|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 15, 2014 5:30:04 GMT -6
Btw, H, your opinions are more than simple disagreements, they are classic cases of bigotry. There's nothing noble about your cause. When you reflect on our discussions, keep this in mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Historian on Apr 15, 2014 7:31:27 GMT -6
But do you allow them to hold opinions other than the ones you espouse? Do you call them hateful, or whatever ugly label comes to mind when they insist on arguing for their own opinions? That is the one constant of all atheist forums. They cannot see disagreement as intellectual; it is always hateful. The holders of disfavored opinions are not allowed to make their arguments-- no, they are ganged up on and called names, the goal posts are shifted and voila! you have shut down any possibility of discussion. You see, today's intellectuals know that only progressive opinions are valid. Free speech and discussion of varied viewpoints is so ... 19th century. It really wouldn't hurt for you to have a conversation with the gang here about what viewpoints are and are not allowed. Then you could post them and there would be no further surprises. No one wants people of faith here more than I do, and no idea is unallowed. I do not censor. That said, some ideas are more worth arguing than others. "potbelly pigs are cuddly" is not an idea I share, but not one I would argue either. Too much "eye of the beholder" going on there. On the other hand, "pot belly pigs are covered with lush fur" or worse, "people who like potbelly pigs should not be able to bequeath property tax free to their loved ones" are, incrementally, worth a scrap. So it is with ideas in a forum. It is quite true that a lot of religious people burn out on religion discussion forums. Your thesis is that this is because atheists are ruthless and offensive, and yet you are easily the nastiest piece of work to show up here in a long time, nevertheless obviously quite religious. I have a competing thesis: there are nice and nasty people on either side of the aisle. Atheists tend to outlast the religious on discussion boards because the process of questioning is harmless to them, while the process of being questioned is relatively more damaging to (some) theists. Utter nonsense. Theists "burn out" because they get tired of being ganged up on, argued with dishonestly, and simply realize that the light of natural reason cannot shine in a complete vacuum. It really is the better part of wisdom not to throw pearls before swine. I reflect your behavior back to you. I have been dealing with aggressive Internet atheists for a long time. They are never honest or civil about opinions with which they disagree. It is pure self-deception for you to write that you want people of faith here. You only want the ones who are meek and don't challenge you. One sees how you treat Ken. Woodrowli never challenges you and goes along to get along. Jim? Well, I see nothing to suggest that he is a person of faith but, then, I haven't read him. His ramblings in this thread could have been written by any atheist off the street. (No Jim. It is not possible for an informed Christian to support gay marriage. That is a complete and utter rejection of the God-given meaning of marriage which Christians are obliged to uphold.) So, some ideas are more worth arguing than others? Isn't that what I just said was your problem? You don't even see that you are one of the fascist wannabes cutting off discussion of ideas you don't like as though you could force me and others to accept your opinions as the only correct ones. Well it is your forum. Do what you like. But this is my country and I will fight in any way I can for free speech and the airing of all ideas whether you like them or not. And that most emphatically includes arguing with atheists on Internet forums just as though they could be taught by facts (oh my poor bibliography!) and reached by reason. Now Jim needs to understand that I don't discuss nonsense. Asking me to give him legal arguments for denying gay marriage is just plain stupid. We make laws to codify societal decisions about how we will live. No society has ever given homosexual couplings the status of marriage because, wait for it, marriage is the union of male and female and results, in most cases, in the arrival of children whose well-being must be guarded. Of course, if homosexuals choose to marry women, they have the exact same rights as everyone else. He also needs to understand that he did not read the wiki article very carefully or he would have seen what I expected him to see-- that civil marriage came about in several forms for different reasons. But it escaped him, apparently. It is also completely irrelevant to the question of gay marriage which is why I am not interested in wasting time on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Historian on Apr 15, 2014 7:37:55 GMT -6
Btw, H, your opinions are more than simple disagreements, they are classic cases of bigotry. There's nothing noble about your cause. When you reflect on our discussions, keep this in mind.  Game, set, match!!! Oh, I am sorry I didn't see this before I wrote the other message. This little emission is down right delicious. It proves my point better than all my words can. Disagreement is bigotry! There is a fascist for you and he doesn't even understand it. |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 15, 2014 8:09:31 GMT -6
So, some ideas are more worth arguing than others? Isn't that what I just said was your problem? You don't even see that you are one of the fascist wannabes cutting off discussion of ideas you don't like as though you could force me and others to accept your opinions as the only correct ones. I don't cut off discussions. I take a certain amount of satisfaction in the number of discussions that get legs, whether or not they interest me personally. You're just making shit up at this point. Well it is your forum. Do what you like. But this is my country and I will fight in any way I can for free speech and the airing of all ideas whether you like them or not. Terrific. Welcome aboard. And, on that note, it's time for you to decide if you're going to join or not. You've had more than enough time to check us out. |
