[miykael]

I don't believe that this world of ours is full of jerks... nor is there a race, a country, a gender, a group, or any other generalized term that describes a people, that are full of jerks. What I do know is that there are individual jerks, and unfortunately, all too often, the focus is on them and what comes out of their mouths.

Let's not generalize. But I digress...

Originally posted by I Bent My Wookiee:
So I guess the funny part is all these Christian jerks who walk around saying Gay is a sin are full of it as they are loaded with sin in other ways.

This is in response to what you wrote above (quoted):

There is always a risk associated with boldly stating a judgement upon another, understanding context and intention are crucial in ensuring there is no miscommunication.

Your "funny" comment touches upon a very basic conflict between people. That is, can anyone judge another in anything at all, since no one is perfect and have failed in one way or another? Doesn't judgement upon another reflect some degree of care for that person, whether positive or negative?

I believe intention/motive and tact is important when one communicates. Unfortunately, it is hard to express or read any of those things in these forums, unless one takes the effort to do so.

I believe we can all do better in this department.

Thanks,

[BlackGriffen]

"Why Do You Find God Offencive?"

When I was a little boy, every time I tried to pray, a light shown down on me, and a voice said, "Pull my finger." Believe me, if you could smell what I smelled on the day I fell for it, you'd find god pretty offensive, too.


BG

[capuchin]

It's his cologne. Waaaaay too strong. Practically overpowering. I sit next to him on the bus, and he just slathers that crap on before he leaves the house.

Nice guy, though. Offered to do something about my nasty cough, but I told him no thanks.

[boots]

dp

[boots]

Originally posted by benb:
I would have to respectfully disagree. It was not the actions so much as the words "I am He." He claimed to be God, that is what made them mad. He also critcized the Pharisees openly, in front of them, and in front of the people who admired them. He exposed them for what they were, and it angered them.

I know that you probably don't like me, but if you could humor me and tell me what actions you were referring to. I am a bit confused as to what you meant, and maybe I just misunderstanding you.

No, I don't dislike you. I actually read your posts frequently. I respect your opinion, but we do seem to see things differently. I was saddened that you said you stopped reading my post in the other thread. You might have gotten more insight into where I'm comming from...but that's water under the bridge.

As to what actions I refer to, the ones that got him in most trouble were

1) over turning the tables in the temple. Had he simply said "You guys are a bunch of thieves" and left it there, they would have ignored him. But he acted on it.

2) Healing on the sabbath got the pharasees pretty cheesed.

3) breaking the cleanliness codes by eating with tax collectors, touching the unclean, etc. These were much more damning by the pharasee standard than anything he said.

And, while I know you disagree with this interpretation, there are many scholars who debate whether Jesus actually though of himself as devine. His use of "The Son of Man" can mean a lot of things, as can his flat out "son of God" statements....It has been argued that he simply thought he had a very close relationship with God, but that we are ALL son's and daughters of God.

Then too, everytime a "revelation of divinity" happens, he charged his disciples to keep their traps shut. He was not trying to make it public knowledge. True, he didn't do anything to disabuse people of the notions, but the message came more from what he did than what he said.

4) What got him in trouble with the Romans was much more of a composite. The straw that broke the proverbial camel's back was the ride into Jerusalem.

I want to make one more point. Just because I might challenge someones interpretation of the text doesn't mean I hate them or even disagree with them. I think this is serious enough matter that we need to challenge some assumptions. Its about the process with me. I do tend toward the liberal side of things, but that doesn't mean I don't like or don't have respect for more conservative views.

What I don't have respect for is a view that has been shown to be a) destructive or hateful (seems contradictory to the message as far as I can tell) and b) patently false/impossible based on what we know. If we come into factual knowlege, it must be made to fit with our understanding...even if we don't like it. Arguements about, say, a young earth don't mesh with what we know. so something has to be reassessed. Either the way we obtained the facts are flawed, or our interpretation of the text is flawed. I've had to deal with both in my life so far. That's why I place so much emphasis on epistomolgy and hermeneutics.

[benb]

Originally posted by boots:
No, I don't dislike you. I actually read your posts frequently. I respect your opinion, but we do seem to see things differently. I was saddened that you said you stopped reading my post in the other thread. You might have gotten more insight into where I'm comming from...but that's water under the bridge.

Schweet. I'm not out to get you, nor do I have a thing against you either.
I did read the rest of the other thread, just didn't reply to anything else.

As to what actions I refer to, the ones that got him in most trouble were

1) over turning the tables in the temple. Had he simply said "You guys are a bunch of thieves" and left it there, they would have ignored him. But he acted on it.

