Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

WinnyThePoo

To be fair. I think the ops arguments have been soundly defeated.

Nobelium

ogsjw wrote: »

Because I'm aware of why he made this thread.

What I'm confused by is why the thread wasn't locked immediately.

'lgbt nonsense' indeed...

Because the best way to test and understand an argument or claim is not to shut it down, but to actually discuss it.
Yes the OP choose very poor and unhelpful titling and wording, and thus hobbled his own argument from the off, but discussion was achieved none the less.

ogsjw

smacl wrote: »

You can have a homophobic atheist just like you can have a homophobic Christian.

That totally justifies this homophobic thread and original post then.

And yes, 'very important' that we discuss defending homophobic public figures...

... the OP is so confused he posted this in the Atheism sub, DEFENDING this guys bigotry WHICH STEMS FROM A RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Incredible.

"Religion is a-ok if homophobia is also involved" is basically the only argument I can glean from that OP. It would literally make more sense if he'd posted it in After Hours (though it would still be a horribly hateful thing to post, going to bat for a fella who thinks gay people are gonna burn for all eternity).

Nobelium wrote: »

Because the best way to test an argument or claim is not to shut it down, but to actually discuss it.

This argument was 'tested' decades ago. It went down in flames. And I don't see much good faith 'testing' of this argument in this thread, tbh. More 'defending', 'handwaving' and 're-framing'.

Nobelium

ogsjw wrote: »

"Religion is a-ok if homophobia is also involved" is basically the only argument I can glean from that OP. It would literally make more sense if he'd posted it in After Hours (though it would still be a horribly hateful thing to post, going to bat for a fella who thinks gay people are gonna burn for all eternity).

This argument was 'tested' decades ago. It went down in flames. And I don't see much good faith 'testing' of this argument in this thread, tbh. More 'defending', 'handwaving' and 're-framing'.

The OP's central claim, as badly put as it was, was actually that it's no longer ok to express a belief.
His claim was demonstrated to be false, not by shutting down the thread but by discussing it. Free speech works both ways.

ogsjw

Nobelium wrote: »

The OP's central claim, as badly put as it was, was actually that it's no longer ok to express a belief.

A hateful, disgusting belief. Sure we knew that. We've always known it. But what is considered hateful and disgusting has changed since the 70's. And so we've known that for a fair while too.

Nobelium wrote: »

His claim was demonstrated to be false, not by shutting down the thread but by discussing it.

You and I read different threads, evidently. Have you got a link to your version?

Nobelium

smacl wrote: »

With respect, atheism is no more or less than a lack of belief in a god or gods. You can have a homophobic atheist just like you can have a homophobic Christian. Most atheists tend to be secularists however, and modern secularism does stand up for inclusivity and against discrimination. Personally, i think these discusssions are important as they illustrate the range of attitudes out there.

Exactly, although some attitudes are thankfully a minority, and the test of true secularism is does it stand up against all forms if unethical discrimination, whether religious or anti religious.

Nobelium

ogsjw wrote: »

You and I read different threads, evidently. Have you got a link to your version?

Are you claiming the OP was successful proving in their claim ? I don't believe he was. In fact the long discussion on this thread stands as the best evidence against it. Free speech works both ways. Shutting it down would have in fact assisted in proving the claim. Given that it's the A&A forum, perhaps the OP was even banking on it would be. If not their claim is even more ironic.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Haven't read the detail but in essence a rugby players career called a halt to because he said gays and various other sinners will go to hell.

Leaving aside his dodgy theology (if God was in the business of excluding sinners from heaven then nobody would "get there"), is this not a case of LGBT sensitivity gone mad?

You are now not allowed to state your belief?

I can understand that some in A&A might rejoice but surely many can see the deeper ramifications: that at another time and place, their own expression of belief might not be of the moment and be condemned for mere expression.

Thin end of a thick wedge, this one.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

Some observations at this stage:

1. There is an interesting focus on homosexuality as a sin and a leaving aside of the other sin types mentioned by Folau's biblical reference. It's as if folk recognise the morality issue of the rest but take issue with something they feel can't be helped (homosexual attraction). This is laudible since there is an apparent difference.

