Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/orange-order-stands-by-fermanagh-county-grand-master-after-homosexuality-is-wrong-remarks-31468545.html




We all pretty much know that the Orange Order are a filthy far-right organisation, but the purpose of this is to show that once again, the Christian Right are a bunch of liars who should not be trusted. For the last few months during the build up of their sectarian parades they have been defending their views of the organisation stating that it "embraces culture and respectful heritage".

You ignorant race-baiting baby-killing lefties are such angels though, right? LMAO.

Originally posted by Ayelewis
belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/orange-order-stands-by-fermanagh-county-grand-master-after-homosexuality-is-wrong-remarks-31468545.html




We all pretty much know that the Orange Order are a filthy far-right organisation, but the purpose of this is to show that once again, the Christian Right are a bunch of liars who should not be trusted. For the last few months during the build up of their sectarian parades they have been defending their views of the organisation stating that it "embraces culture and respectful heritage". Calling the Christian right a bunch of liars based on one instance is idiotic. Further, calling the far right organization filthy shows exactly where your bias lies and the entire point of this post.

Being shocked over a conservative Christian group not allowing homosexuals is like being shocked over the KKK not allowing black people.

Yup. A Christian group follows its tenets. What are people expecting exactly?

For them to change their tenets to something less haterful.

"Less hateful". LMAO. What ignorance. I'm sure you think everything that goes against what you believe is "hateful". You think Christians are allowed to just say "**** you, God. We believe you are wrong on everything you say about homosexuality so we will make up our own rules and ignore everything you say and we expect to still be rewarded from you when we die."


You know what, **** you and everybody else who continually bashes Christians. You're no ****ing better that's for sure. Done listening to know-it-all atheists pathetically trying to act like they are morally superior when it's obviously the other way around.

Originally posted by Bardock42
For them to change their tenets to something less haterful. Seriously? By less haterful do you mean ignoring their bible? You make no sense. There's zero hate here. There's just an emotional trigger word.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Calling the Christian right a bunch of liars based on one instance is idiotic. Further, calling the far right organization filthy shows exactly where your bias lies and the entire point of this post.

Nope, there is no bias here, you can attack Holocaust deniers for their crazy views but still have the right to call them Anti-Semites.

I can call the Christian Right a bunch of liars who can't be trusted because it is true, there are numerous examples. such as Creationists, the pro-lifers, the homophobic pastors etc. These are people who willfully ignore facts and evidence for their own agenda.

Also take a look at the violence spewed by Christian Conservative groups in the past.

The hatred against abortion providers has been accompanied by a campaign of hatred instigated mainly by the RC Church. Look at Lifesite news and similar sources to see their chatter about babycide, abortoreums and their constant hostility towards Planned Parenthood. All that propaganda pays off and sooner or later there's somebody who's willing to protect Baby Jesus by torching a family planning entity.

To be fair, I did not think it a reasonable suggestion in the sense that it's not going to happen. It's not suggesting ignoring the bible either, it's interpreting it in a manner in line with modern society (as all bible based faiths do anyways). I do think that the dislike for gays (as opposed to the lack of dislike for shrimp, condemned in the same passages) stems from bigotry and hatred however.

Citing a few examples and calling it true is ignorant. Thats like me saying the left are a bunch of filthy liars by citing examples. You're generalizing and it shows bias. The rest of your post is filled with baseless nonsense based on emotions and now prejudice against the religious.

Bardock, I don't disagree with you that some religious groups dislike homosexuals but you immediately resort to hate and bigotry when exclusivity is involved and that's pretty intellectually dishonest.

Originally posted by Star428




You ignorant race-baiting baby-killing lefties are such angels though, right? LMAO.

I don't see how standing up to fascistic scum such as your friends in the Pro-Life community who attack clinics, and perpetrate the killing of real human beings constitutes as being wrong.

Originally posted by Ayelewis
I don't see how standing up to fascistic scum such as your friends in the Pro-Life community who attack clinics, and perpetrate the killing of real human beings constitutes as being wrong. Ok so you've confirmed your bias, ignorance and generalizations by representing the "scumbag left"?

Fetuses must be somehow "fake" humans.

Must be made in China.

I suppose there is an option of following something either through obliviousness or fear of speaking up, but the base for the dislike is still the hatred and bigotry, imo. Or do you see other reasons for exclusion of gay people that do not ultimately boil down to that?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I suppose there is an option of following something either through obliviousness or fear of speaking up, but the base for the dislike is still the hatred and bigotry, imo. Or do you see other reasons for exclusion of gay people that do not ultimately boil down to that? You mean like religuous beliefs? That has zero to do with bigotry and hatred.

Kid makes tree fort.

"No girls allowed"

"Mysoginistic bastards!"

Originally posted by psmith81992
You mean like religuous beliefs? That has zero to do with bigotry and hatred.

I think for many followers it has a lot to do with bigotry and hatred, for others it has to do with ignorance and a deferring to what they are taught and for some it's fear of community backlash. But there are no good reasons, imo, for that behaviour.

I don't believe in following shitty orders (as a German and an Atheist).

You're wrong. And they may be shitty orders because you don't understand them and since youre already an atheist, it doesn't help your point.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Ok so you've confirmed your bias, ignorance and generalizations by representing the "scumbag left"?

It's always been clear to me that people like you and Star, are the type of religious scum who defend the actions of bigots and crazy fascists.

It's always been crystal clear to me that the prolifers are a bunch of well-financed terrorists. There was Operation Rescue in the 1990s. Three abortion doctors in Pensacola were murdered, one by Presbyterian minister Paul Hill. The State of Florida executed this religious fanatic but a local Alabama RC priest called for Hill's release.

It's been crystal clear to everybody that there's been a concerted attack on PP by religious scum like yourself who support such tactics. Trying to divert attention by claiming that maybe somebody else did the deed is just your feeble attempt to escape responsibility.

Don't presume to give me orders, murderous pig.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Kid makes tree fort.

"No girls allowed"

"Mysoginistic bastards!"

Young boys are taught to be extremely mysoginist, and your example is one of the ways that manifests. It's not their fault, but lets not pretend that's not in play here.

Originally posted by psmith81992
You're wrong. And they may be shitty orders because you don't understand them and since youre already an atheist, it doesn't help your point.

Well, I don't buy into the "I don't understand them, but they must be right cause I believe in who allegedly made them" ... I think people have moral responsibilities and outsourcing them like that is bad.

...and it's always been clear to me that people like you, OP, who create baiting threads like this are just trolls who shouldn't be taken seriously so you're going on ignore.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Young boys are taught to be extremely mysoginist, and your example is one of the ways that manifests. It's not their fault, but lets not pretend that's not in play here.

Or maybe they just like to play with other boys?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Or maybe they just like to play with other boys?

Yes, of course they just like to play with other boys, but there's reasons for that, it doesn't just happen it a vacuum, and it is because society has created such a rift between genders that makes it hard for young children to relate to and understand children of the other gender. This discussion doesn't really belong in here though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I don't buy into the "I don't understand them, but they must be right cause I believe in who allegedly made them" ... I think people have moral responsibilities and outsourcing them like that is bad.

