Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Heretic

The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality

322 posts in this topic

In other words, men who are not religious will kill their spouse at the same rate for adultery as men who are? See, I disagree.

Stock isn't in religion, but in the power of authority.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good that you "put a lot of thought into it", it's really bad that you started before having a firm grasp on the words "agnostic" and "atheist". Maybe then you'd avoid asinine statements like "Agnostics dont care if people believe in God. Atheists do".

I also didn't know the faith in my friends is the same faith that others place in god. You know, because my friends are real and the reason I have faith in them is due to their actions that had measurable effect.

There's also a big difference between an abstract concept of "god" that "agnostics" aren't sure about, and a biblical god with a whole host of contradicting qualities. Seeing the Abrahimic gods (and others) for the ludicrous caricatures of human nature that they are isn't being a cultist.

And that's not saying anything of the detrimental beliefs the bible pushes on its adherents. The only thing your post was missing for the full monty is something along the lines of "both extremes are same!"

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno dude. The bible was written 4,000 years ago. I think perceptions have changed since then.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an atheist. I don't hate people because they believe. Sure, have your beliefs. I don't care.

But the second people start using the Bible or any other holy book or religious beliefs to back their hateful beliefs (slavery, homophobia, women's rights), that's when my anger comes out.

Saying that "Atheists HATE that anyone believes.", is like saying that Christians hate anyone who is gay.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christian Revulsion at Sinning, Homosexuality

By Austin Cline, About.com GuideFebruary 27, 2009

It may be possible to better explain and understand Christian reactions to homosexuality as a visceral revulsion at the concept of gay sex rather than as a theological, biological, or philosophical objection to same-sex attraction. This doesn’t help their case because revulsion at something isn't a sound basis for criminalizing it. Even worse, it leads to denying basic equality and dignity to people, undermining attempts to form a cohesive community.{C}

Angelle N. Guyette wrote an op-ed expressing her shame over how fellow Christians relied on hatred and fear when opposing an ordinance protecting gays from discrimination:

At this County Council meeting, you could know most of them by the hatred on their faces. The leaders of the religious opponents were the worst, displaying physical revulsion at having to stand near people they figured were gay. They looked like they'd have stoned Mary Magdalene, and her friends, too.

One minister's face contorted as he spoke, "Homosexuality is offensive because it is a sin. People choose to commit this sin. My congregants should not have to hire gays and condone a sinful lifestyle they find offensive."

One of his followers spat out, "I should not have to rent to those people. I don't want them sinning in my properties."

This made me recall a minister I had dated who had cheated on me when I thought we were practicing abstinence. Nice, clean-cut looking fellow. Dirty rat.

The point is that these preachers consider both "fornication" and "homosexual acts" to be sins, so how can they justify discriminating against only gays? Because they think they know one when they see one, I suppose, as opposed to fornicators.

Source:
(via:
)

A Christian doesn’t want renters "sinning" on his property? A Christian doesn't wan to hire "sinners"? I wonder if the one checks to make sure that renters are sin-free in every other way.... no, I doubt it. Do you think the other monitors employees to make sure they don't sin at home? Again, not likely. It's not "sinning" that's the problem, since I doubt either are sin-free themselves, but rather the presence of particular sins which cause revulsion in them. Because of this, they think they're justified in treating some human beings as less worthy of equality and dignity.

The Christians quoted by Angelle Guuyette seem to be good examples of the sort of problems outlined by Martha C. Nussbaum in her book Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law. Nussbaum's thesis is that some emotions enhance and affirm our humanity while others — like disgust and shame — undermine our common humanity because they presume some superhuman or supernatural purity which is unattainable.

This emphasis on purity, which can frequently be found in fundamentalist and conservative religions as well as some secular authoritarian movements, leads to the stigmatization of groups thought to have fallen farthest from grace. For conservative Christians, these groups have in the past included Jews, the disabled, and unorthodox thinkers. Today they are primarily gays, pagans, humanists, and atheists.

