# If you don't discriminate, you're bullying Christians!



## Explorer (Apr 30, 2014)

The American Family Association has claimed that by pledging not to discriminate against their customers, Mississippi businesses are bullying Christians.



> The campaign was born after the states Governor, Phil Bryant, signed a religious freedom law, protecting businesses who discriminate against gay customers.
> 
> The bill prevents authorities from placing a burden on a persons right to the exercise of religion.
> 
> ...




Here's the bullying label:








This isn't astounding if you already accept the American Christian idea that if you don't adhere to the Christian Majority's values, you're attacking them.

By not adhering to the values of others, you prevent them from following those values?

By not adhering to those values, you silence them?

Your thoughts?


----------



## groverj3 (Apr 30, 2014)

How long until the South wants to secede to form "The Holy Republic of America?"

I kid, I kid... or do I?


----------



## Noxon (Apr 30, 2014)

I fully support the bullying of Christians.


----------



## crg123 (May 1, 2014)

groverj3 said:


> How long until the South want to secede to form "The Holy Republic of America?"


----------



## wat (May 1, 2014)

Exactly the same as those who think that gay people shouldn't be able to marry eachother because they "support traditional marriage"  As if granting gays their constitutional rights somehow undermines traditional marriage.

So this is the civil rights issue we get to tell our grandkids about. How embarrassing.


----------



## cwhitey2 (May 1, 2014)

Where is the list for my area?


----------



## UnattendedGolfcart (May 1, 2014)

It's hilarious. Wouldn't by that rule, if we eat pork then we're bullying Muslims?

I don't care if this bill is enacted. If there were places around where I live like this that don't serve gays, I just wouldn't go there.


----------



## ElRay (May 1, 2014)

UnattendedGolfcart said:


> It's hilarious. Wouldn't by that rule, if we eat pork then we're bullying Muslims?


 and Jews, and some Buddhists, and some Hindus, and Jainists and 7th Day Adventists, and some Christians on [some] Fridays, and Mormons (in large quantities), and Rastafarians, and some Sikhs, and ...


----------



## goherpsNderp (May 1, 2014)

this is one thing that the religious right has yet to do, which is prove that by granting equal rights, protection, and laws toward all citizens of our country that they are being restrained from being able to practice their own religion. it even goes all the way into this whole Hobby Lobby mess too.

if Hobby Lobby claims that by covering the birth control that it's breaking their own values, then who's to say that those employees wouldn't use their normal paycheck to go out and BUY birth control on their own? they'd be breaking their own values and not even know about it! (hence: couldn't ask for forgiveness, no?)

this whole thing is completely ridiculous and keeps going in circles. next up: they'll bring back the argument that this country was 'founded on christianity' even though it absolutely was not. same with "under god" in the pledge and on money. (added in the 50's)


----------



## skeels (May 1, 2014)

groverj3 said:


> How long until I want to secede from "The Holy Republic of America?"
> 
> I kid, I kid... or do I?




Fixed.


----------



## Edika (May 1, 2014)

ElRay said:


> and Jews, and some Buddhists, and some Hindus, and Jainists and 7th Day Adventists, and some Christians on Fridays, and Mormons (in large quantities), and Rastafarians, and some Sikhs, and ...



Yes but you're forgetting that these are not christians or the "good" kind of christians.


----------



## asher (May 1, 2014)

goherpsNderp said:


> this is one thing that the religious right has yet to do, which is prove that by granting equal rights, protection, and laws toward all citizens of our country that they are being restrained from being able to practice their own religion. it even goes all the way into this whole Hobby Lobby mess too.
> 
> if Hobby Lobby claims that by covering the birth control that it's breaking their own values, then who's to say that those employees wouldn't use their normal paycheck to go out and BUY birth control on their own? they'd be breaking their own values and not even know about it! (hence: couldn't ask for forgiveness, no?)
> 
> this whole thing is completely ridiculous and keeps going in circles. next up: they'll bring back the argument that this country was 'founded on christianity' even though it absolutely was not. same with "under god" in the pledge and on money. (added in the 50's)



That's because it's impossible for them to, because they can't, because it's not true. Not that they'll ever see that.

And that argument hasn't left anywhere to be brought back from, either.


----------



## Grindspine (May 1, 2014)

Noxon said:


> I fully support the bullying of Christians.


 
The AFA's ideas are just purely insane. They simply are not following any form of logic that has a basis in reality or fact.

I support everyone who acts like a bigot to get some of their own. I has the misfortune of going to a private christian high school. I got so much flack for listening to metal, so much so that school administration accused me of being in a cult, which was just pure silliness.

I know that every religion, sect, group has jackasses. It is just unfortunate that enough people in this country stop and listen to christian zealots to make it a newsworthy issue.


----------



## Grindspine (May 1, 2014)

ElRay said:


> and Jews, and some Buddhists, and some Hindus, and Jainists and 7th Day Adventists, and some Christians on Fridays, and Mormons (in large quantities), and Rastafarians, and some Sikhs, and ...


 
And Pastafarians!


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 1, 2014)

The struggle is real...


----------



## ElRay (May 1, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> And Pastafarians!



Maybe the Marinara and/or Primavera Sects, but not all Pastafarians. You really can't make a good pot of sauce without some pork somewhere in it.


----------



## Hollowway (May 1, 2014)

Yeah, we tend to think of "foreign" religions, like Islam, as having extremists. But we're pretty damn good at growing our own right here.


----------



## ElysianGuitars (May 1, 2014)

Business needs to be separate from sexuality, religion, judgement, etc whenever possible. Money is still green no matter who it comes from. Accepting money from people who have different lifestyles than you doesn't implicate you in that lifestyle, there is no crossover. People are free to boycott businesses, but businesses should not be free to discriminate based on petty things like sexual orientation, "religious freedom," life choices, etc.


----------



## drgamble (May 2, 2014)

The last time I checked, America is not a theocracy. Land of the free, home of the brave. These are just a few things that this country was found on. When it comes to social issues, I'm unapologetically libertarian. Personally, I agree that marriage is between a man and woman and my wife would totally agree. However, I don't believe that my lifestyle is the only and best lifestyle, it is just how I choose to live MY life. If two men or women want to get married and choose that as their path of life, I have absolutely no problem with that. In America, you should be able to choose your own life path. It has no bearing on how I live my life. It seems like there are several people in this country that believe that if you don't live your life like they do then you are doing something wrong and I cannot disagree more. I can't tell you what will make you happy in life, I'm trying to figure out what makes me happy in life. I pray for the day that the majority of people in America will recognize that diversity is important to this country and realize that they don't have to be offended because somebody lives their life differently than they do. If there is somebody out there that can tell me empirically to do x, y, and z and I will be happy, successful, etc I'm all ears, but everybody is different. I live my life, you live yours we're all cool. You are not going to offend me by living a different lifestyle than what I have carved out for myself. Just like you, I'm not going to convince you that my lifestyle is better than yours. Unfortunately, government has lost the true spirit of what it means to be an American and would rather spend a lot of time and money to make everyone conform to the majority's lifestyle. I live in Louisiana and they are not much better than Mississippi. I'm really waiting on these states to start another Spanish Inquisition at anytime. We are so far behind the times as far as personal freedom and it doesn't seem like we will move into modern times anytime soon. Such a shame. What ever happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?


----------



## ElRay (May 2, 2014)

QFT:


ElysianGuitars said:


> Business needs to be separate from sexuality, religion, judgement, etc whenever possible. Money is still green no matter who it comes from. Accepting money from people who have different lifestyles than you doesn't implicate you in that lifestyle, there is no crossover. People are free to boycott businesses, but businesses should not be free to discriminate based on petty things like sexual orientation, "religious freedom," life choices, etc.


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 2, 2014)

Hollowway said:


> Yeah, we tend to think of "foreign" religions, like Islam, as having extremists. But we're pretty damn good at growing our own right here.



I was gonna say... That whole bit is rather "extreme" of her no?


----------



## canuck brian (May 2, 2014)




----------



## Explorer (May 2, 2014)

When you look at the early days of the colonies which became the United States, it's interesting to remember that the Puritans came here because they were fleeing...

RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE.

They disapproved of how all religions were tolerated.

They came here in the name of religious intolerance, so that they could suppress beliefs with which they disagreed.


----------



## viesczy (May 2, 2014)

It is odd how folks believe the 1st amendment is about freedom of religion... it is actually freedom FROM religion... but I digress.

For the life of me I don't understand how or why anyone would believe the book of lies that is the foundation for the major 3 religions.

There's greater proof of the existence of Bigfoot!

Derek


----------



## Explorer (May 3, 2014)

I woke up this morning a bit angry.

It took me a bit to sort out why, because I had a swelter of dreams.

And then it sorted itself out.

Remember Matthew Shepard?

That's bullying.

Gay bashing and gay stomping? Bullying.

You're a Muslim and someone else eats ham? Not bullying.

Morons.


----------



## tacotiklah (May 3, 2014)

The really funny thing is that most gay people I know love shopping (as do I). You'd think the extra income would be wanted and appreciated.

"I'll slash my bottom line because I disagree with what you do in the privacy of your own home. That'll show you!"


----------



## Trainwreck1446 (May 13, 2014)

Give it 20 years. These people will be a thing of the past.


----------



## groverj3 (May 14, 2014)

Trainwreck1446 said:


> Give it 20 years. These people will be a thing of the past.



There's a certain amount of truth in this. It doesn't mean that bigots and crazed religiosity don't still annoy me though.

Kind of off-topic, but I think it relates indirectly to how society becomes more tolerant over time as well as to how science tends to work:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

We just need to wait for bigots to die off


----------



## Shimme (May 16, 2014)

^That's going to be hard to do when bigotry is being enshrined in law. I hope that the Supreme Court curbstomps this nonsense out of existence.


