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

antiskeptic

Pherekydes wrote: »

How can you write stuff like that in this forum?

For the same reasons an atheist can write God is dead in the Christianity forum?

What is god's original intent? How do you know?

I know you don't believe in God but you sound like you're good for a thought experiement?

Suppose God exists for a moment (I mean, even the imbecilic R. Dawkins scores himself a 6.7 out of 7)

Could God communicate with a person?

It's not like it just me. Whilst a go-to on this forum is the 67 squillion different Christian denominations, the reality is ever so different. There is nothing particularly unsettled about the idea of a Fall from God's intended order. Amongst which a whole host of human failings.

How can you write this stuff with a straight face? What is a sin? How can one be born with sin? How can you be with sin if you didn't do anything as such to be one? How can a newborn baby commit a sin? How can anyone be condemned to hell on the basis of sin if one is born with sin?

Maybe you should inform yourself as to the basics before coming on a thread such as this? You ought to know something of your presumed enemy rather than waste your and their time in Ladybird territory?

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

Throughout history there was always childcare. There's a difference between that and mainstreaming it.

"Open 7am to 7pm" on the side of an industrial childcare van seen recently. Timed to match the DART

Suffer the little children.

So due to your religious and personal beliefs being offended your saying that it's mainstreaming.

Most people know if their gay or not very early in their lives. Personally I think that 18 should be the minimum for any decision to be acted on.

But I don't have an issue with gay or transgender people, I think that their very brave to be true to themselves when their are people like yourself who have issues with their very existence.

Pherekydes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Suppose God exists for a moment (I mean, even the imbecilic R. Dawkins scores himself a 6.7 out of 7)

Says it all, really. You're in Ken Ham territory.

It's not like it just me. Whilst a go-to on this forum is the 67 squillion different Christian denominations, the reality is ever so different. There is nothing particularly unsettled about the idea of a Fall from God's intended order. Amongst which a whole host of human failings.

What's a squillion? There's only 2 billion or so Christians.

Maybe you should inform yourself as to the basics before coming on a thread such as this? You ought to know something of your presumed enemy rather than waste your and their time in Ladybird territory?

Why can't you answer some straight questions without the childish evasions?

antiskeptic

DubInMeath wrote: »

So due to your religious and personal beliefs being offended your saying that it's mainstreaming.

Presumably your own belief system isn't offended by it's mainstreaming (which, given its former persecution, is a safe enough term to use)

So far, so belief. You can't rest a whole lot on the fact you lie on the is or isn't side of the argument. It's just belief vs. belief

But I don't have an issue with gay or transgender people

Neither do I. You, but not I, might have lost track of the thread idea. The idea is that people can express according to belief. You are expressing acccording to belief in this thread.

I think that their very brave to be true to themselves when their are people like yourself who have issues with their very existence.

I think they are very brave too. A horrendously persecuted segment of the population have had the bravery to fight (and do a damn fine job) against their persecutors.

The context is sin, repentance and damnation. The fact that sinners (the persecutors) are rightfully taking a bloody nose from other sinners (the persecuted) because of persecution (a sin: I mean some sinners persecuting other sinners because of the other sin) doesn't detract from the background issue..

Do you remember the bit where Jesus said "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone"?

How could anyone persecute gays on this basis? What possible grounds could they have?

antiskeptic

Pherekydes wrote: »

Says it all, really. You're in Ken Ham territory.

What's a squillion? There's only 2 billion or so Christians.

Why can't you answer some straight questions without the childish evasions?

Last chance. Deal with the substance of what I said. By all means get a poke in but substance or I ain't got time

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

Presumably your own belief system isn't offended by it's mainstreaming (which, given its former persecution, is a safe enough term to use)

So far, so belief. You can't rest a whole lot on the fact you lie on the is or isn't side of the argument. It's just belief vs. belief

Neither do I. You, but not I, might have lost track of the thread idea. The idea is that people can express according to belief. You are expressing acccording to belief in this thread.

I think they are very brave too. A horrendously persecuted segment of the population have had the bravery to fight (and do a damn fine job) against their persecutors.

The context is sin, repentance and damnation. The fact that sinners (the persecutors) are rightfully taking a bloody nose from other sinners (the persecuted) because of persecution (a sin: I mean some sinners persecuting other sinners because of the other sin) doesn't detract from the background issue..
HN
Do you remember the bit where Jesus said "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone"?

How could anyone persecute gays on this basis? What possible grounds could they have?

It's becoming more of a issue for religious and homophobic people because a lot of people are more tolerant.

As for the rest Christians have no problem ignoring the words of Jesus when it comes to gay people (and others). If they followed the very saying that you quoted this thread wouldn't exist.

antiskeptic

DubInMeath wrote: »

It's becoming more of a issue for religious and homophobic people because a lot of people are more tolerant.

Strip it back. Belief vs. belief. You do believe that homosexuality is on a par with heterosexuality don't you?

As for the rest Christians have no problem ignoring the words of Jesus when it comes to gay people (and others). If they followed the very saying that you quoted this thread wouldn't exist.

Yawn.

