PDA

View Full Version : Well, It's That Time Again



RWGR
04-02-2015, 02:38 PM
Time for CNN, CBC, and other major North American networks to show 'documentaries' on Christianity, and tell us how each of Jesus's miracles were actually accomplished; or how deluded the early Christians were; or how Christianity has brought lots of pain and misery upon the planet (cue the ever-reliable piece about a Christian who shot an abortion doctor).

But fear not...once Ramadan starts up those same networks will give us shows and 'experts' telling us how one must not judge a religion by the bad actions of a few, and why it is very bad form indeed to criticize or question tenets of the Islamic faith.

Hans
04-02-2015, 10:57 PM
Does Islam have a Pope?

Bluesky
04-02-2015, 11:30 PM
What does that have to do with anything? Does a chicken have lips?

Hans
04-02-2015, 11:33 PM
Maybe that is a problem with Islam: no overseer.

Bluesky
04-03-2015, 11:18 AM
And if the overseer was someone like bin Laden?

RWGR
04-03-2015, 01:12 PM
Islam's problem is it's not a true religion. It's based on the beliefs of a camel jockey (that's not a shot, that's what he did), beliefs that have been *******ized through the centuries.

And, please, no comparisons to Mohamed being a poor camel jockey and Jesus being a poor carpenter. The big difference is Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM".

It doesn't get any more than simple than that, folks: either you believe He is God, or you don't.

RWGR
04-03-2015, 01:13 PM
Maybe that is a problem with Islam: no overseer.

Protestantism has no general overseer, and you don't see them massacring school children or beading those who do not convert to Christianity.

So, the problem lies elsewhere.

Hans
04-03-2015, 07:21 PM
And if the overseer was someone like bin Laden?

What if the Pope was someone like Bin Laden?
Even it that were the case, there are still other governing bodies that could avoid delicate situations from arising.

Hans
04-03-2015, 07:21 PM
Protestantism has no general overseer, and you don't see them massacring school children or beading those who do not convert to Christianity.

So, the problem lies elsewhere.

But they are based on teachings from one that has a general overseer.

Barry Morris
04-03-2015, 07:26 PM
But they are based on teachings from one that has a general overseer.

The overseer is Jesus Christ. No man.

RWGR
04-04-2015, 10:33 AM
The overseer is Jesus Christ. No man.

Common sense.

Nihilistic Heathen
04-05-2015, 02:17 PM
Dear American Christians (http://wheneftalks.com/2015/04/03/dear-american-christians/)

The Voice
04-05-2015, 03:11 PM
Protestantism has no general overseer, and you don't see them massacring school children or beading those who do not convert to Christianity.

At Least not any more, maybe that Is Proof that Islam just needs to Grow up.

IMO most Muslim's are not Fanatical most probably see Islam as the Religion of Peace. But the mess is in their ranks and it is up to them to clean it up.

Barry Morris
04-05-2015, 03:21 PM
Dear American Christians (http://wheneftalks.com/2015/04/03/dear-american-christians/)

http://www.westernjournalism.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-muslim-bakery/

Hadn't heard about this aspect of the problem in the media, just a "problem" with Christians.

If I had a store in Indiana (or any of the 40 odd other states with similar protection of religion laws) I'd just put up a sign that stated "All profit from sales to anti-christian groups will go to support my religious freedoms".

Nihilistic Heathen
04-05-2015, 04:00 PM
I think you somehow entirely missed the point of the article I posted.


So, stop with the being offended. You have no right to be offended if an LGBT person walks into your place of business. Even if you haven’t come to terms with the fact that people can be gay and also be Christian(1), you’ve at least got to remember that Jesus said that little thing about the “wheat” and the “tares.”

I can’t speak for Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, or any other kind of shop-keeper. But I do know, as Christians it’s not our job to separate out from society. Jesus said that.

You want to know what persecution really is? It’s 147 Christians being shot in Kenya. That’s persecution.

