Seems a lot of people skipped the whole blasphemous part. Take it anyway you like, but history shows us that many people have been tortured and killed in the name of God. Take it as being “rules” for certain societies, but fact of the matter is many holy men took the bible/quran words’ to mean they could torture and kill millions.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Seems a lot of people skipped the whole blasphemous part. Take it anyway you like, but history shows us that many people have been tortured and killed in the name of God. Take it as being “rules” for certain societies, but fact of the matter is many holy men took the bible/quran words’ to mean they could torture and kill millions.[/quote]
You’re still not answering how that’s relevant to anything today. Christianity promotes murder? Because crusades? Christians are known for torturing and killing millions? Do you see a lot of news stories in which that is the headline?
Christians aren’t really known for being murders in our society… Are you afraid that’s going to change soon? Because that’s what history taught you? Are you worried you’re gonna walk outside one day and there’s gonna be a guy in full plate armor with a Five-fold Cross tabard waiting to bash your skull in with a morningstar?
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Seems a lot of people skipped the whole blasphemous part. Take it anyway you like, but history shows us that many people have been tortured and killed in the name of God. Take it as being “rules” for certain societies, but fact of the matter is many holy men took the bible/quran words’ to mean they could torture and kill millions.[/quote]
You’re still not answering how that’s relevant to anything today. Christianity promotes murder? Because crusades? Christians are known for torturing and killing millions? Do you see a lot of news stories in which that is the headline?
Are you worried you’re gonna walk outside one day and there’s gonna be a guy in full plate armor with a Five-fold Cross tabard waiting to bash your skull in with a morningstar?[/quote]
This happened to me a while ago. At first I was like awwww shiiiiit…
Then I realized he was a LARPer.
True story…
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Seems a lot of people skipped the whole blasphemous part. Take it anyway you like, but history shows us that many people have been tortured and killed in the name of God. Take it as being “rules” for certain societies, but fact of the matter is many holy men took the bible/quran words’ to mean they could torture and kill millions.[/quote]
You’re still not answering how that’s relevant to anything today. Christianity promotes murder? Because crusades? Christians are known for torturing and killing millions? Do you see a lot of news stories in which that is the headline?
Are you worried you’re gonna walk outside one day and there’s gonna be a guy in full plate armor with a Five-fold Cross tabard waiting to bash your skull in with a morningstar?[/quote]
This happened to me a while ago. At first I was like awwww shiiiiit…
Then I realized he was a LARPer.
True story…[/quote]
LOL
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Seems a lot of people skipped the whole blasphemous part. Take it anyway you like, but history shows us that many people have been tortured and killed in the name of God. Take it as being “rules” for certain societies, but fact of the matter is many holy men took the bible/quran words’ to mean they could torture and kill millions.[/quote]
That would be a failing on the people who read that into it then, wouldn’t it?
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Did gays actually believe this guy was a fan? I assume that gays know that Christians believe homosexual behavior (though not necessarily homosexuality) is a sin but draw the line at a Christian actually expressing that belief. This is why I don’t think most gays really care about what he said.
[/quote]
Well it was only a token suspension, so nobody really cares. Certain lifestyles magazines, like Men’s Health and GQ attract gay readership for the content, but aren’t gay interest. All of the criticism has been directed towards the studio, yet the controversy is all about a magazine article. A & E get lambasted (although ratings are up), but GQ is where the quote was printed and they haven’t been threatened with boycotts.
Well sure, but 1) journalists are journalists. it is expected, however low class it is, that journalists will try to get the most outrageous story possible in most cases so nobody is surprised and nobody should care that they are doing what comes naturally to todays journalists. 2) It isnt the action of reporting on what Phil says that is crossing any lines, its the action of him being punished for something that isnt in any way hate speech against gays but only a personal opinion–and this action was tsken by A&E not GQ. 3) Not a whole lot of nature boys read GQ any way so what are the outraged supposed to do anywah–boycott a magazine they don’t read in the first place? 4) Phil stepped in the hornets nest on his own wihout any real sneaky manipulated set-up anyway, so thats on him completely.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Seems a lot of people skipped the whole blasphemous part. Take it anyway you like, but history shows us that many people have been tortured and killed in the name of God. Take it as being “rules” for certain societies, but fact of the matter is many holy men took the bible/quran words’ to mean they could torture and kill millions.[/quote]
You’re still not answering how that’s relevant to anything today. Christianity promotes murder? Because crusades? Christians are known for torturing and killing millions? Do you see a lot of news stories in which that is the headline?