I think this observation indicates a lot of the problems with your position.

Firstly, we don't think that homosexuality is something "that can't be helped".
It's something that doesn't need to be helped. There is nothing wrong with being gay.
Of all of the other sins, excluding atheism and drunkenness in the case of an alcoholic, involve things that we agree can be bad things. Lying is bad. Adultery (ie. deceptive cheating on a partner.) Fornication depending on how it's defined is bad.

We, and most people don't think homosexuality is bad. We can't see how it harms the person or others. We can't see why it is a sin.
And by comparing it to a sin, it looks exactly like you are saying it's wrong and that people who are homosexual are along the same lines as liars and cheats.

None of the people like yourself can provide a compelling reason for why it is a sin or why we should treat it along the same lines of lying or cheating on a partner.
Your reasons boil down to "god said so to be arbitrary".

We don't see the morality issue with homosexuality because there is none.

eagle eye

King Mob wrote:

We don't see the morality issue with homosexuality because there is none.

Well I've no issue with gay people as I've said all along. I have gay friends, both male and female. I've no issue with religious people either as long as they are not aggressively pushing their faith on me.
I do believe they have the right to speak about their beliefs in public though, just as I have my right to do the same.
I don't use names to describe people IRL, I just treat people as I find them, if you are a good person it's highly likely we will get along, it doesn't matter to me what your colour, creed or sexual.preferenxes are, do long as they are legal that is.
The only issue I have is Israel Folau being accused of being a homophobe and of using hate speech.
I've only just found out that he was supporter of the Bingham Cup which is a bi-annual gay rugby competition and appeared on the cover of a LGBTI magazine in Australia called the Star Observer.

King Mob

eagle eye wrote: »

I do believe they have the right to speak about their beliefs in public though, just as I have my right to do the same.

...

The only issue I have is Israel Folau being accused of being a homophobe and of using hate speech.

And people have the right to call homophobes and hate speech for what they are.

Saying that there is something wrong with being gay or engaging in "gay acts" (which we never got a definition for) is homophobic hate speech.
Saying that gay people are going to be tortured for being gay is homophobic hate speech.
If people don't want to be called homophobes, then maybe they shouldn't broadcast hate speech on twitter.
Or better yet, maybe examine and alter their beliefs so as not to be homophobic.

eagle eye

King Mob wrote:

And people have the right to call homophobes and hate speech for what they are.

Yes but I and many others don't agree that in Folau's case that it's hate speech or homphobic.

King Mob wrote:

Saying that there is something wrong with being gay or engaging in "gay acts" (which we never got a definition for) is homophobic hate speech. Saying that gay people are going to be tortured for being gay is homophobic hate speech. If people don't want to be called homophobes, then maybe they shouldn't broadcast hate speech on twitter. Or better yet, maybe examine and alter their beliefs so as not to be homophobic.

He never said there was anything wrong with being gay outside of what's written in the bible in Corinthians as regards it being a sin which will mean your 'soul' will end up in hell.
I don't agree that it's hate speech and I believe he has the right to air his beliefs.
If you are forcing people to refrain from airing their beliefs then you will never have the opportunity to change their minds.

King Mob

eagle eye wrote: »

Yes but I and many others don't agree that in Folau's case that it's hate speech or homphobic.

He never said there was anything wrong with being gay outside of what's written in the bible in Corinthians as regards it being a sin which will mean your 'soul' will end up in hell.
I don't agree that it's hate speech and I believe he has the right to air his beliefs.

And around we go again.

So in that case, when the Westboro Baptist Church say exactly the same thing using exactly the same source from the bible, why is that hate speech?

Why, if there is nothing wrong with being gay is being gay a sin?

eagle eye

King Mob wrote:

So in that case, when the Westboro Baptist Church say exactly the same thing using exactly the same source from the bible, why is that hate speech?

No, they are putting their own take in things, Folau is not adding anything.

King Mob

eagle eye wrote: »

No, they are putting their own take in things, Folau is not adding anything.

What take are they putting in that he isn't?
Please be specific.

You also seem to have missed my other question:
Why, if there is nothing wrong with being gay is being gay a sin?

That's the more important one. If you can't provide an answer to it, then there's the problem with the position and why it's homophobic.
Saying being gay is a sin is saying it's wrong.
Saying being gay is wrong is homophobic and hateful.

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

It's from the bible, Corinthians I think. He is not making it up.

I don't doubt it is from the bible. There is no shortage of unpleasant material in the bible, the koran and many other religious texts. Promoting any of this nonsense as truth is not better than making it up. Sure isn't it all made up to start with?

smacl

ogsjw wrote: »

That totally justifies this homophobic thread and original post then.

And yes, 'very important' that we discuss defending homophobic public figures...

... the OP is so confused he posted this in the Atheism sub, DEFENDING this guys bigotry WHICH STEMS FROM A RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Incredible.

"Religion is a-ok if homophobia is also involved" is basically the only argument I can glean from that OP. It would literally make more sense if he'd posted it in After Hours (though it would still be a horribly hateful thing to post, going to bat for a fella who thinks gay people are gonna burn for all eternity).

Have you actually read the thread in its entirety? I'm guessing not from the above. The thread illustrates that homphobia is still present in more extreme expressions of Christianity, as shown by the OP, that the majority consensus here is that it is repugnant, and that religion is not an excuse for homophobia.

Much like Folau, the OP has come on here to peddle what many, including myself, find to be hateful and unacceptable religious bigotry. The choice is to deny him the platform, or expose the hateful and hurtful agenda that he is pushing for what it is. The reason I personally believe the latter is important is that I'm of the opinion that the vast majority of people who call themselves Christians in this country aren't homophobes, and simply shutting someone down with no dialog polarises groups into factions. From this thread, we see that the OP states that most Christians aren't in fact Christians and then later validates himself as part of the Christian majority, which is clearly contradictory. On the one hand the OP is denigrating his fellow Christians and on the other he is hiding behind the false notion that he is part of a Christian majority.

As I said earlier, I'm an atheist and a secularist. There are also very many Christian secularists in this country. Most if not all secularists would take a stand against homophobic religious bigotry.

Bannasidhe

eagle eye wrote: »

Well I've no issue with gay people as I've said all along. I have gay friends, both male and female. I've no issue with religious people either as long as they are not aggressively pushing their faith on me.
I do believe they have the right to speak about their beliefs in public though, just as I have my right to do the same.
I don't use names to describe people IRL, I just treat people as I find them, if you are a good person it's highly likely we will get along, it doesn't matter to me what your colour, creed or sexual.preferenxes are, do long as they are legal that is.
The only issue I have is Israel Folau being accused of being a homophobe and of using hate speech.
I've only just found out that he was supporter of the Bingham Cup which is a bi-annual gay rugby competition and appeared on the cover of a LGBTI magazine in Australia called the Star Observer.

I posted about Folau's promotion of the Bingham Cup - which is an international gay and inclusive tournament btw. It has been held in Dublin, London, SF, NY, Amsterdam, Nashville among other places. It was named in honour of a gay man who died in 9/11 on Flight 93. A gay rugby player who was killed by religious extremists. Mark Bingham was one of the men who fought the hijackers.

The hypocrisy of a religious extremist who had his face on the cover of a LGBTQI magazine promoting a tournament honouring Mark Bingham later stating that Bingham is now burning for eternity is staggering.
And that is exactly what he Folau did. Mark Bingham didn't repent his homosexuality - he celebrated it.

eagle eye

King Mob wrote:

What take are they putting in that he isn't? Please be specific.

Well they were using the word fag for a start. I don't believe that word is in the Bible.
Look I'm not going reading their stuff, I don't want to but I seen enough when you provided a link before to know they twist things which he is not doing.

King Mob wrote:

You also seem to have missed my other question: Why, if there is nothing wrong with being gay is being gay a sin?

You and I believe there is nothing wrong with being gay. The bible states their is, this book predates our position and has been a key component in the Christian belief system since it's inception. People ate entitled to hold into their beliefs.
While you are mentioning missing things I notice you didn't quote the part of one of my posts regarding Folau's support for gay rugby and being on the front cover of an Australian gay magazine.

King Mob wrote:

That's the more important one. If you can't provide an answer to it, then there's the problem with the position and why it's homophobic. Saying being gay is a sin is saying it's wrong. Saying being gay is wrong is homophobic and hateful.

If he was making up stuff or using his own take on things then you would be correct but he is not, he is just referring to Corinthians in the bible. Corinthians was witten before the word homophobia or the term hate speech came into existence.

Nobelium

eagle eye wrote: »

You and I believe there is nothing wrong with being gay. The bible states their is, this book predates our position and has been a key component in the Christian belief system since it's inception. People ate entitled to hold into their beliefs..

The issue is that most Christians should be getting their own house in order before pointing the finger at others. (Ironically the Bible warns them of this, but I guess like some anti Christians, they only espouse the parts of the Bible that suit them)

This thread proves, contrary to the OP's central claim, that people can express their belief (religious or non religious), but they need to remember, by the same token, their belief can also be criticised.

eagle eye

Nobelium wrote:

This thread proves, contrary to the OP's central claim, that people can express their belief (religious or non religious), but they need to remember, by the same token, their belief can also be criticised.

I didn't say his position cannot be criticised. I don't agree with him. I'm just saying that what he said is not homophobic or hate speech.

Bannasidhe

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't say his position cannot be criticised. I don't agree with him. I'm just saying that what he said is not homophobic or hate speech.

Do you agree his position is one of stunning hypocrisy?

SoundsRight

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you agree his position is one of stunning hypocrisy?

Where's the hypocrisy? He can promote a sporting event and not agree with the personal lives of the players.

Nobelium

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't say his position cannot be criticised. I don't agree with him. I'm just saying that what he said is not homophobic or hate speech.

Depending on how something is said it could be construed as an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals.
Why of all the sins in the world (according to the bible) he could single out, why this one ? Why single out others sins rather than your own ?

ogsjw

Nobelium wrote: »

Are you claiming the OP was successful proving in their claim ? I don't believe he was. In fact the long discussion on this thread stands as the best evidence against it.

Completely disagree, if the thread wasn't people re-framing to silently agree with him the thread would've been 10 or so posts consisting of 'no' and that would've been the end of it.


You go on about freezepeach, but this is a private forum, with a TOS. I'm sure mods could use the TOS to shut down practically any thread they like, and have done so too.



The mods' silence here is also deafening.

Nobelium

ogsjw wrote: »

You go on about freezepeach, but this is a private forum, with a TOS. I'm sure mods could use the TOS to shut down practically any thread they like, and have done so too.

If you don't like free speech on this forum, that's you're prerogative.
Have you taken up your grievance with the moderation of this thread with the proper forum authorities ? If you make a good enough case, I'm sure they will act. However, be prepared for the fact they may not agree with your claims.

Tacklebox

ogsjw wrote: »

Completely disagree, if the thread wasn't people re-framing to silently agree with him the thread would've been 10 or so posts consisting of 'no' and that would've been the end of it.


You go on about freezepeach, but this is a private forum, with a TOS. I'm sure mods could use the TOS to shut down practically any thread they like, and have done so too.



The mods' silence here is also deafening.

I think the mods sometimes like to sit back and let ye at it.

I read the last few pages and it's cringe worthy.

Its a forum about atheism and agnosticism.

Its awful to see gays and school's dragged in here Atheism and Agnosticism used to be great fun and the debates used to be interesting and entertaining.

Now its just a place for people to bicker over nothing to do with atheism and agnosticism.

A lot of the old crew stay away from this part of boards.

Now it seems ye all are going against each other....

Its not what the forum was meant to be.

It needs a revival or a shake up of some sort.

Bannasidhe

SoundsRight wrote: »

Where's the hypocrisy? He can promote a sporting event and not agree with the personal lives of the players.