You are an atheist so you don't believe in God and you think the bible is stupid, so you and I would never agree. But this isn't about hate or bigotry, unless that's what you see as an atheist.

It is probably based on bigotry if the "well, god says" reason is used when they're cherry-picking certain religious text will ignoring others. As B42 pointed out earlier.

Originally posted by Star428
...and it's always been clear to me that people like you, OP, who create baiting threads like this are just trolls who shouldn't be taken seriously so you're going on ignore.

You called me out first by calling me "baby killing lefty" in a way to avoid attention of a well known and poisonous sectarian organisation. Why don't you **** off and cry somewhere else.

Originally posted by psmith81992
You are an atheist so you don't believe in God and you think the bible is stupid, so you and I would never agree. But this isn't about hate or bigotry, unless that's what you see as an atheist.
Atheists don't necessarily think the bible is stupid, there are many teaching in there, some of which I do agree with. Especially the Jesus guy and his being nice to people thing. I don't believe it is a tome of absolute morals or connected to anything supernatural.

However, again, the picking and choosing that modern religions do, many to the detriment of gays (but not women on their periods, or shellfish, etc.), is a human decision, and it comes from bigotry and hatred. It doesn't necessarily mean that all adherents hate gay people, but they are following an interpretation of the bible that is based on that hatred nonetheless.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Atheists don't necessarily think the bible is stupid, there are many teaching in there, some of which I do agree with. Especially the Jesus guy and his being nice to people thing. I don't believe it is a tome of absolute morals or connected to anything supernatural.

However, again, the picking and choosing that modern religions do, many to the detriment of gays (but not women on their periods, or shellfish, etc.), is a human decision, and it comes from bigotry and hatred. It doesn't necessarily mean that all adherents hate gay people, but they are following an interpretation of the bible that is based on that hatred nonetheless. Every human picks and chooses what to follow, this isn't news. Are you saying all religious groups pick and choose or claiming bigotry and hatred against those that do?

Lewis, you started this thread by crying, and then have the nerve to be hypocritical.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Every human picks and chooses what to follow, this isn't news. Are you saying all religious groups pick and choose or claiming bigotry and hatred against those that do?

Lewis, you started this thread by crying, and then have the nerve to be hypocritical.

I'm saying all religious groups pick and choose AND those choosing to condemn or separate gays are bigoted and full of hatred.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, of course they just like to play with other boys, but there's reasons for that, it doesn't just happen it a vacuum, and it is because society has created such a rift between genders that makes it hard for young children to relate to and understand children of the other gender. This discussion doesn't really belong in here though.

/facepalm

As a parent, I call BS on your entire line of logic. Kids don't understand or are taught gender differences to that extent at ages 2-4 but boys still keep to other boys because they tend to play much more physical than girls (like my daughter).

Seriously, in this day and age to claim that "society teaches rifts between genders" is just plain silly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm saying all religious groups pick and choose AND those choosing to condemn or separate gays are bigoted and full of hatred. That is a skewed version of religion. You're basically saying unless all of the religious tenets are followed, people pick and choose and are bigots. Thats incredibly incorrect. People follow what they can and gradually increase those rules. You're saying they have to start out following 100% which is an ignorant point.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
/facepalm

As a parent, I call BS on your entire line of logic. Kids don't understand or are taught gender differences to that extent at ages 2-4 but boys still keep to other boys because they tend to play much more physical than girls (like my daughter).

Seriously, in this day and age to claim that "society teaches rifts between genders" is just plain silly.

Of course children have been thoroughly conditioned by the very obvious different treatments between genders by the age of 2...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm saying all religious groups pick and choose AND those choosing to condemn or separate gays are bigoted and full of hatred.

Exactly, Religious people invent their own rules and only later do they find scriptural support for what they're claiming. For instance male homosexuality is explicitly condemned but female-female sex couplings are not. Hebrew scriptures say nothing about lesbianism and Talmudic scholars weren't that hostile to the practice. Christians can find allusions to lesbianism in Paul's epistles but it's not clear what female activities he's denouncing. If Paul had been speaking for God one would think he would unambiguously say what he means about bad girls.

Similarly, Christians nowadays tend to be fiercely anti-abortion but there's not a word in scripture to support that view. The Christians are forced to perform curious manipulations of text to arrive at the divine conclusion that abortion equals sin.

The New Testament clearly denounces divorce and remarriage but modern day Christians care nothing about the clear words of Jesus on that topic. Basically, believing Christians create their own memes as they go through life.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
/facepalm

As a parent, I call BS on your entire line of logic. Kids don't understand or are taught gender differences to that extent at ages 2-4 but boys still keep to other boys because they tend to play much more physical than girls (like my daughter).

Seriously, in this day and age to claim that "society teaches rifts between genders" is just plain silly.

Lol, what, where do you think gender inequality comes from?

Originally posted by psmith81992
That is a skewed version of religion. You're basically saying unless all of the religious tenets are followed, people pick and choose and are bigots. Thats incredibly incorrect. People follow what they can and gradually increase those rules. You're saying they have to start out following 100% which is an ignorant point.

I don't think that's a fair summary of what I'm saying.

There's two completely unrelated points I'm making

1) all religions choose what parts to believe in and what to value (hence the many different denominations based on the same book)

2) If an organisation chooses to discriminate against gays that is a decision made based on bigotry and hatred

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course children have been thoroughly conditioned by the very obvious different treatments between genders by the age of 2...

Proof?

Originally posted by Ayelewis
Exactly, Religious people invent their own rules and only later do they find scriptural support for what they're claiming. For instance male homosexuality is explicitly condemned but female-female sex couplings are not. Hebrew scriptures say nothing about lesbianism and Talmudic scholars weren't that hostile to the practice. Christians can find allusions to lesbianism in Paul's epistles but it's not clear what female activities he's denouncing. If Paul had been speaking for God one would think he would unambiguously say what he means about bad girls.

Similarly, Christians nowadays tend to be fiercely anti-abortion but there's not a word in scripture to support that view. The Christians are forced to perform curious manipulations of text to arrive at the divine conclusion that abortion equals sin.

The New Testament clearly denounces divorce and remarriage but modern day Christians care nothing about the clear words of Jesus on that topic. Basically, believing Christians create their own memes as they go through life.

My lord, you have no understanding of religion and using your own skewed views to justify your argument. Ironically, you're calling the religious out on the same thing. Atheists are just as hypocritical, yet they hide it under the guise of rationality.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think that's a fair summary of what I'm saying.

There's two completely unrelated points I'm making

1) all religions choose what parts to believe in and what to value (hence the many different denominations based on the same book)

2) If an organisation chooses to discriminate against gays that is a decision made based on bigotry and hatred But neither one of those points is accurate, and that's my point.

Originally posted by psmith81992
But neither one of those points is accurate, and that's my point.

Ok, that's fair, we disagree on that then. I was under the impression I hadn't made my points clear.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Proof?

Well, there's a lot of stuff, but maybe start off with this article http://www.newsweek.com/why-parents-may-cause-gender-differences-kids-79501 and then go from there.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ok, that's fair, we disagree on that then. I was under the impression I hadn't made my points clear. No you were clear, it's just that we are too far apart here to find common ground.

