A good way to react to a christian protestor at Pride

Otaku Girl

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Let be honest here, if we're refering to people posting on the interweb. Then by its very nature you're going to get people with extreme views. The fact that from the accounts given here that their were few religious protesters shows that to the remaining majority its simply not that big a deal to get worked up about.


I'll have to admit I find it out odd that people would assume that transsexuals etc would not be welcome at a pride march, I may be naive here but I have though it they would be par for the course at such events.

and if people want a forum there's nothing to prevent them from requesting one on the forum request forum. Who knows perhaps they'll not shoot themselves in the foot this time.

I never said we we'rent welcome.As for the TS sub forum,well it was asked for but rejected.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Arathorn wrote: »

Well I suppose then non religious people should not be allowed to marry either, or people of different faiths, Budhists and Christians for example.

Well, marriage is buying into religious tradition. Its drilled into us that we should be married, and that its the norm so to speak. I dont see its attraction, im with Mark Simpson on that one....

philologos

Otaku Girl wrote: »

......................no seriously

Yes, seriously. The Bible has also been shown to be more textually authentic than any other ancient book that has ever existed. We have means of checking. There are 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament in existence. I.E it is and it would have been extremely hard for people to corrupt the New Testament given how many copies there are of it that are consistent with eachother, you'd be caught out red handed.

Check out this link here, it also deals with the historicity of the person of Jesus Christ. Most historians now agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

So no, I'm not joking, merely bearing the truth

Otaku Girl

Boston wrote: »

Thats the thing about intolerance, there's always an excuse.You arguments for not tolerating Christians is that they negatively influence society and that they're bad parents. I'd hazard a guess that the only Christians you've every met are the one protesting against you.

Well they seem to be the norm to be honest rather than the exception.

Otaku Girl

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, seriously. The Bible has also been shown to be more textually authentic than any other ancient book that has ever existed. We have means of checking. There are 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament in existence. I.E it is and it would have been extremely hard for people to corrupt the New Testament given how many copies there are of it that are consistent with eachother, you'd be caught out red handed.

Check out this link here, it also deals with the historicity of the person of Jesus Christ. Most historians now agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

So no, I'm not joking, merely bearing the truth

I also believe he existed.It does'nt mean he was divine though.Also check up on Mithras.It's pretty uncanny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras

Boston

And there's plenty who would say High pitched lisping, big heel wearing, androgynous, bitchy, promiscuous, mentally unstable, amoral queens are the norm in the LGBT community.

philologos

Otaku Girl wrote: »

Yeah I know the difference between the old and new testament.But why does Gods personality change so much,from narcissitic bully to peace loving hippy?I'm not being sarcastic here but as a child I asked my Mother does God have dissociative identity disorder.

You've clearly never heard of supercessionism, or of Covenant Theology. The Jewish Torah is still majorly relevant to Christians in that all Christians are bound under it's moral laws, but Jewish cultural laws have been fulfilled, and the death penalty has been fulfilled by Jesus. We believe that the word of Christ supercedes the word of Moses.

We believe that God's revelation to man developed over time. There are two covenants in the Bible:

1) God's covenant to the Israelites.
2) God's covenant to the Jews and Gentiles who come to faith through Jesus Christ.

This is made clear in the Bible. Even in the Jewish scriptures God says to the people that I am going to make a New Covenant with you that will differ from the old. (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Isaiah 42:9, Isaiah 43:18-19)
If you read the actual text you would understand. However, I find people are too quick to criticise the Christian faith without actually knowing what they are talking about. Likewise you might find that people criticise you being a transsexual without understanding what it is about.

God was never a bully, or a hippy. God was just, according to the rules He gave us because he loves us.

prinz

Otaku Girl wrote: »

I'm not being sarcastic here but as a child I asked my Mother does God have dissociative identity disorder.