If you cannot see the hypocrisy of promoting a sporting event which is specifically about including openly homosexual people and celebrating the life of a proud and 'unrepentant' gayman who's life work was encouraging homosexual rugby players to be open about their sexual orientation while believing that homosexuals are sinners who will burn for eternity unless they repent than I can't help you understand.

King Mob

eagle eye wrote: »

Well they were using the word fag for a start. I don't believe that word is in the Bible.
Look I'm not going reading their stuff, I don't want to but I seen enough when you provided a link before to know they twist things which he is not doing.

So?
They have a biblical justification for that to. You can plug your ears all you like, but I've shown you where they do this.
They are twisting things.
So is everyone who adheres to the bible.
So if Folau.

Unless you can be more specific about how they are twisting it?

eagle eye wrote: »

The bible states their is

Then the bible is homophobic.

eagle eye wrote: »

If he was making up stuff or using his own take on things then you would be correct but he is not, he is just referring to Corinthians in the bible. Corinthians was witten before the word homophobia or the term hate speech came into existence.

That's a terrible argument.
It's still hateful against gay people.

Bannasidhe

ogsjw wrote: »

Completely disagree, if the thread wasn't people re-framing to silently agree with him the thread would've been 10 or so posts consisting of 'no' and that would've been the end of it.


You go on about freezepeach, but this is a private forum, with a TOS. I'm sure mods could use the TOS to shut down practically any thread they like, and have done so too.



The mods' silence here is also deafening.

As a member of the LGBTQI community I completely disagree with you.
It is important that threads like this exist as homophobia hasn't gone away and the world needs reminding of that. It lurks in the hearts of many who would claim their religion justifies their aversion. I say let them have their (bigoted) say and let them try to 'justify' it. Let them see their views no longer hold sway here.

Their own words show that they are no different to those who would use the likes of Sharia Law to 'justify' their bigotry. Extremists are extremists regardless of the name of their particular 'Holy' book. Christian extremists have also sought the death penalty for homosexuals - just not in Ireland.

In Ireland we shunned and shamed and drove people to suicide with tales of damnation. Let readers see those views haven't gone away now that the gays can marry. They bubble along under the surface trying to disguise themselves as free speech.
I say to them - speak freely - and we will show you how much disgust your views inspire.

smacl

Tacklebox wrote: »

I think the mods sometimes like to sit back and let ye at it.

I read the last few pages and it's cringe worthy.

Its a forum about atheism and agnosticism.

Its awful to see gays and school's dragged in here Atheism and Agnosticism used to be great fun and the debates used to be interesting and entertaining.

Now its just a place for people to bicker over nothing to do with atheism and agnosticism.

A lot of the old crew stay away from this part of boards.

Now it seems ye all are going against each other....

Its not what the forum was meant to be.

It needs a revival or a shake up of some sort.

Says the poster who joined boards last month :rolleyes:

eagle eye

Bannasidhe wrote:

Do you agree his position is one of stunning hypocrisy?

What's your basis for saying that?

Bannasidhe

eagle eye wrote: »

What's your basis for saying that?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I posted about Folau's promotion of the Bingham Cup - which is an international gay and inclusive tournament btw. It has been held in Dublin, London, SF, NY, Amsterdam, Nashville among other places. It was named in honour of a gay man who died in 9/11 on Flight 93. A gay rugby player who was killed by religious extremists. Mark Bingham was one of the men who fought the hijackers.

The hypocrisy of a religious extremist who had his face on the cover of a LGBTQI magazine promoting a tournament honouring Mark Bingham later stating that Bingham is now burning for eternity is staggering.
And that is exactly what he Folau did. Mark Bingham didn't repent his homosexuality - he celebrated it.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you cannot see the hypocrisy of promoting a sporting event which is specifically about including openly homosexual people and celebrating the life of a proud and 'unrepentant' gayman who's life work was encouraging homosexual rugby players to be open about their sexual orientation while believing that homosexuals are sinners who will burn for eternity unless they repent than I can't help you understand.

Do you read the thread?

SoundsRight

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you cannot see the hypocrisy of promoting a sporting event which is specifically about including openly homosexual people and celebrating the life of a proud and 'unrepentant' gayman who's life work was encouraging homosexual rugby players to be open about their sexual orientation while believing that homosexuals are sinners who will burn for eternity unless they repent than I can't help you understand.