|
|
|
Post by Historian on Apr 15, 2014 8:39:20 GMT -6
Thank you but you have been weighed in the balance and found wanting.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 15, 2014 8:49:34 GMT -6
Btw, H, your opinions are more than simple disagreements, they are classic cases of bigotry. There's nothing noble about your cause. When you reflect on our discussions, keep this in mind. Game, set, match!!! Oh, I am sorry I didn't see this before I wrote the other message. This little emission is down right delicious. It proves my point better than all my words can. Disagreement is bigotry! There is a fascist for you and he doesn't even understand it. I'm as fascist as any abolitionist, civil rights activist, or any of Jesus' apostles, for that matter, so don't expect any apologies from me. If I were you, I'd be more concerned with why your perspectives are more in line with the Westboro Baptist Church, and you have no words to explain that. I'm hardly going to lose sleep over a bigot calling me a fascist. Thank you for the compliment. |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 15, 2014 9:06:34 GMT -6
Thank you but you have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Whatever. You're welcome to stay if you register, but we've had enough of the drive by. You've had a more than fair amount of time to check us out. Register or have a nice day. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 15, 2014 10:23:59 GMT -6
Now Jim needs to understand that I don't discuss nonsense. Asking me to give him legal arguments for denying gay marriage is just plain stupid. We make laws to codify societal decisions about how we will live. No society has ever given homosexual couplings the status of marriage because, wait for it, marriage is the union of male and female and results, in most cases, in the arrival of children whose well-being must be guarded. Of course, if homosexuals choose to marry women, they have the exact same rights as everyone else. He also needs to understand that he did not read the wiki article very carefully or he would have seen what I expected him to see-- that civil marriage came about in several forms for different reasons. But it escaped him, apparently. It is also completely irrelevant to the question of gay marriage which is why I am not interested in wasting time on it. Wow, I'm being discussed in the the third person. Is that an honor? Historian: Yes, we make laws to "codify societal decisions about how we will live." You might have noticed that several states have made laws extending marriage rights to gays. Several more will make those laws in the near future. Therefore your comment that "No society has ever given homosexual couplings the status of marriage..." is really stupid. I hate to be the bearer of bad news dude, but you are living in, or quite near to, a society that has given homosexual couples who express a legally binding life-long commitment the legal status of marriage. In addition, the laws we pass must be weighed against the rights granted individuals in the Constitution and Amendments. This is part of the fabric of the United States. This is one of the key things that makes us a great nation. You may not want to "waste time" on the legal issues, but the gay marriage battle is being fought (and won from my perspective) in the courts and legislatures of this land. Your position on the legal issues is crazy. You are basically saying that you want to fight a war, but you don't want to waste time on munitions, manpower and logistics. Your statement that Christians must be against gay marriage as a condition of Christianity is also pathetic. You fall right into the categories of obnoxiously exclusive "Christian" that FB listed last night. I'd love to see you justify this statement: "{it is}... not possible for an informed Christian to support gay marriage. That is a complete and utter rejection of the God-given meaning of marriage which Christians are obliged to uphold." I'm guessing that you will decline to do any more than sling mud. Again. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Historian on Apr 16, 2014 7:29:57 GMT -6
OK. You want answers? Here are answers. No society has ever called homosexual couplings marriage. That is simply a fact. History didn't begin in 1999. The fact that some states have now decided to play games with a bedrock human institution tells me only that fools run our country. It is the height of stupidity and hubris to decide that it is ok to fundamentally change the nature of the family. And that is what gay marriage will do.
I did not say that Christians must "be against gay marriage as a condition of Christianity". There is that atheist inability to hear what Christians actually say. Or else it it is a deliberate lie. I said that favoring gay marriage "is a complete and utter rejection of the God-given meaning of marriage which Christians are obliged to uphold". That you don't know this speaks badly of your understanding of Christianity and the purpose of our sexually differentiated bodies and that marriage images the Trinity. I would refer you to Pope John Paul's book on the theology of the body for more information.
I don't sling mud, baby. I say what you don't want to hear. For you, just as for that nasty Stevec, different opinions aren't different-- they are bigotry. That is the mark of the totalitarian. Different opinions and bigotry are two different matters and your inability to understand that marks you as a typical unthinking liberal and atheist.