----------



## JPhoenix19 (May 17, 2014)

Explorer said:


> When you look at the early days of the colonies which became the United States, it's interesting to remember that the Puritans came here because they were fleeing...
> 
> RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE.
> 
> ...



I'd be interested to see your sources for these statements, if you wouldn't mind.


----------



## Shimme (May 17, 2014)

I'm fairly certain he's being snarky.

Turns out the Puritans were hypocritical asshats!


----------



## Necris (May 17, 2014)

No, he's actually right. 
They broke off from the Church of England partially due to the Church of Englands toleration of practices they felt were associated with the Catholic Church. 

They may have come to America seeking religious freedoms for themselves but they did not tolerate those of other religions.
For example, they attempted to ban Quakers from living in the colonies they founded and executed 4 Quakers for either refusing to leave the colony or cease practicing their religion. They also banished those who didn't hold their views.



> The much-ballyhooed arrival of the Pilgrims and Puritans in New England in the early 1600s was indeed a response to persecution that these religious dissenters had experienced in England. But the Puritan fathers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony did not countenance tolerance of opposing religious views. Their &#8220;city upon a hill&#8221; was a theocracy that brooked no dissent, religious or political.
> 
> The most famous dissidents within the Puritan community, Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, were banished following disagreements over theology and policy. From Puritan Boston&#8217;s earliest days, Catholics (&#8220;Papists&#8221 were anathema and were banned from the colonies, along with other non-Puritans. Four Quakers were hanged in Boston between 1659 and 1661 for persistently returning to the city to stand up for their beliefs.


http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684


----------



## Shimme (May 17, 2014)

That's really bizarre considering the "Puritans = Religious Freedom!!!!!!!!!!!" nonsense that is taught in the K-12 system. Thanks for sharing that!


----------



## AxeHappy (May 17, 2014)

Wait...you're saying purtianism is taught as being all about religious freedom?

The word is synonymous with close minded religious persecution in my experience.


----------



## Necris (May 17, 2014)

I don't think it's being taught intentionally that Puritans were all about religious freedom. 

I think the distinctions between "Pilgrims" and "Puritans" aren't really made clear enough to students by those who teach history and a result of that is that they're being conflated.


----------



## Shimme (May 17, 2014)

Like Necris said, the groups are used almost interchangeably. More specifically, the Puritans are held up as an early example of either a separation of church and state, or the freedom to choose religion, both of which I now know are hilariously wrong.

The sad part is that the schools I went to were considered one of the better public school systems in the state


----------



## flint757 (May 17, 2014)

There's quite a bit of wrong or slanted info in our k-12 textbooks sadly.


----------



## JPhoenix19 (May 17, 2014)

Necris said:


> No, he's actually right.
> They broke off from the Church of England partially due to the Church of Englands toleration of practices they felt were associated with the Catholic Church.
> 
> They may have come to America seeking religious freedoms for themselves but they did not tolerate those of other religions.
> ...



Thanks Necris. 

It's sad that our history was rife with religious tyranny. It's also sad that today there remain pockets or sects of those who are still ignorant, intolerant, and narrow-minded. I just wish this thread's discussion had been initiated with less snark.

I will agree that it's about time for us Americans to take a look at and revise not just our K-12 curriculum, but our public school system in general.


----------



## possumkiller (May 17, 2014)

The colonies were not the first place they tried to seek out freedom for only their religion. The colonies were the only place that would deal with those assholes. They were kicked out of England. They settled in Amsterdam because Amsterdam would tolerate them. They left Amsterdam because Amsterdam tolerated too many other things that were tempting people away from the Puritan movement. 

I really can't remember the name and author but it was in my college American History textbook.


----------



## possumkiller (May 17, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> They simply are not following any form of logic that has a basis in reality or fact.



What would you expect from fully grown adults who believe in ghosts and demons and that there is an old man in the sky who sees you when you masturbate? You can't fight these people with logic, reality, or facts because that is exactly what these people fight against. They refuse to acknowledge simple scientific facts. Any scientific evidence that does not support their fairy tales was put here by Satan to deceive the weak of faith. There simply is no winning against these morons.

It would all be good and fine if they would just mind their own business and practice their beliefs at home or at church and leave the rest of the world alone. Idiots have the right to opinions and beliefs just as much as anyone else. When they start trying to force their views and principles on others is when I start to have problems with these people.

Edit: Not all Christians are bad people though. Just the same as not all non-Christians are good people. There are plenty of ignorant assholes inside and outside of religion. However, I must tell a story about someone close to me who experienced a true Christian (Christ-like, not Christian as in the religion) act of kindness. My best friend and on again off again band mate is about as anti-religion in opinion as you can be (without burning churches and such, he isn't an extremist he just has an opinion). He survived leukemia when he was like 12 or so. A lot of people would say praise god for helping him through it. A lot of other people would say what the hell kind of sadistic god would put a child through that to begin with. Anyway, he is a really good guy. He doesn't go out of his way to offend people. He is tolerant of all people. He has been up to his eyeballs in student loans ever since he got out of high school. He works his ass off at his job and I am pretty sure is the number one guy there and if he left that company would go to shit very fast. He is very busy but always makes time to do free work on projects for friends and family who like to abuse his kindness. He drives an old used car, has mediocre music equipment and lives in a modest apartment. With his mountain of debt he cannot afford good gear. He plays bass in a local band and his bass went down for repair. Someone he knew loaned him a custom Warrior bass for a gig. My friend couldn't stop raving about how awesome that bass was and that there was absolutely nothing like playing on such a high quality instrument. I was talking to him later on and he said that now he knew how I felt after owning custom made instruments only to later have to go back to playing entry level gear. So we decided that he should starve for a year or so to save some money for one. A few days later the guy shows up at his workplace and gives my friend the Warrior bass that he had loaned to him for the gig. He said that god told him my friend needed it more than him. So my friend got a crazy expensive hand made bass for free from a Christian guy.

Now the guy is definitely not poor so it isn't like he was giving away his prized possession or anything. Also, what he calls god I call your conscience. Still, it just shows that not everyone in the world is an asshole. If Christians as a group would make more effort to behave in the way the man they named their religion after taught, the world would have a lot less beef with them.


----------



## Explorer (May 17, 2014)

@JPhoenix19 - I'm assuming that the other members here helped augment your own research into the Puritans and their lack of religious tolerance. If they didn't augment your own research, but were instead your only source, then why didn't you at least do a search on "puritans religious tolerance"? There's a big world out there, and with the resources available to you, I highly encourage you grabbing knowledge in context whenever you can. It will pay off in your life in surprising ways. 

Anyway, I"m hoping the question of the Puritans being religiously intolerant has now been put to rest for you.

Regarding "snark" in the original post, I took the title directly from the claims of the Christian groups fighting the non-discriminatory signage. Is that the issue?

Or was it the observation that not following someone else's faith does not equal discrimination against members of that faith? The best example of these groups' thinking:



UnattendedGolfcart said:


> Wouldn't by that rule, if we eat pork then we're bullying Muslims?



I suspect you want me to treat such groups with more respect and courtesy. I can understand that view, if one believes in fair play and such. (Wait, though... if you believe in fair play, then wouldn't it be fair to be as hateful to them as they are to others? Anyway....)

However... these groups have declared that members of my own family, in addition to friends, are not fully human, and don't deserve the protection of the Constitution. 

At that point, I disagree with that suggestion.

They have the freedom of speech to say that my family members aren't human, that they shouldn't be full citizens, *and* that merchants shouldn't be able to service those people if they choose and shouldn't be able to advertise that fact.

And we have the freedom of speech to disagree. 

I don't expect an answer about what specifically was snark, but it amuses me to think that it's the actual title of this topic, coming directly from the side you're defending from slights while they attack others. *laugh*


----------



## JPhoenix19 (May 18, 2014)

Explorer said:


> @JPhoenix19 - I'm assuming that the other members here helped augment your own research into the Puritans and their lack of religious tolerance. If they didn't augment your own research, but were instead your only source, then why didn't you at least do a search on "puritans religious tolerance"? There's a big world out there, and with the resources available to you, I highly encourage you grabbing knowledge in context whenever you can. It will pay off in your life in surprising ways.
> 
> Anyway, I"m hoping the question of the Puritans being religiously intolerant has now been put to rest for you.



It seems like your patronizing me. I know the value of research. I also know that when someone makes a claim, the burden of proof lies upon them to back up said claim. As I'm sure you know, answering a request for sources with what amounts to "look it up yourself" appears to be a cop-out. I asked for sources because I wanted I gauge how *you* came to the conclusion you did, and as you put, to augment my own research on the matter.

Anyway, thanks again to Necris. I normally don't give much weight to news articles themselves, but it will serve as a springboard toward other sources.


----------



## Explorer (May 18, 2014)

*If someone makes an extraordinary claim, then yes, there is a burden of proof on the claimant as to why the claim should be accepted in the face of contrary evidence. In this case, we're talking about historical fact, easily researched.* 

*It's like saying, "George Washington was the first US President? Prove it! The burden is on you! What do you mean, do a quick search?"*

Honestly, I do think you were a little lazy for not even doing a tiny search, and for having a knee-jerk reaction that their intolerance is an extraordinary claim. When I hear something which surprises me, I normally do myself the favor of checking, because that helps me expand my knowledge. That way I don't have to ask someone else if something is true or not. I'm a big believer in doing searches, to the point where it's part of my signature.

In this case, I also imagine that the reason you didn't do a search was because you had some kind of prejudice against the possibility it was true, possibly because of some closely held belief which was challenged by my bringing up the fact. Later in this post, I do ask about your assumptions, so I hope you'll be as candid as I am.

Snarky? In this case, I wasn't trying to be. I genuinely was asking if you needed more information, freely available elsewhere, to settle the question of the historicity of the Puritans' intolerance.

However, if you feel my suggestion of a search, or my attributing you not searching to laziness, is a personal attack, be sure to report that attack to the mods. 

