Those Ker-rrazzeee Christians are back

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:40 am

Karl Lynch wrote:The 'cures' for homosexuality are pretty scary... AFAIK one can let alone the idea of coming out heterosexual afterwards, they could tell you that you were Napoleon Bonaparte and you'd come leave believing it o.O It's terrifying

Got that right - I just had a look at the evergreen site and it's really quite worrying.

Post by **Kaylee** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:52 am

Come to think of it, I've always wanted to be Napoleon Bonaparte...

Post by **Best First** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:10 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:Regardless of if I can provide evidence from religous ppl I shouldnt really have to as it doesnt really enforce my point thats its just 'wrong' - its like explaining racism, I shouldnt have to anymore, its just 'wrong' - i mean I could list loads of reasons and social reasons as to why its wrong wrong but ultimately its just wrong.

Im so blunt because I find it impossible to argue against those who feel that relgion is right in saying its sinfull.

for instance.

"its wrong because gods says its wrong"

How can I ever possibly argue against that? - I cant because god is always right. like you say, the only choice is to renounce your faith, and generally i cannot see that happening.

For every reaons christians feel homosexuality is wrong, I feel the opposite - its not hatred, i just feel they are deluded.

you could meet irrationality with rationality.

as is all you are essentially doing is saying what you believe is wrong because i believe differently, which is akin to a christian and ajew argueing over whether or jesus was the son of god or not.

the notion that we will ever reach a point where it would be good to have racism acknowledge as 'just wrong' is, i'm sorry, nonsense of the highest order. Its ironic that you rail against belief but at the same time want to establish principles indepandant of the reasoning they are based on - if you can't articulate why you hold a principle then that principle will always be under threat, not to mention the fact that, with the example you have chosen, racism is sadly far from commonly accepted as being wrong, its still a big issue in many places and if we meet such issues with nothing more than 'its wrong becasue it is' then we are unlikley to make much headway.

Believing you are right does not remove the burden of proof, if anything it makes it more imperitive.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:45 pm

The best way to run an argument like this is to read up and know more about what you are talking about than anyone who might support the opposite view, making them look like hypocrites. Watch:

Christian B&B owner: I refuse to allow gays into my house because I don't agree with their lifestyle. It is against God.

Me: Matthew 25:31-45

Piece of piss.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:46 pm

Take for example that im a devout christian - try to explain to me why homosexuality is wrong?

If im a devote my main argument will be 'because god says so' - its an impassable block to argue with, it requires someone to actually dro thier faith in christianity. of the discussion between no

Do you belive that your capable of articulating your words well enough for somone to change faiths?

I can articulate why I belive its wrong all day long, to be met with because 'god says so' - thier principle is under threat not mine. Sorry I find it hard to penetrate thier principles somedays.
Seriously I do understand that me saying its just wrong isnt going to make so much headway, I get so ****** off when I read 'its sinfull' because that by religous terms means 'wrong' - my response is almost knee-jerk mirror.

Post by **Denyer** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:58 pm

Karl Lynch wrote:I suppose it comes down to a question of whether you can be both homosexual and Christian, or whether the two are mutually exclusive.

Or whether most Christians can be said to be remotely Christian -- I'd suggest not, personally. Biblical, on the other hand... these resorts would also make a point of supporting rape (Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, 22:28-29, 22:23-24, 2 Samuel 12:11-14, Judges 5:30, Exodus 21:7-11, Zechariah 14:1-2...)

...but Christianity being child abuse is a bit of a tangent.

Post by **Best First** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:21 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:
Do you belive that your capable of articulating your words well enough for somone to change faiths?

i believe i would have a greater percentage of success than a 'knee-jerk mirror', certainly.

all that does is discredit your point.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:33 pm

Denyer wrote:Numbers 31:7-18

Not just rape, but genocide as well. Lovely.

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:18 pm

You know, what really bothers Christians more, I wonder.....the fact that two men love each other in an intimate manner, or the fact that two guys are seriously getting their hands and other things all over another guys manhood.