This is why they are the focus of so much opprobrium despite the fact that conservative thinkers ostensibly believe that everyone is a sinner, that all sins are basically equal, that divorce is just as wrong as homosexuality, and so forth. Just because all sins are equal doesn't mean that all sinners have fallen as far from grace or have become as "impure." There are too many divorced Christians and Christians having extra-marital sex to stigmatize and scapegoat them, so gays have been recruited for a role once relegated to Jews.

Nussbaum argues that using shame and disgust separates, stigmatizes, and undermines the interpersonal cohesion that makes a community possible. It's hard to imagine any community being a truly good place to live in if stigmatization and scapegoating are common, accepted practices. Once we understand all of this, then we can work on developing alternatives which reaffirm, rather than attack, the essential dignity and equality of every individual human being. It seems unlikely that very many conservative Christians will be able to join the rest of the community in this; instead, they are more likely to be engaged in obstruction because they are too dependent on their ideas of supernatural purity.

As good as Angelle N. Guyette's essay is, there is one important flaw:

A person of faith, I quit wearing a cross around my neck in public some years ago to avoid being identified with a growing "Christian" culture of bigotry and intolerance. After that County Council meeting, though, I'm finding it difficult even to pray: How can God let such hateful evil use His name?

Has there ever been a time when you couldn't find Christian communities accepting bigotry and intolerance? Slavery was defended by Christian ministers using the Bible. Secession and war in defense of slavery was defended on Christian principles. Segregation was defended as part of a divine, Christian order. Traditionalist Christians fought to deny suffrage to women and blacks. Christians today are the main driving force behind bigotry towards gays, atheists, and pagans. The legacy of Christian racism and misogyny remain with us.

This is not to say that Christians haven't opposed bigotry and intolerance, or is it to deny that one can use Christian idea to promote equality and tolerance. However, it's an unavoidable fact that religion is now and has always been a key part of every status quo. Religion is now and has always been integral to the defense of tradition. This means that religion has always played an important role in the justification and perpetuation of every form of bigotry, hatred, and discrimination. Guyette should know that and needs to keep it in mind because this entails that every progressive effort to fight any form of bigotry or discrimination must target religion.

my parents are in their 80's and are devout christians and always voted conservative , but in the last decade and a half have found a disgust and contempt for the leadership of the church and the social polocies of the conservative's .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you associate Christians with the bible? The only part of the bible they believe as gospel is ......the 4 gospels.

Atheists continually bash . Re read your post . It bashes. Proving my point again. Atheists need to bash.

Christians believe in the four gospels. Every thing else is optional. Everything else becomes culture via different churches etc.

Anyone want to prove they are an Atheist , but NOT bash people who believe in God or their faith?

Anyone want to take up my offer? Go ahead. Make your case.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without ketchup the world would be just as dramatically different.

Stop blaming religion for the stupidity of humanity. If it wasn't religion it would have been something else that's equally as silly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres lots of blame to go around, but I think religion deserves a very generous portion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ketchup doesn't affect the way people think. I don't know how you can discount religion as an impotent force, when it is anything but. Sure, the idiots who follow religion into doing bad things deserve blame, but not for being bad people.

For example the case of the woman executed for adultery by the Taliban to the cheers of men. I could be wrong, but in my experience people don't kill others and cheer about unless they think what they're doing is righteous. And I can only think of one thing that can convince people that what is righteous is not, and what is not is righteous - religion.

Sure, we can blame the husband for pulling the trigger, but that doesn't really get us anywhere. That's like blaming a poor person for stealing without acknowledging his poverty to the point of starvation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on his quoting Matt. 7 and saying that being anti-homosexual marriage produces bad fruit: he's taking "good" and "bad" in human (his own) terms, and placing the human (his) standard of what is good and bad over Christ's. Furthermore, his perception of fruit is that it should be based purely upon a person's well-being emotionally, rather than the blessings that come from being submissive to God.