----

Since you expressed curiosity about how I have all this information in my memory...

I actually have had a pretty broad education. I had a huge interest in science and math from early on, wrote a book report on the Lord of the Rings trilogy in 3rd grade (I think my mom still has it), had read the unexpurgated Comte of Monte Cristo by 6th grade (with the hashish usage), learned scientific rigor from the Jesuits, and kept well informed by reading and investigating a variety of sources up to now in my life.

To give you a little further insight: I don't know if any small amount of internet searches will give someone the immediate context of religious tolerance alongside the fact that America's history is *not* one of religious tolerance. I learned that in elementary school, when we also learned about the true history of the American colonies.

In the same way, if you read some of the other asides and viewpoints I bring to other topics, you'll see that my perspective is littered with all kinds of facts from different fields. That perspective comes from experience coupled with education. 

You might be able to find various topics where I talk about how tattoos affect one in the workplace, regardless of how one hopes one will be judged purely on personality. Those things are based on what I've seen, not some internet search.

(I'm not saying internet searches are bad, incidentally. As long as one vets one's sources, it can be a great educational tool.)

You can look at a recent topic about "How do I learn Finnish?" That will also give you a glimpse of what kind of experience goes into my posts.
*
And now, since I tried to give you some insight into my thinking and education, I'd be pleased to hear what assumptions you made about me, including what you thought were the sources of my thinking and writing. Would you be so good as to enlighten me?*

One more thing: The three personality traits which friends see as my core are my sense of humor/irony, my sense of fair play, and my appreciation of comeuppance for bullies. I hate when people genuinely bully others, and (I mentioned the Monte Cristo book) can definitely understand the joys of comeuppance. This is tempered by another book I read as a child, The Complete Practical Joker by H. Allen Smith. Since I was allowed to take martial arts from third grade on due to being bullied as a child and continuing on through to my 30s, and having the confidence to insert myself into situations where others were in danger of immediate harm, I have learned that there's no gain in letting bullies get their way. 

*Okay, so spill! What did you suspect about me, based on your assumptions? Were those assumptions correct? 

And... do you agree or disagree with those who feel that not following their religion is bullying them?*

Cheers!


----------



## JPhoenix19 (May 18, 2014)

Explorer said:


> *If someone makes an extraordinary claim, then yes, there is a burden of proof on the claimant as to why the claim should be accepted in the face of contrary evidence. In this case, we're talking about historical fact, easily researched.*



You elevate your statements (not just about the events of that time, but your reading into the settlers' intent) to the level of historical fact. Although what you call historical fact (your statement about their intent) was not taught to me in school, that isn't to say that I have not been exposed to the idea afterwards or that I hadn't done research on the matter.

"Fact" is, I have researched this- and I merely requested _*YOUR*_ sources in order to gain a perspective of where _*YOU*_ formed the opinion from where those statements you made originated. You kind of answered this in a round-about way later in your post.



> Honestly, I do think you were a little lazy for not even doing a tiny search, and for having a knee-jerk reaction that their intolerance is an extraordinary claim. When I hear something which surprises me, I normally do myself the favor of checking, because that helps me expand my knowledge. That way I don't have to ask someone else if something is true or not. I'm a big believer in doing searches, to the point where it's part of my signature.


Lazy? Be wary not to presume so much, Explorer. You make quick judgements on my level of competence and research when I merely asked you for your sources. I hope you can go back and re-read your posts and see how it could have easily been interpreted as belittling and patronizing.

I didn't ask if it was true, I asked you for your sources. The speed at which you construct my position for me borderlines fallacy- the words "straw man" come to mind.

Frankly, the fact that the "answer" to my original request was buried in a verbose and irrelevant lecture makes it hard for me to care about your background. I say that not because I have something against you personally- only that your exposition of your background seems completely off-topic. I'll get to that later. 

As an aside, I find it ironic that you explain in your post that you have such a strong aversion to bullying, and yet you seem not to be able to see how your previous posts could easily have been seen as belittling.



> However, if you feel my suggestion of a search, or my attributing you not searching to laziness, is a personal attack, be sure to report that attack to the mods.


Personal attack? No. Inaccurate? Yes. Presumptuous? Definitely. 

If I had felt it was a direct personal attack, I would have reported you- but I didn't. Instead I chose to encourage you to see how your posts appeared belittling and snarky. Once again, I hope you can look back and at least see with objective eyes how your words could have been very easily misconstrued. You may not have meant it to come across that way, but without verbal tonality and non-verbal communication to cue me in I'm at a disadvantage. That's why I gave you the benefit of the doubt instead of getting butt-hurt.



> Since you expressed curiosity about how I have all this information in my memory...


I did? I'm fairly certain I simply asked you for sources. 

I can't help but find myself lost and without a clear idea of what we're even discussing at this point. Your quite lengthy exposition of personal background seems completely beside the point at hand.

You present the hypothesis that I have some kind of bias which triggered a knee-jerk reaction. As I've already stated, you misrepresent my position almost entirely and proceed to post what I can only interpret as a lecture aimed at this position. You then ask me what my presuppositions about you are...  Can you see how I might be confused? When did you (or I) become the subject of this discussion? It looks like you made yourself (and me) the subject, and so I'm left asking why.



> To give you a little further insight: I don't know if any small amount of internet searches will give someone the immediate context of religious tolerance alongside the fact that America's history is *not* one of religious tolerance. I learned that in elementary school, when we also learned about the true history of the American colonies.


Ah, so there it is- your form of an answer to my request for sources. I just wish I didn't have to wade through what I did in order to get it.



> *And... do you agree or disagree with those who feel that not following their religion is bullying them?*



For some sects of Christians- and really any religion, this is obviously true. As I said previously, it's sad that this occurs.


----------



## possumkiller (May 18, 2014)

Just to get slightly back on topic. 

The main problem I have with most religion is that it is based on a single thing. Fear. People are afraid of death. Nobody knows for sure what happens after death. Religion uses this fear by compelling people to follow whatever rules said religion lays out in exchange for the comfort of knowing they will be in a place of peace for all eternity after they die. 

Since I know more about Christianity than I do about other religions I will use it as my example. Christianity is supposed to be based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. After all the religion is NAMED after him. My first question is if Christianity is about the life lessons that Jesus preached to the world, why is the old testament included in the bible? I am also confused about a lot of the Christian/Jewish overlap. I know this is about to sound pretty anti-Jewish but I swear I am not. I am just trying to understand something. According to my particular denomination (holy rolling Pentecostals) the Jews are freakin amazing and are gods chosen people. Why the hell would I want to devote my life to a religion that says god likes these other people more than me? 

Jesus said love your fellow human beings and don't be freakin greedy. What the hell is all that other crap about? Who the hell even wrote genesis? At least other books have authors. Genesis was just passed down for thousands of years by word of mouth or what? I'm sure nobody ever got it wrong. 

The holy trinity. WTF?? I thought this was MONOTHEISM?

EDIT: Don't forget the money. Peace in exchange for oppression and your cash.

EDIT: EDIT: It reminds me of the government. "Sure we can get rid of the t3rr0ri$ts! Just give us your money and privacy!"


----------



## ElRay (May 19, 2014)

JPhoenix19 said:


> I'd be interested to see your sources for these statements, if you wouldn't mind.



Basic grade-school American History? But I'm not surprised that something like this comes from an anti-Evolutionist, "No True Scotsman", Christian apologist that thinks science and mythology are compatible.



Wikipedia said:


> Puritans, by definition, were dissatisfied with the limited extent of the English Reformation, and the Church of England's tolerance of practices which they associated with the Catholic Church. They formed, and identified with, various religious groups advocating greater "purity" of worship and doctrine, as well as personal and group piety. Puritans adopted a Reformed theology and, in that sense, were Calvinists (as were many of their earlier opponents), but they also took note of radical views critical of Zwingli in Zurich and Calvin in Geneva. In church polity, some advocated for separation from all other Christians, in favour of autonomous gathered churches. These separatist and independent strands of Puritanism became prominent in the 1640s, when the supporters of a Presbyterian polity in the Westminster Assembly were unable to forge a new English national church.



Basically, they wanted to make the Church more strict, the majority didn't want to, so they left. They went to Wales; people wouldn't change to suit them. The went to The Netherlands; people wouldn't change to suit them. They fled to the barren Americas and proceeded to persecute others that didn't agree with their mythology.

Ray


----------



## JPhoenix19 (May 19, 2014)

ElRay said:


> I'm not surprised that something like this comes from an anti-Evolutionist, "No True Scotsman", Christian apologist that thinks science and mythology are compatible.


----------



## possumkiller (May 19, 2014)

ElRay said:


> Basic grade-school American History? But I'm not surprised that something like this comes from an anti-Evolutionist, "No True Scotsman", Christian apologist that thinks science and mythology are compatible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So basically what we have here in America is a centuries old infestation of hyper-religious Nazi-esque assholes that nobody else in the world wanted to deal with. The scary part is we put these dickheads in charge of our country. They represent us to other nations. They have the ....ing launch codes!

Seriously, I invite people who are just moderately religious to watch a film called Religulous. Just take a step back and look at religion as a whole from an outside perspective. 

It used to be on Netflix but you can watch it free here.


Watch Religulous (2008) Online for Free - Viooz ok not there anymore either

But it is here

http://vimeo.com/68370439


----------



## ElRay (May 19, 2014)

JPhoenix19 said:


>



The only posts of yours that I recall all had comments like "No true Christian ..."; They may call themselves Christian, but I declare them not to be Christian because they don't fit my interpretation of what Christianity is (oblivious to the fact that "they" would deem you to not be a true Christian); "[It may be wrong|You may thing so] but ... Christian ..."; "I'm a christian so ..."; God-guided Evolution (which isn't Evolution); "You can't prove that God [doesn't exist|didn't guide|didn't cause|etc.]"; cherry-picking favorable parts, applying subjective interpretation, apologizing-away obvious errors/contradictions/changes, etc. from a supposedly inerrant and immutable book of mythology; asking questions that (IMHO) imply a filtered-by-Christian-mythology education; etc.