Perhaps you were merely projecting your own issues onto God.

philologos

Otaku Girl wrote: »

I also believe he existed.It does'nt mean he was divine though.Also check up on Mithras.It's pretty uncanny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras

Has someone been watching Zeitgeist lately? (you might want to see Zeitgeist Refuted)

The facts are this: No text of Mithraism ever existed before the New Testament. None at all. All texts of Mithraism post date the New Testament. As such logically if anyone was going to assume plagiarism it would be Mithraism from Christianity.

Interesting Justin the Martyr even made this claim in the 2nd century according to the Wikipedia entry for Mithraism:

Evaluation of the relationship of early Christianity with Mithraism has traditionally been based on the polemical testimonies of the 2nd century Church fathers, such as Justin's accusations that the Mithraists were diabolically imitating the Christians.

Rev Hellfire

Otaku Girl wrote: »

As for the TS sub forum,well it was asked for but rejected.

Many forums are rejected on the initial try, as memory serves the TS forum was initially rejected due to the fear it would be more trouble than its worth.
But perhaps things have changed and people would be now be able to hold civil discussions on the topic. If you were truly interested in starting one you'd have posted by now.

Lets face it the truth or not of the Christian deity is irrelevant, what's more important is the ability of people to respect each others opinions while not necessary agreeing on them.

If you can't treat others with respect you can hardly call foul when the same happens to you.

Boston

Negative. The TS forum was never rejected. It's still open. The supporters of the forum could form a cohesive argument as to why it should exist. The infighting on the request thread, with some TS users attacking another TS for not being a "true" transsexual, didn't help the arguement either.

Otaku Girl

Jakkass wrote: »

You've clearly never heard of supercessionism, or of Covenant Theology. The Jewish Torah is still majorly relevant to Christians in that all Christians are bound under it's moral laws, but Jewish cultural laws have been fulfilled, and the death penalty has been fulfilled by Jesus. We believe that the word of Christ supercedes the word of Moses.

We believe that God's revelation to man developed over time. There are two covenants in the Bible:

1) God's covenant to the Israelites.
2) God's covenant to the Jews and Gentiles who come to faith through Jesus Christ.

This is made clear in the Bible. Even in the Jewish scriptures God says to the people that I am going to make a New Covenant with you that will differ from the old. (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Isaiah 42:9, Isaiah 43:18-19)
If you read the actual text you would understand. However, I find people are too quick to criticise the Christian faith without actually knowing what they are talking about. Likewise you might find that people criticise you being a transsexual without understanding what it is about.

God was never a bully, or a hippy. God was just, according to the rules He gave us because he loves us.

philologos

Otaku Girl wrote: »

..........So if they don't repent before it's too late what will happen to them according to your religion?

You're missing the point. There is a difference between trying to get people to come to Christianity, by pretty gently telling them they are wrong, and then telling them that they will almost certainly go to hell. This man is trying to get people to repent rather than go to hell. Can you not see that difference? I actually think that's very noble, even from a non-religious perspective, because the guy cares enough to try save people from the punishment which they are deserving of in his beliefs.

Otaku Girl wrote: »

Another logical fallacy my darling.The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that it's not a fairy tale.There's some historically accurate claims in all religions and myths.They can't all be right.

No it isn't. Philosophical logic says that you cannot prove a negative.

Look at the premise:

Positive: "Christianity is a fairy tale"
Negative: "Christianity is not a fairy tale"

However, if I say this:
Positive: "There is a God"
Negative: "There is not a God"

I would be bound to at least back up my claim. I expect you to do the same.

I don't have to prove my position as I never asserted it, you did.

BTW, if that picture is the only response you can give to an explanation our our position. I think it would be best if I shook the dust off my sandals in this case. I'm merely just saying that you don't understand what you speak about.

Otaku Girl

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps you were merely projecting your own issues onto God.

Care to elaborate?Damn you're getting your arse kicked so it's ad hominem time huh?Pathetic.

Otaku Girl

Jakkass wrote: »

You're missing the point. There is a difference between trying to get people to come to Christianity, by pretty gently telling them they are wrong, and then telling them that they will almost certainly go to hell. This man is trying to get people to repent rather than go to hell. Can you not see that difference? I actually think that's very noble, even from a non-religious perspective, because the guy cares enough to try save people from the punishment which they are deserving of in his beliefs.



