, the Scaraments and the Tradition of the Church.
Not unlike the pre-Reformation Catholic Church, which banned the Bible and substituted the canon law in its place.
Why? Because canon law was easier to rewrite to suit the moment. Because the Bible was so widespread and known, deletion or insertion of passages to suit the Church’s need would be too blatant; however, invoking “tradition” instead was quick and easy.
The confidence and arrogance of leftists like Robinson in lying to their flock and claiming “tradition” as equal to Scripture is well exemplified by dalea’s statement that the Mass, the Eucharist, etc. predate the Scriptures.
What leftists like Robinson who wish to abolish Scripture so that their own words can be substituted do is to conflate the fact that the canon of the Bible, or list of books that were to be commonly included, was still technically in flux (and would, in a most technical sense, remain so for centuries); however, what they ignore is that the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), the Acts, the Hebrew Bible, and the writings of the Apostles were well-established and accepted by this time, and it is from all of those that the Mass, the Eucharist, and their other rites were created.
However, dalea, thanks for making it obvious that Robinson and his fellow leftists like Schori believe that the Mass, Eucharist, Sacraments, and Traditions, which he and his fellow bishops are rewriting at will, came BEFORE the Bible, and that the Bible is subordinate and inferior to all of those.
And you people wonder why Akinola looks so good to Episcopalians right now. Maybe it’s because he doesn’t ignore Article XX of the Thirty-Nine Articles, or pretend that Article XXV does not make it clear that the Sacraments are ordained in the Gospel.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Robinson was pointing out facts about Jesus and his disciples (and yes, one was described as “the one Jesus loved”) that have beed bandied about for centuries…there is nothing outrageous or blasphemous here.
Had Robinson merely been repeating the Scriptures, that would be one thing; after all, John IS referred to as “the disciple that Jesus loved” in there, and it is clear that the twelve apostles were all men.
However, what Robinson did was to cite both of those in response to a question about homosexuality. He could have pointed out that the Gospels don’t talk about it; however, he tried to claim that homosexuality was OK because Jesus was gay, and as proof he cited the fact that Jesus surrounded himself with men and that John was “the disciple whom Jesus loved”.
And what I think is funny is that you leftists have already said that “there’s nothing wrong with Robinson claiming Jesus was gay”. Why, then, are you so upset when it’s pointed out? Say that Robinson was correct in claiming that Jesus was gay, if you believe it so vehemently.
posted by Dave in Los Angeles on
The thing that makes this conversation, and conversations like it, so difficult is that it ends up being several conversations all at once…and we allow that overlap to cloud what we’re really talking about. I’m gonna take a few issues seperately.
First Issue: Is homosexuality really condemned by God or the Bible?
Certainly some religious people from a wide range of faith communities would cite six passages in the Bible as being in condemnation of same-sex sexual behavior. On the reverse, other religious people from THOSE SAME faith communities and others have said that…
a) Long-held INTERPRETATIONS of the meaning of some of these passages are incorrect and those passages actually condemn things other than homosexuality.
b) Some TRANSLATIONS of certain passages have added homosexuality in word or idea only in recent history. Some would have us believe this is the work of God, others don’t believe that to be true.
c) Some Biblical authors (ie…Paul) had a conception of same-sex sexual behavior that didn’t take into account contemporary views on sexual orientation, and referred to these things only in terms of prostitution.
I could break these down specifically, but this is the basic argument. In an effort toward full disclosure, I fall on the “not believing the Bible or God condemns homosexuality” side.
With that, I’m an openly gay person who considers myself to be religious. I attend an Episcopal church every Sunday and attempt to practice the way of Jesus in my life every day. I am certainly NOT a “religious bigot” because I am religious myself and value MY right to practice my religion as I believe is correct.
Second Issue: Do we have a right to challenge people who believe homosexuality is a sin and use that belief to advocate for the oppression of gay people?
The simple answer is…absolutely and without question. Religious freedom ONLY extends to the government’s role in maintaining one’s right to practice their faith, NOT to another citizen’s right to engage us in discourse over our beliefs. So for Elton John to call people who hold anti-gay beliefs “hateful lemmings” is nothing more than his OPINION, and does nothing to keep religious people from practicing their religion. It also doesn’t necessarily refer to ALL religious people (thereby making him “anti-religious”) but to people who hold these specific beliefs. The term “bigot” in reference to this statement is actually incorrect as well, since bigotry as a concept refers to hatred based on IDENTITY, not based on BELIEF. Therefore, if Elton John hated all Catholics by virtue of their identifying as Catholic for example, he could be called a bigot. But not in this case.
Third Issue: Do most gay people hate religion?
Do we even need to discuss this? There are gay people who hate religion. There are gay people who love religion. There are even gay people who love the very religions that people like Dobson come from, whether or not they agree with his views. Certainly there are plenty of gay people who have become disenfranchised by virtue of the VIEWS of people like Dobson, but to say that we all hate religion is a broad (and yes…BIGOTED because it is a) untrue and b) in reference to a group of people based on identity) generalization.
Fourth Issue: Was Jesus gay?
Yes. Jesus was gay. And No. Jesus wasn’t gay. If we believe in Jesus, we know Jesus came to die for ALL of our sins, and we were ALL created in the image of God. Jesus, unlike us, was not born with original sin, lived a sinless life and wasn’t put here to HAVE sex. He WAS put here to teach us how to LOVE and to DIE for our sins. Robinson’s comments could have been interpreted as saying that Jesus was gay, but he never actually comes out and says this, so we shouldn’t assume that’s what he was saying.
Final Issue: The split of the Episcopal Church.
It’s a shame, but homosexuality isn’t the biggest issue the church is dealing with. The female archbishop was a MUCH bigger controversy. The two issues together are obviously too much for a few Episcopal churches to handle at this point, and they feel the need to split off. This happens all the time throughout history, and at the end of the day, it’s relatively minor.
I hope this’ll help frame this conversation a bit better. Whether you agree with my actual points or not, I hope it’ll help us clear up what we’re really talking about. Thanks for reading.
posted by NorthDallasRetard on
Actually ND30, the combining of wine and bread to form a “communion” between oneself and a higher power is a very old tradition…much older then Christ. Do you honestly believe that Robinson was stating that “Jesus was gay”? That is a ridiculous over-simplification of the points he was trying to make about sin and you know it, stop f*cking around with quotes to make them fit your conspiracy-minded agenda. I’m not upset that someone says “Jesus was gay” so don’t make the claim to the otherwise, to do so is dishonest and a blatant abuse of this board. The historical sin of homosexuality is that it didn’t produce offspring; the sin did not lie in the sexual act. Since there was no “gay” identity in the time of Christ (we were still a couple millenia away from that), He couldn’t be classified as such. Did Jesus have sex with men? Who the f*ck cares. Next psychotic ND30 talking point please…
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually ND30, the combining of wine and bread to form a “communion” between oneself and a higher power is a very old tradition…much older then Christ.
Then let leftist Robinson publicly confess that he doesn’t believe that Christ initiated the Sacrament, or that the Bible has nothing to do with it, and that he’s just following an ancient tradition of god- or goddess-worship from some other society.
The more I find out from gay leftists like you what Robinson actually believes, the more convinced I am that these congregations are right in leaving.
Do you honestly believe that Robinson was stating that “Jesus was gay”?
Yes.
What I also believe is that leftists like yourself are spinning so hard because you know very well that’s what he meant. That’s why you’re doing this, “it was OK for Robinson to say Jesus was gay, but it’s wrong for you to point out the fact that he did”; it’s all about PR, because you know your leftist bishop won’t keep his support once people find out what he truly believes.
Like I said, be honest. State publicly that Robinson believes that Jesus was gay, that the Scriptures are crap and were made up, and that the Sacraments are nothing more than some old ritual carried forward.
posted by Antaeus on
Hey ND30, why don’t you admit that if Jesus were gay, you’d find him unworthy of worship? Come on, friend, I’m just smoking you out! Would you worship a gay Jesus?
posted by raj on
NorthDallasRetard | December 19, 2006, 2:15pm |
Actually ND30, the combining of wine and bread to form a “communion” between oneself and a higher power is a very old tradition…much older then Christ.
I don’t know whether the tradition is older than Christ, but if you think about it, since in the christian tradition the bread->flesh and the wine->blood, the “communion” ceremony is little more than ritual cannibalism.
posted by James on
The question is not whether gays are “relgious.” A lot of people have a misty, mystical appreciation of a God-presence–which doesn’t call them to any sort of moral action.
The question is, are there a lot of gays who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and want to follow his direction? My decision is to only have sex with those men that Jesus wants me to have sex with. My life partner is His decision and His choice. And I predict He will give me only one–or maybe He’ll call me to be single. The point is, Jesus is my Lord, and He has the final say. These are vows I took at my baptism.
How many gay men have submitted their lives in this way to God? How many of them make themselves accountable to their church to help them discern what God wants for them?
Most gays, IMHO, like the tingly feeling they get from saying “Jesus” or smelling the incense or critiquing the church decorations–but they just do what they want without any concern whether God wants them to do it or not. And if someone tries to hold them accountable, they just scream “Homophobe!” and walk away in a huff.
I want a church who helps me discern what Jesus wants for my life, not to tell me that whatever I do is OK. Is that what most gays want?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So for Elton John to call people who hold anti-gay beliefs “hateful lemmings” is nothing more than his OPINION, and does nothing to keep religious people from practicing their religion.
You must have missed the first part of that quote.
Elton John has said organized religion should be banned because it promotes homophobia and turns some people into “hateful lemmings”.
“I would ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it,” the British singer said in an interview with the Observer newspaper on Sunday.
“Religion has always tried to turn hatred toward gay people. It turns people into hateful lemmings and it is not really compassionate.”
It’s kind of hard to practice one’s religious beliefs when they’re banned, isn’t it?
Now, to this:
With that, I’m an openly gay person who considers myself to be religious. I attend an Episcopal church every Sunday and attempt to practice the way of Jesus in my life every day. I am certainly NOT a “religious bigot” because I am religious myself and value MY right to practice my religion as I believe is correct.
Well, unfortunately, Elton John says that your organized religion should be banned and that you shouldn’t have that right.
If a religious rightist says homosexuality SHOULD be banned, gay leftists have treated that as an all-out attack; they have not ignored it as an “opinion”, or have disallowed it being applied to other religious people because it was only one person’s opinion.
But when Elton John says religion SHOULD be banned, gays are insistent that that should be ignored as HIS opinion, that it doesn’t apply to all gay people because it’s only his, etc.
Next up:
Do we even need to discuss this? There are gay people who hate religion. There are gay people who love religion. There are even gay people who love the very religions that people like Dobson come from, whether or not they agree with his views.
What you forget though, Dave, is that gay people who fall into the latter two categories are inferior to those in the first, according to gay leftists.
Indeed, given your beliefs, you should know what these gay leftists say about people like you who have held on to their religious beliefs and believe that they are important:
On the other hand, I don’t find it admirable that he was unable to throw off his yoke of his christian upbringing, which would have freed him from that there was something missing in his life that he believed needed correcting. More than a few of us have.
Put bluntly, the fact that there are gay Christians and religious folk out there does not change the fact that the majority of the gay community looks down on them, mocks them, and considers them inferior for not “throwing off their upbringing”.
Now, indeed, Dave, I am on board with you in several respects. But the difference between us is that I am no longer willing to minimize the depth and breadth of antireligious bigotry that exists in the gay community. Your statements would be substantially correct if that wasn’t a consideration, but it is the twelve-ton elephant that sits in the corner of the room.
Until leftists like Elton John and several of the commentors here stop cloaking their antireligious bigotry with their sexual orientation, or leftist gays like Robinson stop trying to twist religion to avoid having to criticize gay peoples’ behaviors, we will have this problem.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
What a miserable person ND30 is…really and truly worthy of derision and scorn. Why do you have such hate for your fellow homosexuals and Christians? You are an abusive person who is obviously very VERY unwell. I’m tired of asking you for proof to your varied lies and deliberate abuse of quotes. Please seek help for your deep mental illness and stop spreading lies on this board.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Hey ND30, why don’t you admit that if Jesus were gay, you’d find him unworthy of worship? Come on, friend, I’m just smoking you out! Would you worship a gay Jesus?
Of course I would worship a gay Jesus. Or a married or female Jesus, for that matter.
However, the Scriptures do not say that Jesus was gay or married; they do say that he was male.
Where Robinson errs, Antaeus, is that he wants Scripture to say that Jesus was gay; therefore, he cites things to attempt prove his point, like John being “the disciple who Jesus loved”, or the fact that the Twelve Apostles were all men, or that sort of thing.
This works if you are a casual Episcopalian or secular leftist; however, to anyone who has seriously read the Scripture and its history, you know two things:
1. Jesus had several female disciples who traveled with him and supported him as well.
2. The Gospel of John, in which the reference is made to the “disciple who Jesus loved” was originally written in Koine Greek, which has several different words for “love” with drastically different meanings. The ones used in the phrase Robinson mentioned are for brotherly love and for self-sacrificing love, not for romantic or sexual love.
In short, Robinson tries to make of Jesus’s sexuality a certainty of which the Scriptures say naught — and in an attempt to ignore or bypass what Scripture DOES say, far more clearly, rather than dealing with those passages directly.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: Ok, I’ll bite…”Where Robinson errs, Antaeus, is that he wants Scripture to say that Jesus was gay” Please site your source for Robinson “wanting” the scripture to say that Jesus was gay (and, please, don’t just post Robinson’s quote referenced above…and no link to your own blog either). Don’t look too hard though ND30, because it doesn’t exist. This is just another of your countless lies.
Also from the same post, “The Gospel of John, in which the reference is made to the “disciple who Jesus loved” was originally written in Koine Greek, which has several different words for “love” with drastically different meanings. The ones used in the phrase Robinson mentioned are for brotherly love and for self-sacrificing love, not for romantic or sexual love.”
Please site your sources for this claim. On another point…how does the love of Jesus for John compare to the love of King David for Jonathon?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North Dallas 30 said “What you like to call “homophobia”, Dr, is very little more than the natural reaction of people to your antireligious bigotry. You’re merely using the fact that you’re gay as some sort of smokescreen for it.”
North Dallas, you don’t even believe that yourself. You just look like you’re profoundly ignorant at best and mentally ill at worst when you spout such absurdities. Every LGBT, and for that matter, every straight person, knows its the other way around – gays are anti-religous because of anti-gay religious bigotry. Gays are merely responding to a bible their told says gays should be put to death, that says gays should be tortured for an eternity for having a loving monogamous same sex relationship. You can falsely rant all day and night (and I’m sure you will) that anti-religious gays came before anti-gay religionists but it just reinforces the image of you as a bitter self-loathing fool.
You say “the vast majority of gays are antireligious bigots…” but Dalea has shown you wrong with his study. Certainly many LGBTs are anti-religious and with good reason. We’re sick of your buy-bull bullshit saying gays should be put to death and tortured for an eternity. That’s what came first North Dallas and you know it, that’s why LGBTs like me are sickened and disgusted with your religion. My hatred of religion is a direct result of the anti-gay bigotry I’ve dealt with over and over since I accepted my being bisexual and transgendered. Now that’s all that religion has become, that is all it clearly represents, anti-gay hatred and bigotry. That has become the sum total of religion for many LGBTs, and its the fault of religion, not LGBTS
North Dallas 30 said “If a religious rightist says homosexuality SHOULD be banned, gay leftists have treated that as an all-out attack; they have not ignored it as an “opinion”, or have disallowed it being applied to other religious people because it was only one person’s opinion.
But when Elton John says religion SHOULD be banned, gays are insistent that that should be ignored as HIS opinion, that it doesn’t apply to all gay people because it’s only his, etc.”.
North Dallas 30, that’s because religion started the war on gays, not vice versa. Thats because the majority of religious people are attacking gays and justifying it by saying the bible itself says gays should be killed and eternally tortured. There’s no comparing Elton John’s opposition to religion with religion’s attack on gays, they are not even remotely the same thing. Who we love is at the core of our being, its innate, central and integral to our very lives. Religion is merely a choice. To oppose being gay is to oppose the very person. To oppose religion is to oppose a superficial choice.
Jesus was clearly gay by the way:
That there was indeed a secret gospel and an initiation into the mysteries of the religion now known as Christianity is dramatically attested by the “Secret Gospel of Mark,” found in a manuscript discovered by Morton Smith in 1958, in the Monastery of Mar Saba southeast of Jerusalem. The Greek text found by Smith appears originally to have been composed at the end of the second century by Clement of Alexandria. [10] Clement is replying to one Theodore who has been upset by claims that there was a secret gospel of Mark which differed from the canonic (official) version. Clement tells him that indeed there is a secret gospel used by the Alexandrian church for initiation into the Christian mysteries. He gives several examples of material present in the secret gospel but absent in the canonic one. One of the more interesting “secrets” revealed by Clement tells us:
?Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. [11]
10] Titus Flavius Clemens (ca. C.E. 150 – ca. 211), Prominent early church father.
[11] Morton Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1973, p. 447.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You say “the vast majority of gays are antireligious bigots…” but Dalea has shown you wrong with his study.
And you show Dalea wrong with your post.
If dalea’s study is true, Randi, people like you who are complete antireligious bigots, hate religion to its core, and consider gays who follow religion to be “self-loathing”…..are a tiny, tiny, fringe minority.
What it also shows, if it is true, is that, despite how religion has treated them, the vast majority of gays have NOT become antireligious bigots; therefore, your argument that your antireligious bigotry is only a natural outgrowth of how you were treated by the religious because of your sexual orientation is not supported by the evidence.
I will accept dalea’s study as true if you are willing to admit the following:
1. Gays like yourself who completely oppose religion do so for reasons OTHER THAN how they were treated by the religious because of their sexual orientation, inasmuch as dalea’s study claims that the majority of gays do NOT completely oppose religion, despite being treated the same way because of their sexual orientation.
2. Gays like yourself who completely oppose religion represent a tiny fraction of the total population of gays.
Meanwhile, as to the Secret Gospel of Mark, I don’t feel you would make an apt student to whom to explain the Gnostic heresy, the worldview of Clement of Alexandria, or even the fact that many scholars contest whether or not the author is the historic Clement of Alexandria. It’s not that you couldn’t learn it; it’s just that you’ve made obvious that what you want is a gay Jesus, and you won’t accept anything else.
posted by James on
Perhaps what you are experience as “anti-gay bigotry and homophobia” is the attitude of mature adults who say, “It’s great that you’re gay–we love you for it–but could you please take off the Gwen Stefani wig, find a nice young man, have kids and settle down?” Maybe they don’t hate you because you’re gay–maybe they hate you because you’re a whiny perpetual adolescent who happens to be gay.
posted by James on
By the way, the above was a comment for Randi. As for ND30, you go, girlfriend (snap)!
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
You’re pretty funny North Dallas. So, which is it, do I show Dalea wrong with my post or is he right and I am a tiny tiny fringe minority?
Earlier you were ranting on and on about how all gays are anti-religious bigots. Now when you want to disparage me personally suddenly you completely contradict yourself and and want me to tell you gays who completely oppose religion represent a tiny fraction of the total population of gays. Your characterization of the situation changes 180 degrees depending on which way you feel best works to disparage whomever you happen to be arguing with at the time.
Your claim that you will accept Dalea’s study as true depending on what I say just shows how insincere and irrational you are. The validity of the study is independent of anything I say. I only represent myself, I certainly don’t claim, as you do, to speak for all gays. However, no doubt at a later time you’re going to use what I say as another excuse to lie and we’ll later see you claiming all gays have said the things that I am solely responsible for.
I beg your forgiveness for being presumptuous, but do you think there’s maybe a tiny tiny chance that after living my live for 45 years I might know my motivations just a wee bit better than you who don’t know jack shit about me? Talk about arrogance from mental illness. Let me assure you I despise religion because of all the anti-gay religiously justified bigotry I heard from religious and even non-religious people – yes non-religious anti-gay bigots use your despicable buy-bull to justify their bigotry too.
Now as we both know you will eventually do another 180 degree turn and get back to the lie that all gays are anti-religious bigots. Pray tell me, if its not the endless ranting about how its sinful to be gay, about how gays should be put to death, about how gays are going to burn in hell, about how we shouldn’t be allowed to have a relationship, let alone get married because “god” says so, just what the fuck is the reason you think I and other LGBTs despise your religion?!?!! What insane rationalization can your twisted mind come up with for a reaon why we hate religion, if not that? Who the hell do you think you’re kidding.
Frankly, I don’t care if Jesus was gay or not, it doesn’t mean much to me. He is after all just a fictional character in a fairy tale.
James at December 19, 2006, 9:13pm said
“Perhaps what you are experience as “anti-gay bigotry and homophobia” is the attitude of mature adults who say, “It’s great that you’re gay–we love you for it–but could you please take off the Gwen Stefani wig, find a nice young man, have kids and settle down?” Maybe they don’t hate you because you’re gay–maybe they hate you because you’re a whiny perpetual adolescent who happens to be gay.”
James, your ignorance is unsurprising seeing as you, like North Dallas, know nothing about me and my experiences. You see, those “mature adults” said nothing of the sort. Contrary to your pollyanna fantasy they said “Its terrible that you’re transgendered, we hate you for it, we don’t want to see you with a man, we don’t want you to settle down with and marry that man, don’t come around here with him and embarrass us, that’s a sin.”.
James, I have a wonderful man, its you and North Dallas that’s come here out of bitterness to gay bash because no gay man will have you.
posted by dalea on
The study is not mine. Sad to say, but I did not do it. It belongs to Syracuse University, I just reported on it. Please let them have the glory and obliquity.
What the study does show is that only 6% of gay people are total non=believers. With another 30% unattached. Which leaves 64% of all gay people nominally attached to some religious tradition. What struck me as interesting is that the most numerous of active religious gays were either Roman Catholics or Pagans. Add in New Agers and Buddhists, you suddenly begin to realize that nonChristians religions have a very large foot hold in the g&l community.
Perhaps the question put to NDXXX and JohnBoy, is why do you find nonChristian religions making such progress among gays? AFAICT the most influential gay and lesbian religious figure is Zusanna Budapest, GrandMother of Dianic Wicca. This may not be Christian, but it surely is religion.
As to NDXXX’s identity, I have long supected he is ExGayWatch’s main heresy hunter, the loathsome Timothy Kincaid. Timothy is the scourge of all who are not securely in the narrowest of snakehandling venues.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So, which is it, do I show Dalea wrong with my post or is he right and I am a tiny tiny fringe minority?
(shrug) You tell me.
The problem here is, Randi, that you use being gay to defend your antireligious bigotry, even though dalea’s study supposedly claims that being gay in the majority of cases does NOT make you an antireligious bigot.
Furthermore, you insist that “many gays” feel the same way you do, but dalea’s study supposedly claims that the majority of gays ARE in fact religious.
So which is it?
Perhaps the question put to NDXXX and JohnBoy, is why do you find nonChristian religions making such progress among gays?
Because the standards of right and wrong in these religions are based solely on the individual. Gays and lesbians are drawn to whatever can be used to justify their behavior and avoids placing any sort of restrictions on it.
In Christianity, for instance, it would be wrong to misrepresent your HIV status in order to have sex with another individual, because a) it would be lying and b) it would be putting another individual into harm’s way against their will. But in paganism, since you set the rules and standards, and no one else is allowed to judge your actions, you can do whatever you like, since your own passions are the only justifications needed. Indeed, if you read the Charge of the Goddess, it makes it clear that the only rule is that there are no rules. Drug use, unprotected sex, orgies, public nakedness, and all the other things that the gay community favors are not only allowed, they are encouraged as acts of worship.
Furthermore, one should keep in mind the fact that this sort of “progress” was seen among these types of religions during the ’60s and ’70s too — especially among young people who thought Christianity or more-conventional Judaism was “repressive” and “judgmental”, and preferred religions that allowed them to do whatever they wanted AND wasn’t the same as their parents.
However, we don’t see Buddhist temples or pagan groves everywhere; instead, we see the enormous churches with the very same theology that these young people found so awful now being filled with them, twenty or thirty years later.
Why?
Because people figured out things: for instance, that sex as worship produced STDs, not ecstasy, that while it’s all well and good for you to trip out on LSD to get closer to the goddess, things are different when it would involve your kids doing it, and lack of consequences or judgment for the behavior of others left your wallet being constantly stolen because someone else believed THEY needed it.
I keep wondering at what point most gays will stop and say, “You know, there might BE something to those ‘traditional values’ at which we used to laugh.” But I seriously wonder when, since an epidemic of a killer STD wasn’t enough to make us put on condoms, and full knowledge of what the end results of drug use is hasn’t stopped us from shooting up or snorting at rates that frankly boggle the mind.
Perhaps it’s because the only thing on which most gays can agree is that everything bad that happens to them is a) because they are gay and b) somebody else’s fault.
posted by Tim on
NDT represents internalized homophobia at it’s worst.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Wow, NDXXX, what is it about the anti-God, religious bigots from the GayLeft taking cheap seat pot shots at you? They really have some problems with projection of self-loathing hatred… and there are more than a few kooks commenting here –I loved the one who offered he was an atheist and then tried to instruct you about what Jesus would or wouldn’t do if personally present on this Earth. LOL. There’s an idiot who needs to be in search of a brain. Let alone the ones like raj who get banned from site after site for his uncivil conduct.
I think S Miller does a great disservice to gays by tossing out this latest red meat to the rabid anti-God, religious bigots of the GayLeft.
If anyone takes a moment to listen instead of emoting bitter hatred and hate-mongering, they’d know that the leadership of the Episcopal Church is out-of-step with a large segment of the rank&file membership and Bishop Robinson’s nonsensical disputation of convention is not the focus of their disgust… it’s just another piece of straw on the camel’s back. It’s a symptom of the problem –not the problem as SMiller would like the GayLeft to believe. It is exactly as you put it, NDXXX. The growing leftward drift of the American Anglican Church is the issue for these two mainstream parishes.
When the message from the pulpit no longer resonates with the people in the pews, it’s time to find more authenic moral leadership.
In my parish, we have nuns who think selective abortion is morally netural and that the church is best served by liberal politics, liberally practiced. I wish our parish could walk away from the Bishop, too. But I doubt if we took a vote, like the 2 Virginia churches did, that it’d be 90-92% in favor of detachment like it was with them… isn’t that just self-determination?
I doubt the anti-God, religious bigots from the GayLeft commenting here will ever grow in maturity to understand or comprehend that simple and fundamental apsect of moral leadership. Sometimes, our leaders leave morality in the dooryard in order to embrace liberalizing tenets of politically correct policies. Given the GayLeft’s moral relativism, I fear they’ll never understand. It’s why they can’t understand the WOT or support the troops and their mission.
posted by Tim on
You are a sad, sad man.
posted by raj on
From today’s Washington Post:
Episcopalians Against Equality
posted by raj on
Tim | December 20, 2006, 7:14am |
NDT represents internalized homophobia at it’s worst.
Nah. It has been noticed on other web sites, and indeed by other commenters, that NDXXX, in addition to being an innumerate dissembler, is also what I refer to as being a blo(g)viater. That is, he posts numerous rambling lengthy comments asserting facts that are poorly–if ever–sourced, and draws conclusions from those poorly- or un-sourced facts that are generally rather silly. And he does it on and on and on until virtually everyone else is bored to tears and goes away. He almost always makes sure that he posts the last comment on the thread. He is obviously of the belief that the one that posts the most column-inches of comments, and who posts the last comment, on a comment thread, is the winner of the argument.
It is, to be true, a childish tack to take, but that’s the way he is.
BTW, don’t mind Matty from Michigan. Over at gay”patriot”.net once, he tried to tell me that FDR was responsible for the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. It was all I could do to stop from rolling on the floor laughing.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “However, we don’t see Buddhist temples or pagan groves everywhere…”
I guess that depends on your perspective your f*cking asshole…here in Denver there are plenty of Temples (Buddhist, Jewish, Pagan, Bhai, ets) and quite a few “groves” (wtf does that have to do with anything?). Thank you for exposing yourself to be the bigot with your comments towards religions other than Christianity…its nice to know how you really feel about “other” religions. I’ve said it before and I’m sure I’ll have to say it again but you know NOTHING about statistics and your attempts to hold an individual person up as an example of why a study is flawed prove that you have ZERO comprehension skills. You sir are a complete and total ass. Please take your hate speech and half-baked conspiracy theories to gaypatriot with the rest of you sycophantic brethren.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
here in Denver there are plenty of Temples (Buddhist, Jewish, Pagan, Bhai, ets) and quite a few “groves” (wtf does that have to do with anything?).