Maybe these posts are a small percentage of your posts, but they're the only ones that stand-out in my memory.


----------



## Explorer (May 19, 2014)

Ah, then... I believe the Puritans were intolerant of practices of the Church of England which they felt were too like the Catholic Church. Although Puritans (because they sought "purification" of those elements, among other things) did remain in England, others left for the new world, rather than live under the Religious Toleration act.

Once in the New World, they expelled (I have to admit, I have to look this one up) Roger Williams from Massachusetts Bay Colony for advocating religious freedom.

And so on. 

I hope that's enough to give you a tiny taste of the history of the Puritans. 

----

From your objection to the topic's first post, and your attribution of snark, I assumed that you didn't agree with my putting the pro-discrimination side's words on the table. You asking about my referring to historical fact, and why i believed it was true, also seemed to put that same viewpoint on the table as a possibility for you.

ElRay's listing of your comments make it clear that my interpretation of your questioning is no mistake. If you want to discuss any points regarding the Puritans, I welcome you starting a topic about it. 

And now, back on topic!


----------



## Explorer (May 19, 2014)

So now, the American Family Association has published a press release:



> *Ironically,this sticker represents the very promotion of discrimination...against the freedom of religious convictions.*
> 
> Businesses that display this sticker believe Christians should be forced, by law, to embrace homosexuality and deny their faith in personal business practices.
> 
> ...


Then follows a list of businesses, from that "pro-homosexual" website, which say they don't discriminate. I'm sure that list is purely for informational purposes, and not with the intent of Christians behaving badly towards them. (j/k, because I do believe that intimidation, including breaking windows and such, has often occurred accompanying this sort of list from Godly people.)


The tiny sidebar:




> _*Why they are doing this...*
> The homosexual lobby is bitter against Governor Bryant's signing of the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which protects Christian business owners against lawsuits from gay activists. The typical response is to spread their hatred for religious truths by attacking and intimidating Christians. _




By what possible logic is there a move to prevent Christians from following their beliefs? This is purely a group who have decided to follow their own beliefs against discrimination., and without condemning the other side. They are saying, we will sell to anyone, whether Christian, gay, black, biker, whoever. 

And that makes the AFA look a little silly. 

Of course, those towns who have been passing their own anti-discrimination laws aren't representative of the people who live in those towns.

AFA: Locals ignored in Southern push for LGBT 'equality'

It might just be me, but it really seems like the AFA believes it speaks for he majority of people, and that others really shouldn't be able to act in a way contrary to the AFA;s views and beliefs.


----------



## Edika (May 19, 2014)

possumkiller said:


> Since I know more about Christianity than I do about other religions I will use it as my example. Christianity is supposed to be based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. After all the religion is NAMED after him. My first question is if Christianity is about the life lessons that Jesus preached to the world, why is the old testament included in the bible? I am also confused about a lot of the Christian/Jewish overlap. I know this is about to sound pretty anti-Jewish but I swear I am not. I am just trying to understand something. According to my particular denomination (holy rolling Pentecostals) the Jews are freakin amazing and are gods chosen people. Why the hell would I want to devote my life to a religion that says god likes these other people more than me?
> 
> Jesus said love your fellow human beings and don't be freakin greedy. What the hell is all that other crap about? Who the hell even wrote genesis? At least other books have authors. Genesis was just passed down for thousands of years by word of mouth or what? I'm sure nobody ever got it wrong.
> 
> ...



Jesus appeared as the messiah foretold in the old testament and his and his apostles teachings became the new testament (if I remember my theology correctly from school but feel free to correct me). Christianity is based on Judaism and could be considered by Jewish people as a sect or even a heretic following. If we accept that Jesus existed and he wasn't the son of god Christians believe him to be, then he was brought up in a Jewish environment reading (if he could read) Judaic scriptures and becoming convinced that he is the son of god, the messiah. Truth be told Christianity started initially as a Jewish religion.

I don't remember if in the old testament the messiah is supposed to be the son of god or just the prophet that would come to deliver the Jewish people once more from hardships. It's not certain if Jesus (if he existed) made that claim himself or whether it was one of the countless revisions the Christian church made to elevate their influence and make him to an undisputed figure to worship. Don't forget they had to combat religions that had very "flashy" supernatural beings.

The new testament was written in the duration of the two first centuries of Christianity and the teachings of Christ were initially (supposedly) carried around the then known world by the apostles in verbal form. His teachings variate from the old testament and the tone is drastically different going from a mainly punishing god to a more compassionate and loving god. If you read the apostles gospels and letters you will see however variation in events and comprehension of his teachings.

There are references of demigods in other cultures that predate Jesus and have significant similarities (and in some cases almost identical origins and courses). The most similar would be Mithra and then Horus. There are some of the rituals and dates that have been assimilated by other religions and especially Pagans in order to make the conversion "easier".

If someone takes a good look at the teachings of Jesus and wishes to apply them he would be considered a socialist/commie. If he appeared (or existed in the first place to appear) in our day and age for the second coming he would be discredited as a false messiah and labelled and anarchist that wants to destroy the global economy.

The Muslim religion is actually a continuation of Christianity and Jesus is considered a prophet, one of the valued ones, but not the messiah which in their case is Mohamed. If you would discuss with an educated Muslim that has read and understood the Koran they will tell you that they see their religion as an improvement on Christianity that has fixed some of the imperfections.

As to why would religions that are supposed to be teaching love, spiritualism and peace end up causing turmoil, war, ignorance and hate the answer would be in the political agenda of each faction in historical times. How would you impose rules people would accept unquestionably when there was no way to impose them (see the ten commandment story and think about it)? How would you convince people starving not to revolt against the ruling elite? How would you convince powerful figures to give contributions and vast amounts of wealth to the church? Everybody exploits religion at some level to get something out of it.

I don't know a lot about the US history but I do know that not only Puritans settled your country. There were some other crazy variation of Christianity originating from US with the most famous being Mormons. Unfortunately the most fantasized of individuals will make sure to their voices are heard as they believe without a shadow of a doubt their way is the correct one.


----------



## Explorer (May 19, 2014)

Just to mention...

The reason the Jews didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah is because Judaism often has people claim to be the Messiah. They fail to fulfill the prophecies, and so they're removed from consideration.

The two different Nativity stories are full of attempts to fulfill Jewish prophecies. What's funny are the attempts to tie Jesus to the house of David through Joseph, who was supposedly not Jesus' father. 

My favorite discussions on this were between a Pentacostal minister friend of a girlfriend and a Jewish rabbi. The minister kept making claims about what the Jewish Scriptures said, which the rabbi was able to easily refute, and the rabbi knew quite a bit of Christian Scripture as well. When you're claiming that Scripture is your source, and then Scripture doesn't support you, that doesn't work well. *laugh*


----------



## JPhoenix19 (May 19, 2014)

Explorer said:


> ElRay's listing of your comments make it clear that my interpretation of your questioning is no mistake.


 
 I beg to differ. Notice I was never directly quoted at all.

I'm sure you (and ElRay) can relate with the infuriating feeling of having your position in a discussion swiftly constructed for you with blind, broad strokes- ignoring nuances and instead opting for oversimplified labels.

But as you said: back on topic.

The idea of a business or vendor refusing to serve someone on the basis of philosphical or religious differences boggles my mind. I could see (objectively, since I would not agree with it) if business were outlawed from discriminating against X or Y people based on religious differences, since there would be a percieved infringing of rights (again, I'm speaking objectively since I would disagree with that).

On statements made in the OP 



> This isn't astounding if you already accept the American Christian idea that if you don't adhere to the Christian Majority's values, you're attacking them.
> 
> By not adhering to the values of others, you prevent them from following those values?
> 
> ...


 
I'd shun to call those Christians who ascribe to that idea the majority- or at least I want to believe they are not the majority. With their presence in the media theirs is certainly one of the loudest voices. What's scary is that these particular Christians are most likley those whose theological research amounts to "the preacher said ______" and reading select verses without social and political context of the time they were written. They represent Christianity as a whole in America. Sickening.

The issue is made murky by the fact that so many Americans will report "Christian" as their religion on demographics, but each may have a different connotation of what that means. The definition of Christianity is so widely debated between denominations (that is to say, certain core doctrines are debated). Certainly they cannot all be "true" Christians, right?

I don't know, but I do know that to claim to be Christian is to claim to follow the teachings of Christ. All evidence I've seen thus far points to Jesus being radically non-discriminatory for his time- freely associating with women and treating them with a greater level of respect than found in the societal norms of the day. He remains utterly silent on the issue of homosexuality- which makes sense since his narrative takes place in a time before our non-binary modern concepts of gender and sexuality. Those references in Paul's letters referring to homosexual acts as abominable are most likley referring to pagan rituals and non-consensual rape rather than a homosexual relationship (of which there appears to be no concept back then)- although that point is debated and comes down to the Greek word used in that passage, as I understand it.

So where do these people get their "ammo" against homosexuality? The Old Testament? Sure, there were laws given to God's fledgling nation banning things that seem completely irrelevant now- and I'd argue that it's because they are indeed irrelevant now in the sense that we are not supposed to live like that. The only answer that makes sense is that these were rules given to those people at that time for certain and specific circumstances.

*TL;DR - I don't care what you believe about God, Christianity, and the Bible. *These "Christians" who insist that they should be able to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom have no grounds and are refuted by the very book they cite and claim to follow. Theirs is a paradigm that is twisted by ignorance and a more incomplete understanding of the Bible.

Those are my thoughts- at least that's as best as I can collect them in my limited time at work.