It was made clear in Romans 1:

men abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” (Romans 1:27)

God already made it clear that it's wrong to abandon these natural relations with the opposite gender and lust for the same.

There is to be a penalty associated with this, since it's considered sin (not right in God's eyes)

and, in Gen. 22 (not quoted by him):

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh

a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife! It isn't good for man to be alone, but this is not to be done by sinning and violating what God said was wrong already.

That's like saying, "it's not good for man to be alone" so he'll go cheat with someone else's wife because he loves them. It's not right.

He also grossly, GROSSLY misinterprets the meaning of "the new covenant"-- the Law (the Abrahamic Law) was the way for people to be saved by God through living up to His standards. The new covenant works by the Christian believing in (having faith in) His promise to be saved through believing that He, being God's own son, died for us as a sinless man to save us from our sin and rose again on the third day, then confessing of our sin and accepting Him as your personal savior.

Romans 8:1-4 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you[a] free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,[b] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

That is not to say that the person is exempted from living according to His rules, though.

Romans 6: 1-4 "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." We are supposed to live differently, apart from the sinful life, when we have been saved by Christ's grace.

Paul, in Romans 3:24-25, tells what the New Covenant is well: "[we] are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood."

1 Cor. 7:2-- "But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband".

I pray for this speaker, he knows so much about Christianity and can quote snippets of it so well, yet so blatantly twists it and lives against it for his own desires... God never said that you will be alone because you are homosexual. He is willing to love you and accept you back, if you are willing to turn back and follow His ways. If Matthew loves God, he would know that to love God he would live according to His commands.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on his quoting Matt. 7 and saying that being anti-homosexual marriage produces bad fruit: he's taking "good" and "bad" in human (his own) terms, and placing the human (his) standard of what is good and bad over Christ's. Furthermore, his perception of fruit is that it should be based purely upon a person's well-being emotionally, rather than the blessings that come from being submissive to God.

It was made clear in Romans 1:

men abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” (Romans 1:27)

God already made it clear that it's wrong to abandon these natural relations with the opposite gender and lust for the same.

There is to be a penalty associated with this, since it's considered sin (not right in God's eyes)

and, in Gen. 22 (not quoted by him):

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh

a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife! It isn't good for man to be alone, but this is not to be done by sinning and violating what God said was wrong already.

That's like saying, "it's not good for man to be alone" so he'll go cheat with someone else's wife because he loves them. It's not right.

He also grossly, GROSSLY misinterprets the meaning of "the new covenant"-- the Law (the Abrahamic Law) was the way for people to be saved by God through living up to His standards. The new covenant works by the Christian believing in (having faith in) His promise to be saved through believing that He, being God's own son, died for us as a sinless man to save us from our sin and rose again on the third day, then confessing of our sin and accepting Him as your personal savior.

Romans 8:1-4 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you[a] free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,[b] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

That is not to say that the person is exempted from living according to His rules, though.

Romans 6: 1-4 "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." We are supposed to live differently, apart from the sinful life, when we have been saved by Christ's grace.

Paul, in Romans 3:24-25, tells what the New Covenant is well: "[we] are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood."

1 Cor. 7:2-- "But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband".

I pray for this speaker, he knows so much about Christianity and can quote snippets of it so well, yet so blatantly twists it and lives against it for his own desires... God never said that you will be alone because you are homosexual. He is willing to love you and accept you back, if you are willing to turn back and follow His ways. If Matthew loves God, he would know that to love God he would live according to His commands.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intelligence Quotient

greenbar.gif

I hope that no one is angered by the contents of this web page.

In this compilation of texts we'll address the coorelation between the beliefs in the existance of deity constructs and the intelligence quotient of the believer. We'll also provide suitable references for further investigation into the subject.