Indeed there are. And there are a lot MORE Christian churches.
Thank you for exposing yourself to be the bigot with your comments towards religions other than Christianity…its nice to know how you really feel about “other” religions.
You’re not dealing with a leftist or someone consumed by liberal guilt, ColoradoPatriot. There is a new generation of people out here who have realized that when you scream “bigot” or “homophobic”, that’s codespeak for, “I don’t want this to be examined”.
Why are you so afraid of the Charge of the Goddess being discussed? Don’t you want people to know that gays like paganism because it makes of unrestricted sex and nakedness a religious act?
I’ve said it before and I’m sure I’ll have to say it again but you know NOTHING about statistics and your attempts to hold an individual person up as an example of why a study is flawed prove that you have ZERO comprehension skills.
What I am simply pointing out, CP, is that the survey results are contradicted by the reality of Randi’s, Raj’s, yours, and numerous other statements.
If the survey is correct, you and your fellow antireligious bigots are a distinct and tiny minority in the gay community. Your refusal to admit that and your insistence that you represent gay mainstream thought leads me to challenge the survey results.
NDT represents internalized homophobia at it’s worst.
What you and yours need to realize, Tim, is that being able to criticize the actions of gays is not “homophobic”.
And the minute you do realize that, you’ll be amazed at what it does to our HIV rates, drug use, etc.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: Hold on, you lost me again…you criticize me for calling you a bigot and then you turn around and level the same charge at me? You also accuse me of being anti-religious, please give me ANY (as any, at least, ONE) example of how you could accuse me of this. Please try to untangle this web that you have wove…are non-Christians not religious according to you? How would you justify being a Christian with your deep hatred of “other” religions? You ask, “Why are you so afraid of the Charge of the Goddess being discussed?” When have I ever given and indication to that point. I don’t care about Pagans and their orgies, I don’t care about the Charge of the Goddess and I don’t care about your fruitless opinions. Are you honestly blaming HIV/AIDS on Pagans? What a joke you are. Please seek help for your severe mental illness.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North Dallas, don’t ask me to make up your mind for you as to whether or not the study Dalea quoted is correct. A single person’s motivations (mine) for hating religion are irrelevant to the judgment of its validity. That you are willing to make this judgment on that basis emblazens your irrationality and insincerity for all to see. You were the one adamantly insisting that the vast majority of gays are anti-religius bigots and no doubt down the road we’ll hear you making that same lying assertion again.
Many gays feeling the same way I do is consistent with 30% of the respondents saying they are not affiliated with any religion – 30% of gays is many gays. To a lot of people atheist is a dirty word and many non-believers don’t want to label themselves that way. Technically I am not an atheist myself seeing as I don’t entirely rule out the possibility of some sort of a god – I am just certain there cannot be a god as described in judaism, christianity, and Islam. A loving and just god that allows belief in him and his religion of preference to be debatable and who eternally tortures people for innocently believing otherwise cannot exist anymore than a square sphere can exist.
You’re wrong about Wiccans having no rules. They have one – do whatever you want but hurt no one. That is the essence of morality and it most certainly rules out the possibility of an HIV positive person having sex with another without telling them.
The abrahamic religions are on the other hand the essence of immorality. If you’ll read the old testament its obvious that the abrahamic god is a psychotic trible god of war. Its page after page of “god” killing or ordering the killing of men, women, children and babies. An omniscient god that creates imperfect humans knowing they will break his rules and he will eternally torture them is the essence of evil. I’ll take the Wiccan’s “Do whatever you want but hurt no one” any day. If that were at the heart of eveyone’s philosophy rather than Abrahamic religions there would be no war and conflict in the world.
Dalea, I am certain North Dallas is not Timothy Kincaid. I’ve never seen Timothy lie repeatedly like North Dallas and blame one person for what another has said, or for that matter to entirely make up things and claim someone has said them. Timothy documents his claims with something relevant and verifiable, unlike North Dallas. I’ve never knowin Timothy to adamantly blame all gays for the actions of a few gays.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North Dallas at December 20, 2006, 11:26am
We’re sick of your straw man argumentation North Dallas. I never said I represented gay mainstream thought. I’m prepared to accept the survey results, what about you? You want to have it both ways, you want to argue that that I am a tiny minority and that the survey results are contradicted by my statements. You can’t have it both ways and your schizophrenic argumentation is obvious for all to see.
posted by Novaseeker on
Where is Christ in all of this, by the way?
Christ is not a set of doctrines, he is a way of being, of living a life of self-sacrificing love for others. I do not sense this Christ in what the people in Falls Church and at Truro have done, or in the words of the new Bishop with whom they seek to align themselves. Rather, I sense bigotry and hate and a tendency to turn old doctrines into idols, and worship them, rather than actually following what Jesus advised his followers to do.
It’s sad for the Episcopal Church, but I suppose that it’s always a temptation for Christians to turn *something* into an idol, whether it’s Bible, doctrine, hierarchy, or whatever, rather than taking up the real challenge of living a Christian life.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And by the way, North dallas, a few people hating religion is entirely consistent with the survey results.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You’re wrong about Wiccans having no rules. They have one – do whatever you want but hurt no one. That is the essence of morality and it most certainly rules out the possibility of an HIV positive person having sex with another without telling them.
The problem is, Randi, that, in that model, you are the one who defines what “hurting others” is, since no one else is allowed to judge your actions. If you don’t consider what you are doing to someone else to be hurting them, it’s not a problem. Adultery is not wrong, for instance, because it can be rationalized as you helping out the wife whose husband isn’t giving her enough sex; you aren’t actually hurting the husband, only punishing him justly for his deeds, and you are giving the wife what she wants.
Christianity, on the other hand, very clearly defines and standardizes what hurt is. In reference to the example I just gave, adultery is expressly forbidden; indeed, Christians are exhorted to, when an opportunity like that presents itself, turn away from doing wrong to their neighbor and encourage the wife to seek a resolution within the bounds of her marriage.
But that delays sex and revenge, and that’s why gays don’t particularly like it — and why a religion that has no arbitrary rules of conduct and depends on the definitions of the individual involved on what is and isn’t good is so popular among them.
I never said I represented gay mainstream thought.
You’re still dodging what I asked you to do, Randi; admit that you and yours are a tiny minority AND that your chosen reason for rejecting religion — how you were treated based on your sexual orientation — is fallacious, given the fact that you claim the majority of gays ARE religious.
The problem here is that leftists like you have had the floor way, way, WAY too long in the gay community. I want you to publicly admit that you are a tiny minority whose excuses for hating religion are not practiced by the vast majority of gays.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Tim writes to the cheap seats: “…he tried to tell me that FDR was responsible for the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. It was all I could do to stop from rolling on the floor laughing.”
O/T a tad but hey Tim, if you can’t read or learn from history and the extensive research done in the last 5 years by trained historians with access to FDR notes not available until 2000, so be it. Laugh away on FDR’s complicity in the attack on Pearl Harbor… the tin foil hat jiggles on your head comically when you do. It’s kind of cute if pathetic.
Or wait… are you one of those DailyKos GayLeftBorg types that argues Bush designed the attacks on 9-11? Ahhhh, now it makes sense.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30: Hold on, you lost me again…you criticize me for calling you a bigot and then you turn around and level the same charge at me?
Two individuals with remarkably-different actions.
You also accuse me of being anti-religious, please give me ANY (as any, at least, ONE) example of how you could accuse me of this.
How you’ve treated me and James.
Please try to untangle this web that you have wove…are non-Christians not religious according to you?
That depends entirely on how one chooses to define religion.
How would you justify being a Christian with your deep hatred of “other” religions?
This answers very nicely the “bigot” question from above.
All I have done is to simply point out that these other religions support things like orgies, public nakedness, etc. as expressions of belief — but you consider that “hate”.
Are you honestly blaming HIV/AIDS on Pagans?
No. But I am pointing out that their belief systems and practices are particularly suited to perpetuating it.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
And not to be out done, Randi tosses up the ultimate “religious bigot, GayLeft Gone Wild” stance: “The abrahamic religions are on the other hand the essence of immorality. If you’ll read the old testament its obvious that the abrahamic god is a psychotic trible god of war.”
You actually believe this crap? You need to get out of freshman philosophy and mature, bub. That, or stop taking those lessons from the raj.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Nova, you ask a good question in “Where is Christ in all of this, by the way?”
By “this” you mean the effort of the two Virginia churches to break away from the left-leaning AC leadership? Or do you mean in the comments posted here by the fractal religious bigots from the GayLeft? If it’s the latter, it’s moot since those commenters have already offered they are alternatively: atheist, anti-God, religious bigots or some variation… we don’t even have a couple of the usual GayLeft agnostics coming out here yet (but now that I’ve given them the option, I’m sure they’ll glum on).
If it’s the former, I think the churchmembers have made it clear that they think the more liberalized, less structured, less doctrinal, less Scripture based views of many of the current AC leaders are out of touch with Jesus and the central focus of his brief mission on Earth.
You offer an backhanded indictment of doctrinal teaching –I have to tell you, the current AC plan to “make it up as we go” ain’t exactly a prudent course for religious formation.
We’ll always have the arrogant “fixers” who want to rewrite doctrine into comfortable, non-challenging squishy set of “suggestions” for today’s Christians… but like the mega-churches who preach the merits of personal greed and practice relativistic morality, these are people and ideas crafted for immediate consumption… like popcorn, it’s gone and forgotten before the movie is over.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
A loving and just god that allows belief in him and his religion of preference to be debatable and who eternally tortures people for innocently believing otherwise cannot exist anymore than a square sphere can exist.
If you look at Christian doctrine, Randi, there is really only one thing that you need to worry about doing, and it’s outlined very clearly in John 3:16 – 21.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”
What you are doing is what mankind has done since time immemorial, which is to use human reason to explain why you do NOT believe. But the simple fact of the matter is that, if God could be completely explained by human reason, He wouldn’t be God; He’d be human.
Christ is not a set of doctrines, he is a way of being, of living a life of self-sacrificing love for others.
Novaseeker, you’re a parent; what would happen, for instance, if you laid out a set of rules for your child, but made it clear that, if he broke them, there would be no consequences, and if he caused himself or others damage by breaking them, you would fix/clean/repair/pay for it?
posted by Novaseeker on
But don’t you see?
The anger that is generated over issues like this, the labelling, the in/out grouping … it’s fundamentally at odds with what we see Christ doing in the Gospel. It’s hard to see it as Christian, and it’s hard to distinguish it from what we see the Pharisees doing in the Gospels, and which Christ himself seemingly endlessly critiqued. If anything, Christ’s message was “don’t worry about details like that, worry about love and the rest will flow from that” … it wasn’t “hey, of course I criticized these religious people here who were focused on doctrine and law and that kind of stuff, and I gave them cute answers about ‘love’ and stuff like that, but that’s just because they were the *wrong* doctrines and laws, and after I go, I perfectly expect and fully support that you will erect similar bodies of doctrines and laws, and exclude people because of them, because, hey, that’s like different and stuff, ‘mkay?”.
I mean surely people are free to believe what they want to believe, and to emphasize what they wish to, but to my eyes it’s glaringly at odds with the Christ we see in the Gospels. Alas, even the apostles were constantly trying to keep people away from Christ because they were tax collectors or prostitutes or children, and he constantly had to keep correcting them from doing so. Human nature changes slowly, it seems, if at all.
posted by Novaseeker on
“Novaseeker, you’re a parent; what would happen, for instance, if you laid out a set of rules for your child, but made it clear that, if he broke them, there would be no consequences, and if he caused himself or others damage by breaking them, you would fix/clean/repair/pay for it?”
That’s not on all fours with what is happening here, because it begs the question of what is “wrong” and “against the rules”.
As a gay man, do you believe homosexual love is wrong, is a sin, and should bar people from being able to be married or ordained? That’s why these splits are happening … it’s because people think these are “against the rules” (and not just the canons). In this specific case, they’re putting their idea of what the rules are ahead of showing love for others because they think that these rules, as they understand them, are more important.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
In this specific case, they’re putting their idea of what the rules are ahead of showing love for others because they think that these rules, as they understand them, are more important.
In that case, Novaseeker, how do you explain these?
Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.
Luke 17:1 – 2
He (Jesus) told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”
“I have no husband,” she replied.
Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”
John 4: 16 – 18
When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!”
John 2: 13 – 16
Now, it wasn’t very “loving” of Jesus to say such things about millstones, or point out that a woman was sleeping around, or physically assault people, now was it? Looks an awful lot like he was, oh, enforcing the rules, rather than just love, love, love, right?
What you and Robinson are doing, novaseeker, is trying to ignore what you don’t like in Scripture and keep what you do. God becomes a kind, benevolent, permissive parent, who allows the child to do whatever they like and cleans up whatever mess they leave behind them.
Your question is a good example:
As a gay man, do you believe homosexual love is wrong, is a sin, and should bar people from being able to be married or ordained?
What you are saying is that, because you are gay, you may believe that homosexual love is not wrong and is not a sin; plus, you are going to force the Anglican Church to allow you to be married or ordained, based on what you believe, and anyone who thinks otherwise you’re going to blast as a “bigot” or “homophobe”.
Now change “gay man” to “child molestor” and “homosexual love” to “child molestation”. In order for you to be consistent with your, “if you think it’s OK, it should be OK for everyone else” mantra, you now need to apply exactly the same there.
posted by James on
Here’s the point, Novaseeker, that you seem to be missing–being gay is OK; they are ways of expressing being gay which are MORALLY WRONG. It is morally wrong for older men to exploit teenagers. It is morally wrong for HIV+ not to inform their partners. It is morally wrong to have an open relationship. It is morally wrong for a gay couple to get divorced for any other reason than adultery. You will note that everything in this list is also morally wrong for straight couples. The gay community keeps screaming for acceptance, yet it is not willing to be accountable for those forms of homosexual, or just plain sexual, expression which are morally wrong. If someone suggests that Mark Foley was MORALLY WRONG to exploit teenagers under his care, we hear cries of homophobia and hypocrisy. On the one issue where you’d think even James Dobson and Rosie O’Donell could agree–that Mark Foley is a creepy old guy–we find the gay community more worried about homophobia than sexual abuse.
Does the gay community have any moral values upon which it bases its actions? Just asking. Is there form of homosexual activity that we all agree is simply wrong? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North dallas, I never said others weren’t allowed to judge. Its inherent in that philosophy that others judge and that’s why there’s a legal system to resolve disputes over whether or not someone has been harmed.
Adultery is clearly wrong under the harm no one philosophy, again you raise a straw man. I never said adultery was okay and yet you lie saying that’s my belief based on my philosophy.
North Dallas said “You’re still dodging what I asked you to do, Randi; admit that you and yours are a tiny minority AND that your chosen reason for rejecting religion — how you were treated based on your sexual orientation — is fallacious, given the fact that you claim the majority of gays ARE religious.”
You really are a putz. Why would I lie about my motive for hating religion just to please you? What the majority of gays feel about religion has zero to do with how I feel about religion and why. You’re the one dodging the issue – tell me, if its not the endless ranting about how its sinful to be gay, about how gays should be put to death, about how gays are going to burn in hell, about how we shouldn’t be allowed to have a relationship, let alone get married because “god” says so, just what the is the reason you think I and other LGBTs despise your religion?!?!!
I said right from the beginning that you were wrong when you said the vast majority of gays are anti-religious bigots. I pointed out that Dalea proved you wrong with the study he quoted and you insisted my statements proved the study wrong. I agreed all along that it seems likely that a most 30% of gays are anti-religious, now how about you, how about you admit you were wrong when you said the vast majority of gays are anti-religious? How about you admit you lied when you said “she and her fellow leftists tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”.”
North Dallas said
“Christianity…very clearly defines and standardizes what hurt is…Christians are exhorted to…turn away from doing wrong to their neighbor”.
Exactly wrong. Christianity unconditionally opposes gay relationships without ever defining what the hurt is. Your buy-bull indiscriminately opposes all gay relationship, loving and monogamous, or promiscous – it doesn’t distinguish between the two. And if In fact contrary to your lie that Christians are exhorted to turn away from doing wrong to their neighbour Christianity says gays must be put to death when they are harming no one. Your buy-bull indiscriminately opposes all gay relationships, loving and monogamous, or promiscous – it doesn’t distinguish between the two. When a gay is condemned for having even one loving same sex relationship there is no additional disincentive to having many promiscuous relationships. The buy-bull by setting an unrealistic boundary of no gay sex in essence sets no boundary at all.
Michigan Matt at December 20, 2006, 1:23pm said “You actually believe this crap?”
Matt, to name but a tiny portion of crap in your buy-bull, examples of your psychotic god of war:
Numbers 31: 1,9,10,11,16-18
Deuteronomy 7: 1,2,16
Deuteronomy 20: 13,14
Joshua 8: 24
Joshua 11: 12,20
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Exactly wrong. Christianity unconditionally opposes gay relationships without ever defining what the hurt is. Your buy-bull indiscriminately opposes all gay relationship, loving and monogamous, or promiscous – it doesn’t distinguish between the two.
So you’re saying, Randi, that the Metropolitan Community Church, the Unitarian Church, and the Episcopal Church, all of which claim to be Christian, unconditionally oppose gay relationships and gay sex?
This is why leftists like you need to be minimized, Randi; your tendency to use being gay as an excuse for your socially-unacceptable and hate-filled bigotry is screwing us over immensely. You and your fellow antireligious gays are so hateful towards Christians, you mock even denominations who allegedly ARE OK with gay relationships and gay sex as worshiping a “psychotic god of war”, and say that their beliefs are “buy-bull”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If someone suggests that Mark Foley was MORALLY WRONG to exploit teenagers under his care, we hear cries of homophobia and hypocrisy.
Correction. If Mark Foley were a DEMOCRAT, we’d have heard cries of “homophobia” and “hypocrisy”, just as happens when you bring up the example of Gerry Studds or Barney Frank. Moral outrage in the gay community is a function of political and religious affiliation, and has nothing to do with application of a consistent moral code.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North Dallas at December 20, 2006, 2:24pm said “Now change “gay man” to “child molestor” and “homosexual love” to “child molestation”. In order for you to be consistent with your, “if you think it’s OK, it should be OK for everyone else” mantra, you now need to apply exactly the same there.”.
Your comparing being gay to child molestation is outrageous hateful bigotry. Being gay harms no one, child molestation clearly does. Marrying the one person a gay loves most harms no one, it is morally acceptable and good. The immoral people are those who seek to control lives other than their own when no one is getting hurt. They want the unjust right to massively affect someones life, their right to marry, when it affects them not at all.
James, you’re deluded. No where did any gay person defend Mark Foley with cries of homophobia. No where does your buy-bull say being gay is okay, it says all gay love is morally wrong and the vast majority of christians agree with that. It doesn’ matter how moral and monogamous you are, they despise and mock you for being gay regardless. You need to learn who your friends and enemies are, you have it exactly backwards.
posted by Alex on
So you’re saying, Randi, that the Metropolitan Community Church, the Unitarian Church, and the Episcopal Church, all of which claim to be Christian, unconditionally oppose gay relationships and gay sex?
As a Unitarian Universalist born and bred I can tell you that very few members (either congregations or individuals) will make the claim to be Christian.
There is, in fact, an important difference between the approach to religion of the groups you mentioned and the Literalists (aka: Fundementalist Christians).
They believe in the inerrency of the Bible, usually in all arena’s: Moral, historic, and scientific.
In Unitarian Universalist circles, we believe that religion needs to be a grounding and inspiring force, but does need to be evaluated in light of current knowledge and conditions. The bible is insperational…inspired even…but not literal.
As Rev. John Burhens put it: “The bible is not literally true, but it is eternally true.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Your comparing being gay to child molestation is outrageous hateful bigotry. Being gay harms no one, child molestation clearly does.
Ah, but Randi, you’re JUDGING again. Remember, you and your fellow leftists say that you have no right to pass judgment on anyone else’s personal life or sexual desires. Why are you trying to control the lives of others, when it’s not your own that’s being affected? How does a child that isn’t yours being molested have one bit of anything to do with you? Why do you feel the need to “butt in” and “massively affect someone else’s life” when it doesn’t affect you?
posted by Novaseeker on
“Here’s the point, Novaseeker, that you seem to be missing–being gay is OK; they are ways of expressing being gay which are MORALLY WRONG. It is morally wrong for older men to exploit teenagers. It is morally wrong for HIV+ not to inform their partners. It is morally wrong to have an open relationship. It is morally wrong for a gay couple to get divorced for any other reason than adultery. You will note that everything in this list is also morally wrong for straight couples.”
But what does that have to do with the split of these parishes from ECUSA? Is Gene Robinson in an open relatiionship, exploiting teenagers and the like? No, he isn’t. Yet it’s an outrage to these people that he was ordained simply because he is a non-celibate gay man.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North Dallas at December 20, 2006, 2:43pm.
Those Christians represent a tiny minority of Christians, the vast majority are anti-gay bigots. Your buy-bull is clear, all gay relationships are condemned, loving and monogamous or otherwise. No wonder you’re so full of anger and self-loathing, you follow scriptures that loath and condemn you regardless of whether you hurt anyone or not.
Deuteronomy 7: 2
“When the Lord your God delivers them over to you to be destroyed, do a complete job of it – don’t make any treaties or show them mercy; utterly wipe them out.
posted by Novaseeker on
“Now, it wasn’t very “loving” of Jesus to say such things about millstones, or point out that a woman was sleeping around, or physically assault people, now was it? Looks an awful lot like he was, oh, enforcing the rules, rather than just love, love, love, right?”
Actually the one case where he lost his temper he was very much enforcing the rules, and the rules had to do with making religion a mockery.
Regarding the woman at the well, note the lack of condemnation. Clearly there is disapproval, but there isn’t condemnation. There isn’t “I can’t be in communion with you, you unrepentant sinner” … as we see in these congregations.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Still waiting for some citations from you ND30…I asked you for ONE example of how I am anti-religious. You came back with, “you treat me and James bad.” What a complete tool and worthless liar. So, here’s a challenge for you numb-nuts, prove that ANY statement you’ve EVER made here about ANYTHING with some sort of documentation other than your own blog…can you do that at least?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North Dallas said “you and your fellow leftists say that you have no right to pass judgment on anyone else’s personal life or sexual desires. Why are you trying to control the lives of others, when it’s not your own that’s being affected? How does a child that isn’t yours being molested have one bit of anything to do with you? Why do you feel the need to “butt in” and “massively affect someone else’s life” when it doesn’t affect you?”
I never said any such thing you liar. I said “Do whatever you want but harm no one”.
No one has a right to massively or minorly affect anyone’s life when no one is being hurt, its that simple. That’s the essence of morality and you can’t find a single example of a problem with that morality without your leaving out the “but harm no one” commandment.
posted by Novaseeker on
“What you and Robinson are doing, novaseeker, is trying to ignore what you don’t like in Scripture and keep what you do. God becomes a kind, benevolent, permissive parent, who allows the child to do whatever they like and cleans up whatever mess they leave behind them.
Your question is a good example:
As a gay man, do you believe homosexual love is wrong, is a sin, and should bar people from being able to be married or ordained?
What you are saying is that, because you are gay, you may believe that homosexual love is not wrong and is not a sin; plus, you are going to force the Anglican Church to allow you to be married or ordained, based on what you believe, and anyone who thinks otherwise you’re going to blast as a “bigot” or “homophobe”.”
Again, I ask you the question: do you think it is immoral or not?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually the one case where he lost his temper he was very much enforcing the rules, and the rules had to do with making religion a mockery.
Sort of like what happens when a gay bishop misquotes Scripture to claim that Jesus was gay and the Apostle John was his lover, or claims that the Mass and other trappings of the Episcopal Church predate the books of the Bible, and thus should substitute for or supplant it, or supports people who make of God a “psychotic god of war” and who call Christianity “buy-bull”.
But then again, I thought your point was that there were no rules, that everyone was free to do as they saw fit, and that the church had to accept it. Isn’t that what “self-sacrificing love” means?
Regarding the woman at the well, note the lack of condemnation. Clearly there is disapproval, but there isn’t condemnation. There isn’t “I can’t be in communion with you, you unrepentant sinner” … as we see in these congregations.
Go read John 8:11, and tell me what it says at the end.
And to wrap up, CP:
So, here’s a challenge for you numb-nuts, prove that ANY statement you’ve EVER made here about ANYTHING with some sort of documentation other than your own blog.
The citations I’ve taken from the Bible.
Hey, you asked for it. 🙂
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North Dallas said “Sort of like what happens when a gay bishop misquotes Scripture to claim that Jesus was gay and the Apostle John was his lover, or claims that the Mass and other trappings of the Episcopal Church predate the books of the Bible, and thus should substitute for or supplant it, or supports people who make of God a “psychotic god of war” and who call Christianity “buy-bull”.”.
I knew it wouldn’t take long and you’d start lying and blaming other people for stuff I said. “People” didn’t say that, I did, me, I’m solely responsbile for it. Don’t go trying to blame all gays for it. And Gene Robinson didn’t support me saying that, that’s yet another lie of yours. By the way now that I’ve repeatedly acknowledged that no more than 30% of gays, according to the study dalea quoted, hate religion like I do, its time you acknowledged you were wrong when you said “the vast majority of gays are anti-religious bigots” and that you lied when you said “she and her fellow leftists tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Again, I ask you the question: do you think it is immoral or not?
Actually, what you asked this time is a different question than your first, novaseeker.
In answer to your question, gay sex, or being gay, in my opinion, is no more inherently immoral than its heterosexual counterparts. It’s what you do with it that can render it immoral, just like heterosexual sex.
That being said, though, I do not believe that churches are under any implicit or explicit requirement to sanctify gay marriage or ordain gay people. I base this on two things; one, the fact that the Bible does explicitly mention and sanction heterosexual marriage, but not gay marriage, and two, Paul’s injunctions of Romans 14 and I Corinthians 10 about the wise exercise of Christian freedom.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No one has a right to massively or minorly affect anyone’s life when no one is being hurt, its that simple.
Well, according to such gay luminaries as Harry Hay, sexual encounters with older men were exactly what little boys needed to reach their full potential, and were in fact not harmful at all.
Hence the problem. In Harry Hay’s version of paganism, “harm no one” did not place any sort of prohibition on sex with little boys, and in fact, was encouraged as a help to them. When “harm” is defined solely by the individual carrying out the behavior, there is no reason for restraint and no limit to the human mind’s endless capacity for rationalization.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North Dallas, don’t forget the Christian “morality” demonstrated in 2 Samuel 6,7
“But when they arrived at the threshing floor of Nacon, the oxen stumbled and Uzzah put out his hand to steady the Ark. Then the anger of the Lord flared out against Uzzah and he killed him for doing this, so he died there beside the Ark.”
Talk about morality, God’s faithful servant tries to protect his holy Ark from damage and God kills him for it. And let’s not forget Exodus 1,2
“Then the lord said to Moses, “Go back again and make your demand upon Pharoah, but I have hardened him and his officials so that I can do more miracles demonstrating my power. What stories you can tell your children and grandchildren about the incredible things I am doing in Egypt! Tell them what fools I made of the Egyptians and how I proved to you that I am Jehovah.”
Yeah, that’s morality all right, force the humans into conflict so you can show off how powerful you are.
posted by Novaseeker on
“Actually, what you asked this time is a different question than your first, novaseeker.
In answer to your question, gay sex, or being gay, in my opinion, is no more inherently immoral than its heterosexual counterparts. It’s what you do with it that can render it immoral, just like heterosexual sex.
That being said, though, I do not believe that churches are under any implicit or explicit requirement to sanctify gay marriage or ordain gay people. I base this on two things; one, the fact that the Bible does explicitly mention and sanction heterosexual marriage, but not gay marriage, and two, Paul’s injunctions of Romans 14 and I Corinthians 10 about the wise exercise of Christian freedom.”