I sometimes wonder if people don't make these accounts to troll. Goading people into hatred and anger seems easier when it's political or religious topics.

Then again, this is the internet. I assume it's even more depressing to think that forums like this just attract polarizing people who would rather make extremist caricatures to validate their views than engage in discussion. Look at the first two posts in this thread and it's already immediately obvious nothing good or productive will happen here.

Because, like, I could offer my opinion on this topic. I do have one. But I hold no delusions that it would be engaged reasonably, if at all. I consider the best scenario at this point to be my opinion being ignored. The options should it be responded to are, unfortunately, far worse.

Homophobes suck dick.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Homophobes suck dick. Good job proving Digi correct.

Originally posted by Digi
I sometimes wonder if people don't make these accounts to troll. Goading people into hatred and anger seems easier when it's political or religious topics.

Then again, this is the internet. I assume it's even more depressing to think that forums like this just attract polarizing people who would rather make extremist caricatures to validate their views than engage in discussion. Look at the first two posts in this thread and it's already immediately obvious nothing good or productive will happen here.

Because, like, I could offer my opinion on this topic. I do have one. But I hold no delusions that it would be engaged reasonably, if at all. I consider the best scenario at this point to be my opinion being ignored. The options should it be responded to are, unfortunately, far worse.
At least you made your stand...

LOL. No, that would be the actual homos themselves that do that. Nice try though at baiting, Lestov.

Wow. We go from civility between Bardock and myself to temper tantrums from these other two. It's most as if Digis words were prophetic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, there's a lot of stuff, but maybe start off with this article http://www.newsweek.com/why-parents-may-cause-gender-differences-kids-79501 and then go from there.

That article tells us about how parents treat their kids and how parents subconsciously assigning gender roles affect the emotional growth of their kids

That has nothing to do with how kids treat other kids or how kida have some sort of gender specific "rift" you are babbling about.

Yes, kids can grow differently due to how parents' percieve gender specific differences. That has nothing to do with anything society created but how they really are as kids.

But the article also mentions that there are inherent (tho tiny) differences between the genders at infancy (such as boys being more irritable than girls, and this, in turn has made parents interact more with daughters). This actually makes sense as, by observation, my daughter is far more social than her boy cousins. These tiny differences can be attributed to differences in interction between the kids and can all add up to how they prefer their play when they are older.

They are treated differently because they act differently. This has nothing to do with society teaching them gender rifts.....

Pardon typos and trailing paragrpahs, am on my Ipad atm.

Temper tantrum? LOL. I just laughed at Lestov's troll post. Don't see how you interpret that as a "temper tantrum".

Originally posted by Nibedicus
That article tells us about how parents treat their kids and how parents subconsciously assigning gender roles affect the emotional growth of their kids

That has nothing to do with how kids treat other kids or how kida have some sort of gender specific "rift" you are babbling about.

Yes, kids can grow differently due to how parents' percieve gender specific differences. That has nothing to do with anything society created but how they really are as kids.

But the article also mentions that there are inherent (tho tiny) differences between the genders at infancy (such as boys being more irritable than girls, and this, in turn has made parents interact more with daughters). This actually makes sense as, by observation, my daughter is far more social than her boy cousins. These tiny differences can be attributed to differences in interction between the kids and can all add up to how they prefer their play when they are older.

They are treated differently because they act differently. This has nothing to do with society teaching them gender rifts.....

Pardon typos and trailing paragrpahs, am on my Ipad atm.

Are you seriously claiming that society doesn't treat boys and girls differently? What proof do you need? Prevalence of room color based on gender? Different marketing to boys and girls in advertisements? Different toys that are bought for boys than for girls? What would you need to prove this self evident fact? Or can you just not be contrary and admit that we (society) treat children different based on gender from the moment they are born?

Originally posted by Digi
I sometimes wonder if people don't make these accounts to troll. Goading people into hatred and anger seems easier when it's political or religious topics.

Then again, this is the internet. I assume it's even more depressing to think that forums like this just attract polarizing people who would rather make extremist caricatures to validate their views than engage in discussion. Look at the first two posts in this thread and it's already immediately obvious nothing good or productive will happen here.

Because, like, I could offer my opinion on this topic. I do have one. But I hold no delusions that it would be engaged reasonably, if at all. I consider the best scenario at this point to be my opinion being ignored. The options should it be responded to are, unfortunately, far worse.

You do have a point.

That is why I used to prefer the comics and movie forums. Easier to sate my hunger for debate there as I have little emotional stake on the matter (as I really do not care that much about fictional characters). General forum debates get me a little heated (first time I debated here, I got too emotional and got my logic all jumbled up) as they are actual issues I feel strongly about.

Sadly, there aren't any decent new topics in the movie forums and comic forums these days.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you seriously claiming that society doesn't treat boys and girls differently? What proof do you need? Prevalence of room color based on gender? Different marketing to boys and girls in advertisements? Different toys that are bought for boys than for girls? What would you need to prove this self evident fact? Or can you just not be contrary and admit that we (society) treat children different based on gender from the moment they are born?

Never claimed that society never treats kids differently based on gender....

I am claiming that there are parents these days make it a point not to force gender roles on kids and are still seeing kids playing with the same gender. Your generalization is an obsolete concept as many parents these days try very hard to avoid assigning gender roles to their kids.

My liberal wife and her liberal relatives giving my daughter boy clothes and boy toys and exposing her to only gender neutral educational programming has done little to change her acting like a girl and her (she is the only girl among the kids) boy cousins preferring to play with each other because she hates all the roughhousing.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Never claimed that society never treats kids differently based on gender....

I am claiming that there are parents these days make it a point not to force gender roles on kids and are still seeing kids playing with the same gender. Your generalization is an obsolete concept as many parents these days try very hard to avoid assigning gender roles to their kids.

My liberal wife and her liberal relatives giving my daughter boy clothes and boy toys and exposing her to only gender neutral educational programming has done little to change her acting like a girl and her (she is the only girl among the kids) boy cousins preferring to play with each other because she hates all the roughhousing.

Do you and your wife behave in gender neutral ways? Do all the other adults behave in gender neutral ways? Do her peers? Does everyone on TV or in whatever media she is exposed to?

Of course some parents nowadays try to be less imposing with gender stereotypes, it doesn't mean that the children aren't aware of different treatments and expectations of genders, even at very young ages.

Are you saying this is a bad thing bardock?

Originally posted by psmith81992
Are you saying this is a bad thing bardock?

I believe that it is a bad thing, yes. But at the moment I'm just arguing about it being a thing...

I don't think it's a bad thing. I cringe when parents want to raise their kids gender neutral. It's so weird.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Do you and your wife behave in gender neutral ways? Do all the other adults behave in gender neutral ways? Do her peers? Does everyone on TV or in whatever media she is exposed to?

Of course some parents nowadays try to be less imposing with gender stereotypes, it doesn't mean that the children aren't aware of different treatments and expectations of genders, even at very young ages.

