Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

antiskeptic

DubInMeath wrote: »

Believe it was more you being caught out using a quote from JC and the hypocrisy of using it.

Some of you might have a perverse interest in logging the quotes of JC. I don't.

I hope to God for your sake it wasn't him quoting a verse from the bible

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

Some of you might have a perverse interest in logging the quotes of JC. I don't.

I hope to God for your sake it wasn't him quoting a verse from the bible

Again as you said let those with out sin cast the first stone, given the thread your quoting it is a joke and as I said an example of how certain Christians don't actually follow his words.

antiskeptic

DubInMeath wrote: »

Again as you said let those with out sin cast the first stone, given the thread your quoting it is a joke and as I said an example of how certain Christians don't actually follow his words.

Of course they don't. We're sinners like everyone else.

The point was that Christians haven't a basis (in their own belief framework) for condemning anothers sin. If they do, they are casting stones.

Warning someone is a different matter. You can warn without condemnation.

Do you see the difference?

-

Put it this way DubInMeath. I haven't the foggiest as to the nature of your own sin, but I tell you this: unless you repent of it, you will go to Hell.

Now: how can I be condemning your sin-preferences if I don't actually know what they are?

antiskeptic

DubInMeath wrote: »

Believe it was more you being caught out using a quote from JC and the hypocrisy of using it.

I like a degree of tidiness so would, as a matter of understanding others (somewhat wierd) interests, like to know what this quote of JC's I'm supposed to have used.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

I like a degree of tidiness so would, as a matter of understanding others (somewhat wierd) interests, like to know what this quote of JC's I'm supposed to have used.

Already gave it to you

antiskeptic

DubInMeath wrote: »

Already gave it to you

I've searched a couple of pages and don't see any reference. Seeing as you're the JC logger could you just look up your "recent JC's" and re-quote him. I'm sure I'll recognise my having quote him.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

Of course they don't. We're sinners like everyone else.

The point was that Christians haven't a basis (in their own belief framework) for condemning anothers sin. If they do, they are casting stones.

Warning someone is a different matter. You can warn without condemnation.

Do you see the difference?

-

Put it this way DubInMeath. I haven't the foggiest as to the nature of your own sin, but I tell you this: unless you repent of it, you will go to Hell.

Now: how can I be condemning your sin-preferences if I don't actually know what they are?

Really so your your saying I'm a sinner, and saying I'm off to hell, so your actually contradicting what you just said about throwing stones.

In that case I could do the same and say your sin is judging people, and your off to hell for doing so.

Big difference is that I don't believe hell is real, but I do believe in good and evil, and I've seen plenty of people who call themselves Christians do plenty of evil, but sure it's fine as long as they repent apparently.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've searched a couple of pages and don't see any reference. Seeing as you're the JC logger could you just look up your "recent JC's" and re-quote him. I'm sure I'll recognise my having quote him.

You can't even fine your own posts now?

antiskeptic

DubInMeath wrote: »

Really so your your saying I'm a sinner, and saying I'm off to hell, so your actually contradicting what you just said about throwing stones.

No.

Throwing stones would be me condemning your sins

Saying your "off to hell unless you repent" would be me saying that He'll condemn you for your sins.

See the difference?

n that case I could do the same and say your sin is judging people, and your off to hell for doing so.

This is where things get a little more nuanced.

I'm a sinner. You're a sinner

I'm a saved sinner, you're (for the purposes of discussion are assumed to be) an unsaved sinner.

Both you and I sin every day.

I won't go to hell for my sin. You will (assuming you stay unsaved).

Big difference is that I don't believe hell is real

Which brings us back to the subject under discussion. I (and Folau) do believe hell is real.


Would you take the general view that people who believe disaster awaits others oughtn't warn them - simply because the warnee's themselves don't believe disaster is coming?


I mean, on another thread, someone was looking at the Marina development in Greystones. I, who follow climate change, don't believe it makes sense to get a very large mortgage on a property right on the sea. Folk who aren't following climate change believe that the sea might well rise, but inches in decades.

Since I believe otherwise, I put my spoke in. Should I do as smacl believes and run with the majority view. The view that licks its notions of climate change from The Guardian?

but I do believe in good and evil

I'm sure you do. My guess is that by and large your view is the biblical view. Okay, you mightn't believe it on the detail but the overall picture sees self interest (a.k.a. pride) as the root of all evil.

Look at what you think is evil and let me know if you think self-interest sits at the root of it.

and I've seen plenty of people who call themselves Christians do plenty of evil, but sure it's fine as long as they repent apparently.

Yeah, it's a bit of a paradox. Hitler could be in heaven. Not because of the Gott Mitt Uns buckles on Wehrmacht belts but something more core than that.