Because it seems as though it could be the latter. Which goes back slightly into what Impy was just saying, ie could a religious man make a logical argument against homosexuality. He could say, "Sex is for procreation. That's why it's done in marriage. That's why it shouldn't be done frivolously or with birth control. That's why you shouldn't put your bits and pieces in other people's mouths. Because all of that stuff isn't fufilling the purpose of why it's there. To procreate. Homosexual sex is pointless. And it makes me feel funny about touching boys."

And THEN is when the religious aspect would come in, because even if it's pointless, I still think you have to rely on religion to be so anti-hedonistic. I mean, people eat when they're full. We ALL drink when we've had too much. And sometimes, people want to get busy because it's a pretty gosh darn swell thing to do. Only if you have some sort of consequences like eternal damnation or some kind of billy club like self righteousness will a disdain for pleasure for pleasure's sake take you so far.

There are plenty of people who are Christian and gay. Just not Catholics.

BB Shockwave · Post by **BB Shockwave** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:58 pm

Metal Vendetta wrote:
Denyer wrote:Numbers 31:7-18
Not just rape, but genocide as well. Lovely.

If I had my way, I'd throw out most parts of the Old Testament. It's mostly just 'Oh we are God's chosen people, so we can exterminate whol nations and do pretty much whatever we want' with the occasionaly 'God punishes Israel for not worshipping Him enough' thrown in.

Funnilly, our old priest said just that.

You'd be hard pressed to find anything supporting genocide or rape in the New Testament...

About this B&B businenss.. Man, christians in the UK are nuts. I mean, this would be pretty much unbelievable here in Hungary. If people pay for lodging, they own that flat for that time, it's none of the buisness of the owner what they do while they are there...

Do these guys still live in the Dark Ages?

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:49 pm

BB Shockwave wrote:About this B&B businenss.. Man, christians in the UK are nuts. I mean, this would be pretty much unbelievable here in Hungary. If people pay for lodging, they own that flat for that time, it's none of the buisness of the owner what they do while they are there... Do these guys still live in the Dark Ages?

B&Bs aren't proper lodgings in that way, though. They're the business equivalent of having a lodger in your house. And most proper rental contracts in the UK contain lots of clauses outlining things that the tenant isn't allowed to do whilst in the house/flat. I think the argument being made is that owners should continue to have the right to ban certain kinds of activity on their premises.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:59 pm

Bouncelot wrote:
BB Shockwave wrote:About this B&B businenss.. Man, christians in the UK are nuts. I mean, this would be pretty much unbelievable here in Hungary. If people pay for lodging, they own that flat for that time, it's none of the buisness of the owner what they do while they are there... Do these guys still live in the Dark Ages?
B&Bs aren't proper lodgings in that way, though. They're the business equivalent of having a lodger in your house. And most proper rental contracts in the UK contain lots of clauses outlining things that the tenant isn't allowed to do whilst in the house/flat. I think the argument being made is that owners should continue to have the right to ban certain kinds of activity on their premises.

You're obviously reading something different to me, it sounds like banning certain types of people to me.

Post by **Denyer** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:29 pm

Bouncelot wrote:And most proper rental contracts in the UK contain lots of clauses outlining things that the tenant isn't allowed to do whilst in the house/flat.

Which can include "don't smoke" or "don't make noise in the evenings". Rather than "don't be black" or "don't be gay".

Else there's going to be a bit of "thrown to lions"...

BB Shockwave · Post by **BB Shockwave** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 7:56 am

Denyer wrote:
Bouncelot wrote:And most proper rental contracts in the UK contain lots of clauses outlining things that the tenant isn't allowed to do whilst in the house/flat.
Which can include "don't smoke" or "don't make noise in the evenings". Rather than "don't be black" or "don't be gay".

Else there's going to be a bit of "thrown to lions"...

Yeah I mean, sure they can have a saying about what the tenants do like 'don't set fire to the furniture'. But if they can say 'sorry I won't have you here 'cause you're gay' it's pretty much like what they did with afro-americans in the states, like 'no black people allowed in this shop/restaurant/etc.'