There will always be tiny gender nuances that can't be avoided. But that is no longer "society creating an imposed rift" but genders freely expressing their gender identity (there is nothing wrong with that).

And them being aware that genders are different and wanting to play with kids of the same gender has anything to do with mysoginism nor has anything to do with any kind of society-imposed rifts.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't think it's a bad thing. I cringe when parents want to raise their kids gender neutral. It's so weird.

Why?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
There will always be tiny gender nuances that can't be avoided. But that is no longer "society creating an imposed rift" but genders freely expressing their gender identity (there is nothing wrong with that).

And them being aware that genders are different and wanting to play with kids of the same gender has anything to do with mysoginism nor has anything to do with any kind of society-imposed rifts.

I wish that's how it was, but that's just not how it is in reality, sadly.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't think it's a bad thing. I cringe when parents want to raise their kids gender neutral. It's so weird.

My wife does that. Uses blue, white, brown, red a lot cuz it is gender neutral. Clothes that are unisex. Sometimes even combs her hair all boy style.

Daughter still plays like a girl, talks like a girl and cuddles like a girl tho. Her boy cousins just like to run around breaking stuff. Lol.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I wish that's how it was, but that's just not how it is in reality, sadly.

We see reality differently.

You must not be a parent.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
We see reality differently.

You must not be a parent.

I am not a parent, just a person seeing how people treat people differently because of gender (be it parents, teachers, the media, peers, etc.)

Take psmith in this very thread, he just said he finds it weird when parents try to raise their children gender neutral...that's the reality, not whatever utopia you imagine to live in (I do even believe that you believe it, people are extremely blind to the status quo).

Alright, let's please not get into any wider arguments about atheists etc.

Re: the topic. As I am sure most of you are aware, I am pro-gay equality (which is increasingly the cultural default in the west now, luckily) and abhor organisations that resist such things.

However, the objections put up for this as a broad attack are valid. This is the Orange Order- this is definitely an extremist example. Heck, the OO won't even let you join if you mare married to a Catholic, let alone being gay. Even for Ireland- a place where religious conservatism thrives- they are considered deeply conservative. They are at least a century out of date in their culture so this is a. no surprise at all and b. not really a reflection on religious approaches in general. This isn't about the Christian Right- you can't draw that sort of parallel. It's about deep seated cultural tensions between Catholics and Protestants, which in most of the world are now meaningless but sadly live on in the minds of small people.

When it comes to dealing with the Orange Order, the questions we ask are "How can we stop their annual marches causing sectarian violence?" and 'let's make sure they are still not directly linked to paramilitary terrorist organisations'. The sort of organisation where, at the start of the century, one of them was caught on interview saying that if Scotland went independent they would consider a terrorist campaign there to protect their protestantism- he later apologised for that, but that's the kind of ground we are dealing with here.

It's a section of society that much work has been done in the last two decades to stop the point where people were being blown up and shot, so that they are still homophobic does seem rather trivial right now. There's a giant religious tension that needs to be worked out of that community.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not a parent, just a person seeing how people treat people differently because of gender (be it parents, teachers, the media, peers, etc.)

Take psmith in this very thread, he just said he finds it weird when parents try to raise their children gender neutral...that's the reality, not whatever utopia you imagine to live in (I do even believe that you believe it, people are extremely blind to the status quo).

Being a parent changes your world view.

You don't know me. Don't presume to.

Nothing wrong with being a parent and assigning gender roles IMO. There are negatives to gender roles, but what doesn't? As long as you don't teach your kids to be douchebags, they'll be fine.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You do have a point.

That is why I used to prefer the comics and movie forums. Easier to sate my hunger for debate there as I have little emotional stake on the matter (as I really do not care that much about fictional characters). General forum debates get me a little heated (first time I debated here, I got too emotional and got my logic all jumbled up) as they are actual issues I feel strongly about.

Sadly, there aren't any decent new topics in the movie forums and comic forums these days.

We all know so little about most topics, it would be nice if I could consider this forum a place to expand that knowledge. Too few threads worth the effort anymore, though, though I don't begrudge anyone who does continue to post. There obviously an appeal to it, even when most threads can't stay civil.

Might be time for another break soon. I took a nearly year long hiatus from KMC at one point, and it was quite a good decision. Helped renew my interest once I returned.

I think I've said this before Digi- you've got to stop trying to run a philosophical argument online to its end. There is no end and there is always a peak point- very early on- where the argument subsequently loses all quality and just becomes everyone re-stating what they already said, often increasingly agitatedly.

Say your piece and cut out of arguments early. Else you'll keep feeling that frustration. There's never any obligation to reply to anyone. The most you can ever hope for is to express yourself well; this does not correlate with some kind of 'that's all sorted out now' victory.

Expressing yourself well, however, is a victory in of itself. It can actually be very handy in helping to assemble your own thoughts.

It's a good point. But you know me. Ever the idealist.

Anyway, I'll stop derailing.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
My wife does that. Uses blue, white, brown, red a lot cuz it is gender neutral. Clothes that are unisex. Sometimes even combs her hair all boy style.

Daughter still plays like a girl, talks like a girl and cuddles like a girl tho. Her boy cousins just like to run around breaking stuff. Lol.

That's interesting, I didn't know everything would turn out normal. Good to know.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that almost no one having a go at the OP has any clue about the Orange Order and what they stand for and how they manifest their views.

If they did they wouldn't be so quick to defend them. Especially any Catholic faith christians in here.

Originally posted by jaden101
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that almost no one having a go at the OP has any clue about the Orange Order and what they stand for and how they manifest their views.

If they did they wouldn't be so quick to defend them. Especially any Catholic faith christians in here.

Nobody is defending the organization, if you bothered to do any reading at all. The Op combined them with all right wingers, calling them filthy/radical/whatever other bias he has. That made him lose all credibility rather instantly and the defense comes against baseless generalizations.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Nobody is defending the organization, if you bothered to do any reading at all. The Op combined them with all right wingers, calling them filthy/radical/whatever other bias he has. That made him lose all credibility rather instantly and the defense comes against baseless generalizations.

This was taken at an orange order March

https://ansionnachfionn.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/british-nationalism-in-ireland-racism-and-sectarianism-as-the-orange-order-celebrates-the-kkk.jpg?w=900

That's all that needs to be said.

Originally posted by jaden101
This was taken at an orange order March

https://ansionnachfionn.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/british-nationalism-in-ireland-racism-and-sectarianism-as-the-orange-order-celebrates-the-kkk.jpg?w=900

That's all that needs to be said.

I'm going to repost what I just said until you start reading.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm going to repost what I just said until you start reading.

How about I just read this that you wrote

Originally posted by jaden101
How about I just read this that you wrote

That is a typo, what I meant was "calling far right organizations filthy". That's more consistent with what I just said.

Originally posted by psmith81992
That is a typo, what I meant was "calling far right organizations filthy". That's more consistent with what I just said.

What else was it you said?

Zero hate here?

As I said, you apparently don't know much about the Orange Order.

They go hand in hand with rampant sectarianism in northern Ireland. Many of their members are at the forefront of the 11th night "celebrations" with their burning effigies of catholics and banners with "kill all taigs" written on them.