You have to admit: a God whose salvation is open to Hitler has something to be said for him. Unless that is, you reckon you're a better God and Hitler, were you on the throne, ought be beyond redemption.

antiskeptic

DubInMeath wrote: »

You can't even fine your own posts now?

I'm only prepared to look back that far. Even if you could find something that I said that JC happened to say then it's hardly the end of the world.

(Unless I said somewhere that the earth was created in 7 days or some such wild JC notion!)

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

No.

Throwing stones would be me condemning your sins

Saying your "off to hell unless you repent" would be me saying that He'll condemn you for your sins.

See the difference?




This is where things get a little more nuanced.

I'm a sinner. You're a sinner

I'm a saved sinner, you're (for the purposes of discussion are assumed to be) an unsaved sinner.

Both you and I sin every day.

I won't go to hell for my sin. You will (assuming you stay unsaved).






Which brings us back to the subject under discussion. I (and Folau) do believe hell is real.


Would you take the general view that people who believe disaster awaits others oughtn't warn them - simply because the warnee's themselves don't believe disaster is coming?


I mean, on another thread, someone was looking at the Marina development in Greystones. I, who follow climate change, don't believe it makes sense to get a very large mortgage on a property right on the sea. Folk who aren't following climate change believe that the sea might well rise, but inches in decades.

Since I believe otherwise, I put my spoke in. Should I do as smacl believes and run with the majority view. The view that licks its notions of climate change from The Guardian?





I'm sure you do. My guess is that by and large your view is the biblical view. Okay, you mightn't believe it on the detail but the overall picture sees self interest (a.k.a. pride) as the root of all evil.

Look at what you think is evil and let me know if you think self-interest sits at the root of it.




Yeah, it's a bit of a paradox. Hitler could be in heaven. Not because of the Gott Mitt Uns buckles on Wehrmacht belts but something more core than that.

You have to admit: a God whose salvation is open to Hitler has something to be said for him. Unless that is, you reckon you're a better God and Hitler, were you on the throne, ought be beyond redemption.

Who are you to say I'm a sinner?

Also unless you repent for the sin of judgement, you won't be a saved sinner, to use your logic.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

"Basic human rights" aren't an objective quantity. You're an atheist remember - you don't have a basis for objectives like that. You have mood of the times, majorities, movers and shakers swinging views. Those are moveable feasts in your world, not fundamental, immovable objectives.

Can't say I've ever noticed that Christian opinions - formerly judaic, of course, since Jesus was a jew - are notably immovable.

recedite

antiskeptic wrote: »

Put it this way DubInMeath. I haven't the foggiest as to the nature of your own sin, but I tell you this: unless you repent of it, you will go to Hell.

Now: how can I be condemning your sin-preferences if I don't actually know what they are?

I wonder if people here would consider the above to be hate speech?

smacl

Nobelium wrote: »

If we're being "Pedantic", then a phobia is not actually an irrational hatred, but an irrational fear.

A phobia is an irrational fear, but words such as homophobia, xenophobia and islamophobia all include terms such as prejudice, discrimination and/or hatred in their major dictionary definitions. While we can usually determine the broad meaning of a word from its roots, meanings of specific words can and do evolve and get revised over time. If we're going to be pedantic...

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

"Basic human rights" aren't an objective quantity. You're an atheist remember - you don't have a basis for objectives like that. You have mood of the times, majorities, movers and shakers swinging views. Those are moveable feasts in your world, not fundamental, immovable objectives.

Basic human rights are internationally agreed minimum standards we accord our fellow human beings. By and large they're more qualitative in nature than quantitative. While they're open to a degree of interpretation by some, e.g. where one right comes into conflict with another, they're meaning has consensus acceptance and common understanding.

Perhaps you could explain what you think the word atheist means, because you seem confused?

As for the mood of the times, society changes, largely for the better. We no longer have laws against homosexuality, we've become more egalitarian, and we've rejected the dictates of church that abused children, locked up single women and left babies to rot in septic tanks. Hallelujah!

antiskeptic

Consensus to me means majority view of the moment. I'd agree that society can move on in ways: greater understanding results in changes. We don't send kids up cleaning chimneys anymore for instance.

But thats not in itself a carte blance for the 'ever onwards and upwards philosopy'

What I mean by athiest is that you haven't an objective standard to point to for basic human rights. You have the mood of the times (with which I am often in agreement).

I don't agree that society by and large moves towards the better. We could get into a ding dong about it but little point there. We can see that your in belief mode: ever onwards and upwards/majority is right.

For every positive (to you) move in society, I can see you and raise you. To what end? Road to nowhere.

SoundsRight

Looks like the Polynesian contingent of the Wallaby squad might close ranks with Folau if he gets punished. Would be very funny if a move to push diversity and harmony ended up driving a wedge down the middle of the squad. They've really kicked the hornets nest.

pauldla

antiskeptic wrote: »

...

