No rebuttal so you fall back to the same old thing, name calling. Its all I expected out of this argument. If you don't have anything intellectually challenging to say, you resort to intimidation and follow the crowd.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why Fundamentalist Christianities are Godless and reject the Bible
No rebuttal so you fall back to the same old thing, name calling. Its all I expected out of this argument. If you don't have anything intellectually challenging to say, you resort to intimidation and follow the crowd.
If you look in a lexicon, several words can mean more then one thing.
Are you suggesting that the word homophobia isn't referring to fear?
If so, then please explain how one persons inability to enjoy the acts of another person are wrong?
Actually, I've been demonstrating how the inability to disagree doesn't have to effect a persons willingness to accept another individual based on preference. So far the opposition, has "only" that that's impossible.
I'm saying it doesn't have to. The term covers more than just fear of homosexuality; it also covers things like hatred, aversion.
I'm sorry - can you explain how this follows from your previous point?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you re-phrase?
Draka
Wonder Woman
Okay, if I may just try to be fair here, but I think the reference to eating maggots was used as a way to describe something one finds personally repulsive. Not specifically that homosexuality is like eating maggots. But more the act of having sex with a particular gender is repulsive to that person. Do I think that there could have been something else used instead of maggots? Sure, I'd use broccoli in such a manner as I find it absolutely repulsive. I think the vast majority of people find maggots repulsive though and I don't think the vast majority of people find homosexuality repulsive. If I was going to insinuate some kind of fear about the matter I'd compare to someone liking having spiders crawl all over them as I'm petrified of spiders. If the person using the reference to maggots, as gross as it may be, doesn't actually fear the idea of eating maggots, just finds it gross, then it really wouldn't strictly be a matter of a phobia.
Let's address another point in this vein though. Ok, if I know someone who likes broccoli, has cooking magazines all about how to use broccoli in different dishes, has broccoli designed wallpaper in their kitchen and little broccoli nick-knacks I can just assume they really like broccoli and are comfortable and even proud of it. Now, that doesn't mean that I have nothing in common with them though. We may enjoy the same kinds of music, movies, athletic activities and teams, we may have grown up in the same area, and much more. Just because they may like something I find personally repulsive doesn't mean that I can't accept that difference and that we may have a lot more things in common.
Just trying to come down mid-road here.
Let's address another point in this vein though. Ok, if I know someone who likes broccoli, has cooking magazines all about how to use broccoli in different dishes, has broccoli designed wallpaper in their kitchen and little broccoli nick-knacks I can just assume they really like broccoli and are comfortable and even proud of it. Now, that doesn't mean that I have nothing in common with them though. We may enjoy the same kinds of music, movies, athletic activities and teams, we may have grown up in the same area, and much more. Just because they may like something I find personally repulsive doesn't mean that I can't accept that difference and that we may have a lot more things in common.
Just trying to come down mid-road here.
Yes, but you don't follow up with what that means.
Are you saying, that's its impossible to dislike an act that another individual does to the degree that I have described, and not hate them?
Your simple sentence needed to be elaborated on. Do you hate everyone you disagree with?
Like me. Do you find that you hate me?
[/quote]
Show me in this thread where I've done anything other then try to explain how you can disgree with someone and still accept them as an individual.
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
angellous evangellous said:
Errors and interpolations are certainly a very important issue for conservative Christians, and it is to that group of Christians that I meant to address my comments. I should have stated that previously.
If God can speak to people through errors and interpolations, are you excluding all religious books other than the Bible?
If the Bible contains many errors and interpolations, how can people be reasonably certain how much of it is historically true? Does it matter to you how much of the Bible is historically true? Does it matter to you whether or not the Exodus occurred, that Jesus healed people, and that Jesus said at least most of what the Bible says that he said?
Regarding "what possible proof would there be that God said anything?," if a powerful God exists, if he wanted to, he would easily be able to convince far more people to believe that he exists than the Bible has convinced. If you are married, what would be reasonable proof for you that you wife said something to you?
Last edited:
1. I haven't seen many christians that say the bible is flawless.
2. Reverend Rick. please show me some of the flaws you mention.
Like so many forums the same old downtreading the Bible, while most of the posters have never read it, or tried to understand it, or seek out any truth in it,
Act 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
Act 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Open My Eyes That I May See ???
If God does not open our eyes, we will not see the wonder of the Word.
2. Reverend Rick. please show me some of the flaws you mention.
Like so many forums the same old downtreading the Bible, while most of the posters have never read it, or tried to understand it, or seek out any truth in it,
Act 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
Act 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Open My Eyes That I May See ???
If God does not open our eyes, we will not see the wonder of the Word.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
No, it is not. All you are saying is that fundamentalist beliefs are so contradictory that they lead to a rejection of fundamentalist belief. Atheism is not the only alternative to fundamentalism. Most fundamentalists do not become atheists when they challenge their fundamentalism. They tend to adopt a non-fundamentalist form of theism. Just because some of your views about God are untenable, it does not mean that all of them are untenable.
Or they are set up to adopt your more liberal version of theism. Your thesis seems to be grounded in an excluded middle fallacy. Atheism is not the inevitable result of deconversion from fundamentalist Christianity. The transition from liberal Christianity to atheism makes far more sense, and I would argue that it is far more likely. That is, I think that the intellectual evolution of Dan Barker is the more likely scenario. He went from a fairly pure form of fundamentalist Christianity to moderate and liberal Christianity before he dropped his religion completely.
