I wanted to ignore this but....

[Pauliesonne]

Extreme stuff like this always makes me curious;

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html

Is this as ********ty as I think?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”
Aha, so women choose to be the sex to give birth, and wheelchair-bound people choose to use a ramp to enter a building. I get it.

~~ Paul

[Moochie]

Extreme stuff like this always makes me curious;

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html

Is this as ********ty as I think?


How is it that a certain proportion of the population is so logic-challenged?


Examples I've come across in recent years:

* If $cientology doesn't work for you, it's your fault.

* If Primal Therapy doesn't work for you, it's your fault.

* If Republican politics don't work for you, it's your fault.


I'm sure everyone has copious examples to add.

Just more compelling evidence that most over the age of 21 are in need of an education.

M.

[Pauliesonne]

How is it that a certain proportion of the population is so logic-challenged?


Examples I've come across in recent years:

* If $cientology doesn't work for you, it's your fault.

* If Primal Therapy doesn't work for you, it's your fault.

* If Republican politics don't work for you, it's your fault.


I'm sure everyone has copious examples to add.

Just more compelling evidence that most over the age of 21 are in need of an education.

M.

I'm drinking right now so, please, who are you replying to?

Me or the site?

[JoeEllison]

Wow, that's some seriously strong stupidity... do you expect anything less from Christianity?

[MattusMaximus]

I'm drinking right now so, please, who are you replying to?

Me or the site?


That crazy-ass website makes me want to drink heavily... :boggled:

[DoubtingStephen]

Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated.

At least they admit that they do discriminate against us. And if their Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy actually existed, it might be possible for their moronic drivel to represent His will.

Later these idiots claim that when Jeebus spoke about marriage he referred to chapters of the Bible that did not exist until hundreds of years later. Neat trick!

When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12).


Of course once you invent a fictional deity it is hardly a challenge to make up a list of its sooper powers, including the ability to read non-existent documents. Why shouldn't an imaginary deity quote from a non-existent text?

In the case of people like these, I think the irrational fear and loathing of gay people comes first, and then the Fundamentalist drivel is used to put some nice pretty lipstick and a dress on their bigotry.

Don't let these chumps bother you, Pauliesonne. There will always be something stupid for the stupid people to feel self-righteous about.

[Moochie]

I'm drinking right now so, please, who are you replying to?

Me or the site?

I was replying to Paul C. Anagnostopoulos (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=66), who's saying pretty much the same thing I said.

M.

[Safe-Keeper]

The final report of the Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality states “that a person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity… This is in contrast to innate characteristics such as gender and ethnicity.”7 (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html#ref7) The report affirms that “the Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin.”7 (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html#ref7)I love not only that they had to form a "Task Force" to spew idiocy people have been vomiting out of their butts for years, but also the "logic" itself: they redefine "homosexuality" to mean "sex with another guy", the same way I could redefine "Afro-American" as "a poverty-stricken single parent whose children will grow up to become thugs", and on this basis say Afro-Americans shouldn't be allowed to have sex or marry.

And not only is is an illogical statement, but it also conflicts with their stance that words shouldn't be redefined ("oh my god, marriage is by definition between a man and a woman!").

If you can't redefine words, then stop saying that homosexuality means something else than the sexual attraction to your own gender.

The best part, of course, is that they redefine homosexuality to mean something else than homosexuality, for then to subtly use the attributes of the new definition to attack homosexuality. It's like me saying:

1. Israelis = People ruling the People's Republic of China.
2. People ruling the PRC are bad.
3. Therefore, Israelis, that is, people residing in Israel, are bad.

Effect on others

Secular psychologists assure us that 'children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity'.6 (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html#ref6) The humanists have, however, forgotten one important ingredient. “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6 (http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/prov22.html#6)).
Oh. My. God.

They admit that children in homosexual households far just as well or better than those in heterosexual households, but they're still opposed to gay adoption and use as their reasoning a Bible verse taken out of context?!


You cannot faithfully teach God's Word to your children while living a lifestyle specifically condemned by God's Word (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/wordofgod.html). All Christians are sinners (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/sin.html) forgiven (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/forgivenessofsin.html) by God's grace (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/grace.html), but living in a homosexual relationship constitutes habitual, unrepented (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/repentance.html) sin.First of all, all of today's Christians "live a lifestyle specifically condemned by God's Word", because there's so much **** in the Old Testament that you can't follow more than a tiny fraction of it without being sent to Guantanamo Bay.


Then they go on to stating that gays are "habitual, unrepented sinners" in the same sentence they state that all sinners are forgiven.


After reading a fraction of that, I'm starting to seriously wonder if it's a sarcastic parody.

[Pauliesonne]

I love not only that they had to form a "Task Force" to spew idiocy people have been vomiting out of their butts for years, but also the "logic" itself: they redefine "homosexuality" to mean "sex with another guy",

.

What d'ya mean?

[Elizabeth I]

What is it about cutesy cleverness ("God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve") that makes anybody think it proves anything?