Their insistence on marching through Catholic areas every year is just inciting sectarianism.

They're generally not a nice bunch. Much more towards the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church end of the Christian right spectrum than the tea party end.

So in that sense the OP ain't wrong about them.

The Christian right does encompass a broad range though and not all of them should be lumped with the OO. I might not agree with most of the Christian right on many issues but I do recognise the differences.

Not sure what you're talking about here, as usual. I know about as much as you, aka you googled them just like I did.


Except the Op also said "Christians are a bunch of liars", which is an ignorant statement.


The Op lumps them all together, although only a small minority of religious groups pull this crap.

Originally posted by Bardock42
To be fair, I did not think it a reasonable suggestion in the sense that it's not going to happen. It's not suggesting ignoring the bible either, it's interpreting it in a manner in line with modern society (as all bible based faiths do anyways). I do think that the dislike for gays (as opposed to the lack of dislike for shrimp, condemned in the same passages) stems from bigotry and hatred however.

I also think there is far more room, from a New Testament Jesus perspective, for accepting homosexuals, loving them, and not judging them.


In my unhumable and very arrogant opinion, "Christians hate gays" is a nonsensical statement. And yet, that phrase exists and it is accurate of some Christians.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Not sure what you're talking about here, as usual. I know about as much as you, aka you googled them just like I did.


I live in scotland. I deal with the sectarianism on an almost daily basis. So I know far more about it than you do. They had a March on my birthday that practically went past my front door. I've seen someone killed in the street over the kind of sectarianism the OO promotes.

Originally posted by jaden101
I've seen someone killed in the street over the kind of sectarianism the OO promotes.

Jesus must be soooooo proud of them.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Nobody is defending the organization, if you bothered to do any reading at all. The Op combined them with all right wingers, calling them filthy/radical/whatever other bias he has. That made him lose all credibility rather instantly and the defense comes against baseless generalizations.

Actually retard, if you read properly, I said I attacked The Christian Right. As in crackpots who support Creationism, discrimination against gay people, Anti-Abortion and other crazy beliefs. The Orange Order are part of the same loathsome conservative crowd by the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson ilk. These are people who despise anyone who is different than them, their goal is to shove their religion doctrine in our laws and in our education.

Originally posted by jaden101
I live in scotland. I deal with the sectarianism on an almost daily basis. So I know far more about it than you do. They had a March on my birthday that practically went past my front door. I've seen someone killed in the street over the kind of sectarianism the OO promotes.

Exactly. But psmith is in that regard no different from the bulk of conservative Christians on the internet. No matter how trendy and modern a persona they present they are quite willing to base their beliefs on outright lies instead of established facts.


Just to continue with my thought, the same applies to needlessly controversial subjects like Creationism and gay rights. The people who support ID are usually prolifers who oppose gay rights. They attempt to present arguments to show how knowledgeable and open-minded they are but they inevitably show their total ignorance and disregard for facts. Yes, psmith is a liar but he's not alone.

Except this is not remotely close to what Jade is saying. He's not saying anything about the majority of conservative Christians, NOR any regarding the internet. Furthermore, continuing to call beliefs outright lies makes you look stupid and begs proof which we all know you can't muster because you're too busy screaming about your anger to actually pay attention to what people right.


https://eatrunswag.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/impliedfacepalm.jpg

It's the Orange Order. Bunch of *****.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Except this is not remotely close to what Jade is saying. He's not saying anything about the majority of conservative Christians, NOR any regarding the internet. Furthermore, continuing to call beliefs outright lies makes you look stupid and begs proof which we all know you can't muster because you're too busy screaming about your anger to actually pay attention to what people right.

Yes they are lies, your fellow retard Michael Behe, the founder of ID, was a well known fraud who at least admitted to lying. The same goes to stupider creationists who believe the world is 6000 years old, despite it being a perversion of facts and science. The pro life movement itself is based on the idiotic premise that a soul enters a fertilized egg immediately after ejaculation.

Originally posted by Ayelewis
Yes they are lies, your fellow retard Michael Behe, the founder of ID, was a well known fraud who at least admitted to lying. The same goes to stupider creationists who believe the world is 6000 years old, despite it being a perversion of facts and science. The pro life movement itself is based on the idiotic premise that a soul enters a fertilized egg immediately after ejaculation.

Why is she my "fellow"? I can find you hundred of liberal, pro choice morons who are liars/cheaters/scumbags. You're not making a point here. Furthermore:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Types_of_creationism

A small portion of creationists believe the earth is 6,000 years old, but you're so incredibly dumb and emotional that you generalize, pass this off as fact, and then cry about others "lying" and unable to accept facts. Your posts are littered with stupidity and misinformation.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Why is she my "fellow"? I can find you hundred of liberal, pro choice morons who are liars/cheaters/scumbags. You're not making a point here. Furthermore:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Types_of_creationism

A small portion of creationists believe the earth is 6,000 years old, but you're so incredibly dumb and emotional that you generalize, pass this off as fact, and then cry about others "lying" and unable to accept facts. Your posts are littered with stupidity and misinformation.


He's clearly a troll. No Christian I know thinks that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Prove it


Prove it


I'm not even Christian you dolt. I'm just destroying your pitiful, emotional arguments.

You're a dumb, emotional, pro choice liberal that has no argument to back ANYTHING up. This is evident when you just scream "Google".

I've given you information, coward. Your avoidance to my points is noted

Originally posted by Ayelewis
I've given you information, coward. Your avoidance to my points is noted

Well, I think we can all see what the idiotic liberal pro choice group has to offer. "Here's google, prove me wrong!"

I wasn't aware that I had to cite actual events such as Operation Rescue or the Dover Case to apologist scum such as yourself. It's not hard to google these occurrences, and yes, liar, I see you could not refute these events or prove to us how Pro-Choicers are worse than Pro-Lifers. Tell me, liar smithy, what overwhelmingly acts of hate or violence have Pro-Choicers done in the past or recently? The Pro-Life campaign is made of religious freaks such as yourself who worship clumps of cells over the safety of a woman's (or even a young girl's) well being.

Please tone down the aggressiveness of your posts, Ayelewis.

Originally posted by Ayelewis
I wasn't aware that I had to cite actual events such as Operation Rescue or the Dover Case to apologist scum such as yourself. It's not hard to google these occurrences, and yes, liar, I see you could not refute these events or prove to us how Pro-Choicers are worse than Pro-Lifers. Tell me, liar smithy, what overwhelmingly acts of hate or violence have Pro-Choicers done in the past or recently? The Pro-Life campaign is made of religious freaks such as yourself who worship clumps of cells over the safety of a woman's (or even a young girl's) well being.

Lol.. What a petulant child.

Originally posted by Star428
You know what, **** you and everybody else who continually bashes Christians. You're no ****ing better that's for sure. Done listening to know-it-all atheists pathetically trying to act like they are morally superior when it's obviously the other way around.

Dude I think you really need to calm down. You obviously have strong beliefs about a certain thing. So no matter what anyone says, that won't change..since that is what faith is supposed to be about right? I'm just saying man, I went to Catholic school my entire life save for college. You are acting very hateful right now, shouldn't you be turning the other cheek?