Your so-called “offense” at being required to serve LGBT people is an insult to their sacrifice.
And on Good Friday, I will say as a minister of the Gospel that it’s an insult to Jesus’ sacrifice too.

Grow up. Get a life. Be a real Christian.

Barry Morris
04-05-2015, 10:54 PM
I think you somehow entirely missed the point of the article I posted.

A real Christian considers all aspects of the bible, and doesn't just believe the things that tickle his fancy.

You believe God is Love?? So He is, and it is especially emphasized at this time of year. And I believe it wholeheartedly.

But God is also Holy. He created man and woman to be two halves of a whole, blessed this arrangement, and called sin whatever stepped outside it.

Even Mother Nature, survival of the fittest, dictates the same arrangement.

So, would I personally refuse service to gays?? No, I would serve them gladly. They are sinners just like all of us.

Bluesky
04-06-2015, 08:12 AM
Another pov
https://stream.org/sex-is-becoming-the-new-established-religion/

Nihilistic Heathen
04-06-2015, 12:30 PM
Same-sex marriage (SSM) is the new official religion, which means it must be a religion of the sword.

Read that far smh and closed the tab.

Barry Morris
04-06-2015, 12:54 PM
Read that far smh and closed the tab.

Can't handle opposing opinions.

If I had a problem with the way people expressed themselves, I'd stop at the first word of your name!!

Nihilistic Heathen
04-06-2015, 02:10 PM
I can handle opposing views, I can also spot BS when I see it.

On the other hand if you want to relegate religion to same sex marriage I have nothing to argue against.

Jokes on you.

Barry Morris
04-06-2015, 05:12 PM
I can handle opposing views, I can also spot BS when I see it.

On the other hand if you want to relegate religion to same sex marriage I have nothing to argue against.

Jokes on you.

I could use the BS spotter I mentioned above effectively in your case. But I prefer to see what other folks have to say.

Odd, you seem to be saying that religion has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Makes me wonder about all the nasty stuff flying back and forth.

Barry Morris
04-07-2015, 02:54 AM
Survival of the fittest actually favours those who bang everything in site... of the opposite sex mind you. It certainly doesn't favour monogamy.

We both know that is sometimes not true. However, not our topic.

And I think that AIDS works against your premise.

Bluesky
04-07-2015, 12:38 PM
AIDS and other STDs takes care of that hypothesis.

Nihilistic Heathen
04-07-2015, 04:44 PM
I could use the BS spotter I mentioned above effectively in your case. But I prefer to see what other folks have to say.

Odd, you seem to be saying that religion has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Makes me wonder about all the nasty stuff flying back and forth.

Same sex marriage is about an individual's right to marry a person of the same sex. The only thing religion has to do with same sex religion is it is used to claim a right to discriminate or oppress those that want to marry a person of the same sex. When people say you can't use your religious freedom as trump card to discriminate or oppress then you start crying that you are being persecuted for your religious belief's .

RWGR
04-07-2015, 07:16 PM
Homosexuality is unnatural.

I'll tell you what: you give me ten million heterosexuals, evenly split. I'll give you ten millions homosexuals. We'll each start new societies.

Let's see which society is around in 100 years.

Barry Morris
04-07-2015, 07:46 PM
Same sex marriage is about an individual's right to marry a person of the same sex. The only thing religion has to do with same sex religion is it is used to claim a right to discriminate or oppress those that want to marry a person of the same sex. When people say you can't use your religious freedom as trump card to discriminate or oppress then you start crying that you are being persecuted for your religious belief's .

"Same sex marriage" is an oxymoron.

Christians have no "right" to discriminate against any type of sinner, in the public arena, and I certainly would not do so.

Our countries were founded with the idea of religious freedom ingrained in out laws. There are are other instances where the Christian businessman's disagreement with the lifestyle of a person would not be an issue at all.