Are you worried you’re gonna walk outside one day and there’s gonna be a guy in full plate armor with a Five-fold Cross tabard waiting to bash your skull in with a morningstar?[/quote]
This happened to me a while ago. At first I was like awwww shiiiiit…
Then I realized he was a LARPer.
True story…[/quote]
LOL[/quote]
I really, REALLY hope that actually was a true story. rofl.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This story is several months old but nonetheless…it is interesting. And if it happened it would quite the story considering all the hoopla surrounding the family now.
I think it would be awesome…then everybody could see how much left wing hatred(undeserved) he could produce.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
history shows us that many people have been tortured and killed in the name of God. [/quote]
Your statement is correct. Sadly people have been killed in the name of false gods as well as in the name of the God of the Bible forever. People have been getting tortured and killed for thousands of years in the names of a lot of stuff. Dictators, because of the color of the skin, because of ethnicities, you name it. The Bible says that man is wicked and the sin nature of man never changes. The Bible says that there are NONE righteous, no not one…
Those people who did those atrocities will give an account to God for their actions. May I also ask what does that have anything to do with you? I’ll ask you again, Why do you hate your God so much?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Did gays actually believe this guy was a fan? I assume that gays know that Christians believe homosexual behavior (though not necessarily homosexuality) is a sin but draw the line at a Christian actually expressing that belief. This is why I don’t think most gays really care about what he said.
[/quote]
Well it was only a token suspension, so nobody really cares. Certain lifestyles magazines, like Men’s Health and GQ attract gay readership for the content, but aren’t gay interest. All of the criticism has been directed towards the studio, yet the controversy is all about a magazine article. A & E get lambasted (although ratings are up), but GQ is where the quote was printed and they haven’t been threatened with boycotts.
Happy Endings - Drama! - YouTube [/quote]
Well sure, but 1) journalists are journalists. it is expected, however low class it is, that journalists will try to get the most outrageous story possible in most cases so nobody is surprised and nobody should care that they are doing what comes naturally to todays journalists. 2) It isnt the action of reporting on what Phil says that is crossing any lines, its the action of him being punished for something that isnt in any way hate speech against gays but only a personal opinion–and this action was tsken by A&E not GQ. 3) Not a whole lot of nature boys read GQ any way so what are the outraged supposed to do anywah–boycott a magazine they don’t read in the first place? 4) Phil stepped in the hornets nest on his own wihout any real sneaky manipulated set-up anyway, so thats on him completely. [/quote]
Yeah, I already posted my thoughts on A&E’s part in this earlier in the thread and on Phil’s suspension. When I talked about boycotts, I meant that the gay lobby should be threatening to boycott GQ, not harassing Duck Dynasty, since Phil Robertson didn’t make those remarks on the show.
The core audience of DD seem to be behind Robertson (pun intended). As far as I know, GLAAD never threatened A& E with a boycott as they don’t make up enough of the audience to make the threat stick. However, I would say that there are far more gays who read GQ than tune into DD.
The hard number of gay GQ subscribers is incidental as somebody had to take the article back to GLAAD.
If such an interview was published in say, Ducks Unlimited magazine, it would’ve passed by unnoticed (duck hunting = very butch sport). You get my point…
More significantly, it is the article and not the show that’s the source of the controversy, but there’s very little blowback on the magazine. If GLAAD’s raison d’etre is to challenge the negative portrayal of gay men and women by the media then surely they should start with GQ, who actually printed the comments.
Why go after a liberal media outlet when the Robertson’s are just too easy to stereotype as the “racist-gay-women hating right wingers”
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Did gays actually believe this guy was a fan? I assume that gays know that Christians believe homosexual behavior (though not necessarily homosexuality) is a sin but draw the line at a Christian actually expressing that belief. This is why I don’t think most gays really care about what he said.
