Why try to disprove Christianity?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-05-15 07:07pm

EvilGrey wrote:
SirNitram wrote: Appeal To Popularity Fallacy. You Lose! Good Day Sir!
Maybe you should actually inform yourself on what the popularity fallacy is before accusing me of it.

I haven't made any appeals to it.

And the Wall Of Ignorance holds as true as always.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-05-15 07:08pm

I don't know about it ocurring at a predictable frequency. Can you show me some evidence of that? Biologists don't consider it to be a "disorder" either. Again, reference?

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-05-15 07:09pm

Darth Servo wrote:Abnormal perhaps. So is being a midget. Being abnormal does NOT make it immoral

I never said it was immoral.

I don't care what causes it.

Not a man of science?

You have NOT given a logical reason why homosexuality is immoral.

Never said it was.

And if it IS caused by some hormonal imballance or other biological factor, then the person in question really has no choice in the matter does he/she. Therefore, he/she should NOT be discriminated against for being a homosexual.

Also never said they should be discriminated against.

Next time don't jump to conclusions.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-15 07:12pm

EvilGrey wrote:Disregarding God and theism altogether, an objective analysis of homosexuality does lend credence to the theistic claim that homosexuality is abnormal.

Notice how he answers a challenge to explain why homosexuality is wrong by simply pointing out that it's abnormal.

EvilGrey, IQ's above 130 are abnormal too. Are they also "wrong"?

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-05-15 07:12pm

Superman wrote:I don't know about it ocurring at a predictable frequency. Can you show me some evidence of that?

It's common knowledge. The most reliable scientific studies have concluded that it occurs in about 2 to 3% of the population, and occurs in other mammalian species as well.

Biologists don't consider it to be a "disorder" either. Again, reference?

That's because militant homosexuals forced their condition to be viewed as perfectly normal rather than a regularly-occuring disorder.

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-05-15 07:14pm

Darth Wong wrote:
EvilGrey wrote:Disregarding God and theism altogether, an objective analysis of homosexuality does lend credence to the theistic claim that homosexuality is abnormal.
Notice how he answers a challenge to explain why homosexuality is wrong by simply pointing out that it's abnormal.

EvilGrey, IQ's above 130 are abnormal too. Are they also "wrong"?

Notice how Wong thinks I claimed it to be wrong when I never did.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-05-15 07:17pm

EvilGrey wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
EvilGrey wrote:Disregarding God and theism altogether, an objective analysis of homosexuality does lend credence to the theistic claim that homosexuality is abnormal.
Notice how he answers a challenge to explain why homosexuality is wrong by simply pointing out that it's abnormal.

EvilGrey, IQ's above 130 are abnormal too. Are they also "wrong"?
Notice how Wong thinks I claimed it to be wrong when I never did.

Actually, by supporting the 'theistic'(What bullshit, call it what you are really supporting, spineless git) premise, you claimed just that. You can lie and backpeddal, but it doesn't change things.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-15 07:17pm

EvilGrey wrote:Notice how Wong thinks I claimed it to be wrong when I never did.

So you agree that the Biblical God is completely wrong on this count, then?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-05-15 07:18pm

EvilGrey wrote:
Superman wrote:I don't know about it ocurring at a predictable frequency. Can you show me some evidence of that?
It's common knowledge. The most reliable scientific studies have concluded that it occurs in about 2 to 3% of the population, and occurs in other mammalian species as well.

What kind of tolerant propaganda did you pull that shit from?

Biologists don't consider it to be a "disorder" either. Again, reference?
That's because militant homosexuals forced their condition to be viewed as perfectly normal rather than a regularly-occuring disorder.

Prediction 2 for this thread hijack has occured. Use of the term "militant homosexuals" by Brainiac here.

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-05-15 07:21pm

Darth Wong wrote:
EvilGrey wrote:Notice how Wong thinks I claimed it to be wrong when I never did.
So you agree that the Biblical God is completely wrong on this count, then?

According to a former professor of mine, the verse condeming homosexuality in the OT no longer applies. It was written to ensure males engaged in intercourse with females in the hope of impregnating her with the Messiah. Well, he came, he saw, he left. The verse is obsolete.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-05-15 07:21pm

No, it's not "common knowledge." Give me your source, you idiot. Put up or shut up.

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-05-15 07:22pm

SirNitram wrote:Actually, by supporting the 'theistic'(What bullshit, call it what you are really supporting, spineless git) premise, you claimed just that. You can lie and backpeddal, but it doesn't change things.

Do you realize Christianity is not the only form of theism in the world?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-05-15 07:23pm

EvilGrey wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
EvilGrey wrote:Notice how Wong thinks I claimed it to be wrong when I never did.
So you agree that the Biblical God is completely wrong on this count, then?
According to a former professor of mine, the verse condeming homosexuality in the OT no longer applies. It was written to ensure males engaged in intercourse with females in the hope of impregnating her with the Messiah. Well, he came, he saw, he left. The verse is obsolete.

That is THE most bizarre interpretation I have ever read! Totally beyond belief!

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-05-15 07:25pm

EvilGrey wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Actually, by supporting the 'theistic'(What bullshit, call it what you are really supporting, spineless git) premise, you claimed just that. You can lie and backpeddal, but it doesn't change things.
Do you realize Christianity is not the only form of theism in the world?