Is it worth getting so worked up about? You can ignore people without actually putting them on ignore.

I also feel what you said about atheists and how they feel they are morally superior and yet it is the other way around..well, isn't that wrong to say too? Going by Christian values is it not wrong to essentially say "I am better then you" ?

Also just for the record, I am an atheist and I don't think that makes me morally superior. It just means I don't look to a deity to tell me what is right or wrong.

Originally posted by Surtur
Dude I think you really need to calm down. You obviously have strong beliefs about a certain thing. So no matter what anyone says, that won't change..since that is what faith is supposed to be about right? I'm just saying man, I went to Catholic school my entire life save for college. You are acting very hateful right now, shouldn't you be turning the other cheek?

Is it worth getting so worked up about? You can ignore people without actually putting them on ignore.

I also feel what you said about atheists and how they feel they are morally superior and yet it is the other way around..well, isn't that wrong to say too? Going by Christian values is it not wrong to essentially say "I am better then you" ?

Also just for the record, I am an atheist and I don't think that makes me morally superior. It just means I don't look to a deity to tell me what is right or wrong.

You have to understand that insulting ppl's belief will make them feel bad. The same goes for insulting ppl's race/gender/age/sexual orientation/etc. Yes, the Cathiolic faith teaches one to "turn the other cheek", but isn't the onus really on you to behave like a decent human being and just y'know not say hurtful things (that yiu know are hurtful) to other ppl rather than it is for religious ppl to forgive you for what you do?

He is not saying that he is better than you, he is saying that there are athiests all over the place (and that he is "done" with such ppl) that seem to feel that they are "morally/intellectually superior" for the sole reason that they are athiests (and if you go around the internet, you would know he is right).

In my lifetime, I've felt atheists portray moral/intellectual superiority over the religious, if only to conquer their insecurities and help themselves sleep at night.

He said atheists think they are morally superior when that is the other way around. How is that not saying "I am better then you"?

Also, if they put so much faith in the religion it makes no sense to not try to follow the concepts of the religion. It also makes no sense to try to say this is one sided and "really on me". No, it definitely goes both ways.

For every bad thing you could say about the super arrogant atheists you could also say something about the super religious. Like I said, it goes both ways.

Originally posted by Surtur
He said atheists think they are morally superior when that is the other way around. How is that not saying "I am better then you"?

Also, if they put so much faith in the religion it makes no sense to not try to follow the concepts of the religion. It also makes no sense to try to say this is one sided and "really on me". No, it definitely goes both ways.

For every bad thing you could say about the super arrogant atheists you could also say something about the super religious.

"The other way around" meaning that their -behavior- demontrates (by definition) the reverse of the moral superiority that they allude to having and that it specifically mentions the "know-it-all athiests", of a specific internet-borne group of condescending group of athiests that you find in abundance all over the internet. Or at least that is how I understand what he said.

No, behaving as a decent human being is what goes "both ways". Expecting ppl to follow the tenets of their religion in order to excuse one from behaving as a decent human being is not going "both ways".

Yes, yes you can. But atm, Star is talking about super arrogant athiests, isn't he? The existence of one does not justify the actions of the other.

I'm not expecting people to follow their tenets to excuse bad behavior, but I am expecting people to at least try to adhere to the religion they are apparently so passionate about.

Also the problem is I've seen a bunch of his other posts though when it comes to religion, so I take the "it is the other way around" a lot differently then you do. Obviously I can't know for sure the intent.

Originally posted by psmith81992
In my lifetime, I've felt atheists portray moral/intellectual superiority over the religious, if only to conquer their insecurities and help themselves sleep at night.

So ironic.

Originally posted by Star428
Done listening to know-it-all atheists pathetically trying to act like they are morally superior when it's obviously the other way around.

Clearly.

For me it just comes down to what my mother used to always say: practice what you preach. Don't preach love and acceptance and then..not do that, regardless of what others do. Especially online.

Originally posted by Trocity
So ironic.

Looks like Trocity is back to give his detailed, logical rebuttals

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm not expecting people to follow their tenets to excuse bad behavior, but I am expecting people to at least try to adhere to the religion they are apparently so passionate about.

Also the problem is I've seen a bunch of his other posts though, so I take the "it is the other way around" a lot differently then you do.

That is what you are proposing actually. Ppl are human, one can only turn one's cheek enough times. It is actually better for ppl to just behave like decent human beings than it is to poke ppl with a stick to see how far they can go with what they believe in/how they feel. Can't believe this concept is even being argued.

Regardless of what he might have meant (as I can be just as wrong with my interpretation of it, maybe we should ask him to clarify?), it does not make what I just said any less valid. If we behave like decent human beings towards each other and try and understand each other and not behave like little douchebags, the world will be a better place.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Looks like Trocity is back to give his detailed, logical rebuttals

Religion... logical...

Originally posted by Trocity
Religion... logical...

Originally posted by Surtur
For me it just comes down to what my mother used to always say: practice what you preach. Don't preach love and acceptance and then..not do that, regardless of what others do. Especially online.

Haven't really seen Star preach love and acceptance around here and didn't really see him try to convert ppl....

Originally posted by Nibedicus
That is what you are proposing actually. Ppl are human, one can only turn one's cheek enough times. It is actually better for ppl to just behave like decent human beings than it is to poke ppl with a stick to see how far they can go with what they believe in/how they feel. Can't believe this concept is even being argued.

Regardless of what he might have meant (as I can be just as wrong with my interpretation of it, maybe we should ask him to clarify?), it does not make what I just said any less valid. If we behave like decent human beings towards each other and try and understand each other and not behave like little douchebags, the world will be a better place.

This is a cop out though. Jesus never said one can only turn the other cheek enough times. Yes, people should act decent nobody is arguing that, but not everyone does..and that is the true test of someone. It's EASY to be nice and loving when people are nice and loving back. The true test of a persons faith is when they are not.

This is 100% what I was taught in school. If a person can't handle some d-bag online and the only course of action is to be an even bigger d-bag..well, there is a problem.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Haven't really seen Star preach love and acceptance around here and didn't really see him try to convert ppl....

Talking about Christians, which he claims to be. It's an all or nothing, you can't pick and choose what aspects of the religion you want to follow. Again, this is at least what I was taught.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You have to understand that insulting ppl's belief will make them feel bad. The same goes for insulting ppl's race/gender/age/sexual orientation/etc. Yes, the Cathiolic faith teaches one to "turn the other cheek", but isn't the onus really on you to behave like a decent human being and just y'know not say hurtful things (that yiu know are hurtful) to other ppl rather than it is for religious ppl to forgive you for what you do?

He is not saying that he is better than you, he is saying that there are athiests all over the place (and that he is "done" with such ppl) that seem to feel that they are "morally/intellectually superior" for the sole reason that they are athiests (and if you go around the internet, you would know he is right). Originally posted by psmith81992
In my lifetime, I've felt atheists portray moral/intellectual superiority over the religious, if only to conquer their insecurities and help themselves sleep at night. Originally posted by Nibedicus
"The other way around" meaning that their -behavior- demontrates (by definition) the reverse of the moral superiority that they allude to having and that it specifically mentions the "know-it-all athiests", of a specific internet-borne group of condescending group of athiests that you find in abundance all over the internet. Or at least that is how I understand what he said.