[/quote]
Well it was only a token suspension, so nobody really cares. Certain lifestyles magazines, like Men’s Health and GQ attract gay readership for the content, but aren’t gay interest. All of the criticism has been directed towards the studio, yet the controversy is all about a magazine article. A & E get lambasted (although ratings are up), but GQ is where the quote was printed and they haven’t been threatened with boycotts.
Happy Endings - Drama! - YouTube [/quote]
Well sure, but 1) journalists are journalists. it is expected, however low class it is, that journalists will try to get the most outrageous story possible in most cases so nobody is surprised and nobody should care that they are doing what comes naturally to todays journalists. 2) It isnt the action of reporting on what Phil says that is crossing any lines, its the action of him being punished for something that isnt in any way hate speech against gays but only a personal opinion–and this action was tsken by A&E not GQ. 3) Not a whole lot of nature boys read GQ any way so what are the outraged supposed to do anywah–boycott a magazine they don’t read in the first place? 4) Phil stepped in the hornets nest on his own wihout any real sneaky manipulated set-up anyway, so thats on him completely. [/quote]
Yeah, I already posted my thoughts on A&E’s part in this earlier in the thread and on Phil’s suspension. When I talked about boycotts, I meant that the gay lobby should be threatening to boycott GQ, not harassing Duck Dynasty, since Phil Robertson didn’t make those remarks on the show.
The core audience of DD seem to be behind Robertson (pun intended). As far as I know, GLAAD never threatened A& E with a boycott as they don’t make up enough of the audience to make the threat stick. However, I would say that there are far more gays who read GQ than tune into DD.
The hard number of gay GQ subscribers is incidental as somebody had to take the article back to GLAAD.
If such an interview was published in say, Ducks Unlimited magazine, it would’ve passed by unnoticed (duck hunting = very butch sport). You get my point…
More significantly, it is the article and not the show that’s the source of the controversy, but there’s very little blowback on the magazine. If GLAAD’s raison d’etre is to challenge the negative portrayal of gay men and women by the media then surely they should start with GQ, who actually printed the comments.
[/quote]
Ah, my bad. I see what you were saying now.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So, you do realize that said dog is an animal, and anytime you went to sleep without tying this animal up you had faith, some would say blind faith, that this dog wasn’t going to maul you in your sleep right?
Every single time that dog licked your face out of your perceived love, you had faith it wasn’t going to bite you. Every, single, time.
Everyone has faith. [/quote]
This right here launched my sides into orbit.
Almost as silly as the fact that,[/quote]
You’re a smart dude. ANd you rebuttal is “that is silly.”
Therefore I conclude that you really can’t argue the point, much like the last person that tried, however if you were to admit it was correct a massive hole would be punched in your strongly held preconceived notions of how this whole ‘life’ thing works.
How adorable. This post fits so many stereotypes and generalizations of Contemporary Liberals I can barely contain myself.
[quote]Dangles wrote:
I don’t argue with religious zealots because they are guilty of almost of of the following logical fallacies when trying to form a cogent argument.: Logical fallacies, cognitive bias, disinformation, sophism, etc.
I should really stay away from this forum…I came to T-Nation for the quality lifting discussion…not to debate with people I can’t take seriously, which is surprisingly the majority of users here (gun nuts, evangelical Christians, and ultra-conservatives).[/quote]
Let’s see… Calls out other’s for fallacies, then proceeds with personal attacks, you know Dat Ad Hom!
And my personal favorite the whole “I’m so open minded, logical and advanced, I completely shutdown and refuse to acknowledge anyone one or any thought that doesn’t fit into the neat little box my world view has been painted in” bit.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Are you deliberately being retarded?[/quote]
Dat Ad Hom… You must really have a valid point if you are calling me a “retard”.
SO you understand that doctors, medicine and people in general make mistakes and have been and will continue to be wrong, yet get all butthurt because you think that organized religion (who you claim pushes back against advancement) might just be a weeeee bit reserved about jumping to the next hot idea when it comes out?
You should stop assuming you know what I think. It is evident you don’t.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So, the atheist blind faith that current human “rationale and logic” are infallible isn’t in fact blind faith?[/quote]
You’re last rebuttal was poor, so I’ll leave this question up there again.
[quote]
The original is what matters, since the original is SUPPOSED to be the word of God.[/quote]
SO therefore the Democrats are still the party of slavery then?