2) Healing on the sabbath got the pharasees pretty cheesed.

3) breaking the cleanliness codes by eating with tax collectors, touching the unclean, etc. These were much more damning by the pharasee standard than anything he said.

Yea, and I would say that the rebukes associated with the actions, especially #2's made them as mad, if not more.

And, while I know you disagree with this interpretation, there are many scholars who debate whether Jesus actually though of himself as devine. His use of "The Son of Man" can mean a lot of things, as can his flat out "son of God" statements....It has been argued that he simply thought he had a very close relationship with God, but that we are ALL son's and daughters of God.

But then you open up a whole 'nother can 'o worms. Namely, the 3 L's; Lunatic, Liar, or Lord. If he said He was, and thought He was, but wasn't, He'd be crazy. If he said He was and He knew He wasn't, then He'd be a Liar. If its either of these then there is no point in even continuing. It seems to be that He was. He said He was. I don't see much point in trying to explain away these things, only to base my beliefs on the book which contains the things I need to explain away.

Then too, everytime a "revelation of divinity" happens, he charged his disciples to keep their traps shut. He was not trying to make it public knowledge. True, he didn't do anything to disabuse people of the notions, but the message came more from what he did than what he said.

I think I am missing the point here.

4) What got him in trouble with the Romans was much more of a composite. The straw that broke the proverbial camel's back was the ride into Jerusalem.

But Rome (Pilate) did not find any reason to execute Him. They were not eager to rid themselves of Him, as evidenced by Pilate's offering to the Jews. They chose to free Judas. Pilate wanted them to choose Judas. They chose Jesus.

I want to make one more point. Just because I might challenge someones interpretation of the text doesn't mean I hate them or even disagree with them. I think this is serious enough matter that we need to challenge some assumptions. Its about the process with me. I do tend toward the liberal side of things, but that doesn't mean I don't like or don't have respect for more conservative views.

Sorry, did not mean to imply that. Glad to hear that though. I must admit, I am not the best reader of people I physically meet, so I must be worse in text only conversation. So for me to think that I knew your impression of me was a bit presumptuous.

[Edit: Man, do I have troubles with the "[B]" tag.]

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by boots:

... And it seems to me that most of what got Jesus it hot water was his actions, not necessarily the words...

I think his actions were what got him a following. His words were what got him in trouble. And they got him in trouble because they weren't just words. His actions backed up what he was saying.

... His actions were a direct threat to the authority of both Rome...

I don't know how much of a direct threat he was to Rome. Seems as though Pilate didn't see things that way. It took him a while to finally decide to execute Jesus.

edit: I guess you and ben have already been hashing this out.

[boots]

Originally posted by benb:
But then you open up a whole 'nother can 'o worms. Namely, the 3 L's; Lunatic, Liar, or Lord. If he said He was, and thought He was, but wasn't, He'd be crazy. If he said He was and He knew He wasn't, then He'd be a Liar. If its either of these then there is no point in even continuing. It seems to be that He was. He said He was. I don't see much point in trying to explain away these things, only to base my beliefs on the book which contains the things I need to explain away.

It becomes a question of motives. And I'm not implying that you are wrong in your reading...just that it isn't necessarily a clear cut issue. And on top of that (probably driving this issue) is the whole "If he was divine, how is the resurrection relevent to me, a mere human" and "if he was human, how does he have any authority." The Nicene council (second one, I think) issued the paradoxical theological statement that "he was both fully divine, and fully human" but that opens up another can of worms. If he was fully human (as the paradox goes) than did he have sexual desires? (This was the basis for the movie The Second Temptation of Christ"...while I disagree with the assumptions, it does make one think about it.)

I think I am missing the point here.

RE: "keep your trap shut." In the synoptic Gospels, whenever Jesus asks his disciple "Who do people say I am" They always reply with something like "Elija returned" or something similar. Then he asks "Who do you think that I am?" The answer "The son of Man" or "the Messiah" or somethink similar come out. And he always admonishes them to keep this revelation to themselves. Similar with some of the healings he did.

He always told them to keep that knowledge to themselves. Reread the transfiguration story (Mark 9, I think). At the end of the exchange, he tells them to remain silent about the experience until the day the son of man has his day. Presumably, until after the resurrection.

But Rome (Pilate) did not find any reason to execute Him. They were not eager to rid themselves of Him, as evidenced by Pilate's offering to the Jews. They chose to free Judas. Pilate wanted them to choose Judas. They chose Jesus.