He's a Christian, showing compassion to his fellow man. Why wouldn't a rugby player promote a rugby tornament?

Also you don't actually know if he was unrepentant or not, unless you had an insight to his mind during the final moments.

King Mob

eagle eye wrote: »

What's your basis for saying that?

"Let's celebrate this man who is being tortured for eternity in hell because he is an unrepentant sinner."

Tacklebox

smacl wrote: »

Says the poster who joined boards last month :rolleyes:

Lol absolute hypocrisy on my behalf lol

I was here years ago back in the day of sarky and good old JC

It was fun, the amount of laughs I had was memorable.

All ye do now is talk about schools gays and nothing to do with the god debate, you're all turning into aul moaners lol

Bannasidhe

SoundsRight wrote: »

He's a Christian, showing compassion to his fellow man. Why wouldn't a rugby player promote a rugby tornament?

Also you don't actually know if he was unrepentant or not, unless you had an insight to his mind during the final moments.

Oh give over.
You'll put your back out twisting around like that.

eagle eye

Bannasidhe wrote:

Do you read the thread?

Yes I'm read the thread. I think that goes to show that he isn't homophobic. He is supporting gay rugby, he has no issue playing with gay rugby players.
At the same time he believes they are sinners.

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The hypocrisy of a religious extremist who had his face on the cover of a LGBTQI magazine promoting a tournament honouring Mark Bingham later stating that Bingham is now burning for eternity is staggering.
And that is exactly what he Folau did. Mark Bingham didn't repent his homosexuality - he celebrated it.

I think he (the extremist) and you have simplistic understandings of the issue. The extremist, for example, ought to know that he isn't a position to know what Mark Bingham didn't and didn't repent of up to the moment of his death. And so he cannot say with any degree of certainty where Mark Bingham will end up.

The extremist also seems a bit hazy on the sequence of events post death. It's not straight to hell, do not pass go.

That's the obvious stuff. On a more nuanced level, repentence doesn't mean recognising and about turning from your sin. Repentence in the primary sense involves a recognition that you have lead your life being steered by what you think is right.

This thinking will at times be right (given people have a conscience and insofar as they follow it, are following the Giver of conscience).

This thinking will at times be wrong (given people are infected with a disease called sin and respond to it's urgings)

Repentance involves:

- a recognition, as I say, of this state of affairs

- an assent to rejecting the self-directed way and a sincere request that God be allowed in.

Salavation follows.

You will see there that there is no need to be aware of each and every way in which a person sins. Nor is there a need to about turn and not sin again. What is and isn't sin is a process of being led in a direction, post salvation. And that can involve resistance to the leading and a rejection that certain things are sinful.


Heaven will therefore be, filled with sinners of all hues who continued unabated in aspects of their sin. Homosexuals, drunkards, adulterers, thieves and all the rest.

There is nothing particular in Mark Bingham's celebration of his gayness which would preclude his salvation.

Folau's message wasn't nuanced. On first sight he might be taken to task for that since he appears to draw black and white lines. In his defence, the means by which people are brought to the trough of salvation isn't limited to our rational/conscience ways. We are spiritual. We have a subconscious.

The underlying belief in people that wrong doing ought attract and extract a price does recognise the simple message that wrongdoers will face their day in court. And attract the penalty due.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

you have simplistic understandings of the issue.
.

Try again without the condescension.

Nobelium

smacl wrote: »

Says the poster who joined boards last month :rolleyes:

lol . . seems Nostalgia around here is not what it used to be

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is nothing particular in Mark Bingham's celebration of his gayness which would preclude his salvation.

Cept at some point he has to stop it and say sorry for it.

SoundsRight

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh give over.
You'll put your back out twisting around like that.

Twisting? How do you know he was unrepentant?

Tacklebox

Nobelium wrote: »

lol . . seems Nostalgia around here is not what it used to be

It was great back then, I was sitting on the edge of my reason.

Jc used to be the ultimate trool, I sometimes think he was an atheist being a devil's advocate.