You complain that “religion” stops evolution of things like medicine, yet refuse to acknowledge that religious thought and understanding can also evolve…
Kinda funny really.
Certainly.
The different iterations prove something for sure. What is unsure is what they prove.
[quote]
So why the fuck did they use the word years? It couldn’t have been revolutions around the sun, because that wasn’t close to being accepted by the general populace for centuries after 0 BC/AC. Why use a term which means 365 days and then have it signify something completely different?[/quote]
Oh… I don’t know, people don’t ever do that with anything else, lol.
Just lol dude.
[quote]In any case, you present a poor argument. Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia
3rd paragraph is significant. 50 percent of adults in the U.S. take that literally. That is one of the reasons religion is a poison: when adults BLINDLY believe the earth is 6000 or whatever years old, when modern science tells them it’s absolutely wrong, which, of course, they will deny, while they watch TV in an aircraft 25000 meters in the air.[/quote]
All these wiki links. All these ad homs… I’m starting to sense you have a very strong position here.
[quote]
First off, I don’t trust my dog, or any animal for that matter. Second of all, were I to do so, that is an indication of faith but NOT blind faith. There is a huge difference between the two. Do you need me to explain the difference to you? (hint: The dog has proven itself loyal for many years).[/quote]
lol… Yes please explain the difference oh ye who is so well read and open minded.
In other news, you failed here. You can’t even recognize your own blind faith, because the beginning of your statement here contradicts the ending.
Well done.
[quote]
Religion has been close minded towards tons of things,[/quote]
You are in no position to make this judgment.
[quote]
Government is not a belief system, [/quote]
lmao
lmfao
[quote]
No, I don’t. Centuries of history give me a very good idea of what religion is all about: spread the word of God, and kill the sinners.[/quote]
Nope, still completely missing the entire point of religion, and organization of religion.
You going to post me up some more wiki for this?
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
No. This is not an extremely complicated thing we’re talking about. We’re not being told or asked to try to visualize some 10 dimensional concepts.[/quote]
Like I said, you don’t really “get” the whole big picture thing as it pertains to religion. You are missing the point, over and over.
You are making the grave, yet typical mistake of not only actually believing humans are significant in any way, but being arrogant enough to compare our behavior to that of an omnipotent being.
Look, you need to get over this notion that mankind matters in any sort of material way in the universe. We don’t. We aren’t even flea farts in the grand scheme of things, bacteria on the ass hair of single dustmite of the universe.
You are trying to explain omnipotent being behavior in human terms. You can’t. Neither you, nor I, or anyone comprehends, truly, what an omnipotent being is, outside of the infantile concept.
This is an extremely complicated thing we are talking about. The fact you don’t see that kind of shows the closed mind trap you are in.
What a lot of militant atheists fail to understand is you can still be an atheist and have an open mind, if only to further one’s understanding.
If their is a God, this happens every second of every day.
If there isn’t a God, it still happens. Just with the God Concept, not an actual being.
Depends. I don’t judge people that quickly.
I will address this, but need to ask a question to do so:
What do you need to tell you that killing a person is wrong, or that a grown man having sex with an 8 year old is wrong?
[quote]
Why does no one believe in Zeus, Minerva, or Fujin anymore? If someone told you they believed in Ifrits, would you laugh in their face? Could it be that religion came about from people trying to explain something they did not have the knowledge or tools to explain? Could it be that we now know that lightning and thunder is not (the) God(s) being angry, but natural phenomena?[/quote]
hmmm… And as those tools and that knowledge came and grew, the religious though process changed as well…
Interesting how that worked out.
The fucking Sun gives you cancer. Doctors kill patients. Abortion slaughters babies.
Your statement is baseless.
Weren’t all the universities in Europe started by churchmen or the church? And didn’t these places further medicine and science?
Also wasn’t the dark ages more so about society in the Western Roman Empire collapsing with all of the invasions,famine and plague? I am pretty sure our technological developments would come to a stand still too. Also science never died in the Eastern Roman Empire,where Christianity was a state religion, science was always nurtured by the state, which also acted as acting head of the church. I also wonder why Europe became so advanced with such a burden as organized religion. A lot of these ideas of religion being the bane of development are just misconceptions.