Neither are innocent in that. The Catholic church used to teach anti-semitism because of this reading of history. From a political perspective, Pilot had EVERY reason to put him to death as a political dissident. He simply had the option of "washing his hands" of the decision because of the feeling of the Jewish leadership. Who also had reason to want him gone.

The facts from the story are pretty clear, though. Crucifixion is a Roman form of execution, not Jewish. The preferred Jewish form was stoning.

[boots]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
I think his actions were what got him a following. His words were what got him in trouble. And they got him in trouble because they weren't just words. His actions backed up what he was saying.

True. My interpretation of events is that had he just said things, he would have been marginalized as a quack. lord knows there were plenty of them around. We still have them.

Certainly, he had to explain his actions so they didn't think him just a raving lunatic.

But the key was the action and what the actions represented: a challenge to current authority. The words just explained it so there was no confusion. I guess that's what I'm trying to say. The combination got him in trouble, but I see more weight given to the actions.

I don't know how much of a direct threat he was to Rome. Seems as though Pilate didn't see things that way. It took him a while to finally decide to execute Jesus.

He was leading an insurgency. He rode into Jerusalem as a King. That signals a very significant change in the politics involved. He was the most dangerous of dissidents: A popular one.

See the last part of my reply to Ben for the rest of the tought.

[benb]

Originally posted by boots:
It becomes a question of motives. And I'm not implying that you are wrong in your reading...just that it isn't necessarily a clear cut issue. And on top of that (probably driving this issue) is the whole "If he was divine, how is the resurrection relevent to me, a mere human" and "if he was human, how does he have any authority." The Nicene council (second one, I think) issued the paradoxical theological statement that "he was both fully divine, and fully human" but that opens up another can of worms.

Fully God and fully man. Phillipians 2:6-7, "who , although He [Christ] existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men." Paradoxial, it sure seems it to us. Is it? Well, "through Him all things are possible." It doesn't seem so impossible.

Neither are innocent in that. The Catholic church used to teach anti-semitism because of this reading of history. From a political perspective, Pilot had EVERY reason to put him to death as a political dissident. He simply had the option of "washing his hands" of the decision because of the feeling of the Jewish leadership. Who also had reason to want him gone.

The facts from the story are pretty clear, though. Crucifixion is a Roman form of execution, not Jewish. The preferred Jewish form was stoning.

But the Jews in the first century were not allowed to put people to death outside the Roman courts. John 18:31, Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." "But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected. They couldn't do it without the approval of Rome. Rome had to be involved. Rome did not want Him dead, they had no charges against Him, as evidenced by Pilate.

[boots]

Originally posted by benb:
Fully God and fully man. Phillipians 2:6-7, "who , although He [Christ] existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men." Paradoxial, it sure seems it to us. Is it? Well, "through Him all things are possible." It doesn't seem so impossible.

Truly, a mystery of faith. Just as mysterious are the implications. I don't see things a clear cut as you seem to.

But the Jews in the first century were not allowed to put people to death outside the Roman courts. John 18:31, Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." "But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected. They couldn't do it without the approval of Rome. Rome had to be involved. Rome did not want Him dead, they had no charges against Him, as evidenced by Pilate.

That's the supposed public record. You don't think there were political undercurrents involved? Remember, the disciples were VERY anti-semitic, mostly because of the perceived abuse of power at the hands of the Pharasees.

I don't believe it was that simple. Had they wanted him stoned, it would have happened. They thumbed their nose at Roman law enough that this would have been a trifle. Remember too that the Jews were looking for Messiah. And they thought it would be a military leader to free them from the "bondage" of Roman rule. If you were Pilate, would you ignore this? If you were writing the accounts just afterward, would you rail against Pilate (or the powers still in authority) and risk being crucified yourself? Probably not. I'd blame the Jews too. Hell, one more kick while you're down isn't such a big thing. Even Peter, poor Peter, denied Christ himself.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:

The very fact that Christianity's belief system is becoming more and more lenient every year should tell you something... namely that it isn't correct at all.

- Ca$h

You got it all figured out, don't you Sweetie? But there is a flaw in your logic, that I'm not following. How is that you make the leap from "people are screwing like bunnies, and the religion is more tolerant of it" to "see, it can't be true because it didn't used to be that way". To me, in my opinion, that shows good old human desire to screw like bunnies and not feel guilty about it, than concrete proof the doctrine is incorrect. Just because man changes the church, doesn't mean that God, if you believe in such a critter, approves. Free will is not a good way of disproving Christianity, when it is fully accounted for and is at least partially the basis of the doctrine. If there is a God, I don't think you can say the fallacies of man disprove his/her/its existence.