I'll add that any negative connotations or remarks which I've ecountered during the compilation of relevant text has been discarded out-of-hand and I've only retained text which maintains some level of professional decorum. Since the truth might easilly anger the theists who might run across this web page, I would not deliberately increase their anger by including unkind remarks and references.

Paraphrased and summarized from The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith, Burnham P. Beckwith, Free Inquiry, Spring 1986:

1. Thomas Howells, 1927

Study of 461 students showed religiously conversative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

2. Hilding Carlsojn, 1933

Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward ... atheism."

3. Abraham Franzblau, 1934

Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, 10-16. Negative correlation between religiosity and Terman intelligence test.

4. Thomas Symington, 1935

Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, "there is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability...There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence..."

5. Vernon Jones, 1938

Tested 381 stydents, concluding "a slight tendency for intelligence and liberal attitudes to go together."

6. A. R. Gilliland, 1940

At variance with all other studies, found "little or no relationship between intelligence and attitude toward god."

7. Donald Gragg, 1942

Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores and Thurstone "reality of god" scores.

8. Brown and Love, 1951

At U. of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. Mean test scores of non-believers = 119, believers = 100. Percentile NBs = 80, BBs = 50. Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."

9. Michael Argyle, 1958

Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."

10. Jeffrey Hadden, 1963

Found no correlation between intelligence and grades. This was an anomalous finding, since GPA corresponds closely with intelligence. Other factors may have influenced the results at the U. of Wisconsin.

11. Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966

Average religiosity decreased as GPA rose.

12. James Trent, 1967

Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but high-ability students in his sample group were over-represented.

13. C. Plant and E. Minium, 1967

The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering college and after 2 years of college.

14. Robert Wuthnow, 1978

Of 532 students, 37% of christians, 58% of apostates, and 53 percent of non-religious scored above average on SATs.

15. Hastings and Hoge, 1967, 1974

Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations.

16. Norman Poythress, 1975

Mean SATs for strongly antireligious (1148), moderately anti-religious (1119), slightly antireligious (1108), and religious (1022).

17. Wiebe and Fleck, 1980

Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. The reported "nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious S's.

Student Body Comparisons-

1. Rose Goldsen, Student belief in a divine god, percentages 1952.

Harvard 30; UCLA 32; Dartmouth 35; Yale 36; Cornell 42; Wayne 43; Weslyan 43; Michigan 45; Fisk 60; Texas 62; N. Carolina 68.

2. National Review Study, 1970 Students Belief in Spirit or Divine

God. Percentages: Reed 15; Brandeis 25; Sarah Lawrence 28; Williams 36; Stanford 41; Boston U. 41; Yale 42; Howard 47; Indiana 57; Davidson 59; S. Carolina 65; Marquette 77.

3. Caplovitz and Sherrow, 1977

Apostasy rates rose continuously from 5% in "low" ranked schools to 17% in "high" ranked schools.

Niemi, Ross, and Alexander, 1978

In elite schools, organized religion was judged important by only 26%, compared with 44% of all students.

Studies of Very-High-IQ groups.

1. Terman, 1959

Studied group with IQ > 140. Of men, 10% held strong religious belief, of women 18%. 62% of men and 57% if women claimed "little religious inclination" while 28% men and 23% of women claimed it was "not at all important."

2. Warren and Heist, 1960

Found no differences among National Merit Scholars. Results may have been affected by the fact that NM scholars are not selected on the basis of intelligence or grades alone, but also on "leadership" and such like.

3. Southern and Plant, 1968

42 male and 30 female members of Mensa. Mensa members were much less religious in belief than the typical American college alumnus or adult.

1. William S. Ament, 1927

C. C. Little, president U. of Michigan, checked persons listed in Who's Who in America: "Unitarians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Universalists, and Presbyterians are ... far more numerous in Who's Who than would be expercted on the basis of the population which they form. Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics are distinctly less numberous."

Ament confirmed Little's conclusion. He noted that Unitarians, the least religious, were more than 40 times as numerous in Who's Who as in the U.S. population.

