Why try to disprove Christianity?

[Frank Hipper]

Notice how the troll has taken to adding a smiley after every single post, as if this will somehow make his bullshit acceptable.

I thought it was to make it more offensive.

[NapoleonGH]

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 The verse is obsolete.

Umm Im sorry but your professor's explanation is completely and utterly wrong and the fact that you subscribe to it once again proves the sad state of affairs when a man who doesnt own a bible knows more about it and your religion than you do.

your stated reason as to why homosexuality was condemed was so that men wouldnt risk missing out on impregnating a woman with the messiah. were you absent in sunday school the 6 years where they talked about the VIRGIN BIRTH. Jesus HAD no human father, joseph's little soldiers not only didnt establish a beach-head, but they never attempted a landing.


Darth Wong: Immaculate Conception, means that the person is born without original sin. The concept of it exists because a sinner cannot give birth to god, thus Mary's soul had to be clean, without any sin, so she couldnt have original sin either (Since baptism didnt start happening until after JC was older). Jesus on the other hand was born with original sin, or else he would not have needed to be baptised by John. You meant Virgin Conception I believe.

[SirNitram]

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.

Then you'll accept Bacchus' church as enlightened. Good.


Now, I know you're a coward, but do try and gather enough courage to answer the simple question, simpleton.

[Wicked Pilot]

[DPDarkPrimus]

The only religion I condemned as unenlightened was Islam.

Do I need to point out all the scientific and mathmatical advances that were made by Muslim scientists and mathmaticians? Or perhaps you have never heard of Arabic numerals?

[RedImperator]

And another interesting thread is hijacked by Stone Deaf. Jesus Christ, trundle this asshole off to the sewer and be done with him.

[Queeb Salaron]

Ok, I started this thread, and I'm gonna put an end to the hijack right this instant.

EvilGrey, you are an ignorant prick. Allow me to demonstrate:

Appeal to Popularity -- You claimed that 95% of the world is theist, therefore it is the job of the atheist to DISprove God before anyone else has to PROVE God (the term "God" is used loosely here). Simply because a lot of people believe it does not make it true. Common sense still has to be proven. It is the job of anyone making a claim to support that claim with irrefutable evidence. The issue at hand here is infinitely more complex than that, but if nothing else understand that the burden of proof ignores the number of people who accept any given fact as truth.

Wall of Ignorance -- You claimed that homosexuality is some kind of human defect. There is NO STUDY ANYWHERE that conclusively puts homosexuality as a result of either nautre or nurture. Essentially, there is VERY little known about the nature of homosexuality. The best that we can say is that it's probably not genetic. But beyond that, we're totally in the dark. Furthermore, this had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Appeal to Authority -- Just because your teacher has a Ph.D. and is fluent in Latin and Greek DOES NOT MAKE HIM RIGHT. True, he probably has some valuable insight on the matter. But you either grossly misinterpreted his views on the OT, or else he has a very warped sense of what does and does not apply in the OT. True, we don't kill gays anymore (at least not ceremoniously). But look at Christianity and tell me that there is not a largely anti-gay sentiment. Gays can't get married, if they are let into a parish at all. Why do gays not enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals if the OT no longer applies?

Appeal to Common Sense -- Ok, I don't know if this is a logical fallacy or not, but here's the point: You claim that homosexuality is a "disorder," and yet you give absolutely no evidence to back that up. Again, WHEN ANYONE MAKES A CLAIM, THEY MUST BACK IT UP WITH EVIDENCE. You have failed to do so, and therefore your points are rendered null and void until such time that you can somehow pull a statistic or two out of your ass (with references, of course), in which case we will have to provide counter-statistics. And believe me, being bisexual I have more than a few statistics that say that homosexuality is NOT a disorder at all. So I defy you to provide me with some credible source that says otherwise. The baisc point here is that it is most certainly NOT common sense to say that homosexuality is some kind of human defect. In fact, I would think that the opposite is true.

[Hobot]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm

It seems to me that homosexuality is natural and is mostly a result of nature...

[SAMAS]

Darth Wong: Immaculate Conception, means that the person is born without original sin. The concept of it exists because a sinner cannot give birth to god, thus Mary's soul had to be clean, without any sin, so she couldnt have original sin either (Since baptism didnt start happening until after JC was older). Jesus on the other hand was born with original sin, or else he would not have needed to be baptised by John. You meant Virgin Conception I believe.

Both. In the Bible, when Gabriel gives Mary the news, one of the first things she says is: "How? I've never been with a man before?"

[Dooey Jo]

Perhaps EvilGrey should get "Smileyphiliac" or something added to his title, because he seems to add a smiley after every point and at least one in every single post he makes. Those little yellow bastards get pretty annoing when you see tens of them in ONE post...

[Queeb Salaron]

There is no way that ignorant prick is getting a custom title before I do, even if it is a bad one.

Edit: AUGH! HE DID!! WAY NOT COOL!

[Darth Servo]

There is no way that ignorant prick is getting a custom title before I do, even if it is a bad one.

Edit: AUGH! HE DID!! WAY NOT COOL!

Relax. The "Fundamentalist Moron" title isn't really a custom title in the traditional sense of the word since its not unique. Several such idiots have been cursed with it.

[EvilGrey]

The only religion I condemned as unenlightened was Islam.

Do I need to point out all the scientific and mathmatical advances that were made by Muslim scientists and mathmaticians? Or perhaps you have never heard of Arabic numerals?

Though I had no intention of responding any longer to this post, I feel compelled to correct a common misconception among most people:

Arabic numerals are not Arabic at all, but East Indian. They were derived from Sanskrit.

[EvilGrey]

Appeal to Popularity

If I had claimed that God's popularity was proof of His existence, I would guilty of committing a fallacy. However, I did not, so I'm innocent.

I only explained why the atheist must justify himself before he can attempt to effectuate change in a world controlled by theists.

Appeal to Authority -- Just because your teacher has a Ph.D. and is fluent in Latin and Greek DOES NOT MAKE HIM RIGHT. True, he probably has some valuable insight on the matter. But you either grossly misinterpreted his views on the OT, or else he has a very warped sense of what does and does not apply in the OT. True, we don't kill gays anymore (at least not ceremoniously). But look at Christianity and tell me that there is not a largely anti-gay sentiment. Gays can't get married, if they are let into a parish at all. Why do gays not enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals if the OT no longer applies?

I trust his interpretation for other reasons, the second most important being his understanding of Eastern philosophies, which the OT basically is. In the context of Eastern philosophies, it becomes blatantly clear how and why anti-homosexuality verses developed.

Appeal to Common Sense -- Ok, I don't know if this is a logical fallacy or not, but here's the point: You claim that homosexuality is a "disorder," and yet you give absolutely no evidence to back that up. Again, WHEN ANYONE MAKES A CLAIM, THEY MUST BACK IT UP WITH EVIDENCE. You have failed to do so, and therefore your points are rendered null and void until such time that you can somehow pull a statistic or two out of your ass (with references, of course), in which case we will have to provide counter-statistics. And believe me, being bisexual I have more than a few statistics that say that homosexuality is NOT a disorder at all. So I defy you to provide me with some credible source that says otherwise. The baisc point here is that it is most certainly NOT common sense to say that homosexuality is some kind of human defect. In fact, I would think that the opposite is true.

If all other mental conditions which deviate from the norm are considered disorders, then it stands to reason that homosexuality must be included.

[Joe]

If all other mental conditions which deviate from the norm are considered disorders, then it stands to reason that homosexuality must be included.

Fundamentalist Christianity deviates from the norm (the majority of Americans are not fundies). So can we call fundamentalist Christianity a mental disorder, too? Fundies show many more signs of mental deficieny than homosexuals ever have.

[EvilGrey]

If all other mental conditions which deviate from the norm are considered disorders, then it stands to reason that homosexuality must be included.

Fundamentalist Christianity deviates from the norm (the majority of Americans are not fundies). So can we call fundamentalist Christianity a mental disorder, too? Fundies show many more signs of mental deficieny than homosexuals ever have.

I won't disagree with you there, but I wouldn't say most fundamentalists of any ideology are necessarily defective. I think most are just overly-emotional and worry the future will unravel in a way they see as frightening or vile.

[InnerBrat]

I won't disagree with you there, but I wouldn't say most fundamentalists of any ideology are necessarily defective. I think most are just overly-emotional and worry the future will unravel in a way they see as frightening or vile.

What's the difference?

[Joe]

If all other mental conditions which deviate from the norm are considered disorders, then it stands to reason that homosexuality must be included.

Fundamentalist Christianity deviates from the norm (the majority of Americans are not fundies). So can we call fundamentalist Christianity a mental disorder, too? Fundies show many more signs of mental deficieny than homosexuals ever have.

I won't disagree with you there, but I wouldn't say most fundamentalists of any ideology are necessarily defective. I think most are just overly-emotional and worry the future will unravel in a way they see as frightening or vile.

Don't trip over while you backpedal. Your point was that homosexuality should be considered a mental disorder solely based on the fact that it deviates from the norm. Fundamentalism deviates from the norm, so by your logic, all fundamentalists must be mental deficients.