No, behaving as a decent human being is what goes "both ways". Expecting ppl to follow the tenets of their religion in order to excuse one from behaving as a decent human being is not going "both ways".

Yes, yes you can. But atm, Star is talking about super arrogant athiests, isn't he? The existence of one does not justify the actions of the other.

Yeah, but the problem is Star your plethora of other posts on religion speak volumes. It changes the context of the situation.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's an all or nothing, you can't pick and choose what aspects of the religion you want to follow. Again, this is at least what I was taught.

The old testament is no longer canon.

Originally posted by Trocity
The old testament is no longer canon.

I like that, how they can toss out stuff..sort of like a comic book. Probably because the old testament god was not so nice. But then if people criticize or point that out they are bashing religion.

Originally posted by Surtur
This is a cop out though. Jesus never said one can only turn the other cheek enough times. Yes, people should act decent, but not everyone does..and that is the true test of someone. It's EASY to be nice and loving when people are nice and loving back. The true test of a persons faith is when they are not.

This is 100% what I was taught in school. If a person can't handle some d-bag online and the only course of action is to be an even bigger d-bag..well, there is a problem.

Wow. Ppl are ppl. They are not perfect and can have bouts of frustration and anger at times. The true test of someone is to act like a decent human beings first before expecting others to behave at a higher standard than he expects of himself just because others subscribe to a belief system.

No, the problem is the d-bag him/herself. If one d-bag creates another d-bag, we just end up with a d-bag epidemic. As with every epidemic, the original d-bag or as we shall call him: d-bag zero.

How about we all just try not to be d-bags first? Is that hard?

Originally posted by Surtur
I like that, how they can toss out stuff..sort of like a comic book. Probably because the old testament god was not so nice. But then if people criticize or point that out they are bashing religion.

Don't mind Trocity, he's universally recognized as an idiot, constantly embarrassing the atheist group.

Originally posted by Surtur
Talking about Christians, which he claims to be. It's an all or nothing, you can't pick and choose what aspects of the religion you want to follow. Again, this is at least what I was taught.

You seem go have a very all-or-nothing idea of what Christians/Catholics are. Almost as if you don't really see them as ppl, but as some sort of belief organism with a single function. That's not really how the world works. That's not how ppl work. Hell, even the Pope has recognized the fact that ppl follow the teaching in their own way, they do the best they can to be decent human beings and they use the teachings as a basis to determine the path they need to follow.

And what does that have anything to so with what I said? Behaving like decent human beings is what we all have to strive to be. And if you choose to be a d-bag and belittle ppl based on their belief system/race/sex/age/disabilities, then you are you have no right to try and stand on any moral high ground.

Originally posted by Surtur
I like that, how they can toss out stuff..sort of like a comic book. Probably because the old testament god was not so nice. But then if people criticize or point that out they are bashing religion.

As such, the way something is said has a lot to do with its impact, oftentimes more so than what information you are trying to relay.

I can say "statistically, Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV." Which would be fine.

But given a little creativity and the intention to offend, I can go out and say something really offensive and hurtful. Which would make me a d-bag.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Wow. Ppl are ppl. They are not perfect and can have bouts of frustration and anger at times. The true test of someone is to act like a decent human beings first before expecting others to behave at a higher standard than he expects of himself just because others subscribe to a belief system.

No, the problem is the d-bag him/herself. If one d-bag creates another d-bag, we just end up with a d-bag epidemic. As with every epidemic, the original d-bag or as we shall call him: d-bag zero.

How about we all just try not to be d-bags first? Is that hard?

But no, you can't blame a d-bag for turning someone else into one. These are not vampires.

Nobody is denying people should be decent, but they should try to practice what the religion they are so passionate about preaches. I never said they need to be perfect.

Originally posted by Surtur
But no, you can't blame a d-bag for turning someone else into one. These are not vampires.

Nobody is denying people should be decent, but they should try to practice what the religion they are so passionate about preaches.

Hate begets hate. It IS technicallly, the d-bag's fault (as, if you reread my statement, it is based on my criteria of causality - it is specific causality, not a statement of how the world works in general) if you follow my reasoning. But no, douchebags are not vampires. But my logic is simply to point out that the original cause of a heated exchange was the cause (1 = 1 logic), the other guy is simply reacting.

Stop trying to insist a higher standard of conduct on other ppl just because of their belief system. If anything, you are just proving Star right. We all need to not behave like d-bags and that is the only standard that matters. Religion or not.

But no, it's not the d-bags fault because people have a choice to control how they react. This is not mathematics. So I'm sorry, but we'll just flat out disagree on that, if that is your opinion fine.

Originally posted by Surtur
But no, it's not the d-bags fault because people have a choice to control how they act. This is not mathematics. So I'm sorry, but we'll just flat out disagree on that, if that is your opinion fine.

Yes, if Russia bombs the US and the US bombs back, wiping out the whole world in a fiery world war, I would day both countries are stupid. But I would also say that Russia would be more at fault here.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yes, if Russia bombs the US and the US bombs back, wiping out the whole world in a fiery world war, I would day both countries are stupid. But I would also say that Russia would be more at fault here.

We aren't talking about bombs, but grown ass adults on an internet forum who can 100% control how they react.

Originally posted by Surtur
We aren't talking about bombs, but grown ass adults on an internet forum who can 100% control how they react to a situation.

If you do not get the conceptual similarities of what I said with what we are discussing then we might have a problem here...

hmm

I get it, but you are comparing wiping out the entire friggin world to a stranger insulting your religion online. So yep, we might have a problem.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Lol.. What a petulant child.

Yes, run away coward.

Originally posted by Surtur
I get it, but you are comparing wiping out the entire friggin world to a stranger insulting your religion online. So yep, we might have a problem.

I said "conceptual" similarities, not quantitive ones.

But the idea was to put a higher portion of the blame on the one that started the issue over the one reacting to it. It has a simple message: don't be the starter. And if you are, don't be so silly as to claim any kind of moral high ground right after.

Edit. But as you said, you already get it. So we might as well move on.

Originally posted by Ayelewis
Yes, run away coward.

I think we already know where the emotional imbecile (you) stands. I don't think anybody else is going to respond to your stupidity and I only do it out of the kindness of my heart.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Wow. Ppl are ppl. They are not perfect and can have bouts of frustration and anger at times. The true test of someone is to act like a decent human beings first before expecting others to behave at a higher standard than he expects of himself just because others subscribe to a belief system.

No, the problem is the d-bag him/herself. If one d-bag creates another d-bag, we just end up with a d-bag epidemic. As with every epidemic, the original d-bag or as we shall call him: d-bag zero.

How about we all just try not to be d-bags first? Is that hard?




Exactly. I had to put Surtur on ignore not long ago because I got tired of all his God-bashing especially in religion forum so I refuse to converse with him but I find it humorous that he's trying to preach about Jesus' teachings when he thinks He is a myth or, at least, not divine. He even called God a "mass-murderer" in religion forum so that shows how ignorant he is regarding God.