Barry Morris
04-07-2015, 07:49 PM
Homosexuality is unnatural. ...

Can homosexuals reproduce?

Certainly.

All they have to do is step outside the "vows" of the "marriage" 's they so desperately want.

Nihilistic Heathen
04-07-2015, 08:53 PM
"Same sex marriage" is an oxymoron.

Christians have no "right" to discriminate against any type of sinner, in the public arena, and I certainly would not do so.

Our countries were founded with the idea of religious freedom ingrained in out laws. There are are other instances where the Christian businessman's disagreement with the lifestyle of a person would not be an issue at all.

Looks like you don't know what an oxymoron is, which doesn't surprise me.

I'm not even sure why you continue to respond to my posts. You appear to be saying the same thing that the author of the article I linked was making a point about, but at the same time you seem to be trying to argue against that point. You always come across as vague and obtuse, so this is going to be my final post on this subject, you need to be more clear on where you stand.

Barry Morris
04-07-2015, 10:01 PM
Looks like you don't know what an oxymoron is, which doesn't surprise me.

I'm not even sure why you continue to respond to my posts. You appear to be saying the same thing that the author of the article I linked was making a point about, but at the same time you seem to be trying to argue against that point. You always come across as vague and obtuse, so this is going to be my final post on this subject, you need to be more clear on where you stand.

Sorry about that.

Barry Morris
04-08-2015, 12:05 AM
It doesn't actually. The odds of a child being born with HIV, when both parents have HIV, is only 25% (That risk can be reduced to about 2% with drugs, but that's another story).

The bottom line is, a guy with aids, who impregnates women (with or without aids) is still going to have 3 out of 4 of his kids not have HIV, and even the one with HIV may live to an age to reproduce.

Thus, survival of the fittest favours those who have as much sex with as many people as possible.

Robert A. Heinlien, about as godless a man as you might find, said that the most important purpose of marriage is for the raising and nurture of children.

The children raised in a man and woman marriage will do much better than the children of people who have "sex with as many people as possible".

This should be obvious in our world.

Barry Morris
04-08-2015, 11:44 PM
Evolution's theory of survival of the fittest certainly does not address any psychological effects. The animals it refers to don't have many issues in that area.

But man does.

So I don't think it's unreasonable to expand the definition somewhat.

dancingqueen
04-09-2015, 01:02 AM
Homosexuality is unnatural.

I'll tell you what: you give me ten million heterosexuals, evenly split. I'll give you ten millions homosexuals. We'll each start new societies.

Let's see which society is around in 100 years.

Fortunately homosexuals and heterosexuals have no need to separate into different societies...
But congrats on taking down your own straw man...

RWGR
04-09-2015, 10:12 AM
Fortunately homosexuals and heterosexuals have no need to separate into different societies...
But congrats on taking down your own straw man...

My argument stands. You may not have liked the hypothetical, but the argument stands.

dancingqueen
04-09-2015, 07:50 PM
Yes, your imagined argument does stand, but it is just that... imagined.
your argument has no real life relevance, and is therefore rendered a non sequitur.

Barry Morris
04-09-2015, 07:53 PM
Yes, your imagined argument does stand, but it is just that... imagined.
your argument has no real life relevance, and is therefore rendered a non sequitur.

The truth in it is obvious. You can deny it all you want.

dancingqueen
04-09-2015, 07:53 PM
The truth in it is obvious. You can deny it all you want.

What am I allegedly denying?

Official Cat of Soonet
04-09-2015, 07:55 PM
Hi DQ!!!

Barry Morris
04-09-2015, 07:57 PM
What am I allegedly denying?

That "Homosexuality is unnatural."

They don't normally reproduce. Therefore they are an evolutionary dead-end.

dancingqueen
04-09-2015, 07:57 PM
Hi Cat!

dancingqueen
04-09-2015, 08:02 PM
That "Homosexuality is unnatural."

They don't normally reproduce. Therefore they are an evolutionary dead-end.