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:44 pm

Karl Lynch wrote:
Bouncelot wrote:
BB Shockwave wrote:About this B&B businenss.. Man, christians in the UK are nuts. I mean, this would be pretty much unbelievable here in Hungary. If people pay for lodging, they own that flat for that time, it's none of the buisness of the owner what they do while they are there... Do these guys still live in the Dark Ages?
B&Bs aren't proper lodgings in that way, though. They're the business equivalent of having a lodger in your house. And most proper rental contracts in the UK contain lots of clauses outlining things that the tenant isn't allowed to do whilst in the house/flat. I think the argument being made is that owners should continue to have the right to ban certain kinds of activity on their premises.
You're obviously reading something different to me, it sounds like banning certain types of people to me.

In which case I don't want to defend them. However, I seriously doubt that they'd get the Evangelical Alliance speaking up on their behalf if they wanted to ban people rather than (what they see as) immoral activities. Though I can't see how they'd know they were putting up a gay person unless he wants to share a bed with another man.

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:09 pm

Hundreds of B&B owners across the country have been writing to ministers complaining that the new rules will force them to 'betray God' and their consciences by allowing 'undesirables' to enjoy their hospitality.

'We've had a lot of correspondence from Christian B&B operators who don't want to be forced to accept Satanists, Muslims, gays and even unmarried couples as guests,' said a Home Office official. 'Protestants have been writing in saying they shouldn't have to admit Catholics because they have an issue with their religion, Catholics saying they didn't want Jews under their roof and objections from followers of other types of faith.'

That sounds like a mighty high number are miffed about allowing certain people to stay, rather than allowing certain activities. How do you know if someone is gay? By the same token: how would you know if somebody was Jewish or Muslim? I don't know, but I would imagine it would lead to a lot of stereotypes of varying degrees coming to the fore, which individuals within each group may or may not match, as might many others outside of it.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:15 am

Karl Lynch wrote:How do you know if someone is gay? By the same token: how would you know if somebody was Jewish or Muslim? I don't know, but I would imagine it would lead to a lot of stereotypes of varying degrees coming to the fore, which individuals within each group may or may not match, as might many others outside of it.

"Shut that door!"
"Already, oy vey!"
"Inshallah, God willing!"
"I'm sorry, we have no vacancies."

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:33 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:I get so ****** off when I read 'its sinfull' because that by religous terms means 'wrong' - my response is almost knee-jerk mirror.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:51 pm

Isaac Newton must have been a Sith, otherwise we'd say that "Gravity is sometimes attractive"

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:14 pm

Karl Lynch wrote:Isaac Newton must have been a Sith, otherwise we'd say that "Gravity is sometimes attractive"

Not forgetting Joanna Lumley and Jennifer Saunders, who were never just partially fabulous

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:27 pm

Metal Vendetta wrote:
Karl Lynch wrote:Isaac Newton must have been a Sith, otherwise we'd say that "Gravity is sometimes attractive"
Not forgetting Joanna Lumley and Jennifer Saunders, who were never just partially fabulous

Definitely, and lest we forget the wise words of Jesus:

"Let he who is possibly without sin give serious, yet non-commital, consideration to casting the first stone. Or not. It's all good. Where'd I leave my Easter Eggs?"

man-with-the-dogs · Post by **man-with-the-dogs** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 4:04 am

by the grace of god save us all! we're moving right back into the days of the salem witch trials. sinners you will burn!

as a wiser man than myself once said "f*ck armageddon, this is hell."

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:46 pm

Karl Lynch wrote:
Metal Vendetta wrote:
Karl Lynch wrote:Isaac Newton must have been a Sith, otherwise we'd say that "Gravity is sometimes attractive"
Not forgetting Joanna Lumley and Jennifer Saunders, who were never just partially fabulous
Definitely, and lest we forget the wise words of Jesus:

"Let he who is possibly without sin give serious, yet non-commital, consideration to casting the first stone. Or not. It's all good. Where'd I leave my Easter Eggs?"

Oh, geez, that was funny... I mean, pretty much funny to the right group of people...

(Dark... Side... irresistable! Like... chocolate... bunny!)

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:48 pm

Evil will always triumph because Good is dumb