----------



## ITW Matija (May 19, 2014)

It's nice to see so many experts in religious theology all in one place, including myself. *sarcasm* 

Regarding the OP topic, people should simply live and let live. Unfortunately, not many "Christians" actually practice "Christianity". Some posters are very accurate in their statements. Others... not so much. 

In any regards, I'm a 1st generation Serb-American as my father came to America from Belgrade, Serbia when he was 20. He now apologizes to me at least once a month about how America is a crap shoot and how it wasn't like this (meaning our current state of affairs that is) in the 50's on through the 80's and that he worries about my future as I grow older. I am 26. My father is an Atheist and was raised in Orthodox Christianity. My mother is a Christian and was raised in Roman Catholicism. As you can see, I'm quite the anomoly myself.

On to my point - First, I believe labels belong on soup cans and things of that sort. Second, I'm a firm believer in "to each their own in the walk of life". Third, I think Ghandi stated it best in regards to Jesus (Yeshua) and Christians, which is - "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians." Even Ghandi recognized the bigots and hypocrites in Christianity. The walk of the Christian is to live your life in the light of Christ, or in simple terms, follow his example to the best of one's ability/capability. This is exactly where many so-called "Christians" fall short in their Christian lifestyle.

Jesus (Yeshua) says "Let he who hath no sin cast the first stone", which sums up that a Christian is to not judge others because everyone is a sinner, being born into sin. He also says to "Love thy neighbor" which is definitely the prime example of where all religous zealots who are "homophobes" or "racist" fall very short. 

To answer a previous question as to why the Old Testament is included with the New Testament of the modern day Christian Bible is because it is a record of history that is to be accounted for and many New Testament verses relate to the Old Testament prophets.

To reciprocate an uneducated previous posting  , I call on anyone, ANYONE, in the world who can take a 1611 KJV bible and show me a contradiction. Anyone? That is simply because there are none! Now, a lot of the modern translations that have been modernized with modern day English for the idiot who can't understand that "thou" = "you/your" have been bastardized and yes, maybe have one, maybe two contradictions because of the MISINTERPRETED DEFINITIONS of age old words. 

To conclude my post, instead of discussing/arguing topics of variance, like Christianity, Judaism, politics, and other things where many people in all walks of life have an opinion that matters to them, why not discuss the occult that exists in the world? The secret, tight-knit organizations, like the Tri-lateral Commision, the Buildebergers, and things of that nature.


----------



## JPhoenix19 (May 19, 2014)

ITW Matija said:


> Jesus (Yeshua) says "Let he who hath no sin cast the first stone"...


 
That's a good example of why Christians have no biblical grounds to discriminate against homosexuals- without regard to the fact that that's taking the perspective that homosexuality is a sin.

I just recently read a very interesting proposition from biologist Joan Roughgarden, who argues that to see what the Bible says about homosexuality we should look at what it says about eunuchs, and it seems like she argues that the term back then encompassed "effeminate" men as well as hermaphrodites. She says Mt. 19:12 ("For some are eunuchs because they were born that way") is about the only verse acknowledging sexuality as we understand it today.

I literally just read this, so I'm in the process of finding out more about it.


----------



## asher (May 19, 2014)

ITW Matija said:


> To reciprocate an uneducated previous posting  , I call on anyone, ANYONE, in the world who can take a 1611 KJV bible and show me a contradiction. Anyone? That is simply because there are none! Now, a lot of the modern translations that have been modernized with modern day English for the idiot who can't understand that "thou" = "you/your" have been bastardized and yes, maybe have one, maybe two contradictions because of the MISINTERPRETED DEFINITIONS of age old words.



I'm just gonna get this started, because I can almost guarantee your challenge will be accepted:









> To conclude my post, instead of discussing/arguing topics of variance, like Christianity, Judaism, politics, and other things where many people in all walks of life have an opinion that matters to them, why not discuss the occult that exists in the world? The secret, tight-knit organizations, like the Tri-lateral Commision, the Buildebergers, and things of that nature.



I sincerely hope you're kidding


----------



## JPhoenix19 (May 19, 2014)

asher said:


> I'm just gonna get this started, because I can almost guarantee your challenge will be accepted


 
braceyourselves.jpg


----------



## ITW Matija (May 19, 2014)

By all means, please do! I have spent 5 years out of high school, literally countless hours of research in trying to find a contradiction in a 1611 KJV bible. I have failed in that endeavor.

And...why would I be kidding about my post conclusion? Is it because it touches on the hypothetical premise of "conspiracy theories". Does it irk you? I find it quite fascinating stuff. Who knows???


----------



## ElRay (May 19, 2014)

ITW Matija said:


> To reciprocate an uneducated previous posting  , I call on anyone, ANYONE, in the world who can take a 1611 KJV bible and show me a contradiction. Anyone? That is simply because there are none!



Ignorance is bliss, eh?

BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized
Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon

Oh, and the KJV is the only one I know of that uses "Unicorns" where the other versions use "ox" or "cattle". Can you explain where the Unicorns went? Why we have no proof they existed like we do for the extinct species of cattle, ox, etc. from that time period?


----------



## ITW Matija (May 19, 2014)

ElRay said:


> Ignorance is bliss, eh?
> 
> BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized
> Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon
> ...



I like how people assume that a contradiction is a means to an end by any subjugating information. That, sir, is not what I meant by contradiction. 

Pay attention... show me a contradiction within the 1611 KJV itself! Show me where it says in "such and such passage" here that contradicts "such and such passage" there. 

Hopefully, that makes sense.

In regards to mythical beasts, we can start a new thread regarding SCIENCE and the lovely physics theory known as String Theory (or M-Theory) and how there are so many dimensions in the MULTIVERSE and us humans can only comprehend 3 and only experience 2. Stories of mythical creatures pre-date man's written history as it was passed down in oral tradition. Is it so far-fetched to imagine that such creatures exist but we can't comprehend them with our ridiculous thing we call a brain? You know... considering we use less than 10%. Even Einstein believed in GOD, ya know? Yea, not the traditional Judo-Christian God, but still, he called it the Jespinosa God, I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Or I may be just way over my head in trying to have an intellectual conversation...


----------



## asher (May 19, 2014)

ITW Matija said:


> I like how people assume that a contradiction is a means to an end by any subjugating information. That, sir, is not what I meant by contradiction.
> 
> Pay attention... show me a contradiction within the 1611 KJV itself! Show me where it says in "such and such passage" here that contradicts "such and such passage" there.
> 
> ...



Check the condescending ad hominems at the door please.


----------



## Grindspine (May 19, 2014)

Was the "who knows?" rhetorical, or did you want an answer?


----------



## Danukenator (May 19, 2014)

Given the 10% brain usage comment I'll assume he just saw Limitless...

Also, how does multiverse theory explain unicorns? You lost me there.


----------



## asher (May 19, 2014)

Danukenator said:


> Given the 10% brain usage comment I'll assume he just saw Limitless...
> 
> Also, how does multiverse theory explain unicorns? You lost me there.



Oh god, I missed that.



Will come back to this thread after work.


----------



## ITW Matija (May 19, 2014)

I apologize Asher if you took my post as condescending. I'm really just trying to make my case in point... what I'm trying to get to is simply thus...

We are a very unique species. There is so much information in the world that any person can make an argument out of hypothetical, nonsensical information. Life and death are the greatest mysteries of mankind alike. To have studies in fields like physics, biology, and any science for that matter and then have massive amounts of historical references (especially Religious history) colludes wisdom and knowledge.

My best friend from high school literally discussed with me the idea that "what if... we are just one small atom, or molecule, in the toe jam of some Giant and this is the universe we live in and it can be all taken away if the Giant cleaned his toes?"

I mean, seriously dude, who's to say he's not right? Who's to say he's wrong. It is purely subjective. Man's greatest gift after freedom of choice/reign is their imagination. We don't know all the answers and we may never. 

One thing for sure is, with today's technology and the advancement thereof, could we not be far off to what past has referred to as magic? Life sure is amazing, yeah?


----------



## Edika (May 19, 2014)

ITW Matija said:


> Stuff



Aside from mentioning your favourite version of the bible you finish with conspiracy theory speculations. Now that's some fine trolling. If it's not and after 5 years of reading any bible you didn't find contradictions then I am really wary about your reading comprehension skills.

Humans are not using only 10% of their brains, that is what they thought decades ago. Einstein also didn't believe in quantum mechanics, that doesn't mean he was right. Also string theory is laborious product of physics, math and dare I say philosophical contemplation. I find it ridiculous that you would put it in the same paragraph with the primitive explanation and misconception of natural phenomena primitive societies would use.

In the end if you want to believe in god, buddha, the spaghetti flying monster or the conspiracy theory of your choice be our guest. You seem like the type that has read a couple of books came to some conclusions and thinks he's got god by the balls (as we say in my country). Don't yank too hard though, you're not going to like the outcome.


----------



## ITW Matija (May 19, 2014)

Edika said:


> Aside from mentioning your favourite version of the bible you finish with conspiracy theory speculations. Now that's some fine trolling. If it's not and after 5 years of reading any bible you didn't find contradictions then I am really wary about your reading comprehension skills.
> 
> Humans are not using only 10% of their brains, that is what they thought decades ago. Einstein also didn't believe in quantum mechanics, that doesn't mean he was right. Also string theory is laborious product of physics, math and dare I say philosophical contemplation. I find it ridiculous that you would put it in the same paragraph with the primitive explanation and misconception of natural phenomena primitive societies would use.
> 
> In the end if you want to believe in god, buddha, the spaghetti flying monster or the conspiracy theory of your choice be our guest. You seem like the type that has read a couple of books came to some conclusions and thinks he's got god by the balls (as we say in my country). Don't yank too hard though, you're not going to like the outcome.




My point exactly.