It's the only one you've not condemned for being 'unenlightened'.

It's the only one to embrace the ideas you support.

But, please, if you aren't Christian, enlighten us, you spineless little git.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-05-15 07:27pm

EvilGrey wrote:If you fall back one level and examine what Hell actually represents, you have no need to fear it any longer. It is merely a place or state of being where God is no longer with you because you rejected Him.

Nearly anyone who believes in it says its SOME kind of place of eternal suffereing. If it is simply "being apart from God, then WHY is heaven superior to hell?

However, having read Revelation yesterday, I can't help but wonder WTF the man who wrote it was smoking. Sounds like a typical drug-induced hallucination.

I'm sure you can relate.

2) Who said I wasn't a Christian? I reject YOUR interpretation of Christianity, but that doesn't mean I'm not one myself.
Good for you.

I didn't say I am a Christian either. What part of "I've said NOTHING about my religious beliefs or lack there of" do you not understand. My own feelings on this matter are personal and I intend to keep them that way.

Likewise, I have never once stated my religion, nor have I ever claimed to have one. But, the bitter atheists on this board saw that I was defending theism and labelled me a fundie moron.

You think anyone who doesn't follow Jesus is going to hell. You think Atheism is unhealthy, have no concept of morality, cannot answer whether rape is right or wrong, yet argue that man cannot judge God even when his actions are obviously evil. You think COMMUNISM is identical with atheism even though it is not and paint Mao and Stalin as representative of what all atheists are like. You define Christianity as good and anyone who isn't good can't be a true christian regardless of their personal beliefs and say that anyone who is immoral MUST be an atheist. All this crap and more earned you that FM title and you fully deserve it because you ARE a fundie moron.

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-05-15 07:27pm

Superman wrote:No, it's not "common knowledge." Give me your source, you idiot. Put up or shut up.

Let me just say I've been surprised quite a few times by some of the gross levels of ignorance on this board, but no one has ever managed to shock me like you just did now!

I'd very much like to know what you think about homosexuality and its rate of occurence.

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-05-15 07:28pm

Frank Hipper wrote:
EvilGrey wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: So you agree that the Biblical God is completely wrong on this count, then?
According to a former professor of mine, the verse condeming homosexuality in the OT no longer applies. It was written to ensure males engaged in intercourse with females in the hope of impregnating her with the Messiah. Well, he came, he saw, he left. The verse is obsolete.
That is THE most bizarre interpretation I have ever read! Totally beyond belief!

Why?

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-05-15 07:29pm

SirNitram wrote:
EvilGrey wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Actually, by supporting the 'theistic'(What bullshit, call it what you are really supporting, spineless git) premise, you claimed just that. You can lie and backpeddal, but it doesn't change things.
Do you realize Christianity is not the only form of theism in the world?
It's the only one you've not condemned for being 'unenlightened'.

It's the only one to embrace the ideas you support.

But, please, if you aren't Christian, enlighten us, you spineless little git.

The only religion I condemned as unenlightened was Islam.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-05-15 07:29pm

Don't change the subject, moron. Give me your sources for

1) homosexuality occuring at a predictabe rate in mammals

2) biologists considering it to be a "disorder"

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-05-15 07:32pm

EvilGrey wrote:According to a former professor of mine, the verse condeming homosexuality in the OT no longer applies. It was written to ensure males engaged in intercourse with females in the hope of impregnating her with the Messiah. Well, he came, he saw, he left. The verse is obsolete.

And Paul said that homosexuality is "worthy of death".

Romans 1:26-32 wrote:For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Hardly the charitable thing to say.

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-05-15 07:32pm

Superman wrote:1) homosexuality occuring at a predictabe rate in mammals

You can just search the Internet and be inundated with innumerable studies. I'm surprised you were not aware of this.

2) biologists considering it to be a "disorder"

I never said that.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-05-15 07:35pm

EvilGrey wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:That is THE most bizarre interpretation I have ever read! Totally beyond belief!
Why?

You say that the OT declaring homosexuality an abomination is based on the off-chance that it may lead to the messiah "missing the boat"????
Where did your professor get this idea? I mean really!

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-05-15 07:37pm

Darth Servo wrote:*snip*

I was wondering how long it would be before someone quoted that.

Now, if we fall back one level and examine what the quintessence of Christianity is -- submit to God or perish, the same principle in all enlightened religion -- I think it becomes evident that the verses' author was attempting to convey the need for harmony [through adherence to doctrine and faith in God] with nature to be saved, which is exactly what other religions state.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-05-15 07:38pm

EvilGrey wrote:
Superman wrote:2) biologists considering it to be a "disorder"
I never said that.

No, YOU consider it to be a disorder. We apologize for the confusion of your non-existant mind.

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-05-15 07:39pm

Frank Hipper wrote:
EvilGrey wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:That is THE most bizarre interpretation I have ever read! Totally beyond belief!
Why?
You say that the OT declaring homosexuality an abomination is based on the off-chance that it may lead to the messiah "missing the boat"????
Where did your professor get this idea? I mean really!

He does have a Ph.D. from Harvard, is fluent in Latin and Greek, and has taught for over 30 years, so I'm going to put more faith in his interpretation than yours.