So your approach is that authentic Christian teaching requires gay people to be celibate, I take it? Or is it something else? I’m just trying to understand what your own view is.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
No one said harm is defined solely by the person doing the behavior, you idiot. Harm is defined by the person being harmed and by the judges and legal system that is necessary to mediate disputes. You ignorant hateful bigot, the vast majority of gays, like the vast majority of straights alike acknowledge that a child isn’t able to make an informed decision to have sex with an adult and that its harmful. Your wild distortions trying to portray pedophilia as generally supported by the gay community are indicative of your mental illness.
Harry Hay doesn’t speak for anyone other then himself and I certainly don’t believe your uncited word for what he might have said anyway. On the other hand the pope speaks for most Christians and he says you’re intrinsically disordered and I agree. You’re so used to being abused by Christians and your buy-bull you’ve got stockholm syndrome and you’re identifying with your abusers.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
My previous comment was to North Dallas at December 20, 2006, 4:43pm
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So your approach is that authentic Christian teaching requires gay people to be celibate, I take it? Or is it something else? I’m just trying to understand what your own view is.
I take the same view of celibacy that Jesus did.
The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Matthew 19:11 – 12
Or, as Martin Luther put it, “Marriage is good, virginity is better, but purity of heart is best.”
Simply phrased, sex has an enormous capacity to work itself in and elbow your responsibility to God and your fellow man out. What Jesus is saying in this example is that you should, with that in mind, practice sexual restraint to the level that you are able. However, Jesus, as the Son of God, is fully aware that not all people are gifted with celibacy — and that is why He talks about the importance of committed relationships in the passages prior. Indeed, it’s one of the few areas where he tightens the rule from the Old Testament.
So, to summarize, celibacy is not required, because not everyone can be celibate. However, the fact that celibacy isn’t required doesn’t mean that all other responsibilities and restrictions are out the window. Luther rather wryly pointed out how much easier on several levels it was to be a monk or priest and have celibacy than have to deal with the travails of a significant other and family. Jesus’s point was exactly that; with terrestrial pleasure comes terrestrial pains and responsibility.
posted by Novaseeker on
“However, the fact that celibacy isn’t required doesn’t mean that all other responsibilities and restrictions are out the window.”
I understand that, but if you think that what you wrote above is the authentic Christian teaching that applies to gay sexual relationships as well as straight ones (which is actually rather close to my own view), then what do you think that the position of churches should be on this issue?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No one said harm is defined solely by the person doing the behavior, you idiot.
Really? Where in the pagan morality statement does it make reference to anyone else than the practitioner deciding what is and isn’t harmful?
As for your references:
Talk about morality, God’s faithful servant tries to protect his holy Ark from damage and God kills him for it.
Interestingly enough, the event is also described in 1 Chronicles 13 and 15 in much more detail…..and in 1 Chronicles 15, King David explains the problem.
Then David summoned Zadok and Abiathar the priests, and Uriel, Asaiah, Joel, Shemaiah, Eliel and Amminadab the Levites. He said to them, “You are the heads of the Levitical families; you and your fellow Levites are to consecrate yourselves and bring up the ark of the LORD, the God of Israel, to the place I have prepared for it. It was because you, the Levites, did not bring it up the first time that the LORD our God broke out in anger against us. We did not inquire of him about how to do it in the prescribed way.” So the priests and Levites consecrated themselves in order to bring up the ark of the LORD, the God of Israel. And the Levites carried the ark of God with the poles on their shoulders, as Moses had commanded in accordance with the word of the LORD.
The rules about handling the Ark are written down quite nicely in the Torah, starting with Exodus 25:15, and they specifically point out who is and who isn’t allowed to touch it for whatever purpose.
Even the Son of God chose to abide by the rule that God laid down instead of personal convenience, as is seen here:
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”
Matthew 26:50b – 54
In the Old Testament, God’s words to the Israelites, who are just coming to grips with this whole concept of God and who have a penchant for flat-out rebellion against him, is the parental equivalent of “Don’t touch the stove, or you’ll get a spanking.”
When we get to Jesus’s time, the Israelites (now the Jews) have learned the fundamental lesson that there IS a God and there are consequences. What Jesus is doing is to build on that; he’s saying, “Don’t touch the stove, because you will burn yourself and I don’t want that to happen.”
posted by James on
On the Mark Foley thread, you will find gays defending Foley’s actions because A: straights do it, too!and B: who’s to say 16-yr-olds aren’t consenting adults?
The fact that the gay community isn’t able to say, with one, clear, unequivocal voice that Mark Foley is a creepy guy and what he did was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, is proof of the moral vacuity of the gay community. Maybe the church isn’t much better in terms of moral direction, but it is better, and I’d rather turn to the church for direction than a community which can’t make a simple moral judgment about someone as obviously disordered as Mark Foley.
posted by Novaseeker on
“On the Mark Foley thread, you will find gays defending Foley’s actions because A: straights do it, too!and B: who’s to say 16-yr-olds aren’t consenting adults?
The fact that the gay community isn’t able to say, with one, clear, unequivocal voice that Mark Foley is a creepy guy and what he did was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, is proof of the moral vacuity of the gay community. Maybe the church isn’t much better in terms of moral direction, but it is better, and I’d rather turn to the church for direction than a community which can’t make a simple moral judgment about someone as obviously disordered as Mark Foley. ”
But again, James, this is using the positions taken by *some* gay people to be representative of the views of the “gay community” (which doesn’t really exist because gay opinion is very divided on almost every issue, really). That’s the same as saying the views of James Dobson = Christian views. You can’t do either way (and while you can say that there aren’t enough gays critical of Foley, others can say that there aren’t enough Christians critical of Dobson, so it kind of works both ways, I think). I don’t say that to tar Christians, because I know that Dobsons views don’t represent the views of all Christians, but what I am saying is that the generalization you are making would be equivalent to that generalization, and they are both incorrect generalizations.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North Dallas said “Where in the pagan morality statement does it make reference to anyone else than the practitioner deciding what is and isn’t harmful?”.
Where in the morality statement does it say that only the practitioner decides what is and isn’t harmful?
You’re the classic example of willful stupidity. If you want to dispute when harm has been done that’s what we have courts for.
James, I’ve read lots and lots of commentary on the Mark Foley situation and I don’t recall a single instance of anyone defending his actions, in fact quite the opposite, it was one condemnation after the other. If you’d like to quote from the thread and give a date and time stamp to show me an example of where that occured by all means do so. I don’t doubt that it may have occurred on some rare occaision, but it certainly isn’t the typical response as you implied and I and I’m sure many others think very little of you for wrongly implying it is. You and North Dallas are despicable gay bashing liars.
posted by dalea91505 on
And what about the Episcopal and Anglican traditions being ‘latitudinarian’, open to a very wide range of viewpoints and practices. I note no comment from the defenders of Orthodoxy. Just a lot of bible babble.
Actually, the Wiccan Rede is expressed most often as: An it harm none, do as you will. Which leads to endless Pagan discussions about just what is the appropriate course of action in any given situation. Check out WitchesVoice for some of it. Wicca is a religion very concerned with the consequences of actions, and the lessons to be drawn. Like Buddhism, Wicca is an ethical religion. One more concerned with working out the meanings and ramifications of actions than set rules.
My own humble experience is that very very few Wiccans succumbed in the great epidemic. A statement I can not make about Dignity or the MCC. This is based on 25 years of memorial services and activism. Among conservative christian gays I personally knew, mortality approached 95%, in my own experience.
Further, it is my experience that most gay leftists are religious, or spiritual, frequently in a NewAge fashion. That on the gay left, as it defined at IGF, there are very few unbelievers. On the gay right there are numerous atheists, particularly in the rather numerous groups influenced by Ayn Rand. So I fail to see any discernable move by the gay ‘left’ against religion. Rather it seems to support my own experience that the left is not the problem for religous people; the difficulty is dealing with the right.
The idea that the mass is older than the bible is not an opinion; it is a fact. For centuries people considered themselves good christians, and were regarded as such by other christians, even though they had never so much as looked at a bible. Nor could have read one if they had stumbled upon one. But were able to participate in the Holy Mystery of the Mass. Bible centered christianity is a very modern invention, probably not much older than the steam engine. Why are we even listening to people with startlingly new interpretations of things who claim to be traditionalists? Their tradition is a tiny tad older than Scientology, but not much.
Reading NDXXX and JimBob is like listening to people in the last stage of syphilis. Dementia is something that I as a spiritual person can only respond to with compassion. But can not regard these ravings seriously. We should meditate on these lost creatures, that they may experience ‘clarity’. As the Buddhists so wisely teach.
posted by dalea on
Randi, regarding Timothy the Grand Inquisitor of exgaywatch. My own experience is that he clearly told me he could not meet with me for coffee, which was encouraged for the LA crowd, because he was religously superior to me. I regard his position as stated as his very own theological view.
Only meet with like minded people.
So, I strongly suspect based on this and looking at NDXXX’s style and substance, that they are one and the same.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North Dallas, you never did provide a reasonable justification for god killing his faithful servant for trying to protect his holy Arc from damage. Not that that’s any big surprise.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And what about the Episcopal and Anglican traditions being ‘latitudinarian’, open to a very wide range of viewpoints and practices.
That is because the Anglican church’s historical basis for membership has been whether or not one will swear allegiance to the episcopacy. King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I weren’t concerned as much with doctrine as they were with social order; their point was to build a church that completely sidestepped controversy in theology by avoiding the question and placing the emphasis on organizational structure. The intolerance of the so-called “latitudinarian” Anglicans is the reason that the Dissenters, aka the Separatists or Pilgrims, left England for North America; their theology would have fitted, but they refused to swear allegiance to the episcopacy or follow its orders.
The ultimate irony is that modern-day Anglicanism is almost identical to the medieval Catholicism against which it was a reaction; a hierarchy only concerned with self-preservation, who denigrates the Bible, tries to hide it, and uses “tradition” as a substitute, which conveniently reinforces the ideology that the Church wishes to impose, and whose primates serve not Christ, but their own private concerns.
Meanwhile, what leftists like Robinson (and dalea) who wish to abolish Scripture so that their own words can be substituted do is to conflate the fact that the canon of the Bible, or list of books that were to be commonly included, was still technically in flux (and would, in a most technical sense, remain so for centuries); however, what they ignore is that the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), the Acts, the Hebrew Bible, and the writings of the Apostles were well-established and accepted by this time, and it is from all of those that the Mass, the Eucharist, and their other rites were created. Indeed, if one removed from the Mass all the quotes directly FROM the Bible, including the readings of Scripture that are part of it, there wouldn’t be much left.
Then leftist dalea tries this misleading statement:
For centuries people considered themselves good christians, and were regarded as such by other christians, even though they had never so much as looked at a bible. Nor could have read one if they had stumbled upon one.
Of course; Bibles were very rare, since pre-Gutenberg they were all handmade; furthermore, a goodly portion of the population was illiterate. However, that is why, in church services, Scripture was READ to the people, and in vast quantities. This finds its roots in the Jewish services from which the Christian ones are descended, in which an enormous amount of time is devoted to the reading of the Torah — there was no other way in which the people could hear and learn the Scripture.
Indeed, what leftists like Dalea who argue that the Bible did not exist before the steam engine conveniently leave out are the passages in Scripture where it specifically mentions Jesus reading from the early books of the Bible, or where He refers to events and citations IN those books.
Why do they do their best to get rid of the Scripture?
The reason is that they fear them. Like the medieval popes feared the Biblical injunctions against adultery, greed, and usury, leftists like dalea cannot harmonize their demands for unlimited sex, abortion, stories about how Jesus was gay, and in all the other ways they wish to exploit Christianity for their own purposes with the Scriptures.
And perhaps the ultimate irony, dalea; despite your insistence on “latitudinarian”, you are absolutely and completely intolerant of those who base their beliefs on the Scriptures, rather than the pronouncements of leftist bishops like Robinson who ignore them.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
North Dallas, you never did provide a reasonable justification for god killing his faithful servant for trying to protect his holy Arc from damage. Not that that’s any big surprise.
Because God specifically said in Exodus that the ark was to be carried by the poles, and that none but the Levites and/or high priests were to touch it.
You disobey God at your peril. And quite honestly, it’s God’s ark; who’s to say He can’t protect it Himself quite nicely from damage — especially since He can strike dead those who disobey Him by touching it?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ColoPat writes: “Still waiting for some citations from you ND30…I asked you for ONE example of how I am anti-religious. You came back with, “you treat me and James bad.” What a complete tool and worthless liar. So, here’s a challenge for you numb-nuts, prove that ANY statement you’ve EVER made here about ANYTHING with some sort of documentation other than your own blog…can you do that at least?”
With all the respect you deserve, it might be more prudent for you to take some time off from this blog and breathe some good outdoor air into those nostrils of yours instead of breathing out fire. Yeow, you sound like one seriously spoiled brat in the corner doing a time out, guy. Really. It’s scary.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North Dallas if god can’t carry his own arc his faithful servant has no reason to believe god’s going to protect it from damage either. Any god that would kill his faithful servant for attempting to save his holy arc from harm is an evil god.
Nowhere did Dalea make demands for unlimited sex and abortion. You’re a pathological liar. I’m not even paying attention to the gay Jesus thing.
Psalms 44: 8-22
My constant boast is God. I can never thank you enough! And yet for a time, O Lord, you have tossed us asie in dishonou, and have not helped us in our battles. You have actually fought against us and defeated us before our foes. OUr enemies have invaded our land and pillaged the country-side. You have treated us like sheep in a slaughter pen, and scattered us among the nations. You sold us for a pittance, you value us at nothing at all. The neighbouring nationslaugh and mock at us because of all the evil you have sent. You have made the word “Jew” a byword of contempt and shame among nations, disliked by all. I am constantly despised, mocked, taunted and cursed by my vengeful enemies.
And all this has happened, Lord, despite our loyalty to you . We have not violated your covenant. Our hearts have not deserted you! We have not left your path by a single step. If we had , we could understand your punishing us in the barren wilderness and sending us into darkness and death. If we had turned away from worshipping our god and were worshiping idols, would god not know it? Yes, he knows the secrets of every heart. But that is not our case. For we are facing death threats constantly because of serving you! We are like sheep awaiting slaughter.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
North Dallas if god can’t carry his own arc his faithful servant has no reason to believe god’s going to protect it from damage either.
Obviously you’ve never read 1 Samuel 4 – 6.
Any god that would kill his faithful servant for attempting to save his holy arc from harm is an evil god.
Think of this analogy, Randi.
You are a teenager. Your parents have ordered you not to use the car unless it’s an absolute emergency. You are at home, and your mom calls you and asks you to go to the grocery store a few blocks away to pick up some milk. You take the car.
When your parents come home and find out you used the car, they punish you for disobeying. Are they evil? After all, you were just doing something nice for them, right? Or are they parents who are making it clear that they expect you to obey them and respect what they say?
And meanwhile, if you wanted a psalm that demonstrated your theory that “God is evil”, an even better one would have been Psalm 22. But I think the reason you stayed away from that one is because it makes clear that, even when it seems God has forsaken you, He has not.
Or perhaps Psalm 53 would be far more appropriate.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
That’s not much of an analogy North Dallas. A more fitting one would be that your parents order you not to touch the expensive vase on the mantle. During a party your parents throw the mantle gets bumped and the vase wobbles. You reach out to steady it and your parents beat the living sh*t out of you for touching it.
I’m not going to bother with your other psalms. Your god is clearly shown to be evil in the psalm I quoted and throughout the bible. Occaisional acts that aren’t evil don’t undo those that are. If a murderer pets the occaisional dog that doesn’t make him a good person. Only an evil god would create imperfect humans knowing the vast majority of them are going to disobey his commands and then torture them for an eternity.
posted by Novaseeker on
Eh, that’s a pretty selective portrayal of Christianity, to be honest, Randi. Many Christians take their cue from the Gospels, and not from the portrait of God in the Hebrew Bible.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Novaseeker said “Many Christians take their cue from the Gospels, and not from the portrait of God in the Hebrew Bible.”.
Ha, no doubt Novaseeker! The stuff I quoted is typical of the old testament, its rife with the evil of the Abrahamic god. The new testament is radically different from the old in style and content, its clear these two books don’t belong together, the new is obviously artificially tacked on to the old. Christians would really do well to expunge their bible of the old testament. Of course many claim the old testament no longer applies, however if that were true then it wouldn’t be a part of their bible, would it?
posted by raj on
Randi Schimnosky | December 21, 2006, 11:04am |
You’re [NDXXX] a pathological liar.
I don’t know how patholological he is (“pathological” would let him off the moral hook), but he is definitely a dissembler.
BTW, I got a little interested (very little, but a little) in this discussion regarding passages from the Wholly Babble, and did a little checking. NDXXX at one point cited something from John 8:11. It turns out that there was no passage in the original (or earliest extant) manuscript of John for the story in John 7:53 to John 8:11. It was a later-added adulteration of the gospel. The adulterator is apparently unknown–well, the original author is also unknown–and the time at which the adulteration was made is also unknown.
Source: NetBible.org, specifically frames here (text), here (note) and here.
God only knows how many other adulterations have been made to the Wholly Babble’s text over the years. /sarcasm
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Raj, apparently a whole pile. I recently read the book “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart D. Ehrman and he says there’s thousands of differences in the early copies of works of the buy-bull
posted by Novaseeker on
“Ha, no doubt Novaseeker! The stuff I quoted is typical of the old testament, its rife with the evil of the Abrahamic god. The new testament is radically different from the old in style and content, its clear these two books don’t belong together, the new is obviously artificially tacked on to the old. Christians would really do well to expunge their bible of the old testament. Of course many claim the old testament no longer applies, however if that were true then it wouldn’t be a part of their bible, would it?”
Or they simply say that they view the Hebrew Bible through the prism of the Gospels. There are many “Christianities”, in any case, and not all of them are stuck on the minutiae of the Hebrew Bible.
posted by raj on
James | December 20, 2006, 2:25pm |
Here’s the point, Novaseeker, that you seem to be missing–being gay is OK; they are ways of expressing being gay which are MORALLY WRONG. (etc)
If, by “being gay,” you mean the status of being sexually attracted to persons of the same sex, under Christian doctrine, strictly speaking, you are correct. (Although more than a few people who call themselves Christian would disagree with you.) If, by “being gay,” you mean engaging in sexual activities with persons of the same sex, under Christian doctrine, strictly speaking, that is more debatable. More than a people who call themselves Christian believe that engaging in sexual activity with persons of the same sex is, in and of itself, immoral. And they cite various passages from their (and presumably your) bible (an English translation, of course) to support their belief, and on a quick reading of those passages more than suggests that they are not clearly wrong.
You, on the other hand, I presume, also call yourself a Christian, but apparently you do not agree with those I mentioned above, but instead believe that engaging in sexual activity with persons of the same sex is, in and of itself, immoral. Apparently, you and like-minded people who also call themselves Christian disagree with their interpretation of those passages, and at least the like-minded people provide an interpretation that merely engaging in sex with persons of the same sex is not, in and of itself, immoral.
I am not particularly interested in arguing the minutiae of theology. I have a more practical issue. The question I present to you is, given such divergent opinions of all the various persons who call themselves Christians as to what their bible says is immoral, why should any outside observer–such as myself–believe any of you? If your bible is supposed to be your rule book as to the do’s and don’t’s of a moral life, one would think that the rule book would be a little more clear as to what those do’s and don’t’s are. As far as I can tell, what christians believe to be moral and immoral has little to do with their bible, and more to do with other sources, including what they want and what their prejudices are.
And, as far as I can tell, morality has little to do with religion. Evolutionary biology has more to do with it than anything else.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Novaseeker, its not a matter of minutia in the old testament, that stuff is typical of what’s in there and the old testment itelf makes up over 3/4 of the buy-bull.
posted by James on
To answer your question:
The Bible is not a moral rulebook, nor was it meant to be. I believe “Love is the fulfillment of the law.” In each situation, we have to do the most loving thing. As the years pass, and we as a community live out Jesus’ command to love each other, we as community discover that some things are never loving–adultery, murder, robbery, etc. Some things are always loving–feeding the hungry, etc.
Sometimes, the loving thing is difficult to discern, such as slavery, and it takes longer for the church to see the mistakes it makes. I think that the understanding of homosexuality as an orienation is a brand new situation for the church–the question has never been asked before, and previous condemnations were based on a false understanding of homosexuality, in the same way the church was wrong about the sun going around the earth.
Now that the church has access to the science behind homosexual orientation, we have to look at it differently. We can’t quote Scripture passages because they were not written with the understanding of homosexuality we now have, any more that we can quote Scripture passages about the “four corners of the earth.” We can, however, quote Scripture on the Law of Love which underlies all our decisions. We have to see what the most loving way is for us as Christians to express our homosexuality. It seems clear to me that since the most loving way to express heterosexual love is a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship, then the same must be true for homosexual relationships.
If you want to read more about this process of Christian decision making, read Fletcher’s Situation Ethics. I’m a bit more conservative than he is, but I share the same basic principles.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
James said “The Bible is not a moral rulebook, nor was it meant to be.”.
I think that would be news to the vast majority of Christians, especially those who quote the bible to oppose same sex relationships. I’d say you got it half right, “the bible is not a moral rulebook”.
James said “Sometimes, the loving thing is difficult to discern, such as slavery”. I can’t believe you said that. In this case the loving thing is easy to discern, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Slavery couldn’t be more obviously wrong and immoral. The church had trouble with it because it values rigidity above doing what’s right, because it tries to unconditionally base its morality on a book without objectively and critically judging the validity of what the book says, because blind adherence takes precedence over regard for common sense and the essence of morality – do whatever you want, but harm no one.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Christians would really do well to expunge their bible of the old testament. Of course many claim the old testament no longer applies, however if that were true then it wouldn’t be a part of their bible, would it?
Nope.
That would be like cutting childhood and adolescence out of an autobiography.
The whole thrust of the Old Testament is the early days of humanity and the development of man’s relationship to God. Like children growing up, at first the rules are very black and white; then, as the child ages, internalizes the simple rules, and gains the conceptual ability to see and understand the varying shades therein, they adapt. The rule goes from, “Don’t leave the house without Mommy” to, “Call when you get to the theater and be home by 11”.
The temptation of modern-day Christians, in attempt to make the religion more palatable to bigots like Randi and Raj, is to downplay the whole thing because it doesn’t portray the “love, love, do whatever you want” of modern permissive theology. But what these people don’t realize is that Randi and Raj’s bigotry isn’t based on anything rational; for instance, you don’t hear them claiming that other texts that date to antiquity are completely wrong because manuscripts differ. Even if you cut the Old Testament completely out, they find ways in the New to “prove” that “God is evil” or “God doesn’t exist”. As Randi demonstrates, she refuses to even read passages that conflict with her belief that “God is evil”; she’s only interested in ones that prove her point.
Ironically, much like the anti-gay folk she claims to hate for doing exactly the same thing when it comes to gays.
And now to this point:
James said “Sometimes, the loving thing is difficult to discern, such as slavery”. I can’t believe you said that. In this case the loving thing is easy to discern, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Slavery couldn’t be more obviously wrong and immoral.
(shrug) You DO realize, of course, that the Bible is WAY ahead of contemporary civilizations in the time in which it was written in terms of treatment for slaves?
Take, for example, Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 6, verses 5 – 9:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Note that Paul, who was a Roman citizen, wrote that letter during a time when it was directly counter to standard practice to treat slaves in such a fashion.
And to your specific point, Randi, concerning slavery in the United States, I have always thought it would be interesting to do a Wonderful Life-type flashback for African-Americans, showing them what would have happened had their ancestors never been brought to the United States in bondage. What do you think they would see?
For Christians, it is an established fact that all things work for good to those who love God, even when they don’t seem that way. That was the entire point of Psalm 22, which was why I cited it. When one is dealing with an omniscient being, which we are emphatically not, it is very presumptuous to judge their decisions. God is like a chess master who knows the consequences of every move and the ultimate ending; we are but rank amateurs who can only focus on the immediate.
posted by Novaseeker on
Again I have to ask, NDT: what do you think, in your personal opinion, is the authentic christian teaching about same-sex relationships?
Let’s cut to the chase here, because we have a few Christians like me and you and James (who disagree I think about Christianity) arguing with a lot of other people who are not Christian about details, but the heart of the matter — which animates their animus against Christianity in no small meassure — is that.
What is your view on that?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallas, you continue to mischaracterize everything I’ve repeatedly said as its the only way for you to create the false impression that you have something moral and of value to say. It is not merely “love, love, do whatever you want”, it is “Do whatever you want but hurt no one.” That last bit is the essential part of morality and you keep lying by excluding it.
I have read all of your old testament and it obviously describes an evil psychotic war god. Quoting passages where your god does not exhibit his evil does nothing to undo all the evidence that he is evil – it doesn’t matter how many stories you tell me about how well Charles Manson treated his mother, it doesn’t undo his evil nature.
You don’t hear me claiming that other texts with differing manuscripts that date to antiquity are completely wrong for very pedestrian reasons. I am simply not familiar with religions that aren’t a dominant part of the culture I live in. They don’t concern me because they aren’t in my face day in and day out. I’m sorry I don’t have the education and the desire to appropriately criticize all religions, but I am not superwoman.
That you would justify the bible’s condoning of slavery by saying it condoned a kinder gentler slavery is laughable. By the same logic we shouldn’t look down on Charles Manson because he didn’t kill as many people as Hitler. The existence of a greater wrong doesn’t make a lesser wrong right.
I notice you left out the parts where it says its okay for a master to beat his slave as long as he doesn’t die immediately afterwards. And if he does die afterwards that’s only a slight wrongdoing.
You said “For Christians, it is an established fact that all things work for good to those who love God, even when they don’t seem that way.”.
Absolutely ridiculous, I’m sure if you had been in Afghanistan a few years back and told that to the Christian aid workers who were skinned alive it would have comforted them very much. No loving all powerful god would allow man’s incredible inhumanity to man. That alone is proof of his non-existence.
posted by raj on
Randi Schimnosky | December 21, 2006, 7:39pm |
You [NDXXX] said “For Christians, it is an established fact that all things work for good to those who love God, even when they don’t seem that way.”.
Absolutely ridiculous,…
Most assuredly absolutely ridiculous. It reminds me of the people out in the middle west and plains states who, after a tornado had demolished their towns and homes and killed more than a few of their neighbors, had thanked gawd that they had been spared. Apparently, they were to dumb to realize that, if their gawd really existed and was as omnipotent as they claimed him/her/it to be, he could have spared all of them, just by preventing the tornado to have come into existence.
But, then again, their sanity is probably somewhat–shall we say?–questionable.
Do Unnatural Acts Cause Natural Disasters?
posted by James on
Here’s how a law might develop using the Law of Love: Let’s say someone 1000 years ago seeks to discern the will of God and discovers that committing adultery on his wife is wrong. He writes that down. Someone else, 200 years later, in a different situation with a different wife, discerns adultery is wrong. Someone else, 500 years later, on the other side of the planet, with yet another wife, discerns adultery is wrong. When we look at the diaries of all their experiences, we see that in every case, when someone turned to God with a question about adultery, it turned out adultery is wrong. There is no rule specifically outlawing adultery, but every time the subject has come up, adultery is wrong–adultery is never the loving thing to do. So, after awhile, you can pretty much say, “Thou shalt not commit adultery” as a quick guide to what is going to be the right answer, or you can discern God’s will again, all on your own. But it’s simpler to base your action on the experiences of those who have come before you and faced the same problem.
My community, as an Episcopalian, includes not just my church, but all Christians for 2000 years who have recorded their experiences with God. I also include, as supplementary, all those who have ever sought God’s will, wherever they are, since I think that God is the source of all Wisdom, as per Proverbs 8. I think that my decisions are better because I have the deposit of all that wisdom.
Homosexuality is a new thing that the church, this 2000-year community, has never faced before with the scientific evidence we now have. But the overall principle that this community has discerned is that lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships are the best, so I trust that. You can make decisions based on the behavior of men since Stonewall leading up to Lance Bass, but I think a larger pool of experience leads to better choices.