----------



## ElRay (May 19, 2014)

JPhoenix19 said:


> :...I'd shun to call those Christians who ascribe to that idea the majority- or at least I want to believe they are not the majority. With their presence in the media theirs is certainly one of the loudest voices. What's scary is that these particular Christians are most likley those whose theological research amounts to "the preacher said ______" and reading select verses without social and political context of the time they were written. They represent Christianity as a whole in America. Sickening.
> 
> The issue is made murky by the fact that so many Americans will report "Christian" as their religion on demographics, but each may have a different connotation of what that means. The definition of Christianity is so widely debated between denominations (that is to say, certain core doctrines are debated). Certainly they cannot all be "true" Christians, right?


But they are Christians, that's what you don't get. This is a classic "No True Scottman" fallacy. There's one of the items I referred to.


JPhoenix19 said:


> ... So where do these people get their "ammo" against homosexuality? The Old Testament?


Don't know your own mythology too well do you? The Old Testament says that the laws are binding and cannot be changed. The New Testament says that the old laws are still in effect. The New Testament also says that the old laws are not in effect, but gives no specification which ones have been superseded and which ones are still en effect. Source: Are the laws of the Old Testament still binding?

Regarding the anti-homosexual diatribe being confined to the Old Testament, you missed that too. Paul condemns homosexuality in Corinthians and Romans. But, what would you expect from books of collected letters written decades after the supposed events by somebody that wasn't even there. Also, there's claims that the original Greek/Latin was mistranslated and Paul was only condemning "flamboyancy".

And, Homosexuality is condemned in Mathew & Luke (but not Mark & John -- Oops! These four books, that are supposed to tell the same story, disagree), and Acts, and Timothy and Revelations. All books written with decades between them and decades after the supposed events occurred, by people that were not only not there, but never even knew anybody that might have been eyewitnesses.


JPhoenix19 said:


> Sure, there were laws given to God's fledgling nation banning things that seem completely irrelevant now- and I'd argue that it's because they are indeed irrelevant now in the sense that we are not supposed to live like that. The only answer that makes sense is that these were rules given to those people at that time for certain and specific circumstances.


And here's an apologist comment. Another item from my list. Two down.

Don't you see the illogic in this? The omnipotent, omniscient, inerrant god got things wrong and either changed them, or has allowed mere humans to determine which portions were still in effect and which portions could be ignored.

Add to that the fact that he whole basis for the belief in the mythology is "One True Book" (of which there are almost 200 "current" versions/translations) that has been translated and re-written by people multiple times over the centuries, after it was assembled by people almost four centuries after the supposed events, from multiple version of hundreds of source documents (many of which were deemed non-canon and ignored), written by people that had no chance of being eye witnesses, or even even knowing anybody that stood any chance of being an eye witness. Add to that the book was never edited for consistency, internal contradictions, historical accuracy, scientific accuracy, etc. Here's a nice display of all of the contradictions, errors, etc.: BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

Who knows, there could have been "official" documents that said, "I got this whole anti-homosexual and non-poligymy stuff wrong. Sex is great, just take care of any kids you produce. Oh, and don't eat meat except on Fridays.", but they were thrown-out in the 4th century when the first "official" bible was assembled.


JPhoenix19 said:


> *TL;DR - I don't care what you believe about God, Christianity, and the Bible. *These "Christians" who insist that they should be able to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom have no grounds and are refuted by the very book they cite and claim to follow.


First, I and others don't BELIEVE anything about the christian mythology. We *know* it is conflicted by reality & history. We *know* it is just as valid as any other mythology, invisible pink unicorns, invisible dragons in garages, silver tea services orbiting the sun opposite Earth, Gone with the Wind and Harry Potter. We *know* it's been used to justify wars, hate, bigotry, slavery, misogyny, discrimination, violence, etc. We *know* it changes to fit the biases/desires of the readers (slavery, temperance and bans on inter-racial marriage were justified, but are now OK. Polygamy/abortion/contraception were "ok" now they're ultimate evils, etc.). The list goes on. 

Also, you're back to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It doesn't matter what you think the mythology says (How arrogant of you. And technically hypocritical, because the bible says that the word of man cannot trump the word of god, beware of false prophets, etc.), the folks you despise are Christians because they claim to be and use the bible to justify their hate, bigotry, violence, misogyny, discrimination, etc. You also *STILL* don't realize that they will say the same thing about you: You are not a true christian because you don't BELIEVE as they do.

Here, again, we see another point I made earlier: Cherry picking. You can't pick&chose the portions of the mythology you want to believe any more than "Those Christians" can pick&chose the portions they want to believe.

That leads into another key point. In rational, thinking adults, when facts/reality conflict with BELIEFS, beliefs change. I adherents to mythology, when facts/reality conflict with BELIEFS, reality is ignored and/or the inconsistencies are irrationalized/apologized away.

So, in *ONE* post, you hit five items from my list:
No True Scotsman
Denying people are christians because they don't agree with your interpretation of the mythology
Cherry-Picking
Apologetics
 Applying subjective interpretation
and added three new stereotypical ones:
Religious Hypocrisy
Arrogance due to ignorance
Arrogance that you're right despite all the evidence to the contrary
Would you like me to dig through your post history and find examples of: God-Guided-Evolution, demands of proof of nonexistence and questions that belie you received a quality education not filtered by mythology -- The only three items you didn't demonstrate in this one post?

*Your interpretation* of the mythology, which you've clearly demonstrated stems from
Ignorance of large sections of the bible
Ignoring parts that disagree with your preconceived BELIEFS
Selectively, *literally* interpreting sections to support your preconceived BELIEFS
Selectively, *subjectively* interpreting sections to support your preconceived BELIEFS
has absolutely no bearing on the:
Ignorance of large sections of the bible
Ignoring parts that disagree with their preconceived BELIEFS
Selective, *literal* interpretations of sections to support their preconceived BELIEFS
 Selective, *subjective* interpretations of sections to support their preconceived BELIEFS
that is being done by "Those Christians" to support their hatred, bigotry, misogyny, violence, civil rights violations, christian sharia law, teaching of mythology as science, etc. Like it or not, they are just as valid a christian as you are, and just as you BELIEVE they aren't "True Christians", they BELIEVE you aren't a "True Christian".

Ray


----------



## JPhoenix19 (May 19, 2014)

ElRay said:


> Really long post.



Hmm. I see trying to explain myself any further will only spiral the thread further off-topic. In light of that, I'll cut my loses on that discussion.

At any rate, the thread seems to have spiraled along it's predictable trajectory- into a debate about the fundamental question of religion. It also seems to have brought out the trolls .

I gave my thoughts on the issue: I don't think the business who choose to discriminate against homosexuals are acting in line with their own scriptures. I guess that's that.


----------



## ElRay (May 19, 2014)

I started writing a detailed response to this, even though it was mind-numbingly stupid. Then I got to this line:


ITW Matija said:


> ... Even Einstein believed in GOD, ya know? ...


No he didn't. Yet another lie passed-on by theists. Even if he did, so what, it doesn't change the FACT that there is ZERO evidence for any of the 2700+ gods created by man. Nor does it change the FACT that using the bible to prove anything is like using "Gone with the Wind" to prove the Civil War.

Back to the no contradictions claim, here's a few simple ones:
There is ZERO evidence Unicorns have ever existed. The most likely answer is that they were created as phantasy by folks that saw Narwal tusks.
The Unicorn, as descibed in the KJV, is an impossibility. The horn is described as being held in place by flesh and not attached to bone. It would have ripped off.
Mathew, Mark, Luke and John cannot agree on a huge number of details regarding the resurrection. One simple example: Was the tomb open or closed when the women arrived? OPEN: Luke 24:2, Mark 16:3-4, John 20:1. CLOSED: Matthew 28:2
Mark 4:31: It is like a mustard seed which, when it is sown on the ground, is smaller than all the seeds on earth. Reality: Mustard seeds are far from the smallest seeds in existence.
The devil is tied-up: 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6. The devil is free to roam around: Job 1:7, Job 2:2, 1 Peter 5:8
Incest is bad: Leviticus 18:9, Leviticus 20:17, Deuteronomy 27:22. Incest is OK: Genesis 20:12, Genesis 17:16, Exodus 6:2
Lying is bad: Exodus 1:18-20, Joshua 2:4-6 , 1 Samuel 21:2, 1 Kings 15:5, 1 Kings 22:21-22, 2 Kings 8:10, John 7:8-10, James 2:25. Lying is OK: Exodus 20:16, Exodus 23:1-7, Leviticus 6:2-4, Leviticus 19:11, Deuteronomy 5:20, Proverbs 12:22, Proverbs 13:5, Proverbs 24:28, Luke 3:14, Ephesians 4:25, Colossians 3:9, James 3:14, Revelation 21:8-27


----------



## asher (May 19, 2014)

So, tell us how different passages from the same sections saying mutually exclusive things isn't contradicting itself.


----------



## ElRay (May 19, 2014)

JPhoenix19 said:


> ... I see trying to explain myself any further will only spiral the thread further off-topic ...


Because you cannot logically justify your position. You can only tap-dance, cherry-pick and spew the apologetics.


JPhoenix19 said:


> ... I don't think the business who choose to discriminate against homosexuals are acting in line with their own scriptures. ...


That is *YOUR subjective interpretation*. Like it or not, believe it or not, they ARE completely within *THEIR subjective interpretation* of the scriptures and you are out of line with *THEIR subjective interpretation*. For every bit you quote-mine/cherry-pick to prove *YOUR subjective interpretation*, they quote-mine/cherry-pick to prove *THEIR subjective interpretation*. You can no more use the bible to prove you are correct and they are wrong than you can use it to prove that vanilla ice-cream is correct and all other flavors are wrong.

That's what you don't get and arrogantly refuse to understand.


----------



## ElRay (May 19, 2014)

ITW Matija said:


> By all means, please do! I have spent 5 years out of high school, literally countless hours of research in trying to find a contradiction in a 1611 KJV bible. I have failed in that endeavor.