What I mean by athiest is that you haven't an objective standard to point to for basic human rights. You have the mood of the times (with which I am often in agreement).

...

Every time I think this thread gets to peak Religious Believer nonsense, it goes one step further.

antiskeptic, were you comparing the existence of Hell to climate change a few pages back...?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

What I mean by athiest is that you haven't an objective standard to point to for basic human rights.

Then I would suggest you look up atheist in any dictionary or reference, because that is not what the word means.

robarmstrong

smacl wrote: »

Then I would suggest you look up atheist in any dictionary or reference, because that is not what the word means.

How does one associate not believing in God or a higher power with not having an objective standard for basic human rights?

Do you have to believe in God or a higher power to be qualified to provide an objective standard for basic human rights?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

What I mean by athiest is that you haven't an objective standard to point to for basic human rights.

Which, in terms of smacls point (that discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is an infringement on internationally agreed minimum standards we accord our fellow human beings), is moot.

Basic human rights exist (regardles off objective or subjective source). You have stated that you don't agree with these specific ones. You need to specify why you disagree with them in order for a discussion to happen.

Bannasidhe

robarmstrong wrote: »

How does one associate not believing in God or a higher power with not having an objective standard for basic human rights?

Do you have to believe in God or a higher power to be qualified to provide an objective standard for basic human rights?

Or does one have to believe in eternal punishment to force one to treat other people decently?

Is the religious position "I will be a decent human being so that I can avoid burning for eternity"? Which surely must count as a selfish reason so is pointless.

Not the best basis for an objective standard really.

Nor is basing these 'objective' standards of human rights on a book that endorses:
Slavery = Exodus 21:7-11/Leviticus 25:44/Deuteronomy 20:10-15
Infanticide = Numbers 31:17/Psalms 137:9/1 Samuel 15:3/Isaiah 13:16/Hosea 13:16/Acts 7:19.

And that's just for starters...

antiskeptic

robarmstrong wrote: »

smacl wrote: »

Then I would suggest you look up atheist in any dictionary or reference, because that is not what the word means.

How does one associate not believing in God or a higher power with not having an objective standard for basic human rights?

Do you have to believe in God or a higher power to be qualified to provide an objective standard for basic human rights?

For there to be an objective standard there has to be something immovable and fixed to measure against - the carefully controlled metre stick in Paris for example.

Without fixed and immovable you've got subjective (majority view of the time, the Unitied Nations (which is just a different expression of the majority view of the time)).

Whilst God (if he exists) would provide the fixed reference, not everyone believes. And whilst a believer might concievably and accurately represent His view, non believers and believers with alternative (inaccurate in this event) theologies won't accept the objective as objective.

The athiest isn't even at the races in this regard. All he can ever have is the subjective.

The believer has the potential to have an objective view.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

For there to be an objective standard there has to be something immovable and fixed to measure against - the carefully controlled metre stick in Paris for example.

Without fixed and immovable you've got subjective (majority view of the time, the Unitied Nations (which is just a different expression of the majority view of the time)).

Whilst God (if he exists) would provide the fixed reference, not everyone believes. And whilst a believer might concievably and accurately represent His view, non believers and believers with alternative (inaccurate in this event) theologies won't accept the objective as objective.

The athiest isn't even at the races in this regard. All he can ever have is the subjective.

The believer has the potential to have an objective view.

No, the beliver doesn't.
Because what the believer believes is the word of their particular god (and they could be waaay off base even if there was a god) is based on ancient text - authors unknown. Ancient texts which have since been translated and interpreted by person or persons usually unknown.

You cannot have an objective standard based on a form of Chinese whispers.

Add to this that none but the most ardent of believers adhere to all the strictures in their particular holy book.
Some of these so=called 'objective standards' it appears can be ignored when they don't suit.

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

For there to be an objective standard there has to be something immovable and fixed to measure against - the carefully controlled metre stick in Paris for example.

Without fixed and immovable you've got subjective (majority view of the time, the Unitied Nations (which is just a different expression of the majority view of the time)).

Whilst God (if he exists) would provide the fixed reference, not everyone believes. And whilst a believer might concievably and accurately represent His view, non believers and believers with alternative (inaccurate in this event) theologies won't accept the objective as objective.

The athiest isn't even at the races in this regard. All he can ever have is the subjective.

The believer has the potential to have an objective view.

No, the beliver doesn't.
Because what the believer believes is the word of their particular god (and they could be waaay off base even if there was a god) is based on ancient text - authors unknown. Ancient texts which have since been translated and interpreted by person or persons usually unknown.

You cannot have an objective standard based on a form of Chinese whispers.