Again, it’s not about following rules, it’s about always doing the loving thing. But sometimes the loving thing is pretty clear. I think that the loving thing for gays is to express their homosexuality, their deepest and most intimate selves, in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships. If you think what most gays are doing now is working, go ahead, but I bet you’ll eventually come to the same conclusion.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Well, I don’t know what Lance Bass has to do with anything, but the evidence suggests that gays are just as much into lifelong sexually exclusive relationships as heterosexuals.
40-60% of gay men, and 45-80% of lesbians are in a steady relationship
J Harry-1983 in Contemporary Families and Alternative Lifestyles, ed by Macklin, Sage Publ.
L Peplau-1981, in Journal of Homosexuality 6(3):1-19
J Spada-1979, The Spada Report, New American Library Publ
b) Studies of older homosexual people show that gay relationships lasting over 20 years are not uncommon
D McWhirter-1984, The Male Couple, Prentice-Hall
S Raphael-1980, Alternative Lifestyles 3:207-230, “The Older Lesbian”
C Silverstein-1981, Man to Man: Gay Couples in America, William Morrow Publ.
c) In a large sample of couples followed for 18 months the following “break up” statistics were observed: lesbians=22%, gay=16%, cohabiting heterosexuals=17%
Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) American Couples: Money, Work, Sex; Morrow Publ.
d) Homosexual and heterosexual couples matched on age, etc, tend not to differ in levels of love and satisfaction, nor in their scores on other standardized scales
M Cardell-1981, Psychology of Women Quarterly 5:488-94
D Dailey-1979, Journal of Sex Research 15:143-57
S Duffy-1986, Journal of Homosexuality 12(2):1-24
L Kurdek-1986, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:711-720
L Peplau-1982, Journal of Homosexuality 8(2):23-35 (see L Peplau-1991, Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, ed by J Gonsiorek).
posted by Novaseeker on
“Again, it’s not about following rules, it’s about always doing the loving thing. But sometimes the loving thing is pretty clear. I think that the loving thing for gays is to express their homosexuality, their deepest and most intimate selves, in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships.”
This I agree with, James.
“If you think what most gays are doing now is working, go ahead,”
This I don’t agree with. I don’t think “most” gay men are how you think they are. It’s true that many who live in the ghetto behave that way, but in my own experience the vast majority of gay men neither live in the ghetto nor practice or live the party-boy lifestyle you’re describing here.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
James said “The Bible is not a moral rulebook, nor was it meant to be.”.
North Dallass said “The whole thrust of the Old Testament is…at first the rules are very black and white; then, as the child ages, internalizes the simple rule…the rule goes from, “Don’t leave the house without Mommy” to, “Call when you get to the theater and be home by 11.”.
James you’ve said you agree with everything Northdallass says, but you don’t agree here and its a pretty major difference. Maybe you’ll want to explain why you and your “intellectual” hero come to such fundamental polar opposite conclusions about your holy book. I can’t imagine why you want to be intellectually associated with such a chronic liar. Your bible says don’t bear false witness and that lying is an abomination.
James you also said “Again, it’s not about following rules, it’s about always doing the loving thing”
“Always do the loving thing” is a rule, similar to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “Do whatever you want but hurt no one”.
North Dallass, the idea that the old testament is for a childish society and thew new testament is for an adolescent society is absurd. There’s no difference in the maturity level of the bronze age societies at the times of the new and old testaments. And certainly today our society is far far ahead of that bronze age society in terms of maturity. Where’s the current testament to reflect our present far superior level of maturity? Maybe you should be following the Bahai faith because it claims to represent the latest testament. Of course the maturity level of 1800’s society is still far behind that of today – where’s the testament to advise people during the radical changes that have come about as a result of technology?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I notice you left out the parts where it says its okay for a master to beat his slave as long as he doesn’t die immediately afterwards. And if he does die afterwards that’s only a slight wrongdoing.
And I notice that, despite your previous demonstrated ability to quote the Bible directly, you didn’t do so with those passages. Provide them, please.
And here, Randi, you create the biggest problem for antireligious bigots like yourself.
No loving all powerful god would allow man’s incredible inhumanity to man. That alone is proof of his non-existence.
Yet, if God does not exist, mankind is solely responsible for its own issues. Your leftist mantra of “Do what you want, but harm no one” was kept perfectly by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Charles Manson, and others; they simply redesignated whomever they chose as not being people, so their actions were not “harming” anyone. You need not even be that dramatic; leftists like dalea who allegedly espouse the “harm no one” rule do not consider it harmful, for instance, to urinate and vomit on Christians.
And as for your and Raj’s insistence that “no all-powerful loving god would ever let anything bad happen”, think of it simply in the analogy of parenthood; what kind of child is produced by a parent who is overprotective, keeps every bad thing away, and cleans up/fixes/pays for every mess made? God knows how we’re wired; He is very aware of the fact that humans learn both from their successes and their mistakes, and to eliminate the possibility or consequence of the latter is to retard our growth, both individually and collectively.
James you’ve said you agree with everything Northdallass says, but you don’t agree here and its a pretty major difference.
LOL…..nice try.
If you look at the quote, Randi, I talked about the different rules that were in the Bible. The presence of rules in a book does not make it a “rulebook”, and indeed to try to make the Bible just that is to miss a major portion of it, as James correctly points out; there is so much more there than that.
North Dallass, the idea that the old testament is for a childish society and thew new testament is for an adolescent society is absurd. There’s no difference in the maturity level of the bronze age societies at the times of the new and old testaments.
Indeed there is, my dear, and it’s a simple one; in the Old Testament, the existence and power of God was always an ongoing question to the Israelites. Indeed, as one reads in the story of the Ten Commandments, Moses only had to be gone a few days and the Israelites were like, “Well, let’s ditch God and worship this golden calf here.” In the New Testament, it’s an accepted norm; in fact, the Jews had already revolted numerous times against leaders who tried to force them to give up their faith. The New Testament is algebra and the Old Testament is arithmetic; until you understand and can do the latter, the former is completely incomprehensible.
And certainly today our society is far far ahead of that bronze age society in terms of maturity. Where’s the current testament to reflect our present far superior level of maturity?
In Matthew 26:57 – 67, Mark 14:53 – 65, and Luke 22:66 – 71.
Keep in mind that the people described were people who physically interacted with Jesus. They had seen the miracles He had performed. They had heard His message directly. They knew by heart all the messianic prophecies that He had fulfilled. And yet they still would not believe, because doing so was inconvenient to their position, power, and sense of identity.
You and Raj are no different than they. You have the Bible in front of you, but you ignore what doesn’t suit your prejudice. And despite being surrounded by the inexplicable, you refuse to acknowledge that there may be that which is beyond human ken, or that your perspective is too limited to be judging God. You claim that you do believe that there is something greater than humanity, but then refuse to accept anything that does not fall precisely within your human definitions.
In short, you HAVE plenty of testimony. You simply refuse to believe it for your own purposes. Furthermore, since you ignore what is already here, what should make us think that you would believe if you were given something else?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
and then ND30 turns around and hints that African-Americans should be grateful for slavery because it got them out of Africa…priceless. You are lucky that you have the anonymity of the internet to cover your ass ND30, because if you tried to pull half the shit your do here to my face you and I would have to tussle.
Mhm.
By that statement, is it safe to assume that you’re African-American?
And if so, which do you prefer; your lifestyle today in the United States, or in your ancestral tribe in Africa?
“Grateful” is a loaded word. No, I don’t think people should be particularly grateful for being ripped from their families, their culture, and their way of life through a process that was pure hell and to a new existence that at best was liveable and at worst was utter brutality for centuries. But at the same time, it needs to be acknowledged that, had it not happened, their circumstances would have been significantly different — and their existence would be a drastic change from what it is now.
Given that, I have always thought it would be interesting to do a Wonderful Life-type flashback for African-Americans, showing them what would have happened had their ancestors never been brought to the United States in bondage. What do you think they would see?
posted by raj on
ColoradoPatriot | December 22, 2006, 1:43pm |
Now, now, don’t let NDXXX get under your skin.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North Dallass said “Your leftist mantra of “Do what you want, but harm no one” was kept perfectly by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Charles Manson, and others”.
Earth calling North Dallass
Earth calling North Dallass
Come in North Dallass.
Obviously it wasn’t. The lies and absurdities roll off your keyboard with amazing ease and frequency. Only in you delusional mind did Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Charles Manson hurt no one. They never claimed to be following the golden rule. No rational person thinks the rule is perfectly kept by redefining anyone to not be human. Just because the perfect rule can be ignored by irrational people doesn’t detract from its perfection. The failure of people to not live up to the rule is not a failing of the rule. Your religion doesn’t force irrational people to be good either – Hitler was a Christian, the spanish inquisition were Christians, the Crusades were carried out by Christians, David Koresh was a Christian. I hate to disapoint you, but your idiocy and perversion of reality fools no one, its plain for all to see.
Dalea is human and it is inevitable that imperfect humans at some point fail to live up to the perfect rule of harming no one. The Christian bus driver started the hatred and its not surprising when it gets escalated, wrong though that may be. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but lets not forget who started the wrong – the Christian who rejects gays who hurt no one.
You however, took Dalea’s comments and blamed Raj and all gays for it, once again demonstrating your lyinng nature.
James said “Its not about following rules” and you talked about the rules in the bible.
Your two positions are polar opposites with the possible exception of your insane mind where white is black and black is white.
The existence and power of you god has always been an ongoing question, indeed there has never been any evidence to support his existence and in fact the evidence shows just the opposite. A loving and just god that allows belief in him and his religion of preference to be debatable and who eternally tortures people for innocently believing otherwise cannot exist any more than a square sphere exists.
You said “And as for your and Raj’s insistence that “no all-powerful loving god would ever let anything bad happen”, think of it simply in the analogy of parenthood; what kind of child is produced by a parent who is overprotective, keeps every bad thing away, and cleans up/fixes/pays for every mess made? God knows how we’re wired; He is very aware of the fact that humans learn both from their successes and their mistakes, and to eliminate the possibility or consequence of the latter is to retard our growth, both individually and collectively.
You compare a child making a mess to humans skinning each other alive?!? To the torture and slaughter of millions?!? You’re one sick puppy. Skinning a human alive is not a minor infraction to be overlooked until one learns to do better. If Junior takes his parents handgun and shoots one of his friends and then starts looking for his sister his parents damn well better not step aside to let him sort it out for himself. You think those people needed to skin alive those Christians to “learn from their mistakes” and avoid “retarding their growth”??!! You’re a bloody madman! This kind of insanity has been going on for millenia in the name of religion, obviously people aren’t learning from your religion, its been tried, it doesn’t work, give it up for goodness sake.
I can’t say for sure whether or not a god exists, but if he does, he’s one malicious, psychotic, heartless evil bastard. I’m horrified by man’s inhumanity to man and you make pathetic twisted excuses for your god looking the other way, an act that can only be justified by his non-existence.
Regarding the passages that say its okay to beat your slave as long as he doesn’t die immediately afterwards, and that if he does its a minor infraction, how about before I provide those passages you deny they exist seeing as that’s what you’re implying.
You’re a fine one to talk – claiming Raj and I are ignoring what doesn’t suit our prejudice. I never claimed to believe there is something greater than humanity, all the evidence suggests there isn’t. Mankind is solely responsible for his issues and the sooner we disgard the monstrous failure that is religion the sooner we’ll begin addressing those issues. If everyone lived by the golden rule of “Do whatever you want, but harm no one.” there would be no wars, no conflict, no horrors wrought by religion
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I never claimed to believe there is something greater than humanity, all the evidence suggests there isn’t.
I quote:
Technically I am not an atheist myself seeing as I don’t entirely rule out the possibility of some sort of a god – I am just certain there cannot be a god as described in judaism, christianity, and Islam.
And I particularly loved this contrast:
If everyone lived by the golden rule of “Do whatever you want, but harm no one.” there would be no wars, no conflict, no horrors wrought by religion
Or this one:
This kind of insanity has been going on for millenia in the name of religion, obviously people aren’t learning from your religion, its been tried, it doesn’t work, give it up for goodness sake.
Mhm. But then, when confronted with the example of your fellow leftist dalea, what did you do?
Dalea is human and it is inevitable that imperfect humans at some point fail to live up to the perfect rule of harming no one.
So….religion is wrong because people have screwed up over the course of history, but leftists like yourself are right, even though YOU screw up.
The hypocrisy is amusing enough, but even better is your excuse for why it was really OK:
The Christian bus driver started the hatred and its not surprising when it gets escalated, wrong though that may be. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but lets not forget who started the wrong – the Christian who rejects gays who hurt no one.
That’s an excellent imitation of Charles Lindbergh, who tried to defend the Nazis’ treatment of Jews as being wrong, but justifiable because the Jews had a stranglehold on Germany’s business and finance and because, after all, the US was still segregated, so we had no right to be ragging on the Nazis.
And finally to this:
Skinning a human alive is not a minor infraction to be overlooked until one learns to do better. If Junior takes his parents handgun and shoots one of his friends and then starts looking for his sister his parents damn well better not step aside to let him sort it out for himself.
Oddly enough, though, I would imagine that there will be a run on trigger locks, a push for keeping guns away from children, and a much-heightened awareness of the very real danger of guns in the hands of kids afterwards.
That’s human nature. The danger of guns in kids’ hands was plainly obvious well before Junior’s rampage; however, very few people likely took it seriously. The human mind simply isn’t wired to think of worst-case scenarios like that, especially when fixing it would involve effort on our part. Instead, we just ignore it as “unlikely”, or say, “I’ll put it off until tomorrow”.
Skinning people alive and other exotic tortures were nothing new in Afghanistan, and in fact had been going on rather matter-of-factly ever since the Taliban took power. But, bluntly put, no one in the US really cared much until those aid workers had it done to them.
God knows what every smart parent does; you can tell kids everything you want, but sometimes the only way in which they learn is when the worst happens.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North dallass, I repeat, I never claimed to believe there is something greater than humanity.
If you’ll recall this quote of mine: “I can’t say for sure whether or not a god exists, but if he does, he’s one malicious, psychotic, heartless evil bastard.”.
Clearly in the highly unlikely event that there is some sort of god he is clearly not greater than humanity, in fact a good deal less than humanity, of that I am sure. There was nothing inconsistent about my remarks. If I were omnipotent I can assure you no one would be murdered, harmed, or skinned alive. As a moral being I simply couldn’t allow it. Your god’s inaction can only be justified by his non-existence.
Religion is wrong because it doesn’t put fairness first, because it advocates murder, rape, killing gays who’ve harmed no one, and so forth. Religion is wrong because at the heart of it is the idea that the world was created just for their particular group of people – “The jews are God’s chosen people”, or Islam’s “Kill the infidels. Religion is an us versus them philosophy which inevitably leads to conflict My philosophy is right because it does none of those things. It puts fairness first. Its about maximizing the good and minimizing the bad for all in an equal fashion, a goal everyone can agree on. The only philosophy that can unite the planet.
I never said Dalea’s comments were okay, I said “two wrongs don’t make a right”. You just don’t want to admit the Christianist was wrong to reject gays who harm no one and that she started the confict. I don’t recall Dalea claiming to be an adherent to my philosophy so any failure of his to live up to it is besides the point.
Your evil is apparent by your trivializing the events in Afghanistan. You’re so concerned about being an apologist for your non-existent or evil god you shrug your shoulders at the horror of humans being skinned alive.
You say “God knows what every smart parent does; you can tell kids everything you want, but sometimes the only way in which they learn is when the worst happens.”.
So to continue the parental analogy, If Junior wants to borrow their gun and shoot Joey they should let him because the only way he’ll learn is if the worst happens and he kills someone. After all, that’s what god does, a total hands off approach.
Why even bring up “trigger locks, a push for keeping guns away from children, and a much-heightened awareness of the very real danger of guns in the hands of kids”?
If parents are supposed to be like god they shouldn’t interfere, they should let their children learn by having the worst happen.
And if good parents take such preventative measures to keep the worst from happening what’s your God’s excuse for allowing man’s incredible inhumanity to man? Clearly the approach of god and the aproach of good parents is not the same.
So what did those evil Islamic Afghanis learn by skinning Christians alive? How exactly was that a good thing? How exactly have humans learned anything of value from millenia of religious violence and millions of violent deaths? Millenia of religion has been a total failure in teaching morality to humans. Clearly the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants, Jews, Christians, and muslims won’t be resolved with religion, they’ll only be resolved by putting religion aside and putting fairness and equality first.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Regarding your comment: “God knows what every smart parent does; you can tell kids everything you want, but sometimes the only way in which they learn is when the worst happens.”
I forgot to mention the obvious. Your fictional god is omnipotent, having the worst happen is most certainly not the only way he can have people learn. Just as he hardened pharoah to force the Egyptians and Jews into conflict for his own pleasure he could have softened the Afghanis’ hearts to prevent them from skinning the Christians alive. That he uses his omnipotency to do the former but not the latter shows his psychotic evil nature.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
My philosophy is right because it does none of those things. It puts fairness first. Its about maximizing the good and minimizing the bad for all in an equal fashion, a goal everyone can agree on.
LOL…..Randi, anyone who reads this thread knows what your philosophy is.
For instance, which part of “harm no one” does your deliberate misspelling of “dallas” to the deliberate insult of “dallass” fall under?
In my opinion, it’s under your TRUE philosophy: “Do as you will, but harm no one, unless you don’t like them, in which case anything you do is justified”.
That’s why you cannot simply condemn dalea’s statements; you have to whine and argue that “the Christian started it”. You cannot explain why the hate and vitriol that litters your post comes out when you are allegedly “harming no one” — unless you justify your actions by claiming that they are attempting to harm you first.
Since, Randi, you fully support hateful actions against people that you oppose, as your post exemplifies, why then do you call God “psychotic”? You claim that you would never be hateful if you were in his position, but as you demonstrate repeatedly here, you are constantly flinging hate. How can you judge God as “evil” for allegedly abusing his power when you abuse yours as well?
Now, before you start claiming that it isn’t “harming” me to insult me by the use of “dallass”, remember your previous statement:
No one said harm is defined solely by the person doing the behavior, you idiot. Harm is defined by the person being harmed
So, quite clearly, you failed.
And therefore, by your logic, since you failed, your morality system is a failure as well — since you insist any failure by Christians indicates that Christianity is a failure.
And if you respond with a single insulting or harmful word, you demonstrate your failure and the failure of your philosophy over and over and over again.
That’s what you demand of Christians; now you can live up to it yourself.
If I were omnipotent I can assure you no one would be murdered, harmed, or skinned alive. As a moral being I simply couldn’t allow it. Your god’s inaction can only be justified by his non-existence.
Then humanity would be nothing but mere dependent puppets, helpless to reason, think, or do anything.
God values us quite a bit more than that, which is why He is willing to take the painful step Himself of watching those screwups and not interfering. Indeed, He sent His Son to die a painful, horrible death as the atonement for those screwups.
Why? Because, as beings with free will, the only way in which we can learn is through success and through screwup. God chose to give us free will; Adam and Eve made the choice to use it to disobey God, and from thence springs our problem.
posted by raj on
Randi Schimnosky | December 22, 2006, 5:57pm |
You (NDXXX) said “And as for your and Raj’s insistence that “no all-powerful loving god would ever let anything bad happen”… (emphasis added)
I’m not really interested in getting involved in your and NDXXX’s little tet-a-tet (note that he is merely illustrating one of the characteristics of the NDXXX troll that I mentioned above–he believes that column inches and last poster “wins” the “discussion”) but I’ll merely note that this is another of NDXXX’s little discussion tactics. I don’t know whether you wrote anything like what NDXXX says you wrote, but I did not. He conflates the two of us, which is, of course, a lie. He has done the same thing in the past here. And he and his compatriots over at gay”patriot”.net have done the same thing–attributing to me something that someone else may have written.
Of course, they are liars. But, what does one expect of (what I call) the “Mighty Righties”? Notorious liar Matty from Michigan not only blamed Pearl Harbor on FDR, he also blamed the “loss” of Iran on Jimmy Carter, all the while ignoring the fact that his Republican (Matty admitted that he is a Republican apparatchick) Eisenhower had the CIA overthrow a democratically-elected government in Iran in 1953. Matty, and other Republican apparatchicks like him, like to believe that the debacles of history began with Democratic regimes, when, more likely than not, they are brought about by Republican policies. Indeed, the entire involvement of the US in the Vietnam war began with Eisenhower. Don’t believe a word that these Republican apparatchicks write. They are completely ahistorical.
Going down a bit.
Randi Schimnosky | December 22, 2006, 10:49pm |
Religion is wrong because at the heart of it is the idea that the world was created just for their particular group of people – “The jews are God’s chosen people”
This “Jews are god’s chosen people” doesn’t mean what most people believe it means, but I’ll merely post a link to a satire on the subject.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
That’s right Raj, I never specifically said “no all-powerful loving god would ever let anything bad happen”.
Northdallass, part of defining the perfect philosophy is recognizing that humans are inevitably imperfect and will inevitably fail to perfectly live up to it. The point of defining it is to give a goal to which we come as close to achieving as we can. I am the first to admit that I frequently fall far short of perfection. But what about you? You can’t even acknowledge it and apologize when you’re lies are clear for all to see, like when you said “she and her fellow leftists tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives””.
I’ll stop calling you North Dallass when you apologize for telling that lie about me. By your own words, “you [have] respond[ed] with [lies, more than] a single insulting or harmful word, you [have] demonstrate[d] your failure and the failure of your philosophy over and over and over again.”. How is it that my imperfection is supposed to demonstrate the failure of my philosophy but your first and repeated demonstrations of imperfection don’t demonstrate the failure of your philosophy?
The thing about rules for morality, all bets are off when one person chooses to violate the rules first. Murder is wrong, unless someone announces their intent to and tries to murder me first. Then all bets are off and I am perfectly justified in murdering them before they murder me. Its the same with you and I. You broke the rules of fairness first and repeatedly, I am no longer bound by the “badmouth no one” rule in dealing with you until you first resume adhering to it.
I never said any failure by Christians proves that Christianity is a failure. Christianity is a failure because it does not clearly put fairness and equality first, because it is an us versus them philosophy, because the supposed source of Christian morality (your god) is psychotic and evil. The overwhelming volume of major failures of Christians from Hitler to Koresh proves its moral bankruptcy. You don’t see too many Wiccans perpectuating that kind of evil, from what you’ve said (a poor source to rely on), the worst the Wiccans have done is the odd orgy where all have been consenting adults.
Your statment that your god’s preventing humans from harming each other would mean “humanity would be nothing but mere dependent puppets, helpless to reason, think, or do anything” is more laughable absurdity – stop, your killing me ha ha ha!
So, according to your logic, when Junior’s parents put a trigger lock on their gun and prevent him from killing Joey, he loses his ability to reason, think and do his homework, loes the ability to fead, bathe, and dress himself, loses the ability to chose his friends and decide what to do in their time off, and so on. NOT!!
Just because there are limits on free will doesn’t mean there is no free will. I’m sure you’d agree you have free will now and yet there are limits on it. You can’t will yourself to wave your arms 20 feet above your head, you can’t will yourself to levitate, or pass through solid objects, there are boundaries on your free will. And the additional boundary of not being able to harm others certainly wouldn’t take away your free will to choose who you love and marry, choose what your career will be and where you work, choose what car you drive and how much if any you drink when you go to the bar, nor to choose whether to watch TV after work or to renovate your bathroom. I don’t know about you, but precious little of my day involves harming others and being prevented from doing that certainly wouldn’t turn me into a “mere dependent puppet, helpless to reason, think, or do anything.”
You say “Because, as beings with free will, the only way in which we can learn is through success and through”.
Poppycock. It clearly says in your bible that with god all things are possible. Obviously for your omnipotent god its possible for him to give us free will without allowing us to perpetuate man’s incredible inhumanity to man.
That, as you say, your god He sent His Son to die a painful, horrible death as the atonement for those screwups.” is yet again evidence of his psychotic evil nature. Jesus was suppossed to be perfect and innocent and yet god tortures and kills him, not for wrongs he did, but for wrongs others performed for which he is not reponsible. Only in your twisted buy-bull is one adult responsbile for the wrongs of another. If a mother of two said “Julie wzs so horribly bad today that I beat the crap out of Tommy” we’d rightfully condemn her as evil and crazy. Why should we have any different standard for your god?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Oops, the third and second to last paragraphs should have read:
You say “Because, as beings with free will, the only way in which we can learn is through success and through screwup.
Poppycock. It clearly says in your bible that with god all things are possible. Obviously for your omnipotent god its possible for him to give us free will without allowing us to perpetuate man’s incredible inhumanity to man.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And, while your at it Northdallass, you keep saying people need to screwup to learn – stop dodging the question, what did those Afghanis learn from skinning the Christians alive?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I don’t know whether you wrote anything like what NDXXX says you wrote, but I did not.
Unfortunately, Raj, you are tripped up again by your own previous statement. I quote:
Most assuredly absolutely ridiculous. It reminds me of the people out in the middle west and plains states who, after a tornado had demolished their towns and homes and killed more than a few of their neighbors, had thanked gawd that they had been spared. Apparently, they were to dumb to realize that, if their gawd really existed and was as omnipotent as they claimed him/her/it to be, he could have spared all of them, just by preventing the tornado to have come into existence.
And as for you, Randi, I cite again:
No loving all powerful god would allow man’s incredible inhumanity to man. That alone is proof of his non-existence.
Hence, it is entirely justified to state that your and Raj’s argument consists of “no all-powerful loving god would ever let anything bad happen”.
And here, finally, we get to the true core of your “morality”:
The thing about rules for morality, all bets are off when one person chooses to violate the rules first.
Therefore, since you chose to violate Christianity’s rule of morality, Christians are perfectly justified in attacking you; furthermore, they are under no requirement to follow the rules until you start adhering to them.
The beauty of your morality, which is also shared by al-Qaeda, is that it’s really self-defeating; since you make it clear that the choice is war or to surrender to your beliefs, most people will choose war — and you’re overwhelmingly outnumbered, even allegedly among your own kind. The only unfortunate problem is that you use your sexual orientation as an excuse for your antireligious hate and bigotry, which tars the rest of us with that same unfortunate brush.
It clearly says in your bible that with god all things are possible. Obviously for your omnipotent god its possible for him to give us free will without allowing us to perpetuate man’s incredible inhumanity to man.
First off, freedom of the will means freedom. In this world, mankind has the choice to sin or not to sin. It is God who gives us the strength and wisdom not to sin; otherwise, as in your morality, we would have no compulsion not to sin, because we could always justify it as not “harmful” to the other person or that “they started it”.
Second off, Randi, since you don’t believe in God’s omnipotence, your attempt to argue using it completely undercuts your own argument that it doesn’t exist.
And finally, one of these days you may realize that your leftist “they started it” argument for man’s inhumanity to man is a popular one, from the kulaks Stalin obliterated on the grounds that they were planning rebellion, through the Jews Hitler destroyed on the grounds that they were backstabbing Germany and keeping it from becoming a great power, and to Saddam Hussein, who systematically destroyed entire racial and ethnic populations on the grounds that they MIGHT be helping his enemies.
Jesus was suppossed to be perfect and innocent and yet god tortures and kills him, not for wrongs he did, but for wrongs others performed for which he is not reponsible.
And that, my dear Randi, is the miracle of Christianity and of Christians; that God Himself chose to take human form and and be punished for that which He in no way deserved so that we mere mortals would not be. The One chose to suffer rather than to force untold numbers of humanity to do so — and the only thing we have to do is believe.
For you, this is incomprehensible — because the notion of self-sacrifice, of control, of not getting what you want when you want, is totally foreign to you and your leftist morality.
And, while your at it Northdallass, you keep saying people need to screwup to learn – stop dodging the question, what did those Afghanis learn from skinning the Christians alive?
That it’s a very messy job.
What their exact feelings were, I cannot say. But given what I do know about those who have supervised executions and murder throughout history, I can tell you this; it affected all of them.
Doubtless there are ones like you, which would claim that their actions were justified because the Christians “attacked them”. It was a common excuse for the Taliban, so I would not doubt that at least one of them likely felt that way. As you make clear, if you feel your life is threatened, you have the right to take a life without concern, and it would not surprise me in the least if they felt the same way.
However, my hope for humanity lies in the fact that there were almost certainly ones who thought, even deep down, even if they didn’t say anything, “This isn’t right”. And what years will likely bear out is that those who refused to participate, or those who did, but regretted it later, become more and more numerous with time.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, there’s a difference between saying your god won’t let anything bad ever happen and between saying he won’t let some bad things happen.
