nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

antiskeptic

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

And more condescension.

Your position is that to avoid being tortured, he has to stop being gay/doing homosexual acts and then also be sorry for them.

That's not compatible with "celebrating his gayness".

Nobelium

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

Actually in the interests of having an accurate and meaningful discussion, a phobia is not merely a fear, but an irrational fear. A very important distinction.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Your position is that to avoid being tortured, he has to stop being gay/doing homosexual acts and then also be sorry for them.

That's your position. It's not mine.

I wrote a little earlier about what saving repentance is and isn't. You might read it.

That's not compatible with "celebrating his gayness".

Who's celebrating who's gayness?

antiskeptic

Nobelium wrote: »

Actually in the interests of having an accurate and meaningful discussion, a phobia is not merely a fear, but an irrational fear. A very important distinction.

True. There are rational fears to be had about the current climate of sexual fluidity.

batgoat

antiskeptic wrote: »

True. There are rational fears to be had about the current climate of sexual fluidity.

There really aren't...

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

True. There are rational fears to be had about the current climate of sexual fluidity.

As this is one of your few posts that is neither patronising or condescending I will answer this one.

There is no rational reason to fear sexual fluidity. If person A is sexually fluid that has zero impact on person B unless person B decides to involve themselves in person A's business.

What was considered the gender 'norm' has changed and shifted through the ages as societies changed and shifted. In Viking society is was not unusual for women to take part in raids - women fought alongside men. In Gaelic society women there was no impediment on women being sexually promiscuous as virginity was no 'prized' due to primogeniture not being part of the inheritance system.

Many societies and cultures have recognised gender fluidity throughout history. There are the hijras of India. The Two-Spirits of some Native American peoples. The Waria of Indonesia. The Muxes of Mexico. The Fa’afafine of Samoa and The femminielli of 18th century Naples in case you try to say there are no European examples.

Gender fluidity is nothing new. It simply means not everyone conforms to a narrow definition of what it is to be male or female with nothing inbetween.

If you have a fear - that is your fear. Fear of something you do not understand but which affects your life not in the slightest.

stefanovich

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As this is one of your few posts that is neither patronising or condescending I will answer this one.

There is no rational reason to fear sexual fluidity. If person A is sexually fluid that has zero impact on person B unless person B decides to involve themselves in person A's business.

What was considered the gender 'norm' has changed and shifted through the ages as societies changed and shifted. In Viking society is was not unusual for women to take part in raids - women fought alongside men. In Gaelic society women there was no impediment on women being sexually promiscuous as virginity was no 'prized' due to primogeniture not being part of the inheritance system.

Many societies and cultures have recognised gender fluidity throughout history. There are the hijras of India. The Two-Spirits of some Native American peoples. The Waria of Indonesia. The Muxes of Mexico. The Fa’afafine of Samoa and The femminielli of 18th century Naples in case you try to say there are no European examples.

Gender fluidity is nothing new. It simply means not everyone conforms to a narrow definition of what it is to be male or female with nothing inbetween.

If you have a fear - that is your fear. Fear of something you do not understand but which affects your life not in the slightest.

It affects everyone the minute a very vocal minority try to impose changes on how we can identify people.

ogsjw

antiskeptic wrote: »

True. There are rational fears to be had about the current climate of sexual fluidity.

Care to elaborate?

Bannasidhe

stefanovich wrote: »

It affects everyone the minute a very vocal minority try to impose changes on how we can identify people.

No. It doesn't.
A minority wish to be identified as something other than the gender their body had at birth. Their doing that in fact does not affect you, me, or anyone else. Their lives = their bodies.

No one is telling you what gender you are. Some people are telling what gender they are. You just don't like it.

stefanovich

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No. It doesn't.
A minority wish to be identified as something other than the gender their body had at birth. Their doing that in fact does not affect you, me, or anyone else. Their lives = their bodies.

No one is telling you what gender you are. Some people are telling what gender they are. You just don't like it.

They are telling me I need to conform to their version of reality.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's your position. It's not mine.

I wrote a little earlier about what saving repentance is and isn't. You might read it.

Just saw a lot of empty waffle, I didn't see any relevance to my point.

Again, your position is that gay acts/being gay is wrong and sinful.
You can't say that and then also celebrate "gayness."

antiskeptic wrote: »

Who's celebrating who's gayness?