Good point. In his analogy, That Dude defined the person based on the one thing about him he found objectionable. In reality, it wouldn't work that way.Let's address another point in this vein though. Ok, if I know someone who likes broccoli, has cooking magazines all about how to use broccoli in different dishes, has broccoli designed wallpaper in their kitchen and little broccoli nick-knacks I can just assume they really like broccoli and are comfortable and even proud of it. Now, that doesn't mean that I have nothing in common with them though. We may enjoy the same kinds of music, movies, athletic activities and teams, we may have grown up in the same area, and much more. Just because they may like something I find personally repulsive doesn't mean that I can't accept that difference and that we may have a lot more things in common.
Just trying to come down mid-road here.
The average homosexual person is no more defined solely by his sexuality than the average heterosexual person. I'm heterosexual myself, but my sexuality is only one component of who I am. I'm not really "celebrating male-female intercourse" when I do things like refer to my wife in passing in a conversation.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that based on what you've said in this thread, it seems like you have an aversion to homosexuality, and because of this, it would be fair to say that it seems that you are homophobic.
The fact that you've tried to put words into my mouth a few times is a tad annoying, but no, I don't hate you.
I've seen nothing so far to indicate that you accept homosexual people as individuals. As far as I've seen, your message so far has been "I dislike homosexuality and that's okay." If you've said anything about acceptance, I've missed it.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
That's precisely what fundies believe.
I don't have an aversion to (homosexuality) which implies that I have an inversion to a person.
I have an aversion to the ACT and not the PERSON. Two different things. A person can have an aversion to religion and not hate religious people. They're not religaphobic.
Using the term homophobic is simply your way of intimidating someone into suppressing their feelings on the subject and is actually pathetic.
I haven't tried to put words in your mouth. Its a simple question that relates to the topic.
I simply disagree with homosexuals. How does that mean that I hate them?
V
Your vision is selective. So far I've pointed out several times that I don't hold the ACT against the PERSON. In the same way you probably don't hate me because of what I'm saying.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
haha, no. I didn't call you anything, and your dribble wasn't intellectual and therefore didn't need an intellectual response.
I'm sorry if you feel intimidated, but it's good that someone (and I'm not the only one) point out your homophobia so you can fix it. When you obstinately defend your homophobia, you're just embarrassing yourself. Horribly. It's difficult to watch, really.
I guess we can go back and fourth for a little while trolling. Like how this post was nothing but one big attempt at being intimidating. Still can't come back with a rebuttal so you make more insults.
Forum chat at its lowest form and one of the most pathetic things on the planet.
Your turn.
Make it the. "I'm not worth your time post.". Unless you're capable of an original thought?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
:foryou:
Good post, I'm in broad agreement on all points.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
:foryou:
Thanks man.
Right back at ya.A few points -
I read the Roman Catholic bible and the ample commentary sections explain Scripture in detail, ie. what each verse, chapter and book of both Old and New Testaments actually mean (and meant in a historical sense) from the Catholic POV. I find what the RC Church admits about what is called "God's Word" to to be extraordinary and, in a spiritual sense, even revolutionary.
But Protestants protest that a man should be left to interpret Scripture of his own accord, leaning on his own understanding (something which the Bible specifically refutes and prohibits btw) and this is where Protestant Fundamentalist Christianity (embodied in the American ideal of Fundamentalist Christianity) fails, IMO.
Without the secret knowledge of the Church and the years of wisdom they have accumulated to properly interpret the Bible, a man taking charge of teaching the true meaning of Christianity is lost.
What results is dumb pastors and dumber followers, totally confused as to what Christ was on about, and then basically just resolving to pretend to be Christians whilst rejecting all of his teachings in favour of, er, Capitalism usually; the Gospel of Wealth & Prosperity.
So they become what it is apparent they are; godless and ultra-worldly, wolves in sheeps clothing, speaking in false tongues of miraculous fakery in the name of a God they know nothing about and a man (Jesus) they would hate and persecute if he were here in this world right now, alive before them.
Last edited:
No, I'm not trying to intimidate you. I'm just placing an appropriate label on the attitude you've presented in this thread.
You say that you have an aversion to homosexuality (and also that you don't have an aversion to homosexuality, which is rather contradictory, but regardless). Homophobia is an aversion, fear or hatred of homosexuality. You don't have to have all three to be a homophobe; just one is enough for the label to fit.
Yes, you have. You keep insisting that I'm arguing you hate homosexual people. Case in point - your very next sentence:
You're not making yourself very lovable, but that aside, the mere fact that you say things like that doesn't automatically imply you're accepting. Probably the opposite, in fact: "I am repulsed by what you do but I don't hold it against you as a person", which is what I think you're saying boils down to, is actually a rather unaccepting, unwelcoming thing to say.
Yeah, the word aversion, which you got me to use in my last post because you're fixated on it.
I'm going to go back to the original word I was using which was unappealing.
No, you said I have an aversion with blatant disregard for what I was actually saying. Let's keep playing these word games then. I do so enjoy the ignorant submission of an adolescent mind which is often portrayed in your post. Not sure what I meant? Don't bother asking your mother, she'll only hand you a cookie and tell you not to worry.
But I will explain what I said with regard to the word homosexuality, the word itself refers to a life style and not an act.
Homosexuality is a description that's used to describe the behavior of a person.
In other words, its a label. It doesn't describe the act or acts themselves but rather the entirety of a group of things that makes a person what they are. If I found homosexuality to be unappealing, then I would find the whole of homosexuality to be unappealing.
And by default the people themselves. Which isn't the case.
I find "the" act. One act unappealing. Specifically the sex part of homosexuality.
I'm fine with everything else.
You telling me I have to hate homosexuals because I find this one thing unappealing is silly beyond comprehension.
You're simply not getting what I'm saying.
You're basically arguing that I have to find a way to some how like every facet of homosexuality in order to be accepting of homosexuals. Which is ludicrous.
Last edited: