Pastor calls to imprison gays for ‘ten years hard labor’ with new constitutional amendment

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Please point out a single post where I dictated anything to anyone

You've dictated all kinds of things to people that don't agree with you. You've dictated that self proclaimed progressives are really Marxist; that pro-choicer individuals are merely pro-abortionists who are irrational and have been blinded by their own dogma. According to you, they haven't employed critical thinking skill to the issue, which is why they need you to assist them into thinking "deeply" on a subject that you have dictated that they clearly don't understand.

Inside another, outside another, independent, not dependent are not things that make someone a person or not. It's really a simplistic way of looking at a very complex issue.

Bullox! When a woman is pregnant, she is carrying something is totally dependent on her, whether she's in her first trimester or in labor. Until that baby is BORN, it is still a part of her body, attached by an umbilical cord and a placenta. It relies on her blood, breath, heart, et al.

A child is an autonomous individual once it's born. Even if it's a preemie on respirator, it is living outside the womb. Viability is what's key here.

Woman's body, woman's choice. Period.

It's counterproductive for women to discuss this topic with men.

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos

originally posted by: okrian
And herein lies the problem. Because the bible is not just full of the good stuff, it's also full of the terrible stuff (and you must believe that the old testament is also the word of god if you are a Christian - Matthew 5:17-18). And cherry picking and interpretation (which all Christians do) is really just up to the whim of the reader. Their justifications for hate, calls for acts of hate, etc. are just as valid as your cherry picked acts of goodness... it's just amazing that anyone looks to a bronze age book to dictate these concepts. "True Christian", like any of you have any right to state this, the narcissism is strong. So you have some sort of secret understanding with god? I bet he's told you that you are super important and you are right and other people are wrong. Boooooo.

And mOjOm, this isn't focused at you in any way, I know you are using this term in order to seek condemnation among christians.

While I agree that the Old Testament is in fact the word of God, it represents the old law, whose burden we as Christians were delivered from by Jesus in the New Testament.

The Old Testament was a standard by which mankind simply failed to maintain on a consistent basis, thus requiring Christ to bring us back into communion with God.

It's not really as much of a problem as you seem to think.

And it appears that we're getting further off topic. I wouldn't want to derail the thread. That wasn't my intention when I made my initial reply.

What God? Where's the testable evidence proving that God exists?

What Jesus? Where's the contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that he ever lived?

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos

originally posted by: okrian
And herein lies the problem. Because the bible is not just full of the good stuff, it's also full of the terrible stuff (and you must believe that the old testament is also the word of god if you are a Christian - Matthew 5:17-18). And cherry picking and interpretation (which all Christians do) is really just up to the whim of the reader. Their justifications for hate, calls for acts of hate, etc. are just as valid as your cherry picked acts of goodness... it's just amazing that anyone looks to a bronze age book to dictate these concepts. "True Christian", like any of you have any right to state this, the narcissism is strong. So you have some sort of secret understanding with god? I bet he's told you that you are super important and you are right and other people are wrong. Boooooo.

And mOjOm, this isn't focused at you in any way, I know you are using this term in order to seek condemnation among christians.

While I agree that the Old Testament is in fact the word of God, it represents the old law, whose burden we as Christians were delivered from by Jesus in the New Testament.

The Old Testament was a standard by which mankind simply failed to maintain on a consistent basis, thus requiring Christ to bring us back into communion with God.

It's not really as much of a problem as you seem to think.

And it appears that we're getting further off topic. I wouldn't want to derail the thread. That wasn't my intention when I made my initial reply.

What God? Where's the testable evidence proving that God exists?

What Jesus? Where's the contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that he ever lived?

Think what you will about God's existence, that's your decision, and He reveals himself to those that seek Him.

The only evidence of his existence that I can present, are the changes that He's wrought in my life, and that won't be good enough for you, I'm sure, but it's more than good enough for me.

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos

originally posted by: okrian
And herein lies the problem. Because the bible is not just full of the good stuff, it's also full of the terrible stuff (and you must believe that the old testament is also the word of god if you are a Christian - Matthew 5:17-18). And cherry picking and interpretation (which all Christians do) is really just up to the whim of the reader. Their justifications for hate, calls for acts of hate, etc. are just as valid as your cherry picked acts of goodness... it's just amazing that anyone looks to a bronze age book to dictate these concepts. "True Christian", like any of you have any right to state this, the narcissism is strong. So you have some sort of secret understanding with god? I bet he's told you that you are super important and you are right and other people are wrong. Boooooo.

And mOjOm, this isn't focused at you in any way, I know you are using this term in order to seek condemnation among christians.

While I agree that the Old Testament is in fact the word of God, it represents the old law, whose burden we as Christians were delivered from by Jesus in the New Testament.

The Old Testament was a standard by which mankind simply failed to maintain on a consistent basis, thus requiring Christ to bring us back into communion with God.

It's not really as much of a problem as you seem to think.

And it appears that we're getting further off topic. I wouldn't want to derail the thread. That wasn't my intention when I made my initial reply.

What God? Where's the testable evidence proving that God exists?

What Jesus? Where's the contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that he ever lived?

Think what you will about God's existence, that's your decision, and He reveals himself to those that seek Him.

The only evidence of his existence that I can present, are the changes that He's wrought in my life, and that won't be good enough for you, I'm sure, but it's more than good enough for me.

Of course that's not good enough because it's not testable evidence. Its a claim. Someone can claim that hobbits made a change in their life. Perhaps you should not make a claim of fact if you can't prove it and, instead, present it as your personal belief.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos

originally posted by: okrian
And herein lies the problem. Because the bible is not just full of the good stuff, it's also full of the terrible stuff (and you must believe that the old testament is also the word of god if you are a Christian - Matthew 5:17-18). And cherry picking and interpretation (which all Christians do) is really just up to the whim of the reader. Their justifications for hate, calls for acts of hate, etc. are just as valid as your cherry picked acts of goodness... it's just amazing that anyone looks to a bronze age book to dictate these concepts. "True Christian", like any of you have any right to state this, the narcissism is strong. So you have some sort of secret understanding with god? I bet he's told you that you are super important and you are right and other people are wrong. Boooooo.

And mOjOm, this isn't focused at you in any way, I know you are using this term in order to seek condemnation among christians.

While I agree that the Old Testament is in fact the word of God, it represents the old law, whose burden we as Christians were delivered from by Jesus in the New Testament.

The Old Testament was a standard by which mankind simply failed to maintain on a consistent basis, thus requiring Christ to bring us back into communion with God.

It's not really as much of a problem as you seem to think.

And it appears that we're getting further off topic. I wouldn't want to derail the thread. That wasn't my intention when I made my initial reply.

What God? Where's the testable evidence proving that God exists?

What Jesus? Where's the contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that he ever lived?

Think what you will about God's existence, that's your decision, and He reveals himself to those that seek Him.

The only evidence of his existence that I can present, are the changes that He's wrought in my life, and that won't be good enough for you, I'm sure, but it's more than good enough for me.

Of course that's not good enough because it's not testable evidence. Its a claim. Someone can claim that hobbits made a change in their life. Perhaps you should not make a claim of fact if you can't prove it and, instead, present it as your personal belief.

Obviously, you're looking for an outlet through which you can attack God, or his followers. Any particular reason why you chose this one?

I wasn't arguing with anyone, and was being quite reasonable in this discussion, if you ask me.

If you choose to ignore the testimony of someone who claims God's hand in their life, that's your business; it won't change how I approach my day.

a reply to: Tangerine

Tangerine, I'm one of the most open atheists on the site. Welcome to ATS!

While I can easily understand your questions and issues with all the religio-biblical chestnuts that get passed around, I'm not sure that I see how the essential challenges you're offering are specifically relevant here.

ProfessorChaos has made it clear that their stated position is their PERSONAL position.

Besides that, as you will see as you read more discussions on the site, we really have beaten those deceased horses into jelly on multiple occasions.

However, please feel free to approach the conversation in any way you see fit. And again, welcome.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Tangerine

Tangerine, I'm one of the most open atheists on the site. Welcome to ATS!

While I can easily understand your questions and issues with all the religio-biblical chestnuts that get passed around, I'm not sure that I see how the essential challenges you're offering are specifically relevant here.

ProfessorChaos has made it clear that their stated position is their PERSONAL position.

Besides that, as you will see as you read more discussions on the site, we really have beaten those deceased horses into jelly on multiple occasions.

However, please feel free to approach the conversation in any way you see fit. And again, welcome.

Thank you for the welcome. As you know, the internet, and everyday life, is infested with proselytizers who take every opportunity to proselytize. I, for one, won't tolerate it. When they bring it up, I always challenge them. IT's reached the point where they feel free to approach people, uninvited ,on sidewalks, in grocery stores, libraries, and at public events and we're expected to be polite and docile. I want to dissuade them of the notion that we're going to be polite and docile. They've infested virtually every chatroom on the internet with an agenda of recruitment. The Religious Right has a dangerous agenda of theocracy. If we don't speak up in opposition, who will?

In this case, to answer your question, it's relevant precisely because he chose to bring up the subject. It wasn't relevant to the topic. I simply challenged him. I think we need to get them used to the point where they expect to be challenged.

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos

originally posted by: okrian
And herein lies the problem. Because the bible is not just full of the good stuff, it's also full of the terrible stuff (and you must believe that the old testament is also the word of god if you are a Christian - Matthew 5:17-18). And cherry picking and interpretation (which all Christians do) is really just up to the whim of the reader. Their justifications for hate, calls for acts of hate, etc. are just as valid as your cherry picked acts of goodness... it's just amazing that anyone looks to a bronze age book to dictate these concepts. "True Christian", like any of you have any right to state this, the narcissism is strong. So you have some sort of secret understanding with god? I bet he's told you that you are super important and you are right and other people are wrong. Boooooo.

And mOjOm, this isn't focused at you in any way, I know you are using this term in order to seek condemnation among christians.

While I agree that the Old Testament is in fact the word of God, it represents the old law, whose burden we as Christians were delivered from by Jesus in the New Testament.

The Old Testament was a standard by which mankind simply failed to maintain on a consistent basis, thus requiring Christ to bring us back into communion with God.

It's not really as much of a problem as you seem to think.

And it appears that we're getting further off topic. I wouldn't want to derail the thread. That wasn't my intention when I made my initial reply.

What God? Where's the testable evidence proving that God exists?

What Jesus? Where's the contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that he ever lived?

Think what you will about God's existence, that's your decision, and He reveals himself to those that seek Him.

The only evidence of his existence that I can present, are the changes that He's wrought in my life, and that won't be good enough for you, I'm sure, but it's more than good enough for me.

Of course that's not good enough because it's not testable evidence. Its a claim. Someone can claim that hobbits made a change in their life. Perhaps you should not make a claim of fact if you can't prove it and, instead, present it as your personal belief.

Obviously, you're looking for an outlet through which you can attack God, or his followers. Any particular reason why you chose this one?

I wasn't arguing with anyone, and was being quite reasonable in this discussion, if you ask me.

If you choose to ignore the testimony of someone who claims God's hand in their life, that's your business; it won't change how I approach my day.

The problem is that you chose to use this forum to offer your "testimony". The topic wasn't so-called "testimony". You can expect the same response the next time you do it.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos

I would think that that was pretty much what I just did with my posts, wouldn't you agree?

Yeah. Ok. Well, that makes one I guess. Problem is these other Haters seem to be going a bit more public about their message than just making a post on a internet conspiracy site.

Why is it when I make that suggestion I keep getting individuals saying, "Well, I said I didn't approve of it." as if I'm talking about finding one person who thinks different.??

What I'm saying is that it might be good if a majority of Christians actually came together and said something. Ya, publicly. On the national stage or something. Like these other "Bad" Christians are doing.

You see what I'm saying?? I'm not talking about you personally here. I know where you stand.

No high ranking official (bishop, etc) of any mainstream Christian church has ever spoken out on behalf of his church condemning the behavior of these people and likely never will. Let's not forget that when the IRS conducted a legitimate financial investigation of the Church of Scientology, the mainstream churches went ape**** and spoke out on behalf of the Church of Scientology condemning the audit and argued that the Church of Scientology and, by inference, they, should not be subject to the same laws to which other businesses are subjected. They have a policy (unofficial or official) of circling the wagons. They want to operate as businesses while claiming to be non-profits and enjoying tax-exempt status. Unfortunately, politicians don't have the guts or integrity to put an end to it.

I know your post was about individual Christians speaking out, as compared to church officials, but I don't see that happening either -- certainly not in a meaningful public forum. It's not irrelevant that they refer to themselves as sheep.

a reply to: Tangerine

You must do as you think best Tangerine.

As my last comment on the subject, I implore you to review the ATS Terms and Conditions and specifically this item:

16) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, libelous, defamatory, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

Best,

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
This guy is in no way representative of real Christianity.

.

What exactly is REAL Christianity; And who decides? My Southern Baptist grandma told me to avoid Methodist because they "had the devil in em" and I would violate the T&C if I told you what she thought of Catholics.

It's a fiction that only some of them are REAL Christians. They're all REAL Christians and they all represent Christianity. Instead of looking for bad fruit, maybe we should consider the tree that produces the fruit to be rotten.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
If life begins at conception, in the case of spontaneous abortion (which occurs in about 50% of fertilized ova), is the mother to be charged with murder or at least manslaughter then?

If not, why not?

Of course. This has never been about "babies". Its about controlling women.

originally posted by: Tangerine

I know your post was about individual Christians speaking out, as compared to church officials, but I don't see that happening either -- certainly not in a meaningful public forum.

Nonsense. Every Christian in this thread has condemned the pastor's ridiculous proposal. I think what you all are wanting is for us to invite gays to come get married in our churches, to offer our services in catering to those weddings, and to keep our mouths shut while you snuff out the lives of millions of children.

If that's the case then my only advice to you is... don't hold your breath.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

One does not have to be a woman nor be a rape victim in order to understand that rape is wrong and to be against it, yes?

Is that your way of saying that you think that abortion is wrong, that you're against it, and that, even though your a man, who can't get pregnant or carry a baby, you still have the right to dictate what's right and wrong to women who disagree with you, and/or seek out abortions?

It never pays to discuss this topic with men. It's none of their business and discussing it with them creates the impression that it is.
Woman's body, woman's choice. Period.

As a pastor who is anti-gay, how could he possibly think that putting them all together in a place with built in workouts and already rampant gay sex.

Isn't this a bit like trying to curb excessive gaming by locking someone in a room with all of the released games for a given system for ten years?

Or trying to stop abortions by locking all of the pregnant women in abortion clinics?

Pretty counter-productive to his goals if you ask me.

It is true that no one likes being locked up so that would be a downside to homosexuals, but beyond that, there is no logic to this man's proposition.

a reply to: Tangerine

As long as that child has my blood flowing through it's veins, it is my business regardless of it's location.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Tangerine

You must do as you think best Tangerine.

As my last comment on the subject, I implore you to review the ATS Terms and Conditions and specifically this item:

16) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, libelous, defamatory, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

Best,

Can you be more specific about how you think I may have violated that? Taken very liberally, it would prevent someone from taking almost any position on almost any topic.

originally posted by: Tangerine
Can you be more specific about how you think I may have violated that? Taken very liberally, it would prevent someone from taking almost any position on almost any topic.

I'm not a mind-reader, but I think it was meant as a friendly suggestion.

A while back I got my hand slapped over a pun. At the time, I didn't think it would be considered offensive seeing as how I was responding to an obvious insult. Instead of getting mad about it, I thought it over and now add an extra few seconds before hitting the Enter key.

Helps keep things around here a little more on the friendly side and doesn't require all that much...

a reply to: Tangerine

None of my business at this point Tangerine. I was only trying to "do a new member a solid" to make sure you were aware of the T&C.

It's more than possible that I may be reading things the wrong way and your announcing, specifically, that you intend to chastise another member anytime they say something in a manner with which you disagree, you're singling out a class of members (believers and/or theists) as somehow appropriate for your ire uniformly, which you promise to visit on them at every opportunity they provide you, might not be considered intolerant or harassing at all.

Best,

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Tangerine

None of my business at this point Tangerine. I was only trying to "do a new member a solid" to make sure you were aware of the T&C.

It's more than possible that I may be reading things the wrong way and your announcing, specifically, that you intend to chastise another member anytime they say something in a manner with which you disagree, you're singling out a class of members (believers and/or theists) as somehow appropriate for your ire uniformly, which you promise to visit on them at every opportunity they provide you, might not be considered intolerant or harassing at all.

Best,

I didn't say exactly that. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. However, If someone makes a claim of fact (ie. God exists, Jesus lived, If you open your heart, God will enter it/answer you) I will challenge them to prove that fact via testable evidence. Furthermore, fundamentalist/evangelical clergy encourage their followers to give "testimony" at every opportunity as a way to "bring more people to Christ". If that's not proselytizing, I don't know what is. The person to whose post I responded did just that. "Testifying" isn't benign happenstance conversation. It's a tool of conversion used intentionally for that purpose.

For the record, because this is a forum for discussion about various topics, I generally support anyone's right to say whatever they want (so long as it's not a threat). But I reserve the right to respond. I also tend to challenge people on questionable claims of fact about non-religious topics. The poster in question did make claims of fact.

It seems that there's a double standard in this forum. Religious people know full well that those who are not religious or of other religions don't appreciate proselytizing yet they do it. Is that not intolerant and harassing?