Anyway, I am Catholic, but I am not the preachy sort. You can count the number of people I have tried to convert on no hands. None, not a single one. Nor will I ever. I went to a Jesuit college, and by the time I was finished, I didn't have much use for Catholicism, or any church for that matter. After a lot of soul searching, I came back. I think a lot of it has more to do with tradition, heritage, and ethnic identity with me, than the religious aspect, and I am comfortable with that.

I get just as annoyed as any atheist when someone tells me that I am going to hell for how I live, or that my brand of Christianity isn't' the "right brand" of Christianity. I think Dennis Miller said it best : "Follow Jesus, don't stalk him."

[ckohler]

In answer to the thread's original question:

Call me Atheist or whatever you will but I can no more hate God than I hate Zeus. To me, they both just figments of human imagination... stories and ideas concocted thousands of years ago by a simpler people.

As far as I'm concerned, people who believe in a God can believe whatever they like. "To each their own" is a motto I choose to live by and it has always served me well. I would no more make fun of someone practicing Christan beliefs than I would someone who likes to collect ceramic dolls. I'm all for people being happy and for a majority of society, believing in a god does that for them. As long as you don't hurt me or those I love through your beliefs or passions, more power to you.

I have a number of deeply religious friends and co-workers and they are all good people as far as I'm concerned. Even I, someone who practices no faith, can appreciate some of the good morals (friendship, love, charity) that going to church can inject into a society that certainly needs more good morals. I just choose to subscribe to those morals without having to believe in a higher power or getting tangled up in the messy strings of thousand year old beliefs and rituals.

Now to the meat of the subject... Do I hate religious people who try to convert me? No. I don't hate them or their god. It does irritate me a little but no more than it takes me to tell them I'm not interested. The biggest thorn in my side would be that for all their good intentions they are simply breaking my cardinal policy of "To each their own".

[kOnshii]

if jesus was so popular,

why did the crowd (i think the jews, his people) cheered for the criminal to be free on the cross instead of jesus.

it was a very long time ago since i read the bible, i can't remember much details, or understood it much either.

[boots]

Originally posted by kOnshii:
if jesus was so popular,

why did the crowd (i think the jews, his people) cheered for the criminal to be free on the cross instead of jesus.

it was a very long time ago since i read the bible, i can't remember much details, or understood it much either.

Mostly, (from what I can tell) because he was polpular with the people, not the priests. And it was the priests who held the power (such as it was under Roman rule).

It was a battle of authority in the leadership of the people. Rome, Pharasee, or Jesus. Some days, I'm still not sure who won.

[benb]

Originally posted by boots:
I don't believe it was that simple. Had they wanted him stoned, it would have happened.

They did, they tried, and it didn't happen.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by boots:

He was leading an insurgency. He rode into Jerusalem as a King. That signals a very significant change in the politics involved. He was the most dangerous of dissidents: A popular one.

Sorry, I just don't buy this. I think you are looking at this through a 21st century lens - everything is political. There were political implications but that was in no way the focus of what he did. He wasn't leading an insurgency. He called people to repent. And to the extent that he was a dissident he dissented from the spiritual authorities not Rome. He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and the people started calling him "King of the Jews" Did he ever make that claim for himself? Was it the donkey that made people think that way? Or was it their hunger for a Messiah that caused them to respond that way? And so what if they called him that? Israel had a king. That wasn't neccessarily a problem. A popular king could have been useful to Rome just so long as he knew his place. The Jews were a difficult people to rule. It wasn't until Pilate conversed with Jesus and took his measure of him that he acceded to kill him.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Sorry, I just don't buy this. I think you are looking at this through a 21st century lens - everything is political. There were political implications but that was in no way the focus of what he did. He wasn't leading an insurgency. He called people to repent. And to the extent that he was a dissident he dissented from the spiritual authorities not Rome. He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and the people started calling him "King of the Jews" Did he ever make that claim for himself? Was it the donkey that made people think that way? Or was it their hunger for a Messiah that caused them to respond that way? And so what if they called him that? Israel had a king. That wasn't neccessarily a problem. A popular king could have been useful to Rome just so long as he knew his place. The Jews were a difficult people to rule. It wasn't until Pilate conversed with Jesus and took his measure of him that he acceded to kill him.

According to the New Testament account, I think roger_ramjet is very correct in his assertion.

Jesus was a threat to Jewish religious culture, not to Rome. After all, Pilot couldn't find fault with him. It was only at the insistance of the Pharisees that Jesus was executed.

(Now, I know many people take issue with the New Testament account which is why I mention that. I know several "scholars" who think the New Testament account is entirely constructed to villify Jews with respect to Jesus.)

[qnxde]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes Jesus said he didnt come to replace God's moral laws.

But none the less, I don't think being a homosexual is a sin. Only the homosexual acts are.

A bit late I know, but I just had to ask. You say you can be gay, but you only are sinning if you commit the "act". By act, I'm assuming you mean the physical action of homosexual sex. That's all well and good, but doesn't the Bible say that to think it is to do it, as in - if you think about murdering someone, to God, that is as bad as going out and really killing them? Or to be unfaithful in your mind is likened to actually commiting adultery? It would seem to me what with men thinking about sex every 8 seconds on average (according to some statistics) that even if a gay person doesn't commit the physical action of having sex, they are sinning just thinking about it? If this is true, this would blow your "it's okay to be gay if you don't do it" argument out of the water.

Something to think about...

[Superchicken]

Interesting comments people... although to be perfectly honest I havn't even read the third page haha, but I have read all of page 4 so far

I will say for the relative truth argument that was going on on page 2, that's honestly one of the most laughable lines I hear from atheists and agnotics... why inteligent people would think that after you're dead reality shifts into whatever you figured would be there. What about the guy who thinks he's going to hell? Poor him. If the truth is truth for you it's truth for me is my motto. Otherwise it wouldn't be truth. The realative truth argument relies on there being no absolute truths, which then in it'self it would have to be an absolute truth, hence there have to be truths that are absolute. And since this relative truth idea is pretty young.. I pitty all the people who lived before it cause they had no clue what was comming... to me it just really doesn't hold water

[Fat Barry]

My perspective looks like this:

I go to the American Museum of Natural History and there are hundreds of displays of religious relics from tribes and cultures throughout the world. Every time I go, seeing them in the context of visiting crowds, I noticed that the fertility objects get alot of chuckles and stares by the teeenage girls, the icons with elephant heads or flaming swords get skeptical but inquisitive glances by the mulletheads and the stoners, and the Roman and Greek gods get alot of Clash of the Titan fans (aka. NERDS) staring off into space as they imagine themselves sticking wax in their ears to escape the deadly sirens, and doing other stuff. Riding Pegasus, sticking it to Helen of Troy, who knows. Whatever floats their boats.

All in all, it just makes me think that religion belongs in a museum. Faith in all sorts of bizarre and controlling ideas that might seem okay to practising Christians and Muslims and etc. today, eventually will look ridiculous to museum patrons 2,000 years from now.

I don't think any religion can claim that it will survive the scrutiny of time, but if they do, they say it is "faith"...

And it's this trust that "I am right and you'll be proven wrong" that frustrates the hell out of me (pun intended).

I mean, Christians, at least have a little skeptical doubt! It's healthy! It's human.

Long live the donut and the burrito!!!

Sincerely,

Fat Barry

[NosniboR80]

Originally posted by qnxde:
A bit late I know, but I just had to ask. You say you can be gay, but you only are sinning if you commit the "act". By act, I'm assuming you mean the physical action of homosexual sex. That's all well and good, but doesn't the Bible say that to think it is to do it, as in - if you think about murdering someone, to God, that is as bad as going out and really killing them? Or to be unfaithful in your mind is likened to actually commiting adultery? It would seem to me what with men thinking about sex every 8 seconds on average (according to some statistics) that even if a gay person doesn't commit the physical action of having sex, they are sinning just thinking about it? If this is true, this would blow your "it's okay to be gay if you don't do it" argument out of the water.

Something to think about...

People love to bring up this issue to point fingers at the Bible and Christians, but it isn't a central issue at all.

The Bible says that homosexuality is sin. So is all other sex besides consensual sex under marriage. The whole lusting thing is just as applicable to homosexuals as it is to heterosexuals. None of us should be lusting after sex. I'm not the one to preach to anyone about not lusting, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't state the Bible's position, when it hasn't been given.

The thing that non-Christians (and a lot of Christians for that matter) don't get is that all sin is equally bad to God. It isn't the consequence of the action that God abhors; it is the use of free will to defy His will that he hates.

Superchicken was right to say that a homosexual can go to heaven, because more than likely I have commited more sexual sin than a lot of homosexuals, and that doesn't keep me from heaven as long as I genuinely repent for those sins.

Personally, I think that people are sort of born with tendencies toward certain sins. I tend to be rebellious against an authority, even if I agree with it otherwise. I have problems with lust, and occasionally I get rapped up in lies. Additionally, I have a big problem with pride.

Other people have other sinful tendencies. For example, a non-Christian friend of mine isn't interested in those sins at all. He doesn't have any problem with lust or pride at all. People feel the tugs in all sorts of different directions.

I think that homosexuality is just one of many of those directions. Does that mean that a homosexual can't have a personal/saving relationship with Jesus? No. If he fights to make homosexuality a legitimate thing in his denomination, is he following God's will? Probably not, almost assuredly not. However, unless he is my friend, then that is all up to God to deal with and not me. If it is my friend, then all I can really do is suggest that he read those scriptures that oppose such things and ask him to pray about the issue.

Still, homosexuality is only tangential to the real issues of evangelism/faith/salvation/grace/etc.

[qnxde]

sin or no sin, I find the fact that your God finds the love and affection I have for my partner "an abomination" extremely offensive. I honestly love my boyfriend with all my heart, and I want to be with him for the rest of my life - and the fact that God and his followers wants to invalidate all of that by saying it's unnatural, it's evil, it's a sin, etc is one of the most hurtful things someone can say. This isn't about eating pork, this is about a so-called lifestyle "choice". I was made this way, I am perfectly happy with who I am, yet my creator isn't? Being gay does no harm to anybody, it is not a bad thing in any sense of the word. Why is it a sin? How can love be a sin?

[miykael]

Originally posted by Fat Barry:
...

I mean, Christians, at least have a little skeptical doubt! It's healthy! It's human.

Long live the donut and the burrito!!!

Sincerely,

Fat Barry [/B]

I am going to ease your mind a little, Barry, and suggest that many Christians (if not all, but I'm afraid to generalize) have experienced that "little skeptical doubt" that you speak of at one point of their Christian life or another.

You're right, it's entirely human to be doubtful. I would even venture to suggest that Christians are regularly "challenged" about their beliefs and undoubtedly (heh), feel some doubt. That being said, I believe it is their PERSONAL EXPERIENCE and RELATIONSHIP with God/Jesus Christ/The Holy Spirit that holds their faith so steadfast.

Correct me if I'm wrong,

[putamare]

Originally posted by NosniboR80:
it is the use of free will to defy His will that he hates

Which is precisely what I find offensive. I know I'm in good company when I delcare that "I will not serve."

Or wait... is it the people that presume they know what his will is that I am offended by? Doesn't matter, I'll go on the record as being offended by both (I'm flexible that way).

[philzilla]

DEAD KENNEDYS : Religious Vomit

[Chorus]
All religions make me wanna throw up
All religions make me sick
All religions make me wanna throw up
All religions suck
They all claim that they have the truth

That'll set you free
Just give 'em all your money and they'll set you free
Free for a fee

They all claim that they have 'the Answer'
When they don't even know the Question
They're just a bunch of liars
They just want your money
They just want your consciousness

[Chorus]
All religions suck
All religions make me wanna throw up
All religions suck
All religions make me wanna BLEAH

They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me ILL

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by philzilla:
[B][b]DEAD KENNEDYS : Religious Vomit....

What I find hilarious is you are offended when someone says they're christian, but we're NOT supposed to be offended by being called liars or worse, right?

who is shoving crap down whose throat here?
who is getting in whose face here?


who are the bleedin hypocrites here?

[MindFad]

Everyone!!!11!!


*thread explodes into a million pieces*

The End.

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

who is shoving crap down whose throat here?
who is getting in whose face here?

who are the bleedin hypocrites here?

Hey we have had to listen to preachy hate mongering religious freaks for years, so excuse us if we are fed up with it.

[dillerX]

Originally posted by MindFad:
Everyone!!!11!!


*thread explodes into a million pieces*

The End.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by I Bent My Wookiee:
Hey we have had to listen to preachy hate mongering religious freaks for years, so excuse us if we are fed up with it.

Gentlemen, I present you with exhibit A.

I rest my case.

say goodnight gracie.

[j0nb0y22]

Jebus Christ... nobody finds your precious God offensive, I can tell you one thing, I find it offensive when bible bangers try to force their religion upon me, or when they are condescending towards me because they feel they are doing the "right things" in life and I am not, and I'll bet that more than a few people, Christian or not, would agree with me.

[philzilla]

Originally posted by j0nb0y22:
Jebus Christ... nobody finds your precious God offensive, I can tell you one thing, I find it offensive when bible bangers try to force their religion upon me, or when they are condescending towards me because they feel they are doing the "right things" in life and I am not, and I'll bet that more than a few people, Christian or not, would agree with me.

that's about the size of it

[Sealobo]

Originally posted by j0nb0y22:
I find it offensive when bible bangers try to force their religion upon me, or when they are condescending towards me because they feel they are doing the "right things" in life and I am not.

That's so true... those messengers are sick.

A while ago I was sitting down in a KFC and tried to stuff some chicken into my mouth. All of a sudden 2 guys popped up in front of me asking if i believed in Jesus. I said no and no thanks. They didn't care, asked me if i know how the world and life began. I said how the **** do i know and then they started explaining to me how his God created the world in 7 days... lol

That 15 mins of KFCing was so ****ed up.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by j0nb0y22:
Jebus Christ... nobody finds your precious God offensive, I can tell you one thing, I find it offensive when bible bangers try to force their religion upon me, or when they are condescending towards me because they feel they are doing the "right things" in life and I am not, and I'll bet that more than a few people, Christian or not, would agree with me.

I think what we're witnessing here is that its ok to be offensive if your'e nonchristian..you can pretty much slander up one side and down another, all manner of false and evil things can be said and that's perfectly acceptable.
That, to me, is offensive.

on the other hand, you find it offensive that people of faith can talk about their faith. You find it the same level of offense. I consider the two offenses on different levels.

However, that does not mean that I feel its appropriate to attempt to proselytize people that don't want to hear it...that's like unwanted telemarketing. The problem is, if you allow scripture and religious mottos to be used by people on this forum who are AGAINST religion (and there are several who do this), then you have no leg to stand on if you complain when people use scripture or religious mottos by people who are Pro religion.

Its a question of perspective. Even though I disagree personally with someone like superchicken having an excessively religious sig, at the same time I don't feel I have a right to ask him to change it.
However, if enough of you demand he not use scripture in his sig, then you MUST also demand the same thing of ca$h and star wars parade, philzilla and others.

Otherwise, you're nothing but hypocrites, of the lowest order....oh wait. never mind.

I forgot where I was for a moment....whew!

thanks! never mind.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by I Bent My Wookiee:
Hey we have had to listen to preachy hate mongering religious freaks for years, so excuse us if we are fed up with it.

Sounds like to me it's not the Christians that are full of hate in here.

[philzilla]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
However, if enough of you demand he not use scripture in his sig, then you MUST also demand the same thing of ca$h and star wars parade, philzilla and others.

how does he qualify? which part of the bible is "Barwaraaawww" in? i've never read that part, sorry. as for mine, i'm quoting a friend. i still don't think it warranted a PM from you, but hey, freedom of speech, huh. i'm not gonna stop you.

[j0nb0y22]

all manner of false and evil things can be said and that's perfectly acceptable.

What did I say that was false and/or evil?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by j0nb0y22:
What did I say that was false and/or evil?

"you" was meant as a general "you" not you specifically.

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Sounds like to me it's not the Christians that are full of hate in here.

Yes you try to sound clever with that bit in every thread. It isn't you Christians that are hateful it is the people who don't like you that are hateful.

Guilty.

The difference is, you guys started it.

[zigzag]

It seems to me that there are different degrees of belief and non-belief, different degrees of hostility and tolerance, etc. Some are hardcore believers, some are believers but open to change, some are indifferent, some are hostile. Some non-believers think it's inherently irrational to believe, some see it as just another option. Some believers think it's inherently irrational to not believe, other believers see it as just another option. Some believers think that other believers are irrational, just as some non-believers do. Some have had negative personal experiences, others have had positive personal experiences, others have had both, others have had neither. Some like to share their experiences, bad and good, others prefer to keep things to themselves. Some like to express their disapproval, some don't. Some respond viscerally, others shrug it off. Some regard any favorable mention of religion as unwelcome proselytizing and/or condescension, others regard any unfavorable mention of religion as unwelcome hostility and/or condescension.

And everything in-between.

Given all the variables, you have an almost infinite variety of beliefs and attitudes and communication styles. There's no way to resolve it and it's just something we have to live with, IMO. If believers want to state their case, that's their right, and if non-believers want to state their case, that's their right as well, and each should be prepared to accept the consequences. There's no guarantee that any exchange will be fair.

JMHO.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by I Bent My Wookiee:
Yes you try to sound clever with that bit in every thread.

Well why do you always seem to be so hateful about CHristians in every thread? Esp when the Christians in here haven't been hateful towards you?

It isn't you Christians that are hateful it is the people who don't like you that are hateful.

Guilty.

Well at least you are coming to terms with it.

The difference is, you guys started it.

Really? I started it? What did I start? Sounds pretty petty to me.

Your beef is with people that hate. Not with Christians.

Christians are against hate also.

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Well why do you always seem to be so hateful about CHristians in every thread? Esp when the Christians in here haven't been hateful towards you? [/B]

Guess again. I see some crap every week about some redneck that just kicked the crap out of a gay man saying that the bible said it is ok.

Also they Christians come to Pride day and spread HATE literature. What they hope to accomplish I don't know. My guess is that they want to convert some gay people in the same way your uncle was converted.

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Really? I started it? What did I start? Sounds pretty petty to me.

To be honest, if you never posted in this thread, there will not be any problems. Everyone was totally cool with SuperChi[c]ken until you came and start messing stuffs up.

By the way, it's really unnecessary to tell on mods about me again. You could have PMed me first

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


Really? I started it? What did I start? Sounds pretty petty to me.

Your beef is with people that hate. Not with Christians.

Christians are against hate also.

Christians started it, not so much you. They started it will telling everyone to follow THEIR rules and telling them what they think is right and wrong. People get fed up.

Sorry, but the very nature of Christians is hate judging by your own bible.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Its a question of perspective. Even though I disagree personally with someone like superchicken having an excessively religious sig, at the same time I don't feel I have a right to ask him to change it.
However, if enough of you demand he not use scripture in his sig, then you MUST also demand the same thing of ca$h and star wars parade, philzilla and others.

Otherwise, you're nothing but hypocrites, of the lowest order....oh wait. never mind.

I forgot where I was for a moment....whew!

thanks! never mind.

I agree - IMO no one should be restricted from stating what they believe, pro or con, benign or hostile. At the same time, anyone who dishes it out should be prepared to take it in return.

However, I've also concluded that it's probably futile to fret about these things. Everyone has a different mindset and chaos will forever reign. [/shrug]

[benb]

Originally posted by I Bent My Wookiee:
Sorry, but the very nature of Christians is hate judging by your own bible.

Um, yea. Have you even thought about the posts in this thread, or have you only read them with the intention of insulting the participants and persistantly saying things like the above. I'm all for you participating, but please read what people are posting, and give it thought, both sides of the argument. Then formulate a coherent post, and please, back up your claims.

[putamare]

I'm also offended by the veiled use of numerology in this very thread. Why Lerkfish's 7 angry faces followed immediately by MindFad's surreptitious use of 11 indicates something is afoot (sureaits a typo, that's what THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE!!!!!). The wookie's 411 postcount afterward clearly indicates you are all up to something. While I hold no official position on the abstract principle of numerology in and of itself, what you are all up to sickens me. Again, not you personally (per se), but the dark mysteries you are toying with...

I'm thoroughly offended by the use of DK lyrics w/o music. That's kind of like sex without genitalia: perverse & wrong. And, as Voltaire said "Anything too stupid to be spoken is sung." But who listens to dead French people anyway?

It is high time everyone was offended (we live in a democracy, after all (or was that a republic under god?)). It is your perfect and natural right to be offended by me, as I by you. Once offense pervades all, it becomes tautological, and vanishes in its own ubiquitousness.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally posted by benb:
I'm all for you participating, but please read what people are posting, and give it thought, both sides of the argument. Then formulate a coherent post, and please, back up your claims.

Ok, how about the Bible saying that if a man has sex with another man is is your duty to kill him.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by putamare:
I'm also offended by the veiled use of numerology in this very thread. Why Lerkfish's 7 angry faces followed immediately by MindFad's surreptitious use of 11 indicates something is afoot (sureaits a typo, that's what THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE!!!!!). The wookie's 411 postcount afterward clearly indicates you are all up to something. While I hold no official position on the abstract principle of numerology in and of itself, what you are all up to sickens me. Again, not you personally (per se), but the dark mysteries you are toying with...

I'm thoroughly offended by the use of DK lyrics w/o music. That's kind of like sex without genitalia: perverse & wrong. And, as Voltaire said "Anything too stupid to be spoken is sung." But who listens to dead French people anyway?

It is high time everyone was offended (we live in a democracy, after all (or was that a republic under god?)). It is your perfect and natural right to be offended by me, as I by you. Once offense pervades all, it becomes tautological, and vanishes in its own ubiquitousness.

:applause:

WOO HOOO! Post of the day!!

extra points for use of the word "ubiquitousness"