 Then you either have near-zero reading comprehension, or you've bent the definition of "contradiction" so far that nothing will fit the definition, or you're so biased and intellectually dishonest that you'll never see any contradiction even when every other rational, thinking adult would.

Ray


----------



## Explorer (May 19, 2014)

ITW Matija said:


> By all means, please do! I have spent 5 years out of high school, literally countless hours of research in trying to find a contradiction in a 1611 KJV bible. I have failed in that endeavor.



You haven't looked very deeply. 

*The simplest contradiction:

There are two distinct Nativity narratives which cannot both be literally true. *

Matthew has Jesus born under King Herod the Great, the Slaughterer of the Innocents. Herod the Great was King of Judea, and had some sons who later came to power, but not during the lifetime of Herod the Great.

Speaking of those sons...

Luke has Jesus born during a census under Quirinius the Roman governor, when Herod Antipas, Tetrarch ("Ruler of a Fourth") was ruler of only a quarter of Judea. Herod Antipas was made Tetrarch after the death of Herod the Great. The Bible acknowledges that Herod the Great is the father of Herod Antipas, Tetrarch, and recognizes the difference between the father and son. 

So, *Matthew has Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great.*

*Luke has Jesus born at least 12 years later, during the rule of Herod Antipas, Tetrarch and son of Herod the Great.
*
*They cannot both be literally true, as Herod the Great and Herod Antipas did not rule at the same time. Herod Antipas only ruled after the death of his father. *

You were asking for a contradiction to be provided to you, so I hope this helps you out on that. I like that this example doesn't require comparing Scripture from different periods. It also has the advantage of using *known and documented historical figures, Herod the Great and Herod Antipas, so there's no question about the dates, or about the complete lack of overlap between the periods of their rule.*

The only way around the documented historical evidence is to say that Scripture doesn't agree with reliable independent contemporary sources. That's okay, but undermines a major claim of fundamental Biblical literalism. 

Cheers!


----------



## ITW Matija (May 20, 2014)

Great work Explorer! That is a viable contradiction using history as it relates to scripture. Though, what I really want to see is how scripture contradicts scripture as time is an interpretation of mankind. 

I actually wrote a pretty long spiel to the replies to me only to click reply and find out I had been logged out.  Anyways, I'm not going to type it all out again as that would be a pain in my a$$.

I have a bad problem with trolling opinion related threads having to do with religion/politics... I should just keep my fingers to myself. So, I do apologize about that.

I'm sorry Ray, but your examples don't hold up. 

Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.

You used that as an example that lying is okay? Or am I misunderstanding you? Also, the other scripture passages you mentioned are all taken out of context from the "big picture" of the scriptures you used in reference. 

In regards to miracles, unicorns, virgin birth, the parting of the Red Sea, and all the other crazy **** mentioned in the bible. Those things are absolutely foolish and the idea of such things ever have happening/existing are far fetched. I leave you with this -

1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty

How else could the honey badger be such a bad a$$? 

I'm going to bed. Goodnight, all!


----------



## asher (May 20, 2014)

ITW Matija said:


> Great work Explorer! That is a viable contradiction using history as it relates to scripture. Though, what I really want to see is how scripture contradicts scripture as time is an interpretation of mankind.









That being completely inane aside, _it's also irrelevant_, because it's *still* an example of scripture contradicting itself, whether we know when they lived or not.

I'm going to take this as another one of the "not debating in good faith" discussions we seem to have had so many of lately, and attempt to show myself the door.


----------



## Explorer (May 20, 2014)

What about 

God is love
Love is not jealous
God is jealous, as demonstrated in many parts of the OT?

----

Actually, my example isn't about Scripture contradicting history, although history only makes clear what Scripture acknowledges internally regarding the two Herods being different men, occurring at different times. 

*Those two stories contradict each other. *

*My example is about Scripture having two Nativity stories which can't possibly be true at the same time.*

If I wanted a contradiction between literal Scripture and observable fact, I'd point to the easy example of Jesus asserting, not that the mustard seed is the smallest seed his listerners know about, but just the smallest seed, which it is not. If one claims that Jesus was tailoring his message to his audience's knowledge, one tosses claims of Biblical literalism out the window. 

----

Keep in mind, Biblical literalism, although built on the foundation laid by Martin Luther, didn't really emerge until between 1910 and 1915. St. Jerome and Origen recognized that parts of Scripture were not consistent with other parts of Scripture, and recognition of that fact continued through history until very recently. 

Interesting, no?


----------



## Necris (May 20, 2014)

"Find a Contradiction"
"Here's five."
"That's Not what I'm looking for, this is what I'm looking for..."
"Heres twelve."
"That's not what I'm looking for, this is what I'm looking for..."
"here's a few more."
"That's not what I'm looking for, this is what I'm looking for..."

ad infinitum.



This isn't even moving the goal posts, this is just plain not recognizing ones own goal posts.


----------



## ElRay (May 20, 2014)

Necris said:


> This isn't even moving the goal posts, this is just plain not recognizing ones own goal posts.




I think Carl Sagan's "Dragon in my garage" allegory illustrates it wonderfully:



'The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In the Dark' by Carl Sagan said:


> "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
> 
> Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
> 
> ...


----------



## ElRay (May 20, 2014)

ITW Matija said:


> ... I'm sorry Ray, but your examples don't hold up.
> 
> Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight ...



OK. You're going to pick-nits over one verse, in one example and use that to refute the entire list? Talk about the ultimate strawman.

First, address the one, super-simple contradiction regarding whether or not the tomb was open when the women supposedly arrived? Was it open or was it closed?

Then address all of the other places where Mathew, Mark, Luke & John disagree in their telling of the supposed resurrection. There are many. Here's a nice PDF sheet for you to work off:  Resurrection_Chronology.pdf.​
The four tellings of the supposed resurrection disagreeing with each other is a straight forward concrete example. There's nothing subjective in it, there's nothing allegorical in it, there's nothing open for interpretation or subject to your attempts to strawman away through your ignorance about science. It's just four conflicting versions of the same supposed event. What's even worse is that it isn't always the same three against the other. There's spots where each of them are the sole person person disagreeing, there are times where there's two vs. two (and not always the same two vs two), and there are times where there are three different versions being told.

Then address all ~675 contradictions listed here: BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized They're not all from that one particular edition of the KJV, but if you *provide evidence* that the contradiction doesn't exist in your supposed contradiction-less version, we'll take that one off the list. But you'll still have to address every chapter and verse in all ~675 items to prove your "no contradictions" assertion. Other folks have already done the work to point out the contradictions, you need prove them wrong. The burden of proof is back in your court.

I don't think you'll have to worry about the long list, because you won't even make it out of the resurrection story without finding contradictions.


----------



## ElRay (May 20, 2014)

Explorer said:


> ... Luke has Jesus born during a census under Quirinius the Roman governor ... using *known and documented historical figures, Herod the Great and Herod Antipas, so there's no question about the dates, or about the complete lack of overlap between the periods of their rule.*



Add to that:
There's no documented census during that time period
A census would not have been conducted in December
There's no astronomical data of any super-nova-ish star around that time frame.
So, again, history refutes the biblical story.


----------



## Explorer (May 23, 2014)

I'm going to assume that ITW Matija's head exploded when he realized that those contradictions were in his version of the Bible as well. 

"All those years?! How did I miss this stuff?!!!" *laugh*


----------



## asher (May 23, 2014)

"Damn, guess I can't troll here any more."


----------



## Explorer (May 23, 2014)

I suspect he's actually sincere but ignorant, likely by being either sheltered or being in a place where non-Christians are so in the minority that Christians don't have to worry about someone disagreeing with them.

Relating that to the topic, maybe he's never had to consider the idea of someone having a rigorous and intelligent reason to disagree with his beliefs and assertions. Maybe in his area, people don't speak up because to do so means the community shows its disapproval in many ways, including not patronizing businesses which are run by "those people," regardless of who "those people" refers to at any given time, and regardless of whether "those people" are actively proselytizing, or are just different and therefore perceived to be hostile to the rightful community values. 

*So really, the relevant question to open their eyes to the whole situation does turn out to be...

If you eat pork, are you bullying Muslims?*


----------



## ElRay (May 23, 2014)

ITW Matija said:


> ... Now, a lot of the modern translations that have been modernized with modern day English for the idiot who can't understand that "thou" = "you/your" have been bastardized and yes, maybe have one, maybe two contradictions because of the MISINTERPRETED DEFINITIONS of age old words ...


I realize that logic has long since scared ITW Matija away, but for those stumbling on this in the future:
The bible started as oral tales spread by mouth
Then it was translated into written Aramaic
Then translated to written Hebrew
Romans was originally written in Latin
Coritheans was originally written in acient Greek
Other pre-cursors to the current books were written in mostly Latin, but some were written in the local vernacular
NONE of the pre-coursors of the bible were written by any eye witnesses
In the late 4th century, the Catholic Church took all these different pre-coursors, decided what was canon and translated all of the Aramic, Hebrew, Greek, etc. into Latin
The Catholic Church started falling apart even before "The Bible" was finalized and you had/would have Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Eastern (Turkish) Orthodox, Oriental (Armenian) Orthodox, Lutheranism, The Church of England, Episcopaleans, Anglecans, Unitarians, Universalists, Mormon, Rastafarians, Shakers, Quakers, Mennonites, various other Protestant flavors, etc., etc., etc.
The "official" bible was re-written into German, Italian, French, English, starting around 1380, then re-written numerous times before the magical 1611 KJV, then re-written and re-written, and re-written ...
The concept of bible literalism didn't appear until the early 1900's, before that everybody knew it was open to subjective interpretation 
Anybody claiming that work of fiction is inerrant, unchanging and literal its just ignoring the obvious because otherwise their claims/justifications/irrationalizations would fall to pieces.


----------



## flint757 (May 23, 2014)

Also, the thou's and other superfluous language were not actually commonplace of the time that KJV Bible was written. It was written that way to give it an air of authority by making it sound fancy. 