2. Lehman and Witty, 1931

Identified 1189 scientists found in both _Who's Who_ (1927) and American Men of Science (1927). Only 25% in AM of S and 50% of those listed in Who's Who reported their religious denomination despite the specific requests to do so, "religious denomination (if any)." Well over 90% of the general population claims religious affiliation. The figure of 25% suggest far less religiosity among scientists.

Unitarians were 81.4 times as numerous among eminent scientists as non-Unitarians.

3. Kelley and Fisk, 1951

Found a negative (-.39) correlation between the strength of religious values and research competence. [How these were measured I have no idea.]

4. Ann Roe, 1953

Interviewed 64 "eminent scientists, nearly all members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences or the American Philosophical Society. She reported that, while nearly all of them had religious parents and had attended Sunday school, 'now only three of these men are seriously active in church. A few others attend upon occasion, or even give some financial support to a church which they do not attend... All the otheres have long since dismissed religion as any guide to them, and the church plays no part in their lives...A few are militantly atheistic, but most are just not interested.'"

5. Francis Bello, 1954

Questionnaired or interviewed 107 young (<= 40) nonindustrial scientists judged by senior colleagues to be outstanding. 87 responded. 45% claimed to be "agnostic or atheistic" and an additional 22% claimed no religious affiliation. For 20 most eminent, "the proportion who are now a-religious is considerably higher than in the entire survey group."

6. Jack Chambers, 1964

Questionnaired 740 US psychologists and chemists. He reported, "the highly creative men [jft- assume no women included] ... significantly more often show either no preference for a particular religion or little or no interest in religion." Found that the most eminent psychologists showed 40% no preference, 16% for the most eminent chemists.

7. Vaughan, Smith, and Sjoberg, 1965

Polled 850 US physicists, zoologists, chemical engineers, and geologists listed in American Men of Science_(1955) on church membership, and attendance patterns, and belief in afterlife. 642 replies.

38.5% did not believe in afterlife, 31.8% did. Belief in immortality was less common among major university staff than among those employed by business, government, or minor universities. The contemporaneous Gallup poll showed 2/3 of US population believed in afterlife, so scientists were far less religious than typical adult.

From Beckwith's concluding remarks:

Conclusions

In this essay I have reviewed: (1)sixteen studies of the correlation between individual measures of student intelligence and religiosity, all but three of which reported an inverse correlation. (2) five studies reporting that student bodies with high average IQ and/or SAT scores are much less religious than inferior student bodies; (3) three studies reporting that geniuses (IQ 150+) are much less religious than the general public (Average IQ, 100), and one dubious study, (4) seven studies reporting that highly successful persons are much less religious in belief than are others; and (5) eight old and four new Gallup polls revealing that college alumni (average IQ about 115) are much less religious in belief than are grade-school pollees.

I have also noted that many studies have shown that students become less religious as they proceed through college, probably in part because average IQ rises.

All but four of the forty-three polls I have reviewed support the conclusion that native intelligence varies inversely with degree of religious faith; i.e., that, other factors being equal, the more intelligent a person is, the less religious he is. It is easy to find fault with the studies I have reviewed, for all were imperfect. But the fact that all but four of them supported the general conclusion provides overwhelming evidence that, among American students and adults, the amount of religious faith tends to vary inversely and appreciably with intelligence.

There are no entirely satisfactory measures of intelligence, nor even satisfactory definitions of what is to be measured. Intelligence seems be something, though, and every tack we take in trying to catch the elusive winds of thought carries us further toward workable definitions. Is intelligence a good memory, the ability to sculpt, make a diving catch in center field, play blindfold chess, construct sentences of "learned length and thundering sound", or time a punchline?

