Crazy things famous Christians say

Magical Realist,

It's a common rhetorical trick homophobes use: equating a "homosexual" pedophile with a homosexual.
Click to expand...

It is also a common rhetorical trick haters of Christians (to name but one religious group) use: equating a ''Christians'' person, with a homophobic Christian person.

Ofcourse it's clear to the intelligent that "homosexual" in the former case is an adjective equivalent to "same sex". In the latter we are talking about a whole sexual orientation, and one that is distinct from pedophilia.
Click to expand...

The dictionary definition of ''homosexual'' is:

One who is sexually attracted to people of ones own sex.

Involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex:

jan
 
Magical Realist said:
Pastor advocates electrically-fenced concentration camps for lesbians and "queers"..This is video of his sermon in front of his own congregation. THIS is the sort of shit that gets ingrained into children's minds. THIS is the sort of hate that gets spread in the name of Jesus. Think about a few closeted gay teens sitting in that audience, struggling with the issue of their own orientations. Think about the sort of shame and terror these words would inspire in them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu4q2-nbvrw
Click to expand...

He's not famous.
Please keep to Crazy things famous Christians say.
Having your video laughed at on TV is not being famous.
 
Jan Ardena said:
It is also a common rhetorical trick haters of Christians (to name but one religious group) use: equating a ''Christians'' person, with a homophobic Christian person.
Click to expand...

It's also the case that many Christians tie their homophobia to the central dogma of Christianity. It is also the case that too few Christians challenge this.

Christians are more than a random collection, they are groups of people who tie themselves together based on a set of writings and principles. Many of these principles are wrong, many are impractical, many are evil. These need to be criticized and those who group themselves together around evil principles should be shunned.

Christians are not a monoculture, but they are a pervasive problem and they need to be responsible for the ideas they promote that they or others might use for evil.
 
It is also a common rhetorical trick haters of Christians (to name but one religious group) use: equating a ''Christians'' person, with a homophobic Christian person.
Click to expand...

Are you saying a homophobic Christian person ISN'T a Christian?



The dictionary definition of ''homosexual'' is:

One who is sexually attracted to people of ones own sex.

Involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex:
Click to expand...


Members of NAMBLA ARE attracted to children of the same sex. But that doesn't mean they're gay. It means they're pedophiles.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Magical Realist,



If Jesus really believed that he was ''the light of this world'', and it was only through him one could see God, then his statement ''of myself alone, I can do nothing'', has no meaning.



In this case the term ''name' refers' the memory of his reputation and standing, it's obvious that the mere utterance of the name ''Jesus Christ of Nazareth'', was not the method they used to heal the man, but who he was, what he said, did, taught, etc. And what thy had gleaned from that.



This describes Jesus, as a foundation, base, bedrock, of this new religion (of his disciples).



Again, this does not refer to his name, Jesus. It refers to his whole purpose. Through taking shelter of him, as opposed to the other religious authorities, you could get your desired result. But not without doing the work yourself. Being ''saved'' does not automatically give you an audience with God.

Whoever you devote yourself to, for guidance, you start to take on some of their characteristics.

jan.
Click to expand...

Word salad...
 
Magical Realist said:
I'll post whatever I find demonstrates my OP.
Click to expand...

That famous Christians say crazy things?

What about when they start wars because they have messages from God?
Who said this:

"I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."
 
Thread: Atheist world


11-02-13, 05:49 PM #1

arauca

Atheist world

How would the world function if every body would be an atheist ?


Quick reply to this message Reply Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


11-02-13, 06:14 PM #2

Mazulu

Quote Originally Posted by arauca View Post

How would the world function if every body would be an atheist ?
Well, first they would have to alter the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and our money; they would take out "In God We Trust" and change it to "Accidents happen". They would have to take away all of the guns away from Americans (which would result in a lot of people getting shot). They would have to close all the churches, temples and synagogues. The thought police would have to show up and confiscate all of the bibles and religious books and have a great book burning of their own. Then they would have to line up Americans in the street, religious Americans, and shoot them in the head.


Quick reply to this message Reply Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
 
jan said:
It is also a common rhetorical trick haters of Christians (to name but one religious group) use: equating a ''Christians'' person, with a homophobic Christian person.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't.

It's true that many frequently encountered Christians and their chosen representation, intellectual leaders, etc, are deeply and publicly homophobic and are not challenged in their Christianity on that count - so many, and so routinely accepted by such large and varied Christian congregations, that the burden of proof now rests on anyone claiming to base their Christian faith on the Bible as revealed truth - but the rhetorical trick you describe is very rare.

If someone appears to you as a hater of Christians by posting quotes from commonly encountered Christians, does that give you pause for thought? Look how quickly so many posters here jumped to accusations of false generalization - where no generalization appears. Recall Walter Mondale's essentially serious complaint about the media coverage of his campaign against Ronald Reagan: "If