You and the Christians violated the rules of fair play first, it is up to you to return to the rules first. That I choose not to be run roughshod over by following the rules of politeness when you chose to break them first would only be characterized as war by someone psychotic like you. Obviously “harm no one” is not one of your Christian rules of morality seeing as you would rather choose war than adhere to it. The fact that you don’t want to “surrender to that belief” shows the evil at the heart of your Christian philosophy.
I don’t use my sexual orientation as an excuse for hating religion, I hate religion because religionist’s attack me for my orientation. They say gays must be put to death, that gays should be tortured eternally for being in a loving committed relationship. My orientation is not the reason, their attacking me and gays for it is the reason.
You say “It is God who gives us the strength and wisdom not to sin” and yet you repeatedly disobey your Christian command not to bear false witness. You blame all gays for the words of Elton John, You blame all gays for the words of Dalea, You lie and say I “tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives””.
I don’t have to believe in your god’s omnipotence to point out that your argument is inconsistent with your own professed beliefs. If you believe in your buy-bull, you must believe your god is omnipotent and that with him all things are possible, including people learning and having freewill without having the freedom to screwup. Aside from that people have never had total free will, there have always been restrictions on it and we still have free will. Just because you don’t have the free will to wave your arms 20 feet above your head, or to levitate yourself, or to pass through solid objects doesn’t mean you don’t have the free will to choose who you love and marry, choose what your career will be and where you work, choose what car you drive and how much if any you drink when you go to the bar, nor to choose whether to watch TV after work or to renovate your bathroom. Just because you don’t have the free will to harm others doesn’t mean you don’t have the free will to do whatever you want that doesn’t involve harming others.
What you fail to recognize in the evil actions of Stalin, Hitler, and Hussein is a lack of proof that these things were happening, and/or a lack of an appropriatly measured response. That’s the difference between you and I. When you lie about me I give the measured response of insulting you. Your response to my measured and justified response is to declare all-out war. You have no restraint or sense of justice. Who started it is always critical to justice. When one person assaults another, the justice system does not punish the one who meets force with force.
You say “the miracle of Christianity and of Christians; that God Himself chose to take human form and and be punished for that which He in no way deserved so that we mere mortals would not be. The One chose to suffer rather than to force untold numbers of humanity to do so”.
It would take a miracle to justify that perverted lie. So god punishes his innocent self to appease himself. Like that makes sense. And its a pathetic lie. Your god eternally tortures non-believers, the majority of the population of the planet, untold numbers of humanity, and you want to falsely claim he does not do so.
And regarding the afganis skinning the Christiansthen despicably and falsely claim “Doubtless there are ones like you, which would claim that their actions were justified because the Christians “attacked them”.”
You filthy lying scum. These were aid workers, their only sin was being in a territory where they weren’t wanted. I was the one who repeatedly pointed out the horror of that and your god’s total failing in allowing it to happen. YOU were the one repeatedly justifying allowing this to happen on the absurd idea that somehow these murderers were going to learn a worthwhile lesson from it. Don’t come here whining about Christianity when you shit all over your own commandment not to bear false witness. Your god’s inaction can only be justified by his non-existence.
That you would post such lying malicious absurdities on Christmas day, ostensibly the birthday of Jesus Christ shows that you’re using religion for all the wrong reasons, to promote bigotry, division and hatred instead of the forgiveness and love that a worthwhile religion should encourage. How sad your life must be that this is all you can do with what most Christians claim to be a good thing. Merry Christmas you perverted bigot.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, there’s a difference between saying your god won’t let anything bad ever happen and between saying he won’t let some bad things happen.
And where exactly is that differentiation made in your cited statement?
No loving all powerful god would allow man’s incredible inhumanity to man. That alone is proof of his non-existence.
Furthermore, your statement in this previous post contradicts you:
Your god’s inaction can only be justified by his non-existence.
So which is it? Does the fact that bad things happen disprove that God exists, or are you and your fellow antireligious bigot Raj going to admit that the fact that bad things happen does NOT disprove God’s existence?
Next up:
It would take a miracle to justify that perverted lie. So god punishes his innocent self to appease himself. Like that makes sense.
It makes perfect sense when compared to the “morality” of people like yourself who insist that you wish to harm no one, but clearly state that you will murder anyone who threatens you with murder. I quote:
Murder is wrong, unless someone announces their intent to and tries to murder me first. Then all bets are off and I am perfectly justified in murdering them before they murder me.
God didn’t take that tack. Realistically, He owes humanity nothing, and would be perfectly justified in obliterating us, or simply allowing us to be obliterated. Instead, He chose the exact opposite — that is, “Even though I have no reason or requirement to, I will suffer and die in your place, so that you may have life.”
Jesus’s actions are perfectly comprehensible to me, because I love my partner; because of that love, I would be willing to give up my life to save his. What Jesus did was even greater, inasmuch as He was willing to give up His life for even the sins of people like you, who hate Him.
I think it speaks a great deal for you and your fellow leftists that you consider self-sacrifice to not make any sense, or that it’s a “perverted lie”. I can only imagine what you think of devout religious people like Marian Fisher.
Finally:
You and the Christians violated the rules of fair play first, it is up to you to return to the rules first. That I choose not to be run roughshod over by following the rules of politeness when you chose to break them first would only be characterized as war by someone psychotic like you.
Actually, I believe it was you who stated the following:
The Christian bus driver started the hatred and its not surprising when it gets escalated, wrong though that may be. Two wrongs don’t make a right….
So before, Randi, you were saying it was wrong to retaliate, that the “right” was to NOT retaliate, and that, by implication, you SHOULD continue to follow the rules of politeness regardless of provocation.
Now, however, you are saying that it is RIGHT to retaliate and that the rules of politeness go out the window regardless of provocation.
And that leads to this:
Obviously “harm no one” is not one of your Christian rules of morality seeing as you would rather choose war than adhere to it. The fact that you don’t want to “surrender to that belief” shows the evil at the heart of your Christian philosophy.
Or the fact that I have recognized that when you say “harm no one”, it doesn’t really mean that; it means that no one should harm you, but that you are free to use whatever excuse or alleged “provocation” you like to dispense with said rules and do as you please.
I prefer Marian Fisher’s version of morality.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
I wouldn’t say that any little bad thing happening, like a frost killing your tomatoes, proves your god doesn’t exist, but the fact that people torture and kill others in horrific ways like skinning them alive proves your god does not exist. A moral and omnipotent being simply couldn’t allow that to happen.
Absolutely, if someone threatened me with murder I would do my best to kill them first. That is perfectly moral. I have a right to live and if someone attempts to take that away from me I Have the right to defend myself with similar force. That principle is upheld in our justice system each and every day.
You say “God didn’t take that tack. Realistically, He owes humanity nothing, and would be perfectly justified in obliterating us, or simply allowing us to be obliterated.”.
What do you mean god didn’t take that tack?!?! He allows belief in him and his religion of preference to be debatable and then eternally tortures people for innocently believing otherwise! He’s psychotic and evil!
You like to use the good parent/god analogy, you would never say a parent owes their children nothing and would be perfectly justified in obliterating them or allowing them to be obliterated. That’s perverted evil and its no different with your god.
Jesus wasn’t willing to give up his life. He clearly said on the cross, “My god, my god, why have you forsaken me”. That’s not the cry of someone willingly going to their death. And no one is allowed to take responsibility for another’s wrongs. If you murder someone the justice system won’t let your partner jump in and say “punish me instead”. That’s fundamental to justice, the person committing the wrong is solely responsible and your bible spits all over that foundational principle with the twisted idea that an innocent Jesus should be tortured and killed, against his will I might add, for the wrong doings of others. That’s just perverted and wrong no mattter how you slice it. Once again, your god’s actions can only be justified by his non-existence.
I don’t consider urinating and vomiting on the bus driver to be a measured response to her hatred, it would be going too far, but it is and would be morally correct to castigate her for her act of bigotry. Its just like its not appropriate for me to kick you for lying about me, a physical attack can never be justified as a response to a verbal attack. However it is perfectly reasonable and perhaps a bit of an underresponse to call you the ass you are in response to your lying about me and all LGBTS. I couldn’t be bothered to read about your Marian fisher given that you still deny the obvious:
No moral loving omnipotent god would allow humans to skin each other alive. No moral loving being would create imperfect humans knowing he’s going to eternally torture the vast majority of them for disobeying him exactly as he knew they would when he created them. Your god’s actions can only be justified by his non-existence.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And as to your BS about self sacrifice, I’d give my life for my boyfriend, you lying bigot.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Jesus wasn’t willing to give up his life. He clearly said on the cross, “My god, my god, why have you forsaken me”. That’s not the cry of someone willingly going to their death.
That would only be why, in every single one of the Gospels, it makes clear that Jesus did NOT resist being taken into custody, did NOT resist being falsely accused, did NOT defend himself, and quite frankly, ALLOWED himself to be crucified. He knew full well what was coming, and He still allowed it to happen.
Matthew 26:50b – 54 makes it even clearer.
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”
Next:
What do you mean god didn’t take that tack?!?! He allows belief in him and his religion of preference to be debatable and then eternally tortures people for innocently believing otherwise! He’s psychotic and evil!
The problem is, Randi, people DON’T “innocently” believe otherwise. Antireligious bigots like yourself, for instance, know that all you have to do is believe — and yet you spit upon God and mock Him. You have CHOSEN to believe otherwise, and you make that choice at your own peril.
That goes into this as well:
You like to use the good parent/god analogy, you would never say a parent owes their children nothing and would be perfectly justified in obliterating them or allowing them to be obliterated. That’s perverted evil and its no different with your god.
Tell me, Randi; what do you think a parent owes their child who has completely rejected them, who spits on them, who wants nothing to do with them, who mocks them and tears them down, and who considers them evil and perverted?
Nothing. The child has chosen to separate the relationship, and the parents are no longer responsible.
The fact that Jesus died even for someone like you who hates Him and everything for which He stands demonstrates what God is about. YOU choose to accept or reject that, and you have chosen, with full knowledge, to reject it.
And why?
No moral loving omnipotent god would allow humans to skin each other alive. No moral loving being would create imperfect humans knowing he’s going to eternally torture the vast majority of them for disobeying him exactly as he knew they would when he created them. Your god’s actions can only be justified by his non-existence.
But unfortunately, Randi, if God does not exist…..humankind is solely responsible for its own condition. What is most amusing about your argument is that you deny that God exists, yet you hold God responsible for “man’s inhumanity to man”.
And finally, to this:
I couldn’t be bothered to read about your Marian fisher given that you still deny the obvious
You mean, because it pointed out the obvious.
Under a cold, steady drizzle, the Amish drove in horse and buggy to a farmland cemetery Friday to bury the last of five girls shot to death by an intruder as new details emerged of heroism inside their schoolhouse.
Two of the survivors of the shooting told their parents that 13-year-old Marian Fisher, one of the slain girls, asked to be shot first, apparently hoping the younger girls would be let go, according to Leroy Zook, an Amish dairy farmer.
Zook, who is close with the parents of the girls, said the parents told him that Marian said to the gunman:
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
NorthDallass, When Jesus was dying in the cross he said, “My god, My god, why have you forsaken me?”. Clearly his god didn’t put twelve legions of angels at his disposal at his request. That is not the statement of a man who goes willingly to his death and torture.
Your god allows belief in him and his religion of preference to be debatable and eternally tortures those who innocently believe otherwise. Forget about your obsession with me for a minute and think of all those millions of non-Christians who were raised from birth knowing nothing about your religion and being taught that there’s is the one true way by all the great authorities in their culture. They are most assuredly blameless for believing something other than your Christian nonsense.
You say “You have CHOSEN to believe otherwise, and you make that choice at your own peril.”.
Ooo, I’m really scared of your fictional god.
You said ” you deny that God exists, yet you hold God responsible for “man’s inhumanity to man”.
You’re playing stupid again. Just because your god doesn’t exist doesn’t mean I can’t point out the inconsistencies in your own beliefs. According to you a loving moral god exists and that is inconsistent with his creating perfect humans knowing they will behave in ways that he will eternally torture them for. Unlike in your “Jesus died for our sins” crap sensible people like me believe the man performing the evil is solely responsible for it. Your god’s inaction at man’s profound inhumanity to man proves his non-existence.
It’s pretty ironic that you glorify the forgiving of a murderer instead of forgiving those who despise your evil god you condemn them. You hold those that commit evil above those who reject it.
You ask “why should I believe that you’d give your life for your boyfriend, when you mock Jesus for offering up His own life for humanity as “twisted”, a “perverted lie” and as making no “sense”? Should I believe that you would do something that you consider patently stupid and impossible”.
There’s a big difference between sacrificing yourself to prevent an evil act to another and killing oneself as supposed appeasement for the evil acts one is not responsible for. If the sacrifice of your fictional Jesus character had prevented the afghani tribesman from skinning those Christians alive then it would be something. It didn’t. That murder hasn’t prevented the ongoing evil in the world, in fact with weapons of mass destruction the evil has only increased since then – the death of Jesus was worthless in preventing evil just as your fictional god knew it would be. The killing of Jesus as an excuse for the evil for which he was not responsible is a meaningless idiotic gesture. For god to kill himself to appease himself for what someone else did makes no sense. What happened to Jesus is the equivalent of someone murdering my boyfriend and then me telling him to kill me too so that the murderer doesn’t have to go to jail. My death certainly wouldn’t absolve the murderer of guilt any more than the murder of Jesus absolves anyone else of guilt. The foundation of our justice system is that people are responsible for their own actions. Only in your perverted evil buy-bull does that not hold true.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
NorthDallass, When Jesus was dying in the cross he said, “My god, My god, why have you forsaken me?”. Clearly his god didn’t put twelve legions of angels at his disposal at his request. That is not the statement of a man who goes willingly to his death and torture.
Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, and John 19 make it abundantly clear that Jesus knew quite well what was going to happen and went forward regardless of the fact. But you, being an antireligious bigot, are incapable of reading and acknowledging that fact, so you pick a passage and twist it to reinforce your bigotry.
Forget about your obsession with me for a minute
John 3:16 – 21 makes this much clearer:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”
In short, condemnation comes, not on those who have never heard, but on those who have heard and rejected it — and by their own choice.
According to you a loving moral god exists and that is inconsistent with his creating perfect humans knowing they will behave in ways that he will eternally torture them for.
Unfortunately, Randi, where your argument breaks down is that people can avoid torture by simply accepting and not rejecting God. What you don’t think is fair is being held accountable for the consequences of your choices.
Unlike in your “Jesus died for our sins” crap sensible people like me believe the man performing the evil is solely responsible for it.
Feel free. Do you want to be held accountable for all the evil things you’ve ever done in your life? Or would you prefer to accept Jesus’s death and suffering as your proxy and go forth with the knowledge that the evil things you’ve done are forgiven and that the ultimate consequence has been paid?
posted by NorthDallasRetard on
ND30: Stop your worthless proselytizing and get your ass off the damn internet, you are accomplishing nothing here. I know you are nothing but a backwards astroturfer but, seriously, do you think you are accomplishing anything by calling everyone on this board who disagrees with you a bigot? Or calling them “anti-religious”? Crawl back under your rock, you careening idiot.
posted by novaseeker on
Keep in mind that NDT’s theology here is not universally accepted Chistian theology.
I prefer, for example, to see the death and resurrection not as a “payment” of the “debt” I have incurred due to bad acts, but rather as the quintessential conquering of death through its encounter with the deathless man, the man who offers me to share in his deathless life if I live “in” him.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That’s because, novaseeker, that belief is a convenient way to avoid admitting that one is a sinner or that one has ever done anything wrong.
Eternal death would not be an issue if mankind had not sinned. But since mankind did and continues to sin, eternal death is the consequence — unless one accepts the gift of Jesus’s death and redemption as such.
Romans 6:23 explains it best:
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, I don’t have my buy-bull with me to see if you’re lying yet again (and I’m not sure I’d care enough to read those passages if I did), but if you’re not lying Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, and John 19 are clearly contradicted by Jesus’s cry on the cross “My god, My god, why have you forsaken me.”. Jesus clearly was not a willing participant.
No where in the bible does it say “condemnation comes, not on those who have never heard, but on those who have heard and rejected it”. And the idea that your god character would condemn people simply for not believing the highly, highly improbable, contradictory, and paradoxical, but not those who torture and murder others is yet again proof of this character’s psychotic evil nature.
You said “where your argument breaks down is that people can avoid torture by simply accepting and not rejecting God”.
Bzzzz, wrong answer. Those Christians that were skinned alive by the afganis accepted your evil god and they were tortured regardless. As have been millions of others. Your god has done nothing to prevent torture, and in fact if we are to believe your buy-bull is solely responsible for the eternal torture of the majority of the human race since time began. What could be more sadistic than eternally torturing someone for the harmless act of believing that which is demonstrated day in and day out week after week, year after year – that there is no supernatural.
You then lied yet again by saying “What you don’t think is fair is being held accountable for the consequences of your choices.”.
I have repeatedly emphasized that only the person performing the actions is responsible for them. You on the other hand have repeatedly and falsely emphasized how people’s evil actions are suppposed to be excused by the evil of killing the innocent Jesus.
Obviously people must be held accountable for their evil actions or society breaks down. The wrongs I’ve done can only be forgiven by the people I’ve affected, not by an uninvolved third party. Unlike you I don’t seek to escape responsibility for what I’ve done wrong, I accept my imperfections as the inevitable consequence of being human. I set the perfect goal of doing whatever I want, but harming no one and I attempt to come as close to that as possible. Not only do you fail to attempt to live up to the golden rule, which should be inherent in your own religion, but you repeatedly break your own ten commandments by bearing false witness over and over and over again.
The foundation of your religion highlights its psychotic evil nature. If your god want’s to ignore and excuse people’s evil actions he certainly doesn’t need to commit yet another evil act, in the killing of the innocent Jesus, to do it. The idea that your god needs to kill himself to appease himself is sheer lunacy. The fact that this supposed appeasement does nothing to prevent any future acts of evil emphasizes its pointless futility. Its the equivalent of the justice system dealing with a murderer by killing an uninvolved jew and setting the murderer free to kill again and again. Its just wrong no matter how you slice it. Unlike if I jump in front of a bullet to save my boyfriend, the death of Jesus has done nothing to prevent millenia of torture and murder of millions. There could be no more pointless act of evil.
posted by Novaseeker on
“That’s because, novaseeker, that belief is a convenient way to avoid admitting that one is a sinner or that one has ever done anything wrong.”
No, it’s simply the normative expression of the meaning of the crucifixion and resurrection according to the eastern orthodox tradition, which was not influenced by Augustinian theology and its categories. St. Maximus the Confessor, to take a prominent example, wrote that even if there had been no original sin, the incarnation would have happened so that humanity could be “deified” through communion with God. It’s not “newfangled new-age theology”, but a very ancient christian tradition that is just different from the tradition that developed from Augustinian categories.
posted by raj on
novaseeker | December 27, 2006, 10:55am |
I prefer, for example, to see the death and resurrection not as a “payment” of the “debt” I have incurred due to bad acts, but rather as the quintessential conquering of death through its encounter with the deathless man, the man who offers me to share in his deathless life if I live “in” him.
The death and resurrection of the godhead was a well known feature of more than a few middle-eastern religions that predated the Jesus myth. I’ll merely mention the Egyption god Osiris and the Persian god Mithras, but there are others. The Mithras cult permeated the Roman empire in the early years of the Common Era. The Jesus myth was based on the Mithras myth, down to the December 25 birthday and the twelve days of celebration. In the Mithras myth, the god Mithras was the sun god, and the anniversary of the birth is obviously timed to the winter solstice, indicative of the rebirth of the sun.
The christian Jesus myth adds to the earlier myths the idea that the godhead Jesus “died for your sins.” That can be linked to the ancient scapegoat ceremony, which was also well known among ancient middle eastern tribes. In the scapegoat ceremony, a tribe would select two goats from its herd. On one of the goats, the tribe would symbollically heap the sins of the tribe that had been accumulated over the previous year. The other goat would remain (symbollically) free of sin. The tribe would then send the goat on which the sins had been heaped into the wilderness, presumably to die. The other goat, which was free of sin, would be sacrificed and eaten by the tribe. The parallel of the latter to the Jesus myth should be obvious. According to the Jesus myth, Jesus was free of sin, Jesus was sacrificed (crucified), and in the christian communion ceremony the flesh and blood of Jesus are ceremoniously shared among the flock.
I haven’t studied the scapegoat ceremony or christian history enough to find the parallel to the other goat–the one on which the sins of the tribe were symbollically heaped. Maybe Judas would suffice.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, I don’t have my buy-bull with me to see if you’re lying yet again (and I’m not sure I’d care enough to read those passages if I did)
No problem, there’s a handy online version.
However, you’ve already revealed your bigotry and fear of the facts by making it obvious that you’ll never read those passages anyway. And by the way, while you’re in the Bible, why don’t you provide those passages about slavery that you were allegedly quoting above?
the idea that your god character would condemn people simply for not believing the highly, highly improbable, contradictory, and paradoxical, but not those who torture and murder others is yet again proof of this character’s psychotic evil nature.
Well, quite honestly, in God’s eyes, someone who tortures and murders, yet repents of their sin and accepts God’s forgiveness, is better off than someone who rejects God completely, as do you.
Jesus showed this over and over again, eating and being with sinners, rather than the leftists of his day like Randi who claimed that these peoples’ deeds stained them for life.
Your god has done nothing to prevent torture, and in fact if we are to believe your buy-bull is solely responsible for the eternal torture of the majority of the human race since time began.
First, you confuse the eternal and the temporal. Temporal suffering is the outgrowth of original sin; no one can avoid that. However, eternal suffering is a matter of rejecting God, which one CAN avoid.
Second, you again try to use human imperfectibility to disprove God — but refuse to apply said imperfectibility to your own leftist philosophy that humankind CAN be perfected.
Next, this most amusing statement on your part:
I have repeatedly emphasized that only the person performing the actions is responsible for them.
What a laugh.
You dodge responsibility for your hate actions and insults because “Christians did it first”.
You excuse Dalea’s demand that gays urinate and vomit on Christians because “the Christian started it”.
In fact, you’ll even excuse murdering another person because you think they wanted to kill you — and you will take no responsibility whatsoever for doing so.
What you make clear is that you don’t believe in taking responsibility at all for your actions; you simply blame them on someone else.
Finally:
The fact that this supposed appeasement does nothing to prevent any future acts of evil emphasizes its pointless futility.
I can personally tell you that the death and resurrection of Christ — and my gratitude to God for that sacrifice — has prevented more than one act of evil on my part.
Indeed, that is the whole point of Christianity; we do good because Christ did good for us. We serve our neighbor, feed the hungry, etc., not because they can do something for us or because it’s convenient for us, but because Christ did it for us first.
That was why Marian Fisher stood up and said, “Shoot me and leave the other ones loose”; she knew that’s exactly what Christ had done for her.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, I missed your disgusting response to my question the first time around: I asked “what did those Afghanis learn from skinning the Christians alive?”.
You answered “That it’s a very messy job.”. That you would joke about man’s grotesque inhumanity to man in order to trivialize it shows how black your heart is. You’d rather laugh about the horror of the situation than admit its wrong and that your god, if he existed is horribly wrong for having let it happen. You’re too pathetic to acknowledge the obvious, that you’re completely wrong when you said sometimes its necessary for the worst to happen so people can learn. You insist that the best way for people to learn is by having the worst happen and yet you can’t show how these people learned anything to justify this horrible act. Admit it, contrary to your assertions, nothing good came of this act and it would have been better if your god existed for him to have stepped in and prevented it. Only your god’s nonexistence can justify his inaction.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The Jesus myth was based on the Mithras myth, down to the December 25 birthday and the twelve days of celebration. In the Mithras myth, the god Mithras was the sun god, and the anniversary of the birth is obviously timed to the winter solstice, indicative of the rebirth of the sun.
Actually, it is generally acknowledged that the reason Christians celebrate Jesus’s birthdate on December 25th was more as a means of pre-empting the pagan celebrations on that date than it was to it being specific. Indeed, many prominent theologians such as Origen were flatly AGAINST the idea of celebrating the date of the Lord’s birth at all, and different theologians fixed the birth on different dates, since the Gospels are not in the least precise as to when it happened.
To an antireligious bigot like Raj, who is ignorant of the teachings of Christianity and avoids, like Randi, any real study or reflection upon them, these religions may seem similar; this is because Raj is concerned less with facts than he is with reinforcing his rationalization for his rejection of Christianity.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You answered “That it’s a very messy job.”. That you would joke about man’s grotesque inhumanity to man in order to trivialize it shows how black your heart is.
Unfortunately, Randi, it IS a very messy job to skin a human being alive. You asked what these people had learned; that’s an obvious thing.
You’d rather laugh about the horror of the situation than admit its wrong and that your god, if he existed is horribly wrong for having let it happen.
Of course it was wrong for them to do that from my perspective.
But as for why it happened, telling an omniscient being that they are wrong for allowing it to happen when you are emphatically NOT omniscient is foolish.
You insist that the best way for people to learn is by having the worst happen and yet you can’t show how these people learned anything to justify this horrible act.
Which people?
Skinning people alive was nothing new for the Taliban, and had in fact been going on at a rather rapid clip for years; indeed, many European governments to which the US government was pandering knew about it, but had decided to do nothing because, after all, they were only Afghans, they might have deserved it, and no one really cared anyway.
This act brought into stark relief what the Taliban really were — brutal, cold-blooded killers who would torture and maim even the innocent. It also brought global attention to what exactly they were doing and what they believed, and a worldwide outcry to stop it and punish them. Because of that, nations joined together to kick out and hold back the Taliban — and due to that, many, many more people have been spared the fate of these workers.
And finally, Randi, aren’t you making a value judgment? You weren’t there; how do you know that one of the aid workers didn’t try to kill one of the workers? After all, YOU said that, if someone tries to murder you, it’s perfectly justifiable to kill and torture them. You whine about “man’s inhumanity to man”, but whenever your evil actions are pointed out, you whine “they started it” or “I can do whatever I want because you attacked me first”. Why don’t the Afghans get the same benefit of the doubt from you and your fellow leftists?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
St. Maximus the Confessor, to take a prominent example, wrote that even if there had been no original sin, the incarnation would have happened so that humanity could be “deified” through communion with God.
Unfortunately, what Maximus and, later, Gregory Palamas made clear is that humanity does not become God; humanity becomes more LIKE God. Furthermore, a fundamental portion of this process is the acknowledgement of one’s sins AND unworthiness before God.
Remember that Saint Maximus was martyred precisely because he would NOT significantly break from the Western/Augustinian view. It is foolish to state that Maximus and other theologians of his era were not influenced by Augustine when Augustine predates him by over a century and when Maximus’s adherence to the Western church’s theology is so often cited as a reason for opposition to him.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, if you want to give me incentive to find the slavery passages that say its okay to beat your slave as long as he doesn’t die right away, and that if he does that its only a minor infraction then first let me hear you deny that those passages exist. I asked you to do this before and you have yet to do so, not that that’s any surprise.
Jesus’s cry on the cross “My god, my god why have you forsaken me?” clearly shows that at the moment of truth he was not a willing participant in his torture and death.
You said “Well, quite honestly, in God’s eyes, someone who tortures and murders, yet repents of their sin and accepts God’s forgiveness, is better off than someone who rejects God completely, as do you.“.
And this shows the psychotic immorality of your god character. Only those who’ve been victims can forgive. I can’t forgive Mike Tyson for biting off Evander Holyfield’s ear any more than your god can forgive a torturer and murderer in the place of the victim himself. That your god character would reward those who’ve horrifically harmed others and eternally torture those who’ve harmed no one is proof of his evil psychopathological nature. Those afghanis that skinned alive the christians ARE stained for life. Converting to Christianity will not undo the horror of their actions and their responsibility for it.