He or she had so much **** thrown at them but yet stayed standing and dusted themselves off...

Bannasidhe

SoundsRight wrote: »

Twisting? How do you know he was unrepentant?

Why do you need him to have been?

highdef

Sure the Bible is just some makey uppey book/almanac. Don't be believing any of the clearly impossible to ever happen stuff that's contained within it. I'd sooner believe a lot of the stories in a Lord of the Rings book!

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Cept at some point he has to stop it and say sorry for it.

In 3th year mechanical engineering, a lazy lecturer issued his annual crap "research project": 100 A4 pages on roller bearings (taper roller, ball roller, cylindrical roller, etc).

Some folk simply contacted the 4th years and got a copy of their 100 page report, changed the name on the title sheet and submitted. Others made over-judicious use of illustrative photos. Some of us actually sat down and did the work.

"After writing 100 pages on roller bearings" remarked one of my classmates afterwards "I still don't know how a roller bearing works". Somewhat shocking, since there isn't really much more to it than two surfaces (formed into a circle in this case) with a rolling element in between them. Logs used to roll a heavy stone being an earlier iteration of the idea.

-

After all your years "engaging" with Christian theology, your statement above reminds me of that classmate.

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Try again without the condescension.

There was nothing condescending about it. You make very simplistic statements. Dawkins in "The God Delusion" was like that: he had a shockingly poor understanding of the mechanisms involved in Christianity and proceeded to insert his own piss poor understanding into his arguments before tearing into those same inaccurate assemblies.

It's not hard to tear down shoddy structures you yourself have designed. A little harder to deal with the actual situation.



You won't, for example, be able to deal with this:

Soundsright wrote:

Twisting? How do you know he was unrepentant?

You don't and can't know. Causing your earlier point to plummet like flight 93. Now, you can either buckle in and start dealing with the situation as it actually is. Or continue to fire nerfgun-like darts at Christianity.

antiskeptic

highdef wrote: »

Sure the Bible is just some makey uppey book/almanac. Don't be believing any of the clearly impossible to ever happen stuff that's contained within it. I'd sooner believe a lot of the stories in a Lord of the Rings book!

So, the advice is to believe your beliefs. Hail highdef.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

The thread illustrates that homphobia is still present in more extreme expressions of Christianity, as shown by the OP, that the majority consensus here is that it is repugnant, and that religion is not an excuse for homophobia.

Unfortunately, nobody has actually shown homophobia (if we take that to be a fear and/or hatred of gays)

You can agree that unrepentant sinners ought go to hell without fearing or hating any sinner. This, not least, because the eternal destination for everyone (repentant and unrepentant sinners) is a result of their own personal choice in the matter.

It's not hateful to hold that a persons own will regarding their destination shall be done. Indeed, it shows the utmost respect to everyone's will that their will be done. Holding up a STOP sign to that effect isn't hateful either - indeed, doing so whilst bringing a world of trouble onto your head is arguably a loving thing to do.

As for the majority here? Well, they would say that, wouldn't they. Substantiating it, however, is proving somewhat difficult. If only repugnance could be grounded on someone finding something repugnant (i.e. bootstraps worked)

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The hypocrisy of a religious extremist who had his face on the cover of a LGBTQI magazine promoting a tournament honouring Mark Bingham later stating that Bingham is now burning for eternity is staggering. And that is exactly what he Folau did. Mark Bingham didn't repent his homosexuality - he celebrated it.

Is there any room for the idea that Folau recognises the persecution suffered by any number of groups, including gays. That he recognises that there is no automatic justification for sinners deciding to persecute other sinners; whether by shunning them, refusing them employment, locking them up, ridiculing them, outlawing their sin. For this is what sinners have be doing to gays for years.

I've no idea whether he celebrated gayness and encouraged it's flourishing. But I'm inclined to doubt that.

Its one thing to resist the cruel and unusual persecution of one set of sinners carried out upon them by other sinners. There's no hypocrisy in that. Nor is there homophobia in warning them where unrepented for sin leads

It's quite another thing to condone sin.