> In a period of rapid linguistic change the translators avoided contemporary idioms, tending instead towards forms that were already slightly archaic, like verily and it came to pass.[139] The pronouns thou/thee and you are consistently used as singular and plural respectively, even though by this time you was often found as the singular in general English usage, especially when addressing a social superior (as is evidenced, for example, in Shakespeare).[140] For the possessive of the third person pronoun, the word its, first recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1598, is avoided.[141] The older his is usually employed, as for example at Matthew 5:13: "if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted?";[141] in other places of it, thereof or bare it are found.[142] Another sign of linguistic conservativism is the invariable use of -eth for the third person singular present form of the verb, as at Matthew 2:13: "the Angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dreame". The rival ending -(e)s, as found in present-day English, was already widely used by this time (for example, it predominates over -eth in the plays of Shakespeare and Marlowe).[143] Furthermore, the translators preferred which to who or whom as the relative pronoun for persons, as in Genesis 13:5: "And Lot also which went with Abram, had flocks and heards, & tents"[144] although who(m) is also found.[145]



King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ferret (May 23, 2014)

ElRay wins it.


----------



## ElRay (May 23, 2014)

Necris said:


> This isn't even moving the goal posts, this is just plain not recognizing ones own goal posts.








Now are those honey badgers, or just regular ones?


----------



## ITW Matija (May 27, 2014)

Well, sorry to all those people who neg repped me. You know, I actually do have a life, a family, and a job, and with such cannot constantly surf the forums, lol. Anyways, ElRay, touche'. I find it hard to express myself on forums as seeing the words, one cannot explicitly take any emotion or sarcasm into account other than ANGER...obviously. I concede. In any regard, I really didn't have any argument to begin with and no excuse to point out. Like I said, I need to keep my fingers to myself and I digress...back to why I became a member of SSO to begin with... music. So sorry for causing trouble and making so many people hate me already. I am solipcist when it comes to these things and I can only express myself in terms of my experiences and what I have felt personally on a spiritual level. The bible may be one hell of a mess, but the words of Jesus are still inspiring and shows how many sunday church-goers are bigots, hypocrites, and idiots. Anyways, have fun with your debates and opinions as religion (or what I prefer calling "religiosity") isn't anything I'm losing sleep over.


----------



## Explorer (May 27, 2014)

ITW Matija said:


> In any regard, I really didn't have any argument to begin with... .
> 
> Anyways, have fun with your debates and opinions as religion (or what I prefer calling "religiosity") isn't anything I'm losing sleep over.



I was actually hoping you'd get back to this topic. I'd noticed that you've been here posted since, just not in this topic.

Just to point out, you led with the argument that you had been completely unable to find any contradictions within the Bible itself. 

I think when the first presented contradiction was actually in Scripture, with Scripture acknowledging two completely different situations as being true when they are mutually exclusive, it was viewed as you avoiding acknowledging that internal contradiction. You instead asserted that the contradiction lay outside of Scripture. 

And that is where it seemed that you couldn't just say, oh, yeah, Scripture does have a contradiction within itself. 

It's like a book saying that Aaron Rodgers was MVP in 2013 for the Denver Broncos, and in another place saying that he was the 2013 MVP for the Vikings. One of those teams has to be completely wrong, a mistake, because they can't be true. 

If one is true, that contradicts the other. 

And the fact is, both could be wrong. 

In this case, outside sources show that Rodgers wasn't MVP for either team in 2013. 2012 was Adrian Peterson with the Vikings, and 2013 was Payton Manning with the Broncos. So, not only did that book have an internal contradiction, but it was flat-out wrong when compared to outside sources. 

That's kind of like all those sources in that area of the world which predate Jesus, but which have various people being born of a virgin. It was a common thing. So, some of that stuff came from stories about other players... er, religious figures. 

Anyway, I'm a little disappointed that you couldn't look at the internal contradiction head on, but that can be a hard thing.

Cheers!


----------



## ElRay (May 27, 2014)

ITW Matija said:


> Well, sorry to all those people who neg repped me.


You got neg repped because you were an ass. And you still haven't answered the questions. You copped-out just like JPhoenix19. Your BELEIFS had nothing to do with it.


ITW Matija said:


> ... I am solipsist ...


AH, that explains it all:

sol·ip·sism [sol-ip-siz-uhm] noun
1. Philosophy . the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.
*2. extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.
*

Ray


----------



## tacotiklah (May 27, 2014)

ElRay said:


> sol·ip·sism [sol-ip-siz-uhm] noun
> 1. Philosophy . the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.
> *2. extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.
> *
> ...



FTFY


----------



## ITW Matija (May 28, 2014)

Believe, you, me Ray, I'm fully capable of continuing this conversation on our current topic. The problem is... it would simply be a discourse in my nature as I'm not the type to actively continue invovlement in a topic of "variance". 

What I mean by variance is in it's oldest definition - an argument with no action or resolve. What benefit is there for me? What will change in the world as a result of this conversation? Nothing. That and only that, is the reason I concede and am man enough to apologize. You would be the bigger person by accepting my apology, but I understand if you can't.

Anyways, I've got to get down on my knees and pray to the almighty spaghetti monster for forgiveness for being an ass. (I'm trying to be funny here, I am not trying to be an ass)

Have a good day!


----------



## asher (May 28, 2014)

If you knew this was going to be futile to begin with, _why the hell did you start the discussion?_


----------



## ITW Matija (May 28, 2014)

Because... sometimes I get high and do stupid things.


----------



## asher (May 28, 2014)

ITW Matija said:


> Because... sometimes I get high and do stupid things.





Then just fvcking say that, own up to it and apologize, and don't try to backpedal and spout more condescending bullshit instead. People are going to be a lot more understanding to the former.


----------



## ITW Matija (May 28, 2014)

LOL, I've apologized a couple times already. I'm not trying to backpedal intentially. Again, I am sorry!


----------



## ElRay (Jun 2, 2014)

Back to being semi-on-topic, the Christian Hate Group AFA (I no longer refer to them without including "hate group".) is now urging people to "Return to Sender" any snail mail they receive with the Harvey Milk stamp: Anti-Gay Christian Group: &#8220;Refuse to Accept Mail&#8230; if it is Postmarked with the Harvey Milk Stamp&#8221;

They just don't get it. Milk was assassinated by a christian for being a pro-LGBT politician. Funny how they use "majority rules" when it benefits them, but when a duly elected official fights to equal rights for all, they're "activists".

Ray


----------



## Explorer (Jun 2, 2014)

Whether the WBC or the AFA, Scripture has a message. Here's just a few relevant parts of 1 John 4 fro the KJV:


4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.


7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.


There seems to be quite a lot of legalistic hanky panky, where people talk about how Jesus didn't really mean to treat others as we wish to be treated, and how acting in a way which is obviously hateful is about hating the sin. Jesus demonstrated what he was asking for, through his treatment of the sick, the whores, the tax collectors. (In fact, the only ones he really want after were the fancy dudes in the churches with their gold watches and their big cards, making the church a place to make money, right?) 

Brothers and sisters, to argue against love, to not demonstrate love, is obvious to your fellow man. Why do you think God will be deceived if your actions are obvious? You may claim to love God, but unless you demonstrate your love for God by your love for your fellow man, you are rejecting the very Word of God. If you demonstrate your contempt for your fellow man, you demonstrate your contempt for God. 

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that living as Christ instructs is an easy path. If a hard path means you reject Christ, at least be honest about it, and stop lying about His true message. If you truly believe, then stop making excuses as to why you won't put your hateful actions to the side. Instead, follow Christ. If treating your neighbor the way you want to be treated, as a full human being, is so problematic, then all your tithing and preaching are of little consequence. 

if someone sees your actions as hateful, ask yourself... would I want someone actively being hateful towards me? 

And, holding this to the standard of Christ, if someone insults *you personally* by not accepting God's word, doesn't Scripture counsel you to turn the other cheek? 

If even a Samaritan can perform good deeds, and a follower of Christ cannot, then you present Jesus as an example of hate. The Gospels demonstrate him as accepting of even a harlot like Mary Magdalene. Your actions, and your justifications of hate using Christ's words, bear false witness as to Jesus' teachings, and that is *shameful. *

And now the more perceptive of you can see that it wasn't just the Word I found wanting, but the Body of Christ on Earth who demonstrated to me that the promises of Christ's love were empty and false, that it was full of and eager to embrace false prophets. 

/end rant mode.


----------



## Thaeon (Jun 3, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I woke up this morning a bit angry.
> 
> It took me a bit to sort out why, because I had a swelter of dreams.
> 
> ...



Sadly I can unravel a lot of modern Christian theology (indoctrinated rhetoric) with a simple point. In Mark a situation is described where a man is lowered through the roof to see Christ. Christ says he is forgiven and he should take his mat and walk. The priests take up arms and say only God can forgive sins. Christ returns with, the son of man can forgive sins as well as the father. If you understand the meaning of the term son of man as it was used in that day, you would understand it as 'a person'. Not the son of god as the church would have you believe. The title 'Son of Man is a distortion of the actual meaning used by those who used priesthood to hold power over others and keep people afraid, allowing them to maintain control in the years after the council of Constantine the great. The lesson is that understanding forgiveness and forgiving yourself cleanses you of your sins. Religion is a problem. All great sages had one thing holding them down. The dogmatic, indoctrination, and fear tactics used to hold power over people with fear. Christians think they know the absolute truth. But their own book states that the vast majority of them don't understand and will not see god. Christians in the vast majority are arrogant, self righteous, assholes, who display less than a tenth of what they preach in action. If I were to judge a religion by how closely it's followers kept it's principles, if say that Pagans are the most pious of all of them. Christians disgust me. They degrade some incredibly useful teachings to make themselves feel like they have it all figured out.


----------