What he doesn't understand is that I never claimed I was some kind of Saint like Christ Himself was (and still is). In fact, I sin many times every day and I haven't even been baptized yet. That doesn't change what I believe in though. As you say, the best people can do is try to act like decent human beings as best they can. But, when people make a statement like the person (think it was Bardock, iirc) did I quoted earlier in thread about God commiting "sadistic murders" or something similarly silly it strikes a nerve... and yes, I'm tired of all the arrogant atheists I run into on the internet who have a condescending attitude towards believers or even outright insult them or say say stupid things like "Where was your god when this tragedy happened?" or some other non-sense to try and piss us off. As if they are arrogant enough to think they can get us to question our beliefs. LOL.

You don't get it do you coward, you came into this thread defending a sectarian organisation and you cried about bigots who condone discrimination shouldn't be open to ridicule. You then claimed that if you ridicule religious scum, that makes a you a "lefty" or a "liberal"

You couldn't counter-argue what Christian Right-wing liars have done or said, despite the numerous incidents I posted.

You continue to be a liar and a freak.

Just to reiterate my point, you have offered no evidence or claims on defending stupid conservative groups who deny basic human rights or stand in the way of freedom and knowledge.

It's similar to the pro-terrorists who indirectly defend any Arab atrocity against Jews by claiming it's a false-flag operation to vilify Islam.

Again, Ayelewis, please calm down with the aggressive tone- in which respect, two wrongs don't make a right, psmith, so please don't fight back in kind.

Sorry, I just get carried away with people who refuse to make any valid points.

Originally posted by Star428
Exactly. I had to put Surtur on ignore not long ago because I got tired of all his God-bashing especially in religion forum so I refuse to converse with him but I find it humorous that he's trying to preach about Jesus' teachings when he thinks He is a myth or, at least, not divine. He even called God a "mass-murderer" in religion forum so that shows how ignorant he is regarding God.



What he doesn't understand is that I never claimed I was some kind of Saint like Christ Himself was (and still is). In fact, I sin many times every day and I haven't even been baptized yet. That doesn't change what I believe in though. As you say, the best people can do is try to act like decent human beings as best they can. But, when people make a statement like the person (think it was Bardock, iirc) did I quoted earlier in thread about God commiting "sadistic murders" or something similarly silly it strikes a nerve... and yes, I'm tired of all the arrogant atheists I run into on the internet who have a condescending attitude towards believers or even outright insult them or say say stupid things like "Where was your god when this tragedy happened?" or some other non-sense to try and piss us off. As if they are arrogant enough to think they can get us to question our beliefs. LOL.

Oh please, I bashed the biblical God who is, by definition, a mass murderer. You can put me on ignore if that *fact* bothers you. You call me ignorant for pointing out facts. When you kill everyone on the planet save for a few people that is mass murder regardless of if they are wicked. This is why I can't take you seriously and this is why I talk about context. I never said you were a saint, but this isn't a one time thing for you though.

Do not blame me for your bible. I did not write it but I have the right to comment on it if it is being discussed, I never made a topic specifically to do this. This is why people need to go read all your crazy ass posts in the religion forum before commenting.

The bible also advocates rape, murder, slavery, and many other horrible things.

Why the **** would you take ancient scripture that seriously? It's moronic.

The bible makes no sense. "I God, love all things, but sometimes you must show tough love, SO BURN DOWN THEIR VILLAGE, RAVAGE AND KILL THE NON-BELIEVERS!"

God has directly killed more people in the bible then Satan, he's wiped out entire cities filled with people. Now, I wouldn't call him a mass-murderer, but the God in the bible seems to have his morals mixed up, and no, you can't make the argument that "NO, HE'S GOD, HE DOESN'T NEED MORALS!"

Yes he does, if he wants our love and respect and worship, why would you worship someone who has wiped out cities for really dumb reasons.

When you come out of your mom's vagina, are you obligated to always always listen to her and worship her even if she treats you horribly.

Besides, there is no way the God in the bible is our God. Our God (at least what I think) is just a selfless loving entity who wouldn't hurt a fly, he gives us free will to do with as we please, but chooses not to get involved because... Well, wouldn't really be free will.

None of what you just said should make anyone take you seriously on any level. Making a blanket statement like "god advocates" makes you look ignorant. People are responsible for more murders than God ever could be.



Good god this is dumb. "There is no way God isn't the god from our bible because I don't agree with what he does and the god I know wouldn't hurt a fly." Lol, I don't think I have ever heard of any God like that. Don't take this as an insult but I am really wondering how old you are.

Originally posted by Jmanghan

Besides, there is no way the God in the bible is our God. Our God (at least what I think) is just a selfless loving entity who wouldn't hurt a fly, he gives us free will to do with as we please, but chooses not to get involved because... Well, wouldn't really be free will.

That sounds sort of like a deist idea of a god.

Humanity in general might be responsible for more deaths, but God has a body count that absolutely dwarfs any single human in history. It's also true that he has done things a lot more horrible then Satan. Satan technically tricked people into gaining knowledge..and we see him as the ultimate evil. Don't get me wrong, the guy seemed like an arrogant d-bag, but gee I wonder where he learned THAT from? Actually can anyone think of any examples of Satan just flat out murdering someone?

I actually agree with the statement of if there is a God it is not the biblical one. Why? Because I am here typing this to you right now. The biblical God would of flooded this world 1,000 times over by now.

This is based on what exactly? By the definition of those who believe in God, God kills for reasons above us (some we understand), while humans kill for selfish reasons. If you "hate" our God, you should be despising humans.



You should probably reread that sentence and understand the absurdity of it. You don't believe God is the biblical one for some random, simplistic reason? Wow..

Originally posted by Surtur
Humanity in general might be responsible for more deaths, but God has a body count that absolutely dwarfs any single human in history. It's also true that he has done things a lot more horrible then Satan. Satan technically tricked people into gaining knowledge..and we see him as the ultimate evil. Don't get me wrong, the guy seemed like an arrogant d-bag, but gee I wonder where he learned THAT from? Actually can anyone think of any examples of Satan just flat out murdering someone?

I actually agree with the statement of if there is a God it is not the biblical one. Why? Because I am here typing this to you right now. The biblical God would of flooded this world 1,000 times over by now.
The serpent in the garden wasn't Satan, it was just a talking serpent.

Satan doesn't appear until the Book of Job, and there's no real textual support in the Bible for Satan being the serpent.

This is correct.

First of all, let's not go into picky Biblical details like that- Surtur is entitled to refer to an exceptionally detailed Christian tradition of associating the serpent with Satan.

But in any case, do we have any more comments on topic here, or is it time to close?

Whether or not the serpent was actually Satan is arguable. One thing for sure is that if it wasn't the devil then Satan was at least most certainly influencing/possessing/controlling it. An ordinary snake would have no motive for trying to get Adam and Eve to disobey God nor would it be able to talk without help from a powerful being. So the serpent deceiving Eve was STILL Satan's doing no matter how you look at it.

What did I just say, Star?