[Deleted User]

[QUOTE=antiskeptic;110048995

Yawn.[/QUOTE]

Your just on troll level posting now.

And yes I believe all people are equal, apparently you don't.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yawn.

If you're yawning at ten to twelve, would it be worth go to bed and return to the fray, a happier and less tired poster tomorrow?

Also, it's not polite to yawn in public, but I'm sure you knew that.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

Waffle and Dodge. Waffle and Dodge..

You don't seem to like your worldview having to establish itself just like everyone else, huh?

It would be oh-so-easy if you could just assume your position King. Let me guess, you vaccinate your kids not because you've assessed the data but because the HSE says so. Julian Assange a rapist? Climate change a hoax?

I just understand that there is little point engaging with you and your sophistry.

Your claim is nonsense either based in ignorance and bigotry, or it isn't genuine and just something you threw out with no intention to defend.

Cabaal

antiskeptic wrote: »

For the same reasons an atheist can write God is dead in the Christianity forum?

Something that doesn't exist can't be dead

We'd all laugh if somebody made the same comment about the tooth fairy, god is no different

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Strip it back. Belief vs. belief. You do believe that homosexuality is on a par with heterosexuality don't you?

While I realise that you seem obsessed with other people's sex lives, most people aren't and run with this crazy notion of 'live and let live'. Now just in case you think that might be my belief versus your belief, let me remind you that it is also the stated position of the majority of people in this country. More broadly, discriminating against people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is an infringement of their basic human rights. Perhaps you should put down your bible for a moment and take some time to read up on what modern society considers it means to be humane in this context.

[Deleted User]

stefanovich wrote: »

The problem is you supposed liberals are all about removing peoples right to say what they think. You are nothing but closet fascists.

I think the problem is you want free speech with zero consequences. That's not how free speech works.

Think first, and if getting kicked off a Rugby Team because of what you said (to bring it back to the OP) is the price to pay for expressing your beliefs, there's no one stopping him.

No one is stopping people saying what they want. But there are always consequences, and people should weigh them up before crying "fascist".

robindch

Mod:

King Mob wrote: »

Your claim is nonsense either based in ignorance and bigotry, or it isn't genuine and just something you threw out with no intention to defend.

You've been asked to stop accusing your fellow posters of lying and other prejudicial terminology before. Your next use of such uncivil terms will result in moderator action.

For avoidance of doubt, referring to other posters as 'liars' or 'bigots', or accusing them of 'lying' or 'bigotry', or making broadly equivalent claims, is unacceptable in A+A. A list of unacceptably prejudicial terms will be listed in the upcoming charter update, and will be added to if inventive posters find new and equally unacceptable terms to use.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

Mod:You've been asked to stop accusing your fellow posters of lying and other prejudicial terminology before. Your next use of such uncivil terms will result in moderator action.

For avoidance of doubt, referring to other posters as 'liars' or 'bigots', or accusing them of 'lying' or 'bigotry', or making broadly equivalent claims, is unacceptable in A+A. A list of unacceptably prejudicial terms will be listed in the upcoming charter update, and will be added to if inventive posters find new and equally unacceptable terms to use.

Apologies for discussing this in thread, only doing so as the feedback thread is currently locked. While I fully accept it is unreasonable to call another poster a bigot or a liar, which constitutes an ad hominem attack, is it acceptable to refer to their argument as bigoted or a lie, which does not? Similarly, what about a well known figure such as Israel Folau or Stephen Yaxley Lennon for that matter?

ogsjw

antiskeptic wrote: »

Last chance. Deal with the substance of what I said. By all means get a poke in but substance or I ain't got time

This is truly rich. Care to elaborate on the 'legitimate concerns' about sexual 'fluidity' 'these days' yet?

Because you don't deserve what you're asking for if you refuse to give it too.

robindch

smacl wrote: »

Apologies for discussing this in thread, only doing so as the feedback thread is currently locked. While I fully accept it is unreasonable to call another poster a bigot or a liar, which constitutes an ad hominem attack, is it acceptable to refer to their argument as bigoted or a lie, which does not? Similarly, what about a well known figure such as Israel Folau or Stephen Yaxley Lennon for that matter?

Bigotry implies an irrational hatred while lying implies the intention to deceive - only the person themselves knows (or might strenuously deny) whether any of these strong emotions might be involved with why they're putting forward one view or another. So it's better to use less prejudicial terms - "irrational dislike" for 'bigotry' and 'inaccuracy' for 'lying' would be less inflammatory terms which describe essentially the same things. Accusing another poster of posting a bigoted post or a lying post isn't really good form either, since presumably only bigots would post bigoted posts, and only liars would post lying posts.

As regards accusing external people and groups of doing these things - well, technically, the same rules should really apply to how they're referred to, but since they're not here to become upset about how they're referred to, and thereby distract from the actual discussion, the rules are more loosely applied, or not applied at all. By the same token, if some poster is routinely referring to some public figure in some inflammatory fashion to the detriment of the standard of debate, the moderators might choose to step in to ask them to tone it down. There hasn't been much in the way of issues in this area, so hopefully, that will remain the case.

recedite

ogsjw wrote: »

This is truly rich. Care to elaborate on the 'legitimate concerns' about sexual 'fluidity' 'these days' yet?
Because you don't deserve what you're asking for if you refuse to give it too.