SAT tests, IQ tests, success in life, measures of fame and esteem in peer groups all fail to give that satisfying, final readout of how smart or stupid any given person is. The evidence we have indicates that the more we know about the real world, the less likely we are to believe in an imaginary one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is a bit off topic but i think this is something that everyone should know

Video: Taliban shoot woman 9 times in public execution as men cheer

AFGHANISTAN

July 08, 2012|By the CNN Wire Staff

pixel.gif

  • 120529070527-lemmon-afghan-schoolgirls-story-body.jpg

A shot rings out, but the burqa-clad woman sitting on the rocky ground does not respond.

The man pointing a rifle at her from a few feet away lets loose another round, but still there is no reaction.

He fires a third shot, and finally the woman slumps backwards.

But the man fires another shot.

And another. And another.

Nine shots in all.

Around him, dozens of men on a hillside cheer: "God is great!"

Officials in Afghanistan, where the amateur video was filmed, believe the woman was executed because two Taliban commanders had a dispute over her, according to the governor of the province where the killing took place.

pixel.gif

Advertisement

pixel.gif

Both apparently had some kind of relationship with the woman, said Parwan province governor Abdul Basir Salangi.

"In order to save face," they accused her of adultery, Salangi said.

Then they "faked a court to decide about the fate of this woman and in one hour, they executed the woman," he added.

Both Taliban commanders were subsequently killed by a third Taliban commander, Salangi said.

"We went there to investigate and we are still looking for people who were involved in this brutal act," he said.

It is not clear from the video when it was filmed.

The killing took place in the village of Qimchok, not far north of the capital Kabul.

Lawmaker Fawzia Koofi called it a huge backward step for women's issues in Afghanistan.

"I think we will have to do something serious about this, we will have to do something as women, but also as human beings," she said. "She didn't even say one word to defend herself."

Koofi wept on Saturday as she watched the video of the execution.

The United States condemned the killing "in the strongest possible terms," calling it a "cold-blooded murder."

"The protection of women's rights is critical around the world, but especially in Afghanistan, where such rights were ignored, attacked and eroded under Taliban rule," the American embassy said in a statement on Sunday.

The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan also condemned the execution.

"Let's be clear, this wasn't justice, this was murder, and an atrocity of unspeakable cruelty," ISAF commander Gen. John Allen said in a statement Sunday. "The Taliban's continued brutality toward innocent civilians, particularly women, must be condemned in the strongest terms. There has been too much progress made by too many brave Afghans, especially on the part of women, for this kind of criminal behavior to be tolerated."

and the fire of predjudice and hatred is fuelled by religion !

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

websitegc7.png

I'm getting paid to read these forums. LOVING IT.

Wait a second... frack

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just love this thread. The topic is the example of how the bible can be twisted to mean whatever one wants it to mean. Here's a post that debunks the OP and coincidentally explains in detail why Christianity is such a crappy religion. I'm loving it. It's like these guys are doing the job for us. Sometimes I'm glad this forum is full of young people, they can read these threads. ::D

Way to go boys. Next week we should do slavery or misogyny.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing the "job for us"?

Who is "us"?

I guess "us" never "twists" any part of the Bible for "their" needs do "they"?

I feel so sorry for you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing the "job for us"?

Who is "us"?

I guess "us" never "twists" any part of the Bible for "their" needs do "they"?

I feel so sorry for you.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I feel sorry for you"... you're not quoting Jebus there, are you? No, of course you're not, he would never say anything like that.

I feel sorry for you, because your hypocrisy is so transparent. A typical, self-serving, run o' the mill Christian whose beliefs only change when reality slaps him in the face. I wonder if people realize that you have a gay daughter - that wouldn't have anything to do with you suddenly being so supporting of gays, mmm? Too bad when it comes to the rest of it, you're still the same breed of conservatives that ruined the US and threatens Canada. You know the type, proud of your bibles, supportive of the army, opposed to social services. Tell me that story of the liberal grasshopper again! And when AirCare goes away, it's a good thing because it cost YOU money, but smokers pollute your environment, huh?

You feel sorry for me? That's a barrel of laughs.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tone it down guys. First and only warning - you should be used to this now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.