Lots of things we do are unnatural, so what?
That being said, homosexual acts do happen in nature, does that make it natural, and how relevant is that?
There exist cultures currently that reinforce and support a homosexual way of life, men and women live separately and come together on occasion for reproduction purposes. This would render your "evolutionary dead end" theory incorrect.

Barry Morris
04-09-2015, 08:08 PM
Lots of things we do are unnatural, so what?
That being said, homosexual acts do happen in nature, does that make it natural, and how relevant is that?
There exist cultures currently that reinforce and support a homosexual way of life, men and women live separately and come together on occasion for reproduction purposes. This would render your "evolutionary dead end" theory incorrect.

Scramble for exceptions. Don't say much for the sanctity of marriage, either.

dancingqueen
04-09-2015, 08:15 PM
Scramble for exceptions. Don't say much for the sanctity of marriage, either.

The "sanctity of marriage" is an abstract concept, it can mean whatever the person using it wants it to mean.
regardless of your opinion, there are ways around this imagined "evolutionary dead end"

Barry Morris
04-10-2015, 12:14 AM
The "sanctity of marriage" is an abstract concept, it can mean whatever the person using it wants it to mean.
regardless of your opinion, there are ways around this imagined "evolutionary dead end"

That's your way of saying you have no idea what a promise or vow means.

There are technological ways around the "evolutionary dead end". None of them have a man and a woman dedicated to each other conceiving children with their own genes combined.

Bluesky
04-10-2015, 10:41 AM
The arguments are all moot. Western societies have stopped reproducing at a sustainable rate. Europe's population has stalled and is dying (if you don't count the recent wave of immigrants). And we are not far behind. Having sex and having children used to go together. Not any more. Now it's all about pleasure and self-fulfillment.


Once people stop assuming that this having babies and raising families is what one does in life, it’s a downhill slide into disintegration.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/no-babies-europeans-sex-fertility/

Barry Morris
04-10-2015, 12:35 PM
It's clearly not an evolutionary dead end, because heterosexual people keep making gay kids. ...

This makes no sense. Of course it's a dead end.

Heterosexuals sometimes make kids that CAN'T physically reproduce, perhaps a defect in the reproductive organs. That defect would be an evolutionary dead end.

Barry Morris
04-10-2015, 06:57 PM
I see what you're saying, but the point I'm making is that homosexuality isn't an evolutionary dead end, because for whatever reason, it's a state (genetic probably) that's passed on through natural selection.

You might be able to say it's an end to a reproduction cycle for a certain lineage, but even that doesn't really hold true anymore.

I'm trying to get this. I went to google and searched "naural selection, definition, and go this:

noun
the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.

So if I try to state the reverse, it would be like this: the process whereby organisms less adapted to their environment tend to die off and not produce any offspring. So if a genetic trait that does NOT follow the above is inherent in a creature, that genetic trait is certainly not passed on through that organism to the next generation.

In other words, as you said, a defect.

Barry Morris
04-10-2015, 08:58 PM
But interesting. Thanks for the discussion.

dancingqueen
04-11-2015, 11:10 PM
I'm trying to get this. I went to google and searched "naural selection, definition, and go this:

Ahhh Google, now everyone is an expert on everything....

dancingqueen
04-11-2015, 11:12 PM
That's your way of saying you have no idea what a promise or vow means.

There are technological ways around the "evolutionary dead end". None of them have a man and a woman dedicated to each other conceiving children with their own genes combined.

Wow two different logical fallacies in one post...
Care to show how you came to the first conclusion, and then how the second one is relevant?

Barry Morris
04-12-2015, 04:22 AM
Wow two different logical fallacies in one post...
Care to show how you came to the first conclusion, and then how the second one is relevant?

They are opinions.

We're pretty much done here.

dancingqueen
04-12-2015, 12:22 PM
They are opinions.

We're pretty much done here.

I didn't think so.