You said:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=110042725#post110042725

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

antiskeptic wrote: »

True. There are rational fears to be had about the current climate of sexual fluidity.

if they are rational, please detail them and then also provide evidence for the same.
What fears are there and how do you know they aren't just a result of your bias and homophobia?

antiskeptic

ogsjw wrote: »

Care to elaborate?

There isn't much point, I don't think. What's rational to a believer in God (for instance) isn't rational to a person who doesn't believe in God. The means and methods of the former in having a reason to believe as they do (from whence they construct what they consider to be "the workings of the world") are different to the means and methods of the latter in their doing same.

N'er the twain shall meet (as the centuries have shown us).

Without an agreement on the basis of rationality, what's rational for the one will always appear irrational to the other. And vice versa.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Again, your position is that gay acts/being gay is wrong and sinful.

Being is wrong as in not per God's original intent. I don't see myself being wrong because I was born a sinner. I didn't do anything as such to be one.

Acts wrong and sinful given they are involve the will

You can't say that and then also celebrate "gayness."

I don't celebrate gayness.

You said:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=110042725#post110042725

That says Mark celebrated his gayness. Not that I celebrate anyone's gayness.

if they are rational, please detail them and then also provide evidence for the same.

See post above. The trouble is that you believe evidence need be empirical. And I don't share that belief. It's a belief that can't be empirically evidenced as it happens.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

The trouble is that you believe evidence need be empirical.

Well, you're certainly are free to make things up if you want to, but at that point you're into make-believe.

Your call obviously as to whether you wish to live in a make-believe world.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed.

I don't celebrate gayness.

That says Mark celebrated his gayness. Not that I celebrate anyone's gayness.

So if a person celebrated his gayness and never repented for it, would they go to your heaven?

antiskeptic wrote: »

See post above. The trouble is that you believe evidence need be empirical. And I don't share that belief.

Which is a round-about waffling way of saying you are basing it entirely on your own prejudices, ignorance and hateful religious beliefs.
If not those, what are you basing you claim on?

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As this is one of your few posts that is neither patronising or condescending I will answer this one.

I'm afraid that won't do. An argument can be labelled simplistic and inaccurate because it is simplistic and inaccurate - not because the person pointing it out is being patronising. This isn't some lucky dip where you comment only on what you want to comment on. You make statements, the statements are challenged, you respond to defend/clarify or take on board that your own thinking might need to alter to include something closer to the reality of things.

You have thunk this would be welcomes. Surely you'd prefer to rail against Christianity than in a cardboard cut out version of Christianity. Arguing against the former argues against something that exists. Arguing against the latter .. what's the point?

ogsjw

antiskeptic wrote: »

There isn't much point, I don't think.

You made the claim, now back it up.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm afraid that won't do.

Unless you're ok with being a hypocrite that won't stand behind what he says...

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

So if a person celebrated his gayness and never repented for it, would they go to your heaven?

I can't say whether they would go, since their gayness isn't the only thing in play. But their not repenting of their gayness needn't prevent them from going to heaven.

As my waffle points out.

Which is a round-about waffling way of saying you are basing it entirely on your own prejudices, ignorance and hateful religious beliefs.

It was more a commentary of your own faith-based belief system (a.k.a. empiricism).

In a sense, I'm out of the closet: I'm quite happy to say that my belief system is based on personal assessment (and happily face the ridicule that ensues). You however, are still firmly in the closet. Either denying or worse, not realising that you beliefs are faith-based or, if accepting of that situation, too afraid to tell the world.

If not those, what are you basing you claim on?[/QUOTE]

Nobelium

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No. It doesn't.
A minority wish to be identified as something other than the gender their body had at birth. Their doing that in fact does not affect you, me, or anyone else. Their lives = their bodies.

No one is telling you what gender you are. Some people are telling what gender they are. You just don't like it.

People can identify themselves as whatever they like, that's their own business . . . issues can and do arise however when an attempt is made to force other people by law to refer to a biological male as a female, or refer to a biological female as a male as occurred in Canada with the C16 bill.

antiskeptic

ogsjw wrote: »

You made the claim, now back it up.

It was a statement rather than a claim.

Backing it up would be a bit premature. You might first like to demonstrate that your belief system (what is it: empiricism? rationalism?) is the decider on what is objectively rational or not. Proofs required.

Since you won't be able to do that, your counters will appear as hollow as my arguments. You won't accept the basis whereby I assess and I won't accept yours. We'll just talk by each other.

As the saying goes "first gentlemen, let us define our terms"