You say “eternal suffering is a matter of rejecting God, which one CAN avoid.”. The one who inflicts the eternal suffering is the one who is responsible for it. Your god creates imperfect humans knowing that the vast majority of them will never believe in Christianity and that he will eternally torture them for being as he created them. That is an evil god. The vast majority of the world is raised from birth to believe in a religion other than Christianity, taught by all their authority figures that this is the one true way and no one could blame them for believing that way. Except of course your evil god. You have chosen to reject Zeus, by your logic Zeus is justified in eternally torturing you for rejecting him. You have just as much reason to believe in Zeus as you do to believe in the Christian god.
Again you lie and break your own ten commandments by saying “Second, you again try to use human imperfectibility to disprove God — but refuse to apply said imperfectibility to your own leftist philosophy that humankind CAN be perfected.”.
I never said humankind can be perfected. I repeatedly said the perfect philosophy is “Do whatever you want, but hurt no one.” and that people, including me are inevitably imperfect and the goal is to come as close to living the philosophy as we can. Human imperfections don’t disprove your god, the idea that a loving and just god would allow belief in him and his religion of preference to be debatable and then eternally torture people for innocently believing otherwise proves your god doesn’t exist in the same way a square sphere cannot exist. The existence of man’s horrible inhumanity to man, afghanis skinning alive Christian aid workers to mention but one of millions of examples proves a loving and just and moral god does not exist.
It is a foundational principle of law that if somone attempts to kill a person that person has a right to defend themselves with lethal force if necessary. I said urinating and vomiting on the anti-gay Christian would not be a measured response, I said it was wrong and you lie yet again, spitting on your own religion’s commandments not to mention the philosophy of harming no one.
You lie and say “What you make clear is that you don’t believe in taking responsibility at all for your actions; you simply blame them on someone else.”. I have repeatedly insisted that only the person performing the actions is reponsible for them and you have been the one claiming your evil actions don’t matter because you believe in the Christian god and that excuses all of your evil actions. Its you who takes no responsibility for what you’ve done.
You say “the death and resurrection of Christ — and my gratitude to God for that sacrifice — has prevented more than one act of evil on my part.” and yet you lie over and over and over – claiming all gays are responsible for the word’s of Elton John, blaming unnamed people for referring to the “buy-bull” and your evil god” when those were solely my words, saying I “tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives” when I did no such thing. When I repeatedly expressed horror at Afghani tribesman skinning Christian aid workers alive you lied like the filthy scum you are and said “Doubtless there are ones like you, which would claim that their actions were justified because the Christians “attacked them” when it was you joking about this situation to trivialize it, and on and on.
And then you lie yet again and say you believe in Christianity. Your Jesus said if you believe in him give all your wealth to the poor and serve them. If you were a true believer you’d do this. That you haven’t done this and that you lie like its going out of style proves you don’t even believe in the religion you profess to. If you want to be a Christian than start by trying to emulate Jesus who never said anything bad about gays.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “YOU said that, if someone tries to murder you, it’s perfectly justifiable to kill and torture them.”. You lie yet again. I said the response has to be measured, that if someone tries to kill you its okay to kill them, I never said it was okay to heap torture on top of that. If the Afghanis had the Christian aid workers subservient enough to skin them alive they were obviously in no danger of being killed and killing the aid workers was unjustfied. Torture is always unjustified even when one is justified in meeting an attempted murder with deadly force. You stated yourself that the aid workers were innocent, its incredibly hypocritical of you you to criticise me for coming to the same conclusion. Of course hypocrisy and lies are nothing new to you.
You say “telling an omniscient being that they are wrong for allowing it to happen when you are emphatically NOT omniscient is foolish.”.
One doesn’t have to be omnisicient to see that if one has the power to prevent an evil act one is morally obligated to do so. Only a fool thinks there is some sort of magical explanation for this that justifies allowing this kind of evil when one can prevent it. A god that can do anything has no need to allow evil acts – unless he himself is evil.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, if you want to give me incentive to find the slavery passages that say its okay to beat your slave as long as he doesn’t die right away, and that if he does that its only a minor infraction then first let me hear you deny that those passages exist.
LOL…..you made the accusation, you prove it. What you keep doing is making excuses for why you aren’t providing them.
I understand why, though; it must be humiliating for an antireligious bigot like yourself to have to change her story when confronted with evidence, as we saw here (emphasis mine):
Jesus’s cry on the cross “My god, my god why have you forsaken me?” clearly shows that at the moment of truth he was not a willing participant in his torture and death.
Of course, that was after you were directly confronted with the Scriptural references and where to find them; before you were saying this:
Northdallass, I don’t have my buy-bull with me to see if you’re lying yet again (and I’m not sure I’d care enough to read those passages if I did), but if you’re not lying Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, and John 19 are clearly contradicted by Jesus’s cry on the cross “My god, My god, why have you forsaken me.” Jesus clearly was not a willing participant.
And now, another one of your contradictions:
Human imperfections don’t disprove your god,
Oh really? What happened to this?
No loving all powerful god would allow man’s incredible inhumanity to man. That alone is proof of his non-existence.
Only those who’ve been victims can forgive.
Sin at its core is disobedience towards and rejection of God. God tells us “Thou shalt not steal”; therefore, when you do steal, not only are you going against the person from whom you steal, but you are also going against God. Hence, it is God who does the forgiving; we forgive others because God forgives us.
You have chosen to reject Zeus, by your logic Zeus is justified in eternally torturing you for rejecting him.
Yup. But I’m not too worried about the possibility, nor do I particularly feel the need to fling hate speech or insults at people who follow Zeus, nor am I particularly worried about them trying to proselytize me to their faith. And, if you like, you can fill in “Buddha”, “Krishna”, or whatever other innumerable deity you like, and I’ll feel the same way.
I said urinating and vomiting on the anti-gay Christian would not be a measured response, I said it was wrong and you lie yet again, spitting on your own religion’s commandments not to mention the philosophy of harming no one.
Actually, what you said was this:
The Christian bus driver started the hatred and its not surprising when it gets escalated, wrong though that may be. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but lets not forget who started the wrong – the Christian who rejects gays who hurt no one.
So what dalea supported was wrong, but it was justified because the Christian allegedly started it. Or, in other words, dalea is not responsible; it’s the Christian’s fault.
According to the law, which you allegedly respect, the bus driver was perfectly within her rights to request reasonable accomodation for her religious beliefs. But according to gay leftists like yourself, her doing so constitutes an “attack”. You and your fellow bigots might have won the day on that, but fortunately, the good people of Minneapolis have a fine example of what gay leftists do when they are put in power.
As for the rest, Randi, since you have betrayed your enormous ignorance with my religion, I find it more than a bit amusing that you’re trying to claim I’m not following it. Furthermore, I am also quite aware of the fact that your concern over “man’s inhumanity to man” is sporadic; it occurs, for instance, when you can use it as a reason to deny God’s existence, but vanishes when it comes to reviewing your own actions or those of your fellow leftists.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
One doesn’t have to be omnisicient to see that if one has the power to prevent an evil act one is morally obligated to do so. Only a fool thinks there is some sort of magical explanation for this that justifies allowing this kind of evil when one can prevent it. A god that can do anything has no need to allow evil acts – unless he himself is evil.
LOL….so what’s your excuse for your foul mouth and insults of other people, Randi? After all, you supposedly have the power to prevent these things — and you claim that you are morally obligated to do so.
It’s always funny how antireligious bigots like yourself bash God as evil for the actions of humans — but then refuse to hold yourself accountable for your own failure to prevent your own evil acts.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallas you know better than to deny those passages about slavery are there because you’re well familiar with them.
However you slice it Jesus’s cry on the cross of “My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?” shows he was not a willing participant in his torture and death. If you have something that contradicts that (and I don’t know that you do), that’s all it does, contradict. And your buy-bull is too full of contradictions and paradoxes alone to be taken seriously. In Bart D. Ehrlman’s book “Misquoting Jesus” he points out several instances where the manuscripts have been modified to portray Jesus as something most of the copies show he wasn’t. I don’t have the book with me, but wouldn’t be surprised if this was one of those cases.
I never said human imperfections prove there is no god. Can’t your even read that which you quote? I said, which you quoted, “No loving all powerful god would allow man’s incredible inhumanity to man. That alone is proof of his non-existence.” No where in those two sentences do I say human imperfections alone prove there is no god.
Sin at its core is harming others when they haven’t harmed you. Your fictional god is irrelevant. In your buy-bull your evil god commands the jews to kill all the men, women, children, and babies in towns who believe in another god. That is a sin that your god orders. Disobeying your god is the right thing to do in that situation. The Nazis also tried to excuse there sins by claiming they were just following orders from on up high. It didn’t work for them, they were convicted rightfully as they should have been.
You criticize my actions which are moral but you excuse your repeated lies about gays and myself. Your buy-bull clearly says “Thour shalt not bear false witness” and that lying is an abomination and yet you don’t hesitate to do so again and again. That you are not following your own religion is obvious even to those barely familiar with it. My concern over man’s grotesque inhumanity to man never disappears. Its you that tries to reduce it to a joke to trivialize the evil of your god in allowing it.
An all powerful god most certainly doesn’t need evil to accomplish anything. An all powerful god that creates humans knowing in advance that he will eternally torture them for behaving exactly as he knew they would is the epitome of evil. A loving and just god that allows belief in him and his religion of preference to be debatable and who eternally tortures people for innocently believing otherwise cannot exist anymore than a square sphere can exist. A moral being could not stand by while Afghani tribesmen skin Christian aid workers alive, much less while millions are tortured and killed over the millenia. Your god’s inaction can only be excused by his non-existence.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallas, I’ll stop insulting you when you agree to stop lying and apologize for repeatedly lying about what I’ve said, at the very minimum for lying by saying I “tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives” and for lying by saying “Doubtless there are ones like you, which would claim that [the afghani tribesmen who skinned the Christians alive] actions were justified because the Christians “attacked them””. I repeatedly expressed horror at that action, I NEVER said it was justified. First you lie and say I would claim the actions are justified and then several posts later you criticize me for not making that claim – you said “You weren’t there; how do you know that one of the aid workers didn’t try to kill one of the [them]?…Why don’t the Afghans get the same benefit of the doubt from you and your fellow leftists?”.
You first departed from the rules of fairness and your bible. Its up to you to return to the path of righteousness by apologizing for the wrongs you started.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallas, I’ll stop insulting you when you agree to stop lying and apologize for repeatedly lying about what I’ve said,
I quote what you previously were saying:
The Christian bus driver started the hatred and its not surprising when it gets escalated, wrong though that may be. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but lets not forget who started the wrong – the Christian who rejects gays who hurt no one.
Isn’t it again amazing how the antireligious bigot Randi can mouth such pious pronouncements as “two wrongs don’t make a right” or state that retaliation is “wrong” — but then find ways to justify her OWN retaliation and hate-flinging, as well as that of her fellow leftists like dalea, as being right?
Leftist Randi claims that people have a “moral obligation” to prevent “evil acts” if they can do so. But as we see, that doesn’t even apply to her own mouth — or to her fellow gay leftists.
In your buy-bull your evil god commands the jews to kill all the men, women, children, and babies in towns who believe in another god. That is a sin that your god orders.
Suppose God knew that the town in question was threatening to kill all the Israelites. According to your leftist morality, that would justify killing all of them, wouldn’t it?
posted by NorthDallasRetard on
Hey ND30, tell us again how blacks should be grateful for slavery because it got them out of Africa…that was a classic example of your Christian compassion. Asshole.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Gladly, NDR.
I wish I could show your response under your ColoradoPatriot guise, but it seems to have mysteriously vanished.
posted by NorthDallasRetard on
Mysteriously vanished huh? Time to put your tinfoil hat back on I guess…Nice job avoiding the point of my post though. Asshole.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Isn’t it amazing how the anti-gay bigot Northdallass can lie dozens of times without acknowledging or apologizing for it and claim to be a good Christian when his buy-bull emphasizes that “thou shalt not bear false witness” as one of its ten commandments? It just shows how little stock he puts into something he falsely claims to believe and follow.
Northdallass, you fool, contrary to your lies when I said “two wrongs don’t make a right” I obviously wasn’t saying Dalea was right. And I never said that retaliation was wrong, but that it had to be a measured response and urinating and vomiting on the bus driver for her bigotry isn’t a measured response. Just because an excessive response is wrong doesn’t mean a measured one is. Of course your brain is too simple to see the clear and obvious distinction. My response in refering to you as the ass you are is an appropriate measured response, if not an underresponse, to your vicious lies about me. For me to respond to your verbal assault with a physical assault would be excessive and wrong. Can you spend a few hours please and try to wrap your simple mind arount that obvious truth?
Northdallass, your evil god commanded that all the residents be killed including women, children and babies. Women and children were never involved in war in those days and babies clearly aren’t a threat to kill anyone. Your psychotic war god made it clear over and over that the sin of these people he demanded the Jews murder was believing in other gods, not threatening the Jews.
Deuteronomy 7: 2
“When the Lord your God delivers them over to you to be destroyed, do a complete job of it – don’t make any treaties or show them mercy; utterly wipe them out.
Your god makes it clear, he demands the Jews murder their neighbours even when they are not a threat, when they are offering to make a treaty.
Your god is undeniably an evil god, he insists people be murdered when they ae a threat to no one.
Only a psychotic evil god creates imperfect humans knowing they will behave in the ways for which he will eternally torture them. A loving and just god that allows belief in him and his religion of preference to be debateable and who eternally tortures people for innocently believing otherwise cannot exist any more than a square sphere can exist. The punishment must fit the crime and an infinite punishement most certainly doesn’t even being to fit a finite “crime” of not believing the highly highly improbable, contradictory and paradoxical. Its no wonder you lie with such impunity given the evil examples set by the character you worship. Those who worship evil are inevitably bound to be evil themselves and you’ve demonstrated that repeatedly.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, your evil god commanded that all the residents be killed including women, children and babies. Women and children were never involved in war in those days and babies clearly aren’t a threat to kill anyone.
Unfortunately, what if the people involved were planning to kill all the Israelites, women and children included?
This is where your hypocrisy is made obvious, Randi. According to your leftist morality, since the Israelites had been threatened with having their women and children killed, they had perfect right to eliminate the other side’s women and children. You yourself have claimed that you are perfectly moral to murder someone who threatens you with murder.
Isn’t it amazing how antireligious bigots like you will claim they have the right to murder because they feel threatened, but then insist that God, who has far better information, is “evil” for allowing the same?
Northdallass, you fool, contrary to your lies when I said “two wrongs don’t make a right” I obviously wasn’t saying Dalea was right.
I quote you again:
The Christian bus driver started the hatred and its not surprising when it gets escalated, wrong though that may be. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but lets not forget who started the wrong – the Christian who rejects gays who hurt no one.
In other words, you are saying dalea’s response was right — because it was justified by “the Christian starting it”.
Furthermore, what makes your antireligious bigotry even more obvious is that what you call “starting hatred” was the Christian bus driver making a request for reasonable accomodation of her religious beliefs — a right which is protected by law for her to make such requests AND for her to be protected from retaliation for making them.
If an employee made a request for reasonable accomodation based on gender — like a female bus driver requesting to not have to drive a bus with an advertisement that she considered demeaning to women on it — would you call that “starting hatred”, or would you claim that a “measured retaliation” was right? I doubt it. But then again, as lesbian leftist Bonnie Bleskachek’s case shows us, gay leftists don’t consider it “starting hate” to discriminate against males, straight women, and people who refuse to have sex with you. It’s only Christians who are exercising their legally-protected rights who are acting badly.
And finally, it’s time to deal with this.
Only a psychotic evil god creates imperfect humans knowing they will behave in the ways for which he will eternally torture them.
Mhm. Do you feel the same way about parents who have children, knowing that it is a virtual certainty that their children will, minimum, at some point a) disobey the parents, b) hurt the parents or others, c) hurt themselves, d) rebel against their parents, and e) require punishment for disobedience? Or do you look past the fact that some children will do the worst with the fact that many won’t — and that, in fact, they give their parents the blessing of watching them grow up, having something to love, and having the satisfaction of this, their creation, succeed?
You see, Randi, what God knows is that not all of us — indeed, a surprising number of us — will NOT behave in the way for which you allege “He will eternally torture them”. Indeed, we’ll do the opposite — and call in the everlasting bliss that He earned for us and promises us, if we only believe.
Now why, if God’s whole point was to please Himself by creating humanity to torture it, would He make it so easy for humans to AVOID it? Indeed, compared to the pagan gods you and your fellow leftists like Raj worship who required that you sacrifice your children for them, God says, “No problem, I’ll make the sacrifice for you; all you have to do is believe”.
The reason you have to paint God and his followers as evil, Randi, is simple; you need to rationalize your antireligious hate, your bigotry, and your rebellion against Him. You simply lack the courage, spine, and faith in your own beliefs to say that you don’t believe in God and leave it at that. That’s why you must attack every manifestation of Christianity or religion; they all represent threats that you fear could topple your shaky belief structure.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, let me make this clear now seeing as it apparently hasn’t sunk into your thick skull up until now. Murder is an acceptible response to someone attempting to murder you if that’s what it takes to save your own life. For example, if someone is in jail and threatens to kill you, they are not an imninent threat to you and you have no right to kill them. If someone pulls a gun on you and starts shooting at you you have a right to shoot them first if you can.
Deuteronomy 7: 1 makes it clear that the Jews were the agressors, they were told by god to go into the land to possess it and throw the inhabitants out. The Jews had not been threatened with having their women and children killed. Even if that weren’t the case under no circumstances did the Jews need to kill everyone, including the women, children and babies to save their own lives – they would only be justified in killing those who posed an imminent threat.
Clearly when your god says make no treaty with them, show them no mercy, utterly destroy them, he’s ordering the Jews to kill the inhabitants even if they want to make peace and pose no threat. That’s wrong. That’s undeniably evil. There is no justification for ever killing those who wish to make peace and those who pose no threat but your god orders it anyway That you continue to try to justify the evil actions of your psychotic war god shows how you’ve been corrupted by worshiping evil.
You quote me saying “The Christian bus driver started the hatred and its not surprising when it gets escalated, wrong though that may be. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but lets not forget who started the wrong – the Christian who rejects gays who hurt no one.”
And again, contrary to your lie, nowhere in there did I say “Dalea’s response was right — because it was justified by “the Christian starting it”.”. I merely pointed out unfortunate human nature and its results – if we want to avoid these unfortunate results one way is to assure that no one, such as this bus driver, starts conflict in the first
place.
The Christian bus driver did not, as you put it, make a “request for a reasonable accomodation of her religous beliefs”. Her religious beliefs are unreasonable, its unreasonable to reject anyone for behavior that hurts no one and the accomodation of those beliefs most certainly is not reasonable, regardless of whether or not its the law. Christians do not deserve legal protection for their bigotry when the law does not similarly provide gays with protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The ultimate law is do whatever you want, but harm no one. When the justice system ignores this by protecting people from religious discrimination but not sexual orientation discrimination the law is wrong.
You ask “If an employee made a request for reasonable accomodation based on gender — like a female bus driver requesting to not have to drive a bus with an advertisement that she considered demeaning to women on it — would you call that “starting hatred”, or would you claim that a “measured retaliation” was right?”.
I have insufficient information from your scenario to judge an appropriate reponse. It would depend on the content of the ad and the entire situation surounding it. From the start, it would be a different situation because the Christian bus driver wasn’t opposing a demeaning of Christians, she was opposing the equal and open treatment of gays. Big difference there right off the bat.
I said “Only a psychotic evil god creates imperfect humans knowing they will behave in the ways for which he will eternally torture them.”.
You asked “Do you feel the same way about parents who have children, knowing that it is a virtual certainty that their children will, minimum, at some point a) disobey the parents, b) hurt the parents or others, c) hurt themselves, d) rebel against their parents, and e) require punishment for disobedience? Or do you look past the fact that some children will do the worst with the fact that many won’t — and that, in fact, they give their parents the blessing of watching them grow up, having something to love, and having the satisfaction of this, their creation, succeed?”.
Most certainly, any parent that would eternally torture their child for a finite disobedience that harms no one is psychotic and evil. Unlike the parents of children, your god has the choice to make people in such a way that they don’t do evil, or harmlessly break arbitrary rules. This makes your god doubly psychotic and evil. Contrary to what you say, the majority of the world’s population throughout history has been non-christian and your god character will eternally torture them for innocently believing in the religions, or lack thereof, that they were raised to believe by all the authority figures they know. THAT’S EVIL. Your god doesn’t distinquish between those who’ve heard of Christianity and those that haven’t, he eternally tortures them all anyway.
I don’t worship any gods, pagan or otherwise. I’ve made it clear I don’t believe in the god as described by Christianity. A loving and just god that allows belief in him and his religion of preference to be debatable and who eternally tortures people for innocently believing otherwise cannot exist any more than a square sphere can exist. I’ve said that numerous times and you lie and say I “lack the courage, spine, and faith” to say I don’t believe in your god. I obviously don’t.
The idea that your god sacrifices his innocent self to appease himself for the wrong doings of others is absurd. If your god wants to overlook people’s wrongdoings he most certainly doesn’t need to committ the evil torture and murder of the innocent Jesus to do it. On planet earth the foundation of our admittedly imperfect justice system is that people are solely responsible for their own actions. When a murderer is caught the justice system doesn’t do out, kill an innocent Jew, and then let the murderer go free to kill again, yet that is precisely the insanity upon which you base your religion. And you think people should honour your psychotic evil religion. Wake up, get your head out of your butt. The foundation of your religion is evil nonsense.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Deuteronomy 7: 1 makes it clear that the Jews were the agressors, they were told by god to go into the land to possess it and throw the inhabitants out.
Again, your ignorance of the Scriptures leads you to make foolish claims.
As Deuteronomy 2 shows, the Israelites were ordered to stay out of areas and to be peaceful towards various inhabitants of the land as much as they were ordered to conquer.
Unlike the parents of children, your god has the choice to make people in such a way that they don’t do evil, or harmlessly break arbitrary rules.
So, in other words, you’re blaming God for the fact that He gives people the ability to choose whether or not to obey Him.
Who did you previously say your leftist morality placed responsibility upon for bad behavior?
Mankind is solely responsible for his issues
That’s fundamental to justice, the person committing the wrong is solely responsible
Unlike in your “Jesus died for our sins” crap sensible people like me believe the man performing the evil is solely responsible for it.
On planet earth the foundation of our admittedly imperfect justice system is that people are solely responsible for their own actions.
But then, when it comes to holding mankind responsible for its decisions, you whine about how it’s evil of God that He didn’t just take away mankind’s ability to make bad decisions. Sort of like how gay leftists argue that pharmaceutical companies are responsible for unsafe sex because their erectile-dysfunction drugs make it possible for people to have sex, or how the children of leftist parents rationalize stealing because store displays are too easy to take from and too tempting.
Your god doesn’t distinquish between those who’ve heard of Christianity and those that haven’t, he eternally tortures them all anyway.
Not quite. Innumerable Israelites and Jews are in heaven, even though they died long before Jesus was ever born.
And then:
When a murderer is caught the justice system doesn’t do out, kill an innocent Jew, and then let the murderer go free to kill again, yet that is precisely the insanity upon which you base your religion.
Ah, but you see……we do.
If someone commits a murder, they aren’t killed instantly; indeed, our justice system in most cases incarcarates them, quite often for the remainder of their natural life. It also contains the strong possibility that, if they exhibit sufficient reformation and contrition for their crime, they can be paroled and returned to society, or even have their sentence commuted for being a good prisoner.
God works in the same way. Jesus is the innocent victim of our disobedience; the sole reason He had to die was because we screwed up. But instead of killing us, God offers us the chance to repent and reform, and if we do so, we are returned to society to live free for an eternity. If we disobey again and again and do not repent, we will be held in prison for eternity.
Your rebellion against God, Randi, has to do with your inability to accept rules and the responsibility when you break those rules. Nothing is ever Randi’s fault; someone else is always responsible. You can’t control your mouth because you think I’m insulting you. You hate all Christians, even though your so-called “morality” tells you not to hate, because you think they all are attacking you.
The secret of Christianity is twofold; one, you must accept that you are imperfect, and two, you must accept that God loves you anyway.
A little dose of the second would go a long way towards mitigating your overemphasis on the first.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And now, to deal with the real problem here.
The Christian bus driver did not, as you put it, make a “request for a reasonable accomodation of her religous beliefs”…….Christians do not deserve legal protection for their bigotry when the law does not similarly provide gays with protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The ultimate law is do whatever you want, but harm no one. When the justice system ignores this by protecting people from religious discrimination but not sexual orientation discrimination the law is wrong.
Let us make absolutely clear the particulars of the story.
The incident in question took place in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
In Minnesota, state law prohibits discrimination in employment based on several factors, including religion AND sexual orientation.
Furthermore, the law specifically prohibits reprisals against employees for making requests or filing complaints — either by their employer OR by their union. This not only includes a business or union taking punitive action against the individual themselves, but also if a business or union knows that the individual is being attacked by his/her fellow employees and does nothing.
Randi’s statement is deliberately false. I provided the direct quote dalea made on the story, which stated in its second sentence that the incident occurred in Minneapolis. There is no plausible way that Randi could not have known that Minnesota law expressly prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, yet she tries to claim that the law is “unfair” because it doesn’t.
The exact issue underlying all of this, though, is this remark:
Her religious beliefs are unreasonable, its unreasonable to reject anyone for behavior that hurts no one and the accomodation of those beliefs most certainly is not reasonable, regardless of whether or not its the law.
Or, put bluntly, gays believe that Christians should be discriminated against and denied legal protections because of their religious beliefs.
And before Randi starts trying to cover for her fellow gay leftists, I will simply point to the initial thread from which this came; the vast, overwhelming majority of comments, including ones from gay leftists like Raj and dalea, openly support employment discrimination against Christians on the basis of their religious beliefs, even though such is prohibited by law.
Furthermore, as the case of Bonnie Bleskachek shows, gay leftists not only want the right to discriminate against people because of their religious beliefs, but also because of their sexual orientation, gender, and refusal to have sex with their boss.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, In Deuteronomy 2 god commands the Jews not to go to war with the moabites. In Deuteroronmy 7 he is referring not to the moabites, but to the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites when he orders the Jews to “make no treaty with them, show them no mercy, utterly destroy them.”. Any way you slice it its evil and wrong to order the killing of innocents who present no threat to the Jews and clearly those offering treaties and women, children and babies are no threat. Just because Charles Manson didn’t order the murder of some of the people he came across didn’t make it right for him to order the murder of others and so it is with your psychotic war god. And you call me foolish – you pathetic idiot.
I don’t believe in your god and I believe that people are solely responsible for their actions. For people who believe in the Christian god part and parcel of that is that their god is responsible for people behaving the way he created them. I don’t have to be bound by your beliefs to point out the idiocy of them – only a psychotic and evil god would create imperfect humans and eternally torture them for behaving exactly as he knew they would.
You say ” Innumerable Israelites and Jews are in heaven, even though they died long before Jesus was ever born. “. Not quite. Your buy-bull says none may come to the father but through the son. Christian theology is clear that accepting Jesus is the only way into heaven. And according to Christian fairy tales innumerable pagans are not in heaven even though they died long before Jesus was ever born, and/or after he was born and they never heard of him.
You say the sole reason Jesus had to die was because of humans’ screwups. Poppycock. Jesus didn’t have to die, your god could have just as easily overlooked the sins of people without that evil act. It was pointless. The murder of an innocent doesn’t excuse the wrongs of the person responsible – except in your warped and perverted religion and mind. Your god does not work in the same way as the justice system. The justice system punishes wrong doers, your god doesn’t as long as they claim to accept his evil lunacy.
I’m not under any obligation to your fictional psychotic evil war god. If your god truly loved everyone he most certainly wouldn’t subject any one to eternal torture for behaving exactly as he knew they would when he created them.
Contrary to your lies I never claimed to be perfect, in fact I repeatedly emphasized my imperfection and that I merely attempt to come as close as I can to following the golden rule – “Do whatever you want but harm no one.”, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”. You’ve got a lot of nerve talking about me being unable to “accept rules and the responsibility when you break those rules.”. I’ve followed the rule at the foundation of morality while you have not only failed to follow that rule, you’ve failed to follow your own rules of Christiantity which clearly state “Thou shalt not bear false witness.”. You’ve lied over and over and to give but a couple of examples you lied by saying “you tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”” when I did no such thing, when I repeatedly expressed horror at Afghani tribesman skinning Christian aid workers alive you lied like the filthy scum you are and said “Doubtless there are ones like you, which would claim that their actions were justified because the Christians “attacked them”” when it was you joking about this situation to trivialize it, you claimed I supported torture when I never said any such thing and on and on. You are not only condemned by the golden rule, you are condemned by your own god and religion. And you’re too small and pathetic to admit the obvious and repent of your evil ways as you claim good Christians do.