If you think you are a Christian, you better start learning something about Christianity and practicing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 16, 2014 8:25:18 GMT -6
I did not say that Christians must "be against gay marriage as a condition of Christianity". There is that atheist inability to hear what Christians actually say. Or else it it is a deliberate lie. I said that favoring gay marriage "is a complete and utter rejection of the God-given meaning of marriage which Christians are obliged to uphold". That you don't know this speaks badly of your understanding of Christianity and the purpose of our sexually differentiated bodies and that marriage images the Trinity. I would refer you to Pope John Paul's book on the theology of the body for more information. I don't sling mud, baby. I say what you don't want to hear. For you, just as for that nasty Stevec, different opinions aren't different-- they are bigotry. That is the mark of the totalitarian. Different opinions and bigotry are two different matters and your inability to understand that marks you as a typical unthinking liberal and atheist. If you think you are a Christian, you better start learning something about Christianity and practicing it. You're a lying sack of shit. This time I didn't have to search hard for the bullshit you claim or didn't claim. Here are your own words, So let's see how the cowardly Christian wordsmiths those words to mean something other than what we perceive. Again, why do your words goose step in beat with those of the Westboro Baptist Church? |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 16, 2014 9:02:59 GMT -6
OK. You want answers? Here are answers. No society has ever called homosexual couplings marriage. That is simply a fact. History didn't begin in 1999. The fact that some states have now decided to play games with a bedrock human institution tells me only that fools run our country. It is the height of stupidity and hubris to decide that it is ok to fundamentally change the nature of the family. And that is what gay marriage will do. I did not say that Christians must "be against gay marriage as a condition of Christianity". There is that atheist inability to hear what Christians actually say. Or else it it is a deliberate lie. I said that favoring gay marriage "is a complete and utter rejection of the God-given meaning of marriage which Christians are obliged to uphold". That you don't know this speaks badly of your understanding of Christianity and the purpose of our sexually differentiated bodies and that marriage images the Trinity. I would refer you to Pope John Paul's book on the theology of the body for more information. I don't sling mud, baby. I say what you don't want to hear. For you, just as for that nasty Stevec, different opinions aren't different-- they are bigotry. That is the mark of the totalitarian. Different opinions and bigotry are two different matters and your inability to understand that marks you as a typical unthinking liberal and atheist. If you think you are a Christian, you better start learning something about Christianity and practicing it. H: Your entire post is based upon marriage as defined by the Church and John Paul II in particular. You dodge the secular/legal issues surrounding gay marriage altogether, even though you admitted in an earlier but uncharacteristic moment of candor that you appreciate the existence of civil marriage as a legal institution. Clearly, you adamantly favor applying the definition of marriage favored by the Roman Catholic Church to the legal institution of civil marriage in the United States. Will you at least acknowledge that start point? Assuming that you acknowledge the above, how do you justify applying the Church definition of marriage to our civil laws under the Constitution? I know full well that you will dodge the questions above. Based upon your past activities, I am guessing that you will reply to the following portions of my post, since it gives you an opportunity to denigrate my faith: I may not be a perfect Christian, but I do try to love my fellows, care for my family, practice charity and deal honestly in business. In my mind that is as much a part of practicing Christianity as accepting without question the teaching of the Church regarding the nature of homosexuality. Church teaching which strikes me as being a very human, non-divine set of teachings. That being said, I respect your right to follow the Pope on these issues. I am not asking for the Church to grant sacramental marriage to gays. I am a Christian and an American. I respect the Bill of Rights and the Church. Neither institution is perfect. It is incomprehensible to me that an educated citizen can appreciate the Bill of Rights and still oppose civil gay marriage. My conclusion is that sincere religious folks (I'm not sure if you fit in that category or not) simply don't appreciate the Bill of Rights. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 16, 2014 9:07:19 GMT -6
OK. You want answers? Here are answers. No society has ever called homosexual couplings marriage. That is simply a fact. History didn't begin in 1999. The fact that some states have now decided to play games with a bedrock human institution tells me only that fools run our country. It is the height of stupidity and hubris to decide that it is ok to fundamentally change the nature of the family. And that is what gay marriage will do. I did not say that Christians must "be against gay marriage as a condition of Christianity". There is that atheist inability to hear what Christians actually say. Or else it it is a deliberate lie. I said that favoring gay marriage "is a complete and utter rejection of the God-given meaning of marriage which Christians are obliged to uphold". That you don't know this speaks badly of your understanding of Christianity and the purpose of our sexually differentiated bodies and that marriage images the Trinity. I would refer you to Pope John Paul's book on the theology of the body for more information. I don't sling mud, baby. I say what you don't want to hear. For you, just as for that nasty Stevec, different opinions aren't different-- they are bigotry. That is the mark of the totalitarian. Different opinions and bigotry are two different matters and your inability to understand that marks you as a typical unthinking liberal and atheist. If you think you are a Christian, you better start learning something about Christianity and practicing it. Who are you to judge another man's servant? |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 16, 2014 9:07:50 GMT -6
BTW, you have until the end of the day to register.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 16, 2014 9:40:19 GMT -6
I don't sling mud, baby. I say what you don't want to hear. For you, just as for that nasty Stevec, different opinions aren't different-- they are bigotry. That is the mark of the totalitarian. Different opinions and bigotry are two different matters and your inability to understand that marks you as a typical unthinking liberal and atheist. I supposed KKK members express their different opinions, which are totally irrelevant to the issue of bogotry, is that what you are implying? |
|
|
|
Post by Historian on Apr 16, 2014 11:38:55 GMT -6
You're a lying sack of shit. This time I didn't have to search hard for the bullshit you claim or didn't claim. Here are your own words, So let's see how the cowardly Christian wordsmiths those words to mean something other than what we perceive. Again, why do your words goose step in beat with those of the Westboro Baptist Church? English really is not your first language, is it? Let's see if I shout, whether it helps: Get it yet? Uninformed Christian does not mean NOT A CHRISTIAN. There is such a thing as stupid Christians, uninformed Christians, bad Christians, etc. Now, aren't there any puppies you can kick? Don't bother me any further, until you learn some manners and, above all, until you learn to read and understand adult English. |
|