Add to this that none but the most ardent of believers adhere to all the strictures in their particular holy book.
Soome of these so=called 'objective standards' it appears can be ignored when they don't suit.

Your argument boils down to "it can't be true"

Not even Richard Dawkins goes that far. Which is saying something

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your argument boils down to "it can't be true"

Not even Richard Dawkins goes that far. Which is saying something

My argument is that an ancient document that was written at an unknown date by unknown authors - of which no original copy exists - and subsequently translated (again by unknowns) and then translated from translations before certain works were selected by a highly politicised panel for inclusion in the 'finished' edition and then translated some more cannot by any standard be called 'objective'.

I happen to believe that some parts are true as it happens - because there is independent, verifiable, evidence to support those parts.

You see I have read the whole thing - several times.
I have also read the various, often conflicting, theological interpretations from religious scholars.

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My argument is that an ancient document that was written at an unknown date by unknown authors - of which no original copy exists - and subsequently translated (again by unknowns) and then translated from translations before certain works were selected by a highly politicised panel for inclusion in the 'finished' edition and then translated some more cannot by any standard be called 'objective'.

Which is why Richard Dawkins scores himself a 6.7 out of 7 and reserves a certain amount of ridicule for those that call themselves a 7 ( God absolutely does not exist)

The point isn't whether you're convinced or otherwise. The point is that an objective standard is needed. And in the event you are wrong and God does exist and does communicate his view to believers, the the objective standard exists.

You don't have to like it. But it is as it is. IF God THEN....

-

Its worth nothing that Richard Dawkins scoring himself a 6.7 out of 7 says nothing at all about the actual likelihood of God's existence. Nor your own assessment. That assessment is .. er .. subjective.

The question being addressed is why one need be a believer in order to have an objective standard. The answer is that you need something objective. And an atheist hasn't even a potential hope of one.

You see I have read the whole thing - several times.

Fair dues. I've not even read the whole thing once.

I have also read the various, often conflicting, theological interpretations from religious scholars.

So have I.


You can read various conflicting reports on Liverpool FC but their analysis doesn't alter the reality of what Liverpool do and are. Imagine, by mere conflicting analysis, something is rendered non existent.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is why Richard Dawkins scores himself a 6.7 out of 7 and reserves a certain amount of ridicule for those that call themselves a 7 ( God absolutely does not exist)

The point isn't whether you're convinced or otherwise. The point is that an objective standard is needed. And in the event you are wrong and God does exist and does communicate his view to believers, the the objective standard exists.

You don't have to like it. But it is as it is. IF God THEN....

-

Its worth nothing that Richard Dawkins scoring himself a 6.7 out of 7 says nothing at all about the actual likelihood of God's existence. Nor your own assessment. That assessment is .. er .. subjective.

The question being addressed is why one need be a believer in order to have an objective standard. The answer is that you need something objective. And an atheist hasn't even a potential hope of one.







Fair dues. I've not even read the whole thing once.





So have I.


You can read various conflicting reports on Liverpool FC but their analysis doesn't alter the reality of what Liverpool do and are. Imagine, by mere conflicting analysis, something is rendered non existent.

Firstly I don't give a flying monkey what Richard Dawkins said or didn't say. It has no baring on what I am saying which is you cannot claim a book such as I have described - and ironically which you haven't read all of - can be deemed the basis as an objective standard for anything, never mind human right - this is book that even after several translations, editing, and interpretations by it's myriad translators/editors still endorses slavery.

You claim Atheists don't have anything upon which to base an objective standard for humans rights - well, right back at ya!

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Firstly I don't give a flying monkey what Richard Dawkins said or didn't say.

The import is relevant whether you like it or not. To say with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist means you are .. well.. God. You know everything there is to know and find no God.

Presumably you'll score yourself shy of 7

It has no baring on what I am saying which is you cannot claim a book such as I have described - and ironically which you haven't read all of - can be deemed the basis as an objective standard for anything, never mind human right

Such as you have described. Indeed. You. Subjective.

- this is book that even after several translations, editing, and interpretations by it's myriad translators/editors still endorses slavery.

Funny, I don't think it endorse slavery.

You claim Atheists don't have anything upon which to base an objective standard for humans rights - well, right back at ya!

I've an IF/THEN. You've nothing. That's not a claim. It's the reality of the situation.

eagle eye

Bannasidhe wrote:

Firstly I don't give a flying monkey what Richard Dawkins said or didn't say. It has no baring on what I am saying which is you cannot claim a book such as I have described - and ironically which you haven't read all of - can be deemed the basis as an objective standard for anything, never mind human right - this is book that even after several translations, editing, and interpretations by it's myriad translators/editors still endorses slavery.

Some of the stories are similar in the Bible, Quran and the Torah.