You said “There is no plausible way that Randi could not have known that Minnesota law expressly prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, yet she tries to claim that the law is “unfair” because it doesn’t.”.
I didn’t know Minnesota law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Glad to hear it though. I live in Canada, you moron – of course its plausible that I don’t know Minnesota law. I’ve read enough of your meandering irrelevant links that I’ve learned to ignore most of them.
You quoted me saying “[the christian bus driver’s] religious beliefs are unreasonable, its unreasonable to reject anyone for behavior that hurts no one and the accomodation of those beliefs most certainly is not reasonable, regardless of whether or not its the law.”. Then you lied yet again by suggesting my belief is “that Christians should be discriminated against and denied legal protections because of their religious beliefs.”.
Refusing to accomodate a Christian’s hateful anti-gay beliefs isn’t discrimination against Christians any more than refusing to accomodate Hitler’s belief that Jews should be killed was discrimination against Germans. Your buy-bull teaches that gays should be put to death. Refusing to accomodate that in no way prevents any Christian from continuing in their employment or leasing their residence. Refusing to accomodate the Christian belief that gays are to be treated as evil in no way prevents a Christian from living their life as they choose. Acomodating those beliefs would however prevent gays who are harming no one from living their lives freely. That is wrong.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Your buy-bull says none may come to the father but through the son.
Again, do you actually READ the Bible, or just lift quotes that you think protect you? What Jesus is making clear in John 14 is the notion of the Trinity — one God, three Persons. Romans 4 gives a specific example — Abraham, who did not have the example of Jesus before him, but nonetheless believed God, “and it was credited to him as righteousness” — which is a direct quote from the Old Testament. Jesus goes even further than that, pointing out in John 5 that Moses specifically references Jesus’s actions as the Messiah.
Jesus didn’t have to die, your god could have just as easily overlooked the sins of people without that evil act. It was pointless. The murder of an innocent doesn’t excuse the wrongs of the person responsible – except in your warped and perverted religion and mind. Your god does not work in the same way as the justice system. The justice system punishes wrong doers, your god doesn’t as long as they claim to accept his evil lunacy.
But of course, leftist antireligious bigots like you do not call it “evil lunacy” to allow a criminal who has exhibited remorse for their actions and shown signs of rehabilitation to have their sentence commuted or for them to be released.
Furthermore, according to your leftist logic, people don’t have to be sent to prison for their crimes; after all, can’t the justice system just “overlook” the sins of individuals?
I’ve followed the rule at the foundation of morality
Let’s see here…..you’ve insulted me, which breaks the “harm no one” rule.
You’ve blamed me for making you insult me, which breaks your rule that only the one who commits the offense is responsible, and no one else.
And now you’re trying to condemn me for supposedly not following rules in which you don’t believe in the first place.
Right. 🙂
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And now, for the related topic.
I didn’t know Minnesota law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Glad to hear it though. I live in Canada, you moron – of course its plausible that I don’t know Minnesota law.
But that didn’t stop you from making this statement, did it?
Christians do not deserve legal protection for their bigotry when the law does not similarly provide gays with protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
So you admit you didn’t know prior to making that statement — but you still went ahead and claimed that Minnesota law did NOT provide gays with protection.
And then, when it was publicly exposed as ignorance on your part, who did you blame?
I’ve read enough of your meandering irrelevant links that I’ve learned to ignore most of them.
Me, of course. It’s MY fault that you didn’t look this up because my links are allegedly “meandering” and “irrelevant”.
And what were you just whining before?
You’ve got a lot of nerve talking about me being unable to “accept rules and the responsibility when you break those rules.”
Actually, I shouldn’t take much credit for “nerve” when I’m just pointing out the patently obvious. But go on, keep trying to convince people that it’s my fault you made a stupid statement, didn’t research it, and got caught.
Your buy-bull teaches that gays should be put to death. Refusing to accomodate that in no way prevents any Christian from continuing in their employment or leasing their residence. Refusing to accomodate the Christian belief that gays are to be treated as evil in no way prevents a Christian from living their life as they choose. Acomodating those beliefs would however prevent gays who are harming no one from living their lives freely. That is wrong.
But, unfortunately for you, Randi, the woman didn’t ask for gays to be put to death. She merely asked to not be required to drive buses that had advertisements she found objectionable on the side — a mere 25 out of 150 buses.
In other words, the only difference between before and after was that one specific driver was not driving a bus with said advertisement on the side. Instead, said buses were being driven by other drivers.
How does that prevent a gay person from living their life freely?
How does that equate to wanting gays dead?
Meanwhile, just across the city, Bonnie Bleskachek is openly discriminating against people based on their gender and sexual orientation and requiring women to sleep with her in order to get/keep jobs or advance their careers, and you have nothing to say.
That’s because Bleskachek is a lesbian. And in your leftist, hate-filled world, a person asking to be assigned to a different bus equates to wanting to kill gays, but a lesbian openly and loudly messing with peoples’ lives, livelihood, and careers because she wants sex warrants nothing. Not a word from you or any of your fellow leftists.
You exemplify what’s wrong with the gay left, Randi. And the silence of your fellow antireligious bigots like Raj as you rant and rave like this makes it obvious that yours is NOT a minority opinion. You and your fellow leftists demand that the law be ignored to punish Christians, but say nothing when lesbians and other gay people flagrantly violate it to get sex.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
I said “Jesus didn’t have to die, your god could have just as easily overlooked the sins of people without that evil act. It was pointless. The murder of an innocent doesn’t excuse the wrongs of the person responsible – except in your warped and perverted religion and mind. Your god does not work in the same way as the justice system. The justice system punishes wrong doers, your god doesn’t as long as they claim to accept his evil lunacy.”
Northdallass responded “But of course, leftist antireligious bigots like you do not call it “evil lunacy” to allow a criminal who has exhibited remorse for their actions and shown signs of rehabilitation to have their sentence commuted or for them to be released.”
Of course its not evil lunacy to allow rehabilitated criminals a reduced sentence. It would be evil lunacy if, as in the case of your god, we killed an innocent person as justification for overlooking the criminal’s crime altogether. How dense are you?!?! If your god wants to overlook people’s sins he most certainly doesn’t need to perform the evil act of torturing and killing Jesus to do so. And the justice system punishes the criminal whether the sentence is reduced for good behavior or not. That’s clearly not the case with your unjust god who overlooks even the most horrific of crimes if the perpetrator merely claims to ‘accept’ the Christian god.
You also said “Furthermore, according to your leftist logic, people don’t have to be sent to prison for their crimes; after all, can’t the justice system just “overlook” the sins of individuals?”. I never said that you liar – I pointed out that that is what your god does.
For the rules to work they have to be observed by everyone. Once a person such as you chooses to break the rules the system breaks down and cannot be restored to function until you first return to the rules. You chose to break the rules of fairness first by lying repeatedly. As you’ve chosen to ignore the rules I’m not obligated to give you the benefit of being treated like a rule abiding citizen when you aren’t. You ARE responsible for being labeled the ass you’ve been. Promise to stop lying and apologize for those lies you told and I’ll stop refering to you as the ass you’ve been.
I said in a prior post “Christians do not deserve legal protection for their bigotry when the law does not similarly provide gays with protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
You responded “So you admit you didn’t know prior to making that statement — but you still went ahead and claimed that Minnesota law did NOT provide gays with protection.”.
I never said anything specifically about Minnesota law but rather was referring to the typical state of laws in the United States. I was unaware that the incident you keep belabouring took place in Minnesota. Obviously you’re much more wrapped up in that incident than I am. It simply isn’t a big concern for me and if it gives you a woody to know I was unaware of the details, let me thrill you – yes, I admit I got the details wrong because I don’t particularly care about what you’ve made your reason for being.
That bus driver should have been reprimanded for refusing to perform her job out of bigotry. Society can’t justify making an exception for one anti-gay religious bigot without doing the same for all anti-gay religious bigots. If every anti-gay religious bigot is allowed to refuse to do their job so they can make an anti-gay statement it most certainly will have a negative impact.
I’m not responsible for anything Bonnie Bleskachek has done. If you provided a link I didn’t read it. Any alleged wrongdoing of hers isn’t typical of gays, but anti-gay hatred is typical of Christians – the vast majority of christians think gays should be castigated as sinners and should be eternally tortured for having loving committed relationships.
You said “the silence of your fellow antireligious bigots like Raj as you rant and rave like this makes it obvious that yours is NOT a minority opinion.”. You really are an idiot and a liar. Nothing I or Raj might say proves our opinion belongs to anyone other than ourselves. The last time I argued with you you were demanding that I admit my opinion is a tiny fringe minority given the study Dalea quoted showing some 70 odd percent of gays are religious. Once again, you jump between polar opposite characterizations of reality depending on whichever seems at the time to best allow you to disparage the person you’re arguing with.
I don’t blame you for being angry that you can’t defend the actions of the psychotic evil fictional war god character you worship. When afghani tribesmen skin Christians alive only your god’s non-existence can excuse his inaction. Only a psychotic evil god creates imperfect humans to eternally torture for behaving exactly as he knew they would when he created them. A loving and just god that allows belief in him and his repligion of preference to be debateable and who eternally tortures those who innocently believe otherwise cannot exist any more than a square sphere can exist. What kind of sick depraved god demands that his chosen people invade people’s homes and kill everyone men, women, children and babies, whether they seek a peace treaty or not?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I was unaware that the incident you keep belabouring took place in Minnesota. Obviously you’re much more wrapped up in that incident than I am. It simply isn’t a big concern for me and if it gives you a woody to know I was unaware of the details, let me thrill you – yes, I admit I got the details wrong because I don’t particularly care about what you’ve made your reason for being.
Gee, you certainly seemed to care quite a bit when you made this statement:
Christians do not deserve legal protection for their bigotry when the law does not similarly provide gays with protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The ultimate law is do whatever you want, but harm no one. When the justice system ignores this by protecting people from religious discrimination but not sexual orientation discrimination the law is wrong.
So in other words, you’re claiming that bigotry against Christians and disobedience against the law is justified because the law gives protection to religion that it does not to sexual orientation and is thus unfair…….but then you consider what the law actually says, especially since it completely contradicts your assertion, to be “not a big concern”, and insinuate that someone who DOES care about that fact is wrong for doing so?
That bus driver should have been reprimanded for refusing to perform her job out of bigotry. Society can’t justify making an exception for one anti-gay religious bigot without doing the same for all anti-gay religious bigots. If every anti-gay religious bigot is allowed to refuse to do their job so they can make an anti-gay statement it most certainly will have a negative impact.
LOL…but society can justify hate-filled antireligious bigots like you arguing that a woman should be fired for exercising her legally-protected right to reasonable accomodation in the workplace.
And who do you blame when a leftist lesbian is caught breaking the law by demanding that people have sex with her in order to keep their jobs or advance their career, and who punishes people who used to be in a “loving, committed relationship” with her? Oh, that’s right — the Christians.
Any alleged wrongdoing of hers isn’t typical of gays, but anti-gay hatred is typical of Christians – the vast majority of christians think gays should be castigated as sinners and should be eternally tortured for having loving committed relationships.
Mhm. Let me show you examples of what leftist gays like you consider to be “loving” and “committed”:
Bleskachek’s former partner, fire Captain Jennifer Cornell, filed a discrimination suit in March accusing the chief of canceling the final exam for battalion chief after Cornell was one of two women firefighters who passed the first part of the test.
The suit alleged Bleskachek had acted out of malice because the relationship had soured.
On Friday Council voted 10 – 0 to accept a settlement with Cornell that would see her receive a settlement of $65,000.
The other woman firefighter who passed the first part of the test, Kathleen Mullen, alleged that Bleskachek threw out her test scores in an examination process for battalion chief as part of the chief’s retaliation against Cornell.
Council agreed to pay Mullen $29,000 and promote her to battalion chief, backdated to April 1. Cornell will also be promoted within the next 24 months.
A third suit remains outstanding. It involves firefighter Kristina Lemon who claims that Bleskachek pursued a sexual relationship with her, and that when Lemon rebuffed her, Bleskachek denied her training and advancement opportunities.
A city investigation found evidence that under Bleskachek the department gave preferential treatment to lesbians or those who socialize with them.
So, again, we have gays like Randi over here misquoting laws and demanding that Christians be punished for exercising their legally-protected rights, but ignoring lesbians who flagrantly break the law in order to punish people who won’t have sex with them — and who torpedo other peoples’ careers to cover up the fact that they’re punishing said people.
And to the other gay leftists watching this; you can speak up now, or you can be held accountable for your failure to do so. If you’re going to support Randi’s views, have the balls to say so.
posted by raj on
This is funny as heck. Apparently, Randi did not take seriously my observation about NDXXX at December 24, 2006, 6:51am:
note that he is merely illustrating one of the characteristics of the NDXXX troll that I mentioned above–he believes that column inches and last poster “wins” the “discussion”.
It appears from Randi’s rants to NDXXX that he (NDXXX) keeps throwing out irrelevancies in response to Randi’s comments, just to make sure that he gets the last comment. Of course, it appears that NDXXX’s comments are little more than “diarrhea of the mouth, constipation of the brain,” but that’s to be expected.
Randi, I would suggest that you not waste your time trying to debate NDXXX–irrespective of the fact that NDXXX doesn’t really debate–in trying to persuade it of anything. NDXXX is not really interested in debating, nor is it interested in being persuaded of anything. It is merely interested in filling the maximal number of column inches and finishing last.
On the other hand, Randi, it is your time to waste, so waste it as you will. I’m always amused whenever anyone wants to debate the minutiae of the Wholly Babble, a book of myths and fairy tales–actually, the debate is over one of the many translations of a book of myths and fairy tales that even the proponents of the book admit has been adulterated over the years by additions (and probably deletions) to fit the editors’ preconceived notions. But it is your time to waste. BTW, it is evident from the Wholly Babble that there are at least three “gods” in this “god” character, including a jealous god, a war-monger god (both in the old testament) and a “loving” (such as it is) god (in the new testament). And, further BTW, in Deut. 2 that god told the Israelites not to attack the moabites, etc., in their territory because that territory was not the “promised land.” In Deut. 7, that got told them to attack the Canaanites, etc., because they occupied the “promised land.” Boring as heck, but, yes, that was one example of the “war-monger god” character. Actually, Deut. 7 also contains an example of the “jealous god” character, when he commands the Israelites, after they have vanquished the Canaanites, etc., to destroy their religious symbols and not to inter-marry with those who are left.
Note to NorthDallasRetard | December 28, 2006, 9:49am |
Hey ND30, tell us again how blacks should be grateful for slavery because it got them out of Africa…that was a classic example of your Christian compassion.
Come, come, let us understand. It is fairly obvious that blacks in the Americas should be grateful for Negro slavery in the Americas–imposed by European christians, of course–because it spared their ancestors in Africa the indignity of those ancestors’ decendants in Africa being subjected to colonization–also by European christians, of course. It makes no sense, but that seems to be the only possible explanation.
BTW, I’ll be interested in finding out whether NDXXX blames the trans-atlantic Negro slave trade on Jews and Arab Muslims. Nah, I really won’t be.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It appears from Randi’s rants to NDXXX that he (NDXXX) keeps throwing out irrelevancies in response to Randi’s comments, just to make sure that he gets the last comment.
And there you have it, folks; Raj considers pointing out what the law actually says and how Randi’s argument is based on falsehood to be “irrelevant”.
One would think that the leftist Raj, who regularly and pompously criticizes people for not including “citations” and supposedly not doing research would do the same to Randi.
But then again, that would assume that the leftist Raj has any interest in truth; as we can see, leftist Raj fully supports the antireligious bigot Randi’s assertion that Minnesota law does not include sexual orientation and that gays and lesbians are legally allowed to discriminate against others and get them fired or affect their career advancement based on their religious background, gender, sexual orientation or unwillingness to have sex with them.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Hi Raj, you must be the only one still left reading this.
Northdallass you said “So in other words, you’re claiming that bigotry against Christians and disobedience against the law is justified because the law gives protection to religion that it does not to sexual orientation and is thus unfair…….but then you consider what the law actually says, especially since it completely contradicts your assertion, to be “not a big concern”, and insinuate that someone who DOES care about that fact is wrong for doing so?”.
There’s a big difference between saying the law is wrong and saying disobedience to the law is justified. Not that I’d expect any distinction to be clear to the likes of you. Its immoral to stigmatize those who harm no one and the Christian bus driver was immoral. Of course society can justify reprimanding her for failing to do her job and firing her if she continues to fail to do her job out of a selfish desire to express anti-gay bigotry. That it hasn’t always happened this way is to be expected out of imperfect humans and an imperfect society. The law isn’t always moral and right, what’s legal isn’t necessarily moral although often the two do coincide.
Now you’ve broken your god’s commandment not to bear false witness twice in your last post alone. My pointing out that any alleged wrongdoing by one lesbian isn’t typical of gays but that Christians are typically anti-gay isn’t blaming the Christians for her alleged wrongdoing. And again you lied by saying these allegations are what LGBTs like me consider loving and committed – clearly not, but you’ve demonstrated time and time again you have no restraint when it comes to lying.
And this was just too funny: You said “And to the other gay leftists watching this; you can speak up now, or you can be held accountable for your failure to do so. If you’re going to support Randi’s views, have the balls to say so.”
You idiot, with the exception of Raj the audience for this disappeared about 70 posts back. Its just you and me you moron. No one comming across this thread at this point in time is going to make it all the way down to here. In your typical psychotic fashion you’re going to hold all gays accountable for not speaking up about what they weren’t around to see. You really are a piece of work.
The wrongdoings of one lesbian are irrelevant next to the far more heinous wrongdoings of your Abrahamic god. Unlike your god and Christians, all gays don’t worship Bleskachek, claim to follow her guidance, and hold her up as the source and ultimate example of morality. No wonder you’re desperate to change the subject. If I worshiped one of the most despicable characters in all of literature I probably wouldn’t want to focus on his many unforgivably evil deeds either.
Exodus 1,2
“Then the lord said to Moses, “Go back again and make your demand upon Pharoah, but I have hardened him and his officials so that I can do more miracles demonstrating my power. What stories you can tell your children and grandchildren about the incredible things I am doing in Egypt! Tell them what fools I made of the Egyptians and how I proved to you that I am Jehovah.”
You make pathetic excuses for your god failing to act when Afghani tribesmen skinned Christian aid workers alive, you claim humans having unbounded free will is sacrosanct, yet your god clearly doesn’t care about humans having free will when he wants to cause conflict between them for his own evil pleasure. It says a lot that your god isn’t willing to interfere with free will to prevent evil, but he is willing to interfere with free will to cause evil. It shows how laughable your assertion is that yours is a loving god, clearly this war god has no love for the Egyptians he supposedly created, not to mention the many, many other tribes he demands be utterly wiped out when they pose no threat to anyone. A loving and just god does not create imperfect humans and eternally torture them for behaving exactly as he knew they would. A loving god doesn’t say kiss my ass or I’ll eternally torture you. That’s what a psychotic evil god does. You worship evil and that’s what you’ve become – your blatant disregard for the truth in post after post proves it. Repent of your evil ways, its never too late to return to the path of righteousness. Promise to stop lying and apologize for your lies. I estimate one or two lies for most every post you’ve made, roughly 50-75 lies in this thread alone. At the very minimum apologize for lying by saying I “tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”” when I did no such thing, for lying when I repeatedly expressed horror at Afghani tribesman skinning Christian aid workers alive by saying “Doubtless there are ones like you, which would claim that their actions were justified because the Christians “attacked them”” when it was you joking about this situation to trivialize it, for lying by saying I supported torture when I never said any such thing, and for the two lies I just pointed out in your last post.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And again Northdallass lies several times in the same sentence. He says “Randi’s assertion that Minnesota law does not include sexual orientation and that gays and lesbians are legally allowed to discriminate against others and get them fired or affect their career advancement based on their religious background, gender, sexual orientation or unwillingness to have sex with them.”
I never specifically referred to Minnesota law, I was referring to the state of American laws in general. As I’ve clearly stated I was unaware of the law in Minnesota and I’ve acknowledged that my statement was apparently not true of Minnesota. I never said that “gays and lesbians are legally allowed to discriminate against others and get them fired or affect their career advancement based on their religious background, gender, sexual orientation or unwillingness to have sex with them.”.
You can’t win your twisted arguments with the truth so you rely on lies in the vain hope that someone’s going to believe you anyway. No Christians have stood up for you because they recognize that you are a disgrace to their religion. I wouldn’t have thought it possible that you could add to the disgrace that is Christianity, but you proved me wrong.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
There’s a big difference between saying the law is wrong and saying disobedience to the law is justified.
But do you remember WHY you said the law was wrong?
Christians do not deserve legal protection for their bigotry when the law does not similarly provide gays with protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The ultimate law is do whatever you want, but harm no one. When the justice system ignores this by protecting people from religious discrimination but not sexual orientation discrimination the law is wrong.
So your entire argument is based on the law being “wrong”, when in fact it is not by your own definition.
And furthermore, you consider a Christian making a request for reasonable accomodation — an action which is specifically protected under the state law of Minnesota for both religion and sexual orientation, making it a crime to fire, harass, or otherwise threaten the job of an individual, to be reason enough to fire the person.
Meanwhile, you continue to spin and avoid condemning Bonnie Bleskachek’s obvious immoral and illegal actions that demonstrably harmed individuals — while failing to come up with a single example of how gay individuals were in any way harmed by the reasonable accomodation of the bus driver’s request.
And then to this.
No wonder you’re desperate to change the subject. If I worshiped one of the most despicable characters in all of literature I probably wouldn’t want to focus on his many unforgivably evil deeds either.
Actually, it’s far simpler than that.
I have demonstrated that your antireligious hatred and bigotry is such that you will insist a request for reasonable accomodation by a Christian bus driver is akin to wanting to kill gays, that the state law of Minnesota does not protect sexual orientation when it clearly does, and that your commenting that it did was a reflection of complete ignorance on the topic.
This makes it quite obvious that hatred of religion is such that it prevents you from objectively researching, reading, and interpreting a simple nondiscrimination law simply because it includes religion. This leads you to insist that a law which clearly says it DOES protects sexual orientation doesn’t, and that religion is treated differently than sexual orientation in terms of employment discrimination and right to complain/request accomodation when it clearly is not.
In short, if your hatred and bigotry leads you to make mistakes that obvious on something that simple and that unrelated to Christianity…..how on earth can we be expected to take your interpretation of Scripture seriously? You’ve already demonstrated on one document that you will make up things in it that don’t exist and deny things that are clearly outlined because it mentions religion. Why, then, should we not expect you to do the same with the Bible?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallas, Christians do not deserve legal protection for their bigotry when the law does not similarly provide gays with protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They also do not deserve protection for their bigotry when it involves stigmatizing gays with the idea that they should be opposed and eternally tortured when they are harming no one AND gays are protected against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Not surprisingly you’ve failed to show where I’ve “made up things in it that don’t exist” or that I’ve denied “things that are clearly outlined because it mentions religion.
By my estimate you’ve lied 50 to 75 times in this thread alone and I’ve documented those lies each time. If anyone can’t be taken seriously it is clearly you.
You don’t need to concern yourself with my interpretation of scripture, the evil of it speaks for itself – no interpretation required:
Exodus 1,2
“Then the lord said to Moses, “Go back again and make your demand upon Pharoah, but I have hardened him and his officials so that I can do more miracles demonstrating my power. What stories you can tell your children and grandchildren about the incredible things I am doing in Egypt! Tell them what fools I made of the Egyptians and how I proved to you that I am Jehovah.”
You have no explanation for the evil demonstrated by your god here, nor for this passage clearly demonstrating god doesn’t adhere to your idea that humans must have unbounded free will, contrary to your insisting otherwise. If your god was willing to take away human’s free will here to create evil for his own pleasure, he has no moral excuse for allowing the Afghani tribesman the free will to skin those Christian aid workers alive – not to mention the millions of grotesque incidents of man’s inhumanity to man over the millenia. His inaction can only be excused by his nonexistence.
Numbers 31: 1,9,10,11,16-18
Deuteronomy 7: 1,2,16
“When the Lord your God delivers them over to you to be destroyed, do a complete job of it – don’t make any treaties or show them mercy; utterly wipe them out.”
Your attempt to justify this was laughable. Oh yeah, you said this was excusable because in Deteronomy 2 god tells the Jews not to kill the Moabites. Just like Charles Manson isn’t a bad guy because he didn’t order his followers to kill some of the people they came across.
Deuteronomy 20: 13,14
Joshua 8: 24
Joshua 11: 12,20
Psalms 44: 8-22
My constant boast is God. I can never thank you enough! And yet for a time, O Lord, you have tossed us aside in dishonour, and have not helped us in our battles. You have actually fought against us and defeated us before our foes. Our enemies have invaded our land and pillaged the country-side. You have treated us like sheep in a slaughter pen, and scattered us among the nations. You sold us for a pittance, you value us at nothing at all. The neighbouring nations laugh and mock at us because of all the evil you have sent. You have made the word “Jew” a byword of contempt and shame among nations, disliked by all. I am constantly despised, mocked, taunted and cursed by my vengeful enemies.
And all this has happened, Lord, despite our loyalty to you . We have not violated your covenant. Our hearts have not deserted you! We have not left your path by a single step. If we had , we could understand your punishing us in the barren wilderness and sending us into darkness and death. If we had turned away from worshipping our god and were worshiping idols, would god not know it? Yes, he knows the secrets of every heart. But that is not our case. For we are facing death threats constantly because of serving you! We are like sheep awaiting slaughter.
And I loved your excuse for this one. We can overlook god’s evil here because somewhere else he was nice. Once again, just like saying we shouldn’t look down on Hitler because he was good to his mother.
You don’t need to take my word for it, its obvious that only an evil psychotic god would create imperfect humans and eternally torture them for behaving exactly as he knew they would.
If Bonnie Bleskachek is guilty of your allegations I condemn her. Now its your turn to condemn the god you worship for the evil he is clearly responsible for if you believe in Christianity. Its up to you to repent of holding up this despicable character as your idol. If you have any decency that’s what you’ll do.
posted by raj on
Randi Schimnosky | December 29, 2006, 12:28pm |
Hi Raj, you must be the only one still left reading this.
You don’t really believe that I waste time actually reading most of what has been posted here, do you? Every once in a while, I click in to see how many more column-inches NDXXX has spewed over the landscape, check for other commenters, and take a few words from your comments to sometime spark a comment of mine.
In some ways, this dialog between you and NDXXX reminds me of a thread on a message board that I was posting on in the 1977-79 time frame. This thread started out being about Intelligent Design, and ended up being a debate about ID vs. evolution. I dropped out of the discussion after about the 900th comment. That was the thread from which (a) I learned more than I ever wanted to about evolution, and significantly more than I ever wanted to about the pseudo-science refered to as ID, and (b) that it is impossible to persuade someone that they are wrong over the internet, whatever scientifically (or historically, or whatever) reliable sites you link to, when that someone obstinately refuses to learn anything about the subject matter that runs contrary to his or her world-view, or who refuses to assess evidence that leads to conclusions that are contrary to his or her world view. They are like the proverbial brick wall to whom one proverbially talks–kind of like NDXXX. That thread eventually petered out after about another 500 comments, most of those being between two commenters.
Unfortunately, here there aren’t comment numbers, so I can’t tell how many comments have been registered here. I guess it’s a good thing that IGF has unlimited resources to store all of them, here.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Well, Raj, I didn’t think you were reading it but when I saw your last comment yeah, I did think you’d been here through the whole thing. I can’t get over what a chronic liar Northdallass is. Does he really believe most people don’t notice and look down on him? I guess when one’s as delusional as he is its possible.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Not surprisingly you’ve failed to show where I’ve “made up things in it that don’t exist” or that I’ve denied “things that are clearly outlined because it mentions religion.
Unfortunately, , I have.
You claimed that the law in question did not cover sexual orientation; I showed that it did.
You claimed you were unaware that the incident took place in Minnesota; I showed that it had been specifically pointed out that the incident took place in Minnesota.
You claimed that the bus driver should have been reprimanded, fired, or harassed for making this request for reasonable accomodation; I showed that it is emphatically against the law for an employer or union to do so, or to allow an employee to be harassed or harmed for making such requests.
All of these are accompanied by clear and linked citations.
Now, gay leftists like you claim to be far more informed than people like me. Am I to believe that you made a statement on which you DIDN’T have the facts and in which you acted on sheer bigotry and anti-Christian hatred, clearly disregarding the law in question? That seems impossible, especially since leftist Raj is allegedly so devoted to the truth that he would never let you make such a monstrously-false statement without interjecting.
Or, what I consider the more plausible scenario: you knew, but you went ahead and said it anyway because, as an antireligious bigot and gay leftist, you knew your statements would never be challenged by the majority of people here, and that your fellow leftist puppets like Raj would cover up for you by making personal attacks on someone who documented and pointed out your falsehood.
So, in short, either you make ignorant statements and assertions out of bigotry without knowing the facts….or you know the facts, but you willfully disregard them out of bigotry.
Either way, why should we not assume that you are doing the same thing relative to Scripture? If your affliction caused by religion, be it ignorance or mendacity, so prevents you from researching, reading, and making truthful statements on such simple things as laws, how can it not interfere when you are attempting to read or interpret religious books?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, I don’t read most of the links you provide anymore because as is the case with the link you provided in your previous post it does not prove what you say it does. I was unaware of Minnesota’s law on discrimniation on the basis of sexual orientation, unaware that the incident took place in Minnesota and because I don’t particularly care about this story I didn’t read the links you provided at December 28, 2006, 3:09pm giving details of the story, which in any event came after I made the comment about the law not providing protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Again, it was you who lied and the link you provided in your last post proves it! You are one psychotic lying scumbag. And to continue your record of one to two lies in every post you lied again when you said “You claimed that the bus driver should have been reprimanded, fired, or harassed for making this request for reasonable accomodation”. No, I said only that she should have been reprimanded for refusing to do her job as assigned. Then and only then if she continued to refuse to do her job as designated should she have been fired.
The evil of your buy-bull speaks for itself. One need only to read the passages I listed to see that. My credibility is irrelevant to the evil readily apparent in your buy-bull and in any event it far exceeds yours when you’ve lied 55 to 80 times in this thread alone. As this long thread shows no matter how you danced and twisted and lied you couldn’t justify your god’s evil actions. A moral omnipotent being simply could not have stood by and allowed those Afghani tribesman to skin those Christian aid workers alive. A moral omnipotent being doesn’t overlook the ongoing evil of humanity, and if he wants to, most certainly does not need to commit the evil act of torturing and killing the innocent Jesus to do so. Just look at the stuff your stinking disgraceful buy-bull is rife with:
Exodus 21: 20,21
“If a man beats his slave to death – whether the slave is male or female – he shall surely be punished. But if the slave does not die for a couple of days, then the man shall not be punished – for the slave is his property.”
You refused to deny this passage existed when I told you it did, no doubt because you knew of it as well, but yet you encouraged the belief that it didn’t exist because I hadn’t provided the specific quote. Again you practiced to deceive.
Exodus 20: 5
“…And when I punish people for their sins, the punishment continues upon the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of those who hate me;”.
No moral being punishes the innocent for the sins of others, yet your god brags about doing so. No imperfection or mistake on my part explains or justifies the obvious meaning of those words in YOUR buy-bull. The foundation of your Christian religion is the immoral torture and muder of Jesus for THINGS HE DIDN’T DO! That is the evil you worship and hold up as the source of and epitome of morality. And the twisted excuses of a chronic liar like you do nothing to absolve your psychotic war god of guilt for his evil ways.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I was unaware of Minnesota’s law on discrimniation on the basis of sexual orientation, unaware that the incident took place in Minnesota and because I don’t particularly care about this story I didn’t read the links you provided
And yet you still commented on it and tried to use it as a justification for your antireligious hatred and bigotry.
So it seems the first option is true; you make ignorant statements and assertions out of bigotry without knowing the facts.
And then you try this:
My credibility is irrelevant to the evil readily apparent in your buy-bull
Just as you claimed it was “readily apparent” that the law didn’t protect sexual orientation.
And just as you claim that “no moral being punishes the innocent for the sins of others”, but insist that bigotry against all Christians solely because of their affiliation as such is justified.
And that really is the lesson here, Randi; you’ve demonstrated that facts are completely irrelevant to your statements or actions.
Therefore, it is expected that you would criticize the Bible; after all, it is the source book of religion, and you think absolutely nothing positive can come out of religion. You see the Bible just that way, just as your belief that no American laws protect sexual orientation allowed you to easily make the statement you did to that effect.
Therefore, the only reason we need worry about your criticism is that it nicely perpetuates the idea that gays are implacable antireligious bigots, so much so that they will even try to deny legal protections and practice discrimination on the basis of religious belief.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallas, in your previous post you claimed to have provided a link showing Minnnesota had a law banning sexual orientation discrimination prior to me decrying the lack of such a law. Contrary to that, your link showed you provided that information after I made that comment. YOU LIED AGAIN. You’ve lied almost 100 times in this thread alone! You are in no position to criticize my credibility when you have completely destroyed your own.
In any event that was a minor point and the minutia of the case is irrelevant. The Christian bus driver blindly and unconditionally opposed gays who hurt no one and she is to be condemed for that. If Minnesota law (allegedly) protects people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation that is all the more reason to condemn her, not less.
That you would nitpick my being unfamiliar with Minnesota law while failing to repent of making lie after documented lie highlights your despicable evil nature.
Contrary to your lie I never said Christians were to be condemned solely for being Christian. Most Christians teach that gays who harm no one are to be looked down upon and eternally tortured and that is clearly evil and that is what I condemn those Christians for.
Now even if I had done something wrong it would in no way excuse the evil actions of your psychotic war god. The evil of your buy-bull speaks for itself. One need only to read the passages I listed to see that. No matter how you danced and twisted and lied you couldn’t justify your god’s evil actions. A moral omnipotent being simply could not have stood by and allowed those Afghani tribesman to skin those Christian aid workers alive. A moral omnipotent being doesn’t overlook the ongoing evil of humanity, and if he wants to, most certainly does not need to commit the evil act of torturing and killing the innocent Jesus to do so. No moral book condones slavery but your buy-bull does. And of course you have no justification for Exodus 20: 5
“…And when I punish people for their sins, the punishment continues upon the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of those who hate me;”.
Your evil god punishes the innocent for the wrongs of others and while you’re happy to mistakenly condemn me for this you have no excuse for failing to condemn that action by your god! What kind of sick perverted book says its okay to beat your slave to death as long as it takes a couple of days for him to die?!?!
Let me play the devil’s (your) advocate for a second. Let’s say its true as you say and I’ve punished the innocent for the sins of others. How is it you condemn me for that, but not your god?!?!!
posted by John on
re Ron’s mis quote of 1 CORINTHIANS 5: 9,10 there in no word (homesexual) in my version of the King James Bible
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallas, in your previous post you claimed to have provided a link showing Minnnesota had a law banning sexual orientation discrimination prior to me decrying the lack of such a law.
Actually, Randi, what I pointed out was this:
Randi’s statement is deliberately false. I provided the direct quote dalea made on the story, which stated in its second sentence that the incident occurred in Minneapolis. There is no plausible way that Randi could not have known that Minnesota law expressly prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, yet she tries to claim that the law is “unfair” because it doesn’t.
Of course, that was making the assumption that you actually research and understand the facts and issues of a situation before making statements about it. As we found, though, that’s not the case.
And then, your same excuse:
In any event that was a minor point and the minutia of the case is irrelevant.
Evidently it is a “minor point” to know what exactly took place and “minutia” to worry about what the law actually says or not. Again, as you did before, you’re merely making excuses for your failure to research and understand an issue before making comments on it.
And finally, there’s no “allegedly”. You were provided a link, above referenced, that shows very clearly that Minnesota law DOES prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Granted, you have openly admitted that you refuse to read my links, but your refusal neither negates them or the information provided in them.
In short, Randi, again, you have demonstrated that facts are completely irrelevant to your statements and actions. And I repeat myself; therefore, the only reason we need worry about your criticism is that it nicely perpetuates the idea that gays are implacable antireligious bigots, so much so that they will even try to deny legal protections and practice discrimination on the basis of religious belief.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, stop dodging the relevant question. I’ve played the devil’s (your) advocate. Let’s say its true as you say and I’ve punished the innocent for the sins of others. How is it you condemn me for that, but not your god?!?!!
To quote the King James version of YOUR buy-bull.
“I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me”.
If you (mistakenly) condemn me for punishing the innocent you MUST condemn your god for the same action. There is no such thing as subjective morality. If an action is wrong for one person it is wrong for another.
If your god wants to overlook the sins of mankind he most certainly didn’t have to commit the evil act of torturing and killing the innocent Jesus to appease himself to do so. Leaving your lies aside, what justification do you have for condemning me for allegedly committing the sin of punishing the innocent but not for condemning your god for committing the same sin?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, stop dodging the relevant question.
Again, Randi, since you have demonstrated that facts are completely irrelevant to your statements and actions, there is no need to answer your “question”; it should be obvious to anyone by now that, when it comes to religion, you are incapable of thinking or understanding outside your own predetermined interpretation.
In short, you have already made up your mind that God is evil; nothing will convince you otherwise, regardless of how realistic or fact-based it is. Just as you have already made up your mind that Minnesota law doesn’t protect sexual orientation — hence, your use of the word “allegedly” — despite your having been provided the outlines of the law in question.
It’s not a matter of what is actually there; you dismiss that as a “minor point” and “minutia”. It’s a matter of what you think — and nothing else matters.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, if anyone has demonstrated that the facts are completely irrelvant to their statments and actions it is clearly and undeniably you. You’re not in any position to be criticizing me. You’ve lied close to 100 times in this thread alone. My being unaware of a trivial irrelevant point regarding the bigotted Christian bus driver doesn’t even remotely begin to compare with your shitting all over the rules of fairness and your own god’s commandment not to bear false witness.
In a previous post you claimed to have provided a link showing Minnnesota had a law banning sexual orientation discrimination prior to me decrying the lack of such a law. Contrary to that, your link showed you provided that information after I made that comment. You lied by saying I “tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”” when I did no such thing. You lied when I repeatedly expressed horror at Afghani tribesman skinning Christian aid workers alive by saying “Doubtless there are ones like you, which would claim that their actions were justified because the Christians “attacked them”” when it was you joking about this situation to trivialize it and then who later tried to justify their actions YOURSELF by saying the Christians attacked them. You lied saying I supported torture when I never said any such thing. When I pointed out that YOUR god unjustly wants to overlook the sins of humankind you lied and said “Furthermore, according to your leftist logic, people don’t have to be sent to prison for their crimes; after all, can’t the justice system just “overlook” the sins of individuals?”. You lied and claimed I said I was perfect when I said no such thing and in fact repeatedly emphasized my imperfection
Your lie was “Second, you again try to use human imperfectibility to disprove God — but refuse to apply said imperfectibility to your own leftist philosophy that humankind CAN be perfected.”.
I never said humankind can be perfected. I repeatedly said the perfect philosophy is “Do whatever you want, but hurt no one.” and that people, including me are inevitably imperfect and the goal is to come as close to living the philosophy as we can. Human imperfections don’t disprove your god, the idea that a loving and just god would allow belief in him and his religion of preference to be debatable and then eternally torture people for innocently believing otherwise proves your god doesn’t exist in the same way a square sphere cannot exist. I barely even touched on your lies and it was a simple matter to pull those out of the ones that exist in post after post of yours.
You say “you have already made up your mind that God is evil; nothing will convince you otherwise, regardless of how realistic or fact-based it is.”. “Realistic and fact-based”! What a joke! The words of your buy-bull itself clearly incriminate your god in a way that is completely inexcusable to any rational person. You’ve lied and provided absurdity after absurdity in a vain attempt to justify your psychotic war god’s evil actions. The undeniable evil of your god is obvious in Deuteronomy 7: 1,2,16
“When the Lord your God delivers them over to you to be destroyed, do a complete job of it – don’t make any treaties or show them mercy; utterly wipe them out.”
Your god demands that harmless women, children, and babies be murdered. Your god demands that they be utterly wiped out even if they seek to make peace. Your attempt to justify this was laughable. You said this was excusable because in Deteronomy 2 god tells the Jews not to kill the Moabites. Just like Charles Manson isn’t a bad guy because he didn’t order his followers to kill some of the people they came across.
Exodus 20: 5 also shows the disgusting undeniable evil of your god:
“…And when I punish people for their sins, the punishment continues upon the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of those who hate me;”.
You’re just going to claim there’s a “realistic and fact-based” justification for that without providing one?!?! Get your head out of your butt! You couldn’t provide a realistic and fact based justification for that in a million years if your life depended on it and you know it and that’s why you don’t even attempt to do so. Instead of condemning your god’s evil act of punishing innocents for the acts of others you hide like the pathetic liar you are, implying you could justify it but of course failing to do so, because its impossible.
The foundation of your religion is nonsensical evil. Your god kills his innocent self to appease himself to overlook the evil of others. Its like a mother of two saying “Julie was so terrible today that I beat the hell out of Joey.” Any parent that did that would be rightfully condemned as psychotic and evil and its is no different with your evil psychotic war god. Your god overlooking Afghani tribesmen skinning Christian aid workers alive can only be justified by his non-existence.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
My being unaware of a trivial irrelevant point regarding the bigotted Christian bus driver doesn’t even remotely begin to compare with your shitting all over the rules of fairness and your own god’s commandment not to bear false witness.
And again, where something took place, what actually happened, and what the governing law actually says constitute a “trivial irrelevant point” in Randi’s viewpoint.
I think that says it all — and which is why I stand on my documented example of her actions in the absence of facts, as well as her numerous attempts to cover that up.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, it shows what a fool you are when you think a trivial point outweighs your lying close to one hundred times in this thread alone. To point out but a few: You lied by saying I “tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”” when I did no such thing. You lied when I repeatedly expressed horror at Afghani tribesman skinning Christian aid workers alive by saying “Doubtless there are ones like you, which would claim that their actions were justified because the Christians “attacked them”” when it was you joking about this situation to trivialize it and then who later tried to justify their actions YOURSELF by saying the Christians attacked them. You lied saying I supported torture when I never said any such thing. When I pointed out that YOUR god unjustly wants to overlook the sins of humankind you lied and said “Furthermore, according to your leftist logic, people don’t have to be sent to prison for their crimes; after all, can’t the justice system just “overlook” the sins of individuals?”. You lied and claimed I said I was perfect when I said no such thing and in fact repeatedly emphasized my imperfection. You repeatedly lied and said my philosophy was “love, love, do whatever you want” while omitting the but harm no one” commandment that is central to it.
You falsely blame and condemn me for punishing the innocent but you refuse to condemn your god for HIS punishing of the innocent.
Exodus 20: 5
“…And when I punish people for their sins, the punishment continues upon the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of those who hate me;”.
You have no excuse for the undeniable evil of your god and you don’t have the honour, decency and morality to condemn his inexcusably evil actions.
Your buy-bull condones slavery and beating slaves to death as long as they don’t die for a couple of days and instead of condemning that you attempt to justify it. Your god tortures and murders and orders the murder of innocents and you want to pretend that somehow in some twisted bizzaro world that my not knowing alleged Minnesota law excuses that. You truly are deluded and evil.
You can’t justify your god’s evil actions and evil absence of action when the Afghanis skinned the Christian aid workers alive so instead of acknowledging reality and morality and condemning his evil you hide behind trivial irrelevancies like the pathetic lying weasel you are. You worship evil and you clearly reflect evil
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, it shows what a fool you are when you think a trivial point outweighs your lying close to one hundred times in this thread alone.
Again, Randi, if you think it’s a “trivial point” to miss where something happened, what actually happened, and what the exact details of the law governing the situation are, that says it all.
You keep trying to insist I said this, I said that, the Bible says this, the Bible says that….when, as I pointed out, you can’t even be bothered to read and research a simple, easy-to-read law before making loud commentary upon it. Furthermore, what that makes even more obvious is that you are unable to objectively read or interpret anything related to religion, given that you still believe, despite having been shown it in black and white, that said law does not protect sexual orientation.
In short, of course you’re going to call me evil. You cannot read or interpret what you read in any other way, regardless of what is actually said, because your hatred of me and the religion I follow completely blinds you to anything else.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And, for purposes of stopping the bold:
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, your repetitive lies are documented throughout this thread. I’ve quoted you exactly and your evil buy-bull exactly. My being unaware of alleged Minnesota law doesn’t even remotely compare to the evil of you and your bible. Anyone who objectively reads your buy-bull can see the evil represented in Exodus 20: 5
“…And when I punish people for their sins, the punishment continues upon the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of those who hate me;”.
Its going to take some damn fancy interpreting for you to “justify” that, In fact you know you can’t deny that evil and you don’t have the honour and morality to condemn it.
Its obviously not a matter of me trying to insist it says that, that is what it says and its laughable that you would pretend to deny it.
And let’s not forget
Deuteronomy 7: 1,2
“When the Lord your God delivers them over to you to be destroyed, do a complete job of it – don’t make any treaties or show them mercy; utterly wipe them out.”
Only the evil or incredibly delusional can see that as anything but the evil it is. What kind of evil god orders the murder and torture of innocent people, women, children, and babies? You falsely criticize me for punishing the innocent and yet you fail to condemn your evil god for murdering the innocent. Now you’re even denying the words in your own despicable buy-bull. You haven’t even got the integrity to admit what’s there for all to see.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
My being unaware of alleged Minnesota law doesn’t even remotely compare to the evil of you and your bible.
Again, Randi, you point out the problem; even after having it shown to you, you STILL use “allegedly” when referring to Minnesota law, as if you think it doesn’t protect on the basis of sexual orientation and guarantee that requests for reasonable accomodation on the basis of religious or other status can be made without threat of reprisal or punishment by employers, unions, or other employees.
If you can still interpret something said that clearly as “allegedly”, it makes clear that you are unable to recognize or acknowledge that which conflicts with your belief system — and that, even when shown the facts of the matter, you will continue to make statements directly contradictory to them, even going to the extreme of criticizing the people who actually show you the facts and blaming them for the statements that you made without knowing them.
Hence, as before, if you do that with a state law that only nominally has anything to do with religion, one can only imagine how much more you’ll do it with the Bible. And you’ve quite nicely demonstrated that.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass as I’ve said before, I don’t hang on your every link and I haven’t read any links you provided on alleged Minnesota law. As you’ve proven you’re a notorious liar and your links frequently don’t prove anything of the sort you claim them to I’m not about to waste time reading everything you present. As such as far as I know your claims about Minnesota law are mere allegations.
Regardless you just admitted that the state’s law has only nominally anything to do with religion. You’re confirming what I’ve said all along, that was an irrelevant point. If something is immoral in Canada, its immoral in Minnesota, or Iran, or London England. It was immoral for that Christian bus driver to promote the banishment of harmless gays as sinners and its irrelevant where that took place, it was just wrong.
And as you confirmed, this has little to do with the immorality of your religion and your repeated lies to shamefully attempt to defend the indefensible.
In the thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31136.html#commentform at December 18, 2006, 12:30pm you lied and said I “tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives””.
In this thread on December 25, 2006, 1:40am, the alleged birthday of your supposed lord and savior, after I repeatedly expressed horror at the injustice of Afghanis skinning Christian aid workers alive you lied and said “Doubtless there are ones like you, which would claim that their actions were justified because the Christians “attacked them”.”. I said no such thing. While at first you condemn the idea that it was justfied on December 27, 2006, 4:28pm you do a one hundred and eighty degree turn and and condemn the idea that the attack WASN’T justified: “You weren’t there; how do you know that one of the aid workers didn’t try to kill one of the workers?…Why don’t the Afghans get the same benefit of the doubt from you and your fellow leftists?”.
Typical of your lying nature, you’ll claim polar opposites are true at different times in a vain attempt to make someone other than yourself look bad.
On December 27, 2006, 4:28pm you lied yet AGAIN by saying “YOU said that, if someone tries to murder you, it’s perfectly justifiable to kill and torture them.” I never said it was okay to torture any one for any reason. I said it was justifiable to kill someone if that’s what it takes to prevent them from killing you first.
On December 28, 2006, 4:59pm after I condemned YOUR god for wanting to overlook humanity’s evil by committing the evil act of killing the innocent Jesus, you lied AGAIN by saying “according to your leftist logic, people don’t have to be sent to prison for their crimes; after all, can’t the justice system just “overlook” the sins of individuals?”.
That’s YOUR god’s “logic” that says people don’t need to be punished for their crimes, not mine. I repeatedly condemned YOUR god’s trying to place responsbility for sins upon somone other than the person responsible for them.
AtDecember 27, 2006, 3:44pm you lied AGAIN by saying “you again try to use human imperfectibility to disprove God — but refuse to apply said imperfectibility to your own leftist philosophy that humankind CAN be perfected.” I never said human imperfectability disproves your god and I never said humankind can be perfected. In fact I repeatedly emphasized the inevitability of humanities imperfection and that the only practical goal was to come as close as possible to living the perfect philosophy of “Do whatever you want, but hurt no one.” It was you who claimed and continue to claim mine and other’s imperfections invalidate that philosophy. What I’ve repeatedly emphasized is that a loving and just god that allows belief in him and his religion of preference to be debatable and who eternally tortures people for innocently believing otherwise cannot exist anymore than a square sphere exists.
On December 21, 2006, 5:27pm you lied AGAIN by saying “The temptation of modern-day Christians, in attempt to make the religion more palatable to bigots like Randi and Raj, is to downplay the whole thing because it doesn’t portray the “love, love, do whatever you want” of modern permissive theology.”. The philosophy I’ve repeatedly emphasized is “Do whatever you want, but hurt no one “. You left out the critical commandment over and over to falsely state that that is what is “palatable” to me.
These are but a few of the dozens and dozens of your lies throughout this post. That you claim my being unaware of Minnesota law invalidates everything I’m saying while failing to acknowledge your repeated lies destroy your credibility merely emphasizes your despicable character.
That you fail to condemn your god character for his evil actions and evil inaction when Afganis skinned Christian aid workers alive further emphasizes your despicable evil nature.
To a rational person Exodus 20: 5 can only be explained as evil:
“…And when I punish people for their sins, the punishment continues upon the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of those who hate me;”.
Only the insane or evil can say the punishment of the innocent is anything but evil. Only an evil god would torture and kill the innocent Jesus to unjustly overlook man’s incredibile inhumanity to man.
The evil of your god is undeniable in Deuteronomy 7: 1,2,16
“When the Lord your God delivers them over to you to be destroyed, do a complete job of it – don’t make any treaties or show them mercy; utterly wipe them out.”
Your god demands that harmless women, children, and babies be murdered. Your god demands that they be utterly wiped out even if they seek to make peace.
In Exodus 1,2 the actions of your god character show his despicable nature:
“Then the lord said to Moses, “Go back again and make your demand upon Pharoah, but I have hardened him and his officials so that I can do more miracles demonstrating my power. What stories you can tell your children and grandchildren about the incredible things I am doing in Egypt! Tell them what fools I made of the Egyptians and how I proved to you that I am Jehovah.”
This totally disproves your attempt to justify your god’s inaction when the Afghanis skinned the Christians alive and his inaction when millions have been tortured and killed over the millenia. Contrary to your lies your god does not consider human free will inviolable. His violating human free will to evilly cause human conflict for his own pleasure while failing to do so to prevent evil demonstrates his undeniable evil nature.
Your attempt to “justify” your god’s evil with dozens and dozens of lies by hiding behind my not knowing irrelevant details of an irrelevant incident is shameful, disgraceful, evil, and laughably ineffectual.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass as I’ve said before, I don’t hang on your every link and I haven’t read any links you provided on alleged Minnesota law. As you’ve proven you’re a notorious liar and your links frequently don’t prove anything of the sort you claim them to I’m not about to waste time reading everything you present. As such as far as I know your claims about Minnesota law are mere allegations.
Then you might want to read them, no?
Especially since you’re now arguing that said bus driver wanted gays “banished”.
And finally, Randi, you demand that I say something, give you links to counter your hypotheses and statements about God…..but you admit that you don’t read them and that you aren’t going to read them.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, when you repent of your lies, apologize for at least the few more egregious ones I’ve outlined, and start showing some consistency in speaking the truth and relevance I’ll start reading all your links again.
You can start by admitting the obvious. No moral omnipotent being allows Afghani tribesmen to skin Christian aid workers alive, not to mention the millions of other people who were allowed to torture and murder their fellow man over the millenia.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, when you repent of your lies, apologize for at least the few more egregious ones I’ve outlined, and start showing some consistency in speaking the truth and relevance I’ll start reading all your links again.
But until then, you’re just going to continue to make patently-false statements, such as your one that Minnesota law only “allegedly” protects sexual orientation, or that said bus driver wants gays “banished”, because you won’t read the links provided.
No skin off my nose there.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Oh, so you are going to apologize for all those shameful lies, repent, and start consistently speaking the truth and relevance?
You can start by admitting the obvious. No moral omnipotent being allows Afghani tribesmen to skin Christian aid workers alive, not to mention the millions of other people who were allowed to torture and murder their fellow man over the millenia.
That to a rational person Exodus 20: 5 can only be explained as evil:
“…And when I punish people for their sins, the punishment continues upon the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of those who hate me;”.
That only the insane or evil can say the punishment of the innocent is anything but evil. That only an evil god would torture and kill the innocent Jesus to unjustly overlook man’s incredibile inhumanity to man.
That the evil of your god is undeniable in Deuteronomy 7: 1,2,16
“When the Lord your God delivers them over to you to be destroyed, do a complete job of it – don’t make any treaties or show them mercy; utterly wipe them out.”
That your god demands that harmless women, children, and babies be murdered. That your god demands that they be utterly wiped out even if they seek to make peace.
That in Exodus 1,2 the actions of your god character show his despicable nature:
“Then the lord said to Moses, “Go back again and make your demand upon Pharoah, but I have hardened him and his officials so that I can do more miracles demonstrating my power. What stories you can tell your children and grandchildren about the incredible things I am doing in Egypt! Tell them what fools I made of the Egyptians and how I proved to you that I am Jehovah.”
That this totally disproves your attempt to justify your god’s inaction when the Afghanis skinned the Christians alive and his inaction when millions have been tortured and killed over the millenia. Contrary to your lies your god does not consider human free will inviolable. His violating human free will to evilly cause human conflict for his own pleasure while failing to do so to prevent evil demonstrates his undeniable evil nature.
I haven’t seen anything that tells me what Minnesota law is and therefore my statement is the truth. I have made no patently false statements unlike the dozens and dozens you have made throughout this thread.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh, so you are going to apologize for all those shameful lies, repent, and start consistently speaking the truth and relevance?
Actually, what I’m going to do is just let you continue to make patently-false statements, such as your one that Minnesota law only “allegedly” protects sexual orientation, or that said bus driver wants gays “banished”, because you won’t read the links provided.
In short, your threat is basically, “Do as I want, or I’ll keep making a fool of myself.”
You’ll have to do much better than that. 🙂
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
You worship a psychotic sadistic baby killer and I’m supposed to be the fool. That’s rich.
Exodus 20: 5 can only be explained as evil:
“…And when I punish people for their sins, the punishment continues upon the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of those who hate me;”.
You really idolize an admirable character:
Exodus 1,2
“Then the lord said to Moses, “Go back again and make your demand upon Pharoah, but I have hardened him and his officials so that I can do more miracles demonstrating my power. What stories you can tell your children and grandchildren about the incredible things I am doing in Egypt! Tell them what fools I made of the Egyptians and how I proved to you that I am Jehovah.”
And Deuteronomy 7: 1,2,16 really highlights your Christian “values”:
“When the Lord your God delivers them over to you to be destroyed, do a complete job of it – don’t make any treaties or show them mercy; utterly wipe them out.”