Here ya go.
Care to comment?

smacl

robindch wrote: »

Bigotry implies an irrational hatred while lying implies the intention to deceive - only the person themselves knows (or might strenuously deny) whether any of these strong emotions might be involved with why they're putting forward one view or another. So it's better to use less prejudicial terms - "irrational dislike" for 'bigotry' and 'inaccuracy' for 'lying' would be less inflammatory terms which describe essentially the same things. Accusing another poster of posting a bigoted post or a lying post isn't really good form either, since presumably only bigots would post bigoted posts, and only liars would post lying posts.

Pedantic, but I'd debate that bigotry implies irrational hatred. I'd go with obstinate hatred, prejudicial hatred, or obstinate intolerance as would any definition that I can find. The common element here is hatred. On that basis do you also ban words such as homophobic, xenophobic or transphobic, which also imply irrational hatred? I would suggest that the argument in the opening post and many subsequent posts go beyond 'dislike'. As for 'rational', once people start making and justifying arguments in an atheist forum on the basis of their religious beliefs, rational has already left the building.

I'd further disagree that by calling someone's argument bigoted you are calling them a bigot. A person is more than their stated position on a single topic.

When it comes to prejudicial discrimination against gay people, I'm strongly of the opinion it is hateful, bigoted and homophobic. Perhaps the infraction should be for the clearly incendiary opening post rather than the language in the melee that ensued? If we're talking about hateful intent, as I asked the OP, why start a thread like that in this forum?

Nobelium

smacl wrote: »

Pedantic, but I'd debate that bigotry implies irrational hatred . . .

On that basis do you also ban words such as homophobic, xenophobic or transphobic, which also imply irrational hatred?

If we're being "Pedantic", then a phobia is not actually an irrational hatred, but an irrational fear. A very important distinction. They may have some similarities, but they are not the same things. One of the least used (especially it seems on "social" media and the media in general) yet one of the most important and useful tools in the world, is an accurate dictionary. We should all use one regularly, myself included, and especially so for words we assume we know the meaning of.. otherwise, whatever we may think we are reading, communicating and discussing . . it's not English with any true meaning.

Using a dictionary regularly would be an excellent charter requirement, as would the banning of the constant straw manning and ad homiem (making it about the poster instead of the post) that seems to prevent any beneficial, useful or illuminating discussion on this forum.

ogsjw

recedite wrote: »

Here ya go.
Care to comment?

Did you just out yourself as having two accounts? Because I asked a poster called antiskeptic, but that's not your username...

stefanovich

ogsjw wrote: »

Did you just out yourself as having two accounts?

I quoted you. Am I you?

ogsjw

stefanovich wrote: »

I quoted you. Am I you?

So antiskeptic, recedite, and stefanovich are all alts, am I understanding this right?

stefanovich

ogsjw wrote: »

So antiskeptic, recedite, and stefanovich are all alts, am I understanding this right?

I'm you, you're me, he's him

recedite

We're triplets.
Are we to understand that you will only respond to the quote if the correct person quotes it? It seems a lame response.

antiskeptic

ogsjw wrote: »

This is truly rich. Care to elaborate on the 'legitimate concerns' about sexual 'fluidity' 'these days' yet?

Because you don't deserve what you're asking for if you refuse to give it too.

If we can't agree on what constitutes "rational", how can we have a discussion involving something being rational?

Maybe you think it's rational to have a discussion about something centred on rationale when there isn't agreement on what rational is.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

While I realise that you seem obsessed with other people's sex lives, most people aren't and run with this crazy notion of 'live and let live'. Now just in case you think that might be my belief versus your belief, let me remind you that it is also the stated position of the majority of people in this country.

I am not now, nor have ever been, a member of the "what the majority think makes it right" party.

More broadly, discriminating against people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is an infringement of their basic human rights.

"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.

He who lives by the sword..

Perhaps you should put down your bible for a moment and take some time to read up on what modern society considers it means to be humane in this context.

A real slave to the modern huh. Modern has brought the world to climate and resource ruination. Modern has concentrated wealth as never before. Modern see's two earners still not able to afford the house that their single earning parents could.

Modern doesn't quite cut it for me.

antiskeptic

Cabaal wrote: »

Something that doesn't exist can't be dead

That's also something you can write in the Christianity forum

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

If you're yawning at ten to twelve, would it be worth go to bed and return to the fray, a happier and less tired poster tomorrow?

Also, it's not polite to yawn in public, but I'm sure you knew that.

The poster in question has trouble following lines of argument. Rather than deconstruct and assemble rebuttal/add to the discussion, he prefers to block quote and cast in throwaways.

The yawn was boredom. Not tiredness.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

The poster in question has trouble following lines of argument. Rather than deconstruct and assemble rebuttal/add to the discussion, hHe prefers to block quote and cast in throwaways.

The yawn was boredom. Not tiredness.

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