Note: Rant Follows. Rant not necessarily directed at scifes. Rant was inspired by the word of scifes. Please read with care. Poster denies any liability associated with brain damage as a result from reading the following. Also, burned retinas, blurred vision or the sudden need to intoxicate onself are no fault of the poster. Poster will accept limited responsibility for mental or emotional distress and will compensate in the form of a warm internet hug. Poster is not financially liable for emotional stress. Build a bridge and get over it. Well... I don't trust the books written by Bart Sibrel... I don't trust sites that promote propaganda in order to support a notion that is in direct contradiction of evidence... I don't trust the Lions club... I trust quite a bit that I can verify independently, however. I am (as I point out on occasion) a nube. I've only dealt with some of dragons claims a few times. Yet, Dragon demonstrates the same behavior I see in these websites. Such as denying clear evidence and putting forth claims without support. How can I trust the claims made by a person that doesn't know what a proof is or doesn't know what makes a theory work? How can I trust someone that clearly states a personal bias? I do not dislike the man or have any personal beef with him. But I dislike what he is DOING. Promoting ignorance in order to validate a belief that is in contradiction of the evidence is a terrible thing to do. It causes harm. It creates ignorance that leads to misconceptions and a lack of progress. It inhibits development and learning. It decreases understanding and the ability to use that understanding as a basis for advancement. All of which assists in the world being the huge fat mess that it is today. Across this forum, you see illustrious debates over things that really are quite simple- When folks aren't complicating them with preconceptions or focusing on one factor rather than the whole picture. It's frustrating to see people do this. To see people promote a backwards movement or denial of direct observation just because of an emotional need on their part. There is So Much Damage Done by this behavior in all our lives-- from the minor to major global harm. I do understand that many issues are not well understood nor clearly defined. But does ignorance help that in any way? Or does critical thinking and observation and learning help? It's well demonstrated that homosexuality is not a choice. Yet, a believer will close his eyes. Blind himself to the wealth of medical evidence and deny it all- just because some guy in a book was homophobic. Which is Ironic- Because a "Christian" is one who follows the teachings of Christ. Christ taught to remove the plank from your own eye, to open your eyes and SEE, to not cast judgment frivolously. The man whom the religion is named after is largely ignored in favor of Timothy or Paul or Isaiah (OTB). So many intersex, transgender or homosexual people are needlessly traumatized, not only by these believers in denial, they are by those influenced by ignorance, those that were not educated about these people that are gay, intersexed at birth or transexual. I AM just as guilty over the course of my life. I've looked down on gays in my life simply for them being gay. It's sad it took me so long to realize I was WRONG. I'm glad to say I never beat someone up or really used harsh words. At least I can say that much. But Yes, that attitude was formed by my "Christian" (Quotes considering the hypocrisy of ignoring the teachings of Christ) upbringing. It absolutely was and I'm not delusional about that in the least. How much tolerance should we have for such harmful attitudes? Why should I be looked at as if there is something WRONG with me for being an Atheist - someone who is not guided by ancient ignorance, delusions and a belief in the supernatural? A fundie would mock me if I believed in Fairy's and Gnomes!
Vaporising Vegas seems reasonable, but why Detroit? As regards Aish.com, the writing is much better than most. Dangerous if he should be a liar.
************* M*W: That's not what the story of S&G is about. Homosexuality was commonplace in those days (nothing's changed). The moral of the story was about man's inhumanity to man.
You had a choice in the language you think in? Using my amazing powers of the mind I predict your parents are Muslim. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I am a slave to sin or a slave to God. God's law has greatly shaped what I believe, homosexuality is wrong because God says so. Society does not determine right and wrong, truth and morals are not relative, whatever is immoral is immoral whether you accept it or not. Truth is truth whether you believe it or not.