[Tiktaalik]

I've been wondering. I've read the bible multiple times but the only references I remember having to do peripherally with homosexuality or masturbation seemed to be specifically targeting males. Where is there anything about female homosexuality, female masturbation? Or is it interpreted to mean both - some of it seems too specific. Or maybe only gays are bad, not lesbians...

[billydkid]

and 60 years ago the same sorts of people were making the same sorts of arguments against equal rights for blacks. I'm no apologist for gay people - my personal opinion is that they are an abomination and are going to rot, justifiably in hell. I see them trying to turn me gay. It makes my skin crawl. Thank God I'm not gay. I'm not! I know I'm not! Don't touch me like that! Not there, down lower!!!!

[billydkid]

Wow, that's some seriously strong stupidity... do you expect anything less from Christianity?to be fair, not all or even most Christians are like that. The peace and justice and turn the other cheek Christians like my sister who could not be sweeter or more tolerant.

[DoubtingStephen]

What is it about cutesy cleverness ("God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve") that makes anybody think it proves anything?

That's a good question. Obvious stupidity does appeal to some mindsets, by boldly embracing fallacious ideas as truth we demonstrate our willingness to commit to any cause, no matter how idiotic, as long as it lines up conveniently with our prejudices and biases.

The appeal of "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" prolly comes in part because it endorses the fairy tale of some Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy making a claymation model and then applying sooper-seekrit creator spells to make it come alive.

Christianity may have survived precisely because it is mind-numbingly stupid. Since it gives false answers to so many questions, those suffering from Jeebus-flavored religious delusions are relieved of a great deal of the terrible burden of thinking. When problems come up you can just roll out an idiotic sound bite, and you're done! No thinking, no worrying, and certainly no original ideas.

I always sort of half-wished I'd end up dating a guy named Adam.

Of course God made Adam and Eve = false in exactly the same way that God made Adam and Steve = false. The mass-murdering genocidal bastard would have to exist in order to be able to create anything. And judging from the fairy tale accounts of this deeply disturbed deity, there is a good chance that anything He did create would soon be destroyed in one of His legendary homicidal rages anyway. He sure does like condemning, killing, and then killing any survivors. The guy is worse than George Warcriminal Bush!

I'm certainly proud of not being a part of the Jeebus Lifestyle Choice.

[Hokulele]

to be fair, not all or even most Christians are like that. The peace and justice and turn the other cheek Christians like my sister who could not be sweeter or more tolerant.


It is often the christians who turn the other other cheek who come out screaming the loudest against homosexuality. Hypocrisy really twists my panties. :mad:


ETA: This is not a comment on your sister, who I am sure I would get along with just fine, it is a comment on the "turn the other cheek" phrase.

[Safe-Keeper]

Yeah, most Christians are of course good.

What d'ya mean?That homosexuality is the attraction to the same gender as you, not actually having sex with another guy (the term for that is "anal/oral sex", not "homosexuality). And that idiots have been trying to redefine the term "homosexuality" for ages before this Christian "task force" came along.

[X]

Oh. My. Pasta.


It's one long moronic diatride attmepting to justify their stance of sticking their noses into other peoples nethers because their chosen holy book -which must be truer than all the other holy books after all because, after all, they believe it- says that love is bad.

Which explains why the authors of the thing needed to force women into marriage...

[DoubtingStephen]

I've been wondering. I've read the bible multiple times but the only references I remember having to do peripherally with homosexuality or masturbation seemed to be specifically targeting males. Where is there anything about female homosexuality, female masturbation? Or is it interpreted to mean both - some of it seems too specific. Or maybe only gays are bad, not lesbians...

I think the attitude of this particular patriarchal homophobe imaginary deity is very, very sexist. Why should he care about lesbians? Obviously without any penis involved 2 women can not possibly have teh seks! A friend has documented the many references in the Bible that show us God loves dick (http://www.ethicalatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1503). Maybe the real reason God said we can't have teh geh seks is so that all the guys arriving in heaven will be homo-virginal and eligible for His harem. He is God, if he says that you are in the harem, guess what. I mean, sure, he did do a woman one time, but it was just to get her pregnant, honest.

Just like so many well disgraced TV Evangelists and Party of Jesus (http://partyofjesus.com/) legislators (http://www.larrycraigvideo.com/), I think God forbids teh gay as a coverup so we won't guess.

When it comes to sexuality, God has no use for women, so why care what they do in bed?

[Silentknight]

The foundational teaching on marriage and sexual issues is found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). Genesis teaches us that “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). We were created to a plan, male and female complementing each other. That is, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Madam and Eve.
Well if you love Jesus so much, why don't you marry him? Do you want to marry him? WELL YOU CAN'T! Now how does that make you feel?


I realize that about 1 or 2 people here will get that joke, but I just couldn't resist.

[RandFan]

* If Republican politics don't work for you, it's your fault.Whaaaaat? :D That's damn funny but I suspect you didn't mean for it to be... did you?