No it isn't. Philosophical logic says that you cannot prove a negative.

Look at the premise:

Positive: "Christianity is a fairy tale"
Negative: "Christianity is not a fairy tale"

However, if I say this:
Positive: "There is a God"
Negative: "There is not a God"

I would be bound to at least back up my claim. I expect you to do the same.

I don't have to prove my position as I never asserted it, you did.

BTW, if that picture is the only response you can give to an explanation our our position. I think it would be best if I shook the dust off my sandals in this case. I'm merely just saying that you don't understand what you speak about.

You assert your position,that Christianity is true all the time yet provide no evidence.Thus my position,that it is a fairy tale,has the higher truth value until you provide evidence.

Nerin

Otaku Girl wrote: »

Care to elaborate?Damn you're getting your arse kicked so it's ad hominem time huh?Pathetic.

Maybe if you made a valid point to the discussion instead of a loljesus picture?
Let he who is without sin...etc etc.

Otaku Girl

Nerin wrote: »

Maybe if you made a valid point to the discussion instead of a loljesus picture?
Let he who is without sin...etc etc.

I've been making valid points all afternoon and my fingers are tired from typing so a picture saved me typing more.And with this I shall leave this debate rest.

philologos

Otaku Girl wrote: »

You assert your position,that Christianity is true all the time yet provide no evidence.Thus my position,that it is a fairy tale,has the higher truth value until you provide evidence.

You're clearly misunderstanding philosophical logic. Any claim which is a positive has to be substantiated. Your claim to fairy tale has no more value at all. Infact it would have less in my opinion as it's merely a childish potshot at a religion you don't understand. I personally want you to understand it, but people will only understand Christianity when they open their mind. You are setting up a barrier, so I'm essentially wasting my time. God has said that He will only show Himself to those who are willing to find, so I'll leave this offer open. If you want to find out, and if you are willing to consider the possibility of God existing, then we will discuss. Otherwise there is little point.

If you want reasons for why I believe in the Christian faith, read my signature. I no doubt will be able to give you some more. You could also take the initiative and find out for yourself by looking up for people who defend the Christian faith, probably in a superior way to what I do.

prinz

Otaku Girl wrote: »

Care to elaborate?Damn you're getting your arse kicked so it's ad hominem time huh?Pathetic.

I'm getting my arse kicked? News to me. You are trying to tell a couple of Christians that God had an indentity disorder..... I am just reminding you that you once had an identity disorder of your own so perhaps that is why you projected it onto God, pathetic in your eyes, not in mine.

You completely misrepresented the Pride Parade in order to portray yourself as a victim, a victim of God, Christians, the Pride Parade, Boards.ie. Perhaps it's time you sat down and questioned yourself.

Otaku Girl

prinz wrote: »

I'm getting my arse kicked? News to me. You are trying to tell a couple of Christians that God had an indentity disorder..... I am just reminding you that you once had an identity disorder of your own so perhaps that is why you projected it onto God, pathetic in your eyes, not in mine.

At the risk of going off topic,it's currently listed as a disorder,in the same way as homosexuality was once listed as a sexual fetish(we know better now of course). I expect Gender identity "disorder" to be delisted as a disorder from the DSM ect in the near future as the evidence of it being innate rather than learned mounts up. But that's a vastly different topic which an entire thesis could be written on.

Monkey61

In Dublin in 2009 should we not take it as a given that homosexuality should demand absolute acceptance by every person in this country?

If I peacefully stood at the top of Grafton Street with a sign saying that black people are an inferior race - should I have a right to do so if I am standing up for what I believe in? Absolutely not in my opinion anyway.

To me anyway, a sign encouraging repentance is every bit as offensive and dangerous as rocks being thrown and is certainly not promoting tolerance. It is a sign of a very real side of Ireland that has blighted the lives of many young gay people who have had to suffer through growing up surrounded by bigotry and small mindedness. How do I feel when I see something like that? Yes I can laugh at the silliness and brush it off, but underneath that it will always be a reminder of how I am viewed by some as a second class citizen, as someone undeserving of the same human rights as others and of just how bloody difficult my life has been made due to which gender I am attracted to.

Religious belief is NOT a good enough reason for homophobia. The bible forbids plenty of things that are carried out on a daily basis in perfectly good conscience by God fearing Christians who have decided that those things are acceptable because they want to partake in them themselves. It is too easy for those same people, who are (presumably for the most part) heterosexual to rail against homosexuality because happily it does not affect their lives and happiness in any way.

prinz

Monkey61 wrote: »

In Dublin in 2009 should we not take it as a given that homosexuality should demand absolute acceptance by every person in this country?

The same absolute acceptance you are practicing?

Monkey61 wrote: »

If I peacefully stood at the top of Grafton Street with a sign saying that black people are an inferior race - should I have a right to do so if I am standing up for what I believe in? Absolutely not in my opinion anyway.

Except this man's sign did not describe anyone as inferior and did not promote homophobia.

Monkey61 wrote: »

To me anyway, a sign encouraging repentance is every bit as offensive and dangerous as rocks being thrown and is certainly not promoting tolerance.

To many people the entire Pride Parade does nothing to promote tolerance or understanding either. I count a number of gay friends among those who share this point of view with me.

Monkey61 wrote: »

How do I feel when I see something like that? Yes I can laugh at the silliness and brush it off, but underneath that it will always be a reminder of how I am viewed by some as a second class citizen, as someone undeserving of the same human rights as others and of just how bloody difficult my life has been made due to which gender I am attracted to.

You could say the same about anyone........ about any protest whatsoever.

Monkey61 wrote: »

Religious belief is NOT a good enough reason for homophobia. The bible forbids plenty of things that are carried out on a daily basis in perfectly good conscience by God fearing Christians who have decided that those things are acceptable because they want to partake in them themselves. It is too easy for those same people, who are (presumably for the most part) heterosexual to rail against homosexuality because happily it does not affect their lives and happiness in any way.

None of the Christians here are homphobic. The sign that man held did not incite homophobia. It wasn't so long ago (and AFAIK still occurs) that a certain branch of Christians picketed sporting events being held on a Sunday. Because I love my sport, am I going to get angry, resentful etc, or tell them they have no right to share their beliefs.... no.

philologos

Monkey61 wrote: »

In Dublin in 2009 should we not take it as a given that homosexuality should demand absolute acceptance by every person in this country?

That sounds rather oppressive. Surely people should have their own views on homosexuality? I'd personally prefer freedom of speech and conscience in Dublin in 2009 than suppressive society that is happy to control peoples thoughts and views.

Monkey61 wrote: »

If I peacefully stood at the top of Grafton Street with a sign saying that black people are an inferior race - should I have a right to do so if I am standing up for what I believe in? Absolutely not in my opinion anyway.

This man wasn't either racist or homophobic in any respect. You might want to look up the definiton of homophobia. I picked the most literal version I could find from the Greek:

Homophobia (from Greek homós: one and the same; phóbos: fear, phobia) is an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against ...

One and the same, I assume refers to people having relationships with the same gender.

So an irrational fear of, and aversion to, or discrimination against.

This man isn't discriminating against any homosexual with his sign. Infact his sign refers to them as "friends" and merely being there to show people that the Christian lifestyle is a real option.

This man certainly doesn't have an irrational fear of homosexuals, otherwise he wouldn't have gone to the Pride march at all!

Finally, this man doesn't seem to have an aversion to homosexuals. An aversion being an intense dislike. I don't see any reason why Christians would hate homosexuals. Can't one disagree without hating someone?

If you don't mind me saying so. It seems that many of the people on this thread are promoting anti-Christian sentiment which is ironic because many of the people who do so claim this man is being homophobic, when on closer assessment he isn't at all.

Isn't anti-Christian sentiment as bad as homophobia?

Monkey61 wrote: »

To me anyway, a sign encouraging repentance is every bit as offensive and dangerous as rocks being thrown and is certainly not promoting tolerance. It is a sign of a very real side of Ireland that has blighted the lives of many young gay people who have had to suffer through growing up surrounded by bigotry and small mindedness. How do I feel when I see something like that? Yes I can laugh at the silliness and brush it off, but underneath that it will always be a reminder of how I am viewed by some as a second class citizen, as someone undeserving of the same human rights as others and of just how bloody difficult my life has been made due to which gender I am attracted to.

Christianity is extremely offensive by nature, only if you do not believe it's claims. I think we are all in agreement though, just because a viewpoint is offensive doesn't mean it should be restricted. People have to learn to deal with offence in a mature manner. We live in a pluralistic society, and something that someone says to you will be offensive. Do you want to curb free spech, or do you want to have it. If you want free speech, you will have to be ready to be offended.

Christians believe that Christianity is a fulfilling path for all irrespective of who you are, where you come from, and what background you are from. Part of accepting Christian beliefs is accepting Christian morality. The man is merely out offering people to accept Christianity, people can freely choose of their own conscience whether or not to accept or reject it.

As for bigotry and small mindedness? I'd have to ask you where it is. I don't see it.

Christians don't advocate homosexuals being treated as second class citizens. Infact the effort to reach out to all mankind would seem as if Christians see all people as worthy to be offered the chance to accept Christianity.

I don't see how I or anyone else are making your life any more difficult than it already is. I really don't.

Monkey61 wrote: »

Religious belief is NOT a good enough reason for homophobia. The bible forbids plenty of things that are carried out on a daily basis in perfectly good conscience by God fearing Christians who have decided that those things are acceptable because they want to partake in them themselves. It is too easy for those same people, who are (presumably for the most part) heterosexual to rail against homosexuality because happily it does not affect their lives and happiness in any way.

You have to ask yourself, is what you are calling homophobic, actually homophobic?

Christians don't see themselves as perfect. I've screwed up. I realise that, which is why I am thankful for Jesus Christ having paid the penalty for my sins so that I can have another chance with God and aim and seek to follow His laws. Christians don't claim to be perfect, we learn and walk by God's word every day seeking to become better people through what we do. We just want everyone to have the same chance as we do, because we think that God's love is for everyone!

I agree with you though, people focus far far far too much on this one issue. I personally think Christians could do a lot more if they strived on issues like social justice. However, I think Christians need to first, look to themselves, and then offer other people to join Christianity like this man did. Anyone who preaches hatred against homosexuals has already lost God's favour in my opinion:

1 John 4:7 wrote:

Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.

However, this man is not preaching any form of hatred at all.

Monkey61

prinz wrote: »

The same absolute acceptance you are practicing?



Except this man's sign did not describe anyone as inferior and did not promote homophobia.



To many people the entire Pride Parade does nothing to promote tolerance or understanding either. I count a number of gay friends among those who share this point of view with me.



You could say the same about anyone........ about any protest whatsoever.



None of the Christians here are homphobic. The sign that man held did not incite homophobia. It wasn't so long ago (and AFAIK still occurs) that a certain branch of Christians picketed sporting events being held on a Sunday. Because I love my sport, am I going to get angry, resentful etc, or tell them they have no right to share their beliefs.... no.

I am absolutely accepting of that man’s religion – I am not however accepting of anything that paints homosexuality as something that requires “repentance.” It implies that my sexuality is a sin that I need to show remorse for – a fundamental part of my life experience that I have absolutely no control over and that the entire happiness of my future depends on. I’m sorry but that offends me to my very core.

Oh I don’t particular think that a Pride parade promotes tolerance either, but in an ideal world should the Christian ethos not be about promoting tolerance? That was a key part of my Catholic upbringing – though unfortunately it rarely seems to come to pass.

What sort of protest are you thinking of?

There is of course a difference between picketing a Gay pride parade and picketing a sporting match. I do not think that one can equate a person’s sexuality and their love of football.

Stark

This has turned into more of a discussion on Catholicism than LGB issues. You should continue this debate in the Christianity forum.