I wonder how many xians think that Lot's wife was turned into a Pillar of Salt. or some guy lived in the belly of a whale for three days or the walls of Jericho just feel down or the sun and moon stopped
Using words such as "truth" does not determine that you are giving the truth. Rather, you are using it to validate your unsupported belief. Morality is not absolute. Consider the following: There is a set of train tracks that spilts into two tracks. Due to malice... On one set of tracks is one man. On the other set is five people. A railroad switcher sees the train approaching these potential victims on his cameras before it reaches the switch. Does he switch the tracks to the track with one man to spare five? The answer to this question is debateable. Many might have different viewpoints, however, the choice to spare the five lives would be considered morally acceptable by most. This is because we are accustomed, in our society, to the concept of badyguards, police, soldiers and heros. Another scenerio: A hospital ER recieves five victims of a car wreck. Each of the victims needs a particular organ to survive. In the waiting room is a healthy man in for a routine check up. His organs, if harvested, would save the five. Do they call him in for his check up and then dope him out and harvest his organs to save five? Although a few people might advocate this, the majority of those tested would be morally opposed to this action as Morally unacceptable. Yet, the two situations are identical. None of the victims asked to be in danger, the sacrifices were not made aware of the sacrifice to be made... We trust our doctors and we trust our train switchers. In spite of them being identical, the majority opinion on the moral consequence vary greatly. This is because we may be used to heros, but DISLIKE the idea of having our organs unknowingly harvested. In a cannibal society, eating other humans is morally acceptable. Society clearly does determine what is moral and morality is based not on any absolute, but on what we want to be moral out of selfish desire.
But, society is not always wrong and not always right. There are at least two perspectives to morality. Internal and external. Concerning society, it is the moral compass we must follow, under laws and social etiquette. That is internal to society. What TryAgain is pointing to is the persepective that he sees morals from outside of society looking in. This is a dangerous to oneself when morality clashes, but I can sympathize. TryAgain, as a rule of thumb, society should be your moral compass at first glance. In fact, your Bible says that society's laws were based on God's laws and should be followed. Not all of society's laws are written down. If you break enough unwritten ones, you'll find yourself not necessarily in jail, but closer than you'd like to seeing a judge. That's when organizations get involved like Child Protective Services, for example.
Wow Try Again, you just summed up how I've come to think of many people on this board. I mean, they way in which people think. And why it's impossible to change this method of thinking. The only thing to do now is to discover the neural subtypes, glutamatergic (etc al) signalling pathways and develop receptor antagonists Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Game on Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Consider the possiblity that other people have more options than this. Perhaps you are correct about yourself. Perhaps you would be a cruel or awful person if you did not have rules from God. But others may not be like you. In the name of God many people have been cruel and awful, something that is acknowledged by most people who believe in God. So really there is no escape from responsibility I can see. But if you really believe you would do evil without being a slave, then I understand your choice. For you that is. Different Gods have said different things. You are responsible for choosing to believe texts written by people that say homosexuality is wrong. You made this decision. You trusted your intuition or personal experience of God to let you know which of the voices and texts was God. So you are responsible if your own biases led you to listen to a voice or text that was not God's, or was only partially God's. If you are basing your beliefs on the Bible, then a society definitely has decided what your morals are.
cmon man what are you trying to say, like DUR! free will he dosent force you not to be homo, its like telling someone hey dude dont steal my money but if you wana i wont stop you , obviously the dude will say hey he gave me free will but he said not to, now what would you think that dude will do would he take the money or not? you be the judge..........Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Every scientific and psychological (As well as medical) study shows that being Homosexual is NOT a choice. When fundies accept those conclusions, they then start saying, "Ok, God made them gay but they have a CHOICE as to whether or not to act on it..." SHEESH!
Being a homosexual or acting as a homosexual? Can I get links to few of those studies that show that acting as a homosexual (meaning performing in homosexual sexual activities) is not a choice. Just curious.. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Actually it's much more like saying it wasn't free will that made you a girl of a boy baby. And there are many, many examples of homosexual behavior in nature, including pair bonding for life. Are you suggesting that animals are exhibiting free will in these situations? Why is it that homosexuals appear in all cultures, even where it is radically dangerous to be one AND appear all over the place in the animal kingdom?
Thanks for demonstrating my point 786. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Buffalo and Dolphins are notorious.
Aren't you going to provide the studies? Shuckssss.. I was interesting in reading them... See 'being' in your 'mind' doesn't matter to people much... I think everyone is bisexual- its just how you take your feelings that makes you a 'homosexual'- so I'm not really interested in 'being' than I am in 'acting'. How many 'fundies' believe everyone is bisexual? Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
************* M*W: Now you've posted something that was actually interesting, informative, and scientifically significant.
There are no such studies nor did I claim that there are any studies on how homosexuals do not have a Choice in ACTING homosexual. This is a straw man and a red herring and I'm weary of your constant supply of them. 786, I will most likely not bother with most of your posts from now on. And you have just posted something utterly unnecessary.