[Beanbag]

But the internet has Madam and Eve:

http://www.madamandeve.co.za/

Suitable for work. I check it every day.

Beanbag

[allieallie]

I looked at the calendar and it is 2008. When will these idiots put their Bible back on the fiction shelf where it belongs?

[slingblade]

I think there's been a minor misunderstanding. This part:

The foundational teaching on marriage and sexual issues is found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). Genesis teaches us that “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27).

...doesn't say that Jesus referred to Matthew and Mark. It says that in Matthew and Mark are incidents in which Jesus referred to Genesis, chapters one and two.

We now return you to your rightful sneering at their drivel. :)

[RandomJSF]

Well if you love Jesus so much, why don't you marry him? Do you want to marry him? WELL YOU CAN'T! Now how does that make you feel?


I realize that about 1 or 2 people here will get that joke, but I just couldn't resist.


You've been wrong about every single thing you've ever done, including this thing. You're not smart. You're not a scientist. You're not a doctor. You're not even a full time employee. Where did your life go so wrong?

Silentknight, should I be ashamed that I'm one of the two people who got that joke? So much so that I could hear that sentence in her voice? o.O
Or even more ashamed that I responded with another quote? :P

[Civilized Worm]

I've been wondering. I've read the bible multiple times but the only references I remember having to do peripherally with homosexuality or masturbation seemed to be specifically targeting males. Where is there anything about female homosexuality, female masturbation? Or is it interpreted to mean both - some of it seems too specific. Or maybe only gays are bad, not lesbians...


The only mention of lesbianism in the Bible is Romans 1:26: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/rom/1.html#26

[DoubtingStephen]

I think there's been a minor misunderstanding. This part:

When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12).

...doesn't say that Jesus referred to Matthew and Mark. It says that in Matthew and Mark are incidents in which Jesus referred to Genesis, chapters one and two.

We now return you to your rightful sneering at their drivel. :)

It really does seem to say that "When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12)."

I interpreted this to mean that some person(s) had asked the fictional savior what he thought about the Sanctity of Bigotry Marriage and he "referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12)."

I guess it was just the part that said he referred to those 2 chapters that made me think he had referred to those 2 chapters. So he did not refer to the persons Matthew and Mark, but rather to a fictional account of his fictional words in a book of fiction that did not yet exist.

[slingblade]

It really does seem to say that "When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12)."

Oh, I know, and agree it's poorly written. But the part in parentheses is the source for what the author said before it, in MLA-style.


I guess it was just the part that said he referred to those 2 chapters that made me think he had referred to those 2 chapters. So he did not refer to the persons Matthew and Mark, but rather to a fictional account of his fictional words in a book of fiction that did not yet exist.

Yeah, it's all pretty much drivel. I'd have said "he referred to these two chapters of Genesis (Mathew 19: 1-2;Mark 10:1-12)." had I been writing it.

But the book did exist. Isn't Genesis in the pentateuch, the Torah? That existed in Jesus' time, yes?

It's just sloppy writing; no doubt confusing, you're right.

[DoubtingStephen]

But the book did exist. Isn't Genesis in the pentateuch, the Torah? That existed in Jesus' time, yes?

It's just sloppy writing; no doubt confusing, you're right.

OK, just splitting hair in good fun here, the Torah did exist at that time, but not the Buybull. So references to Genesis are not as nonsensical as references to the Buybull, which did not exist at that time. Parts of what would later be added to the Buybull existed, but none of the new testament.

Sometimes confused speech can result from confused thinking, for example religions.

[JoeEllison]

to be fair, not all or even most Christians are like that. The peace and justice and turn the other cheek Christians like my sister who could not be sweeter or more tolerant.

Yeah, most Christians are decent folks despite the whole Christianity thing... no one really takes that crap seriously, including most Christians. :rolleyes:

[dglas]

What is and is not a matter of choice is quite the minefield. Quite a bit of the debate about religion on these boards also hinge on whether beliefs are a choice of not. Is it bigotry or personal empowerment to suggest they are a matter of choice? (Might make an amusing thread...)

[DoubtingStephen]

Whatever a person does or does not believe, whether it is fact-based or fanciful imagination, the fact remains that a well socialized person will not try to restrict the freedoms of other when there is no benefit gained or need to do so.

So, when Fundamentalist members of the various Abrahamic cults seek to slander, harm, malign, and restrict the civil rights of homos, homos who are not doing them any harm at all, I object to being so treated.

Call it bigotry if you like, or call it prejudice, to me it's all just religious claptrap. I don't like it.

[Giraffe107]

You've been wrong about every single thing you've ever done, including this thing. You're not smart. You're not a scientist. You're not a doctor. You're not even a full time employee. Where did your life go so wrong?



Also you're adopted, I think that's funny.

I love you so much, GLaDos

[BenBurch]

The bible actually seems to worry more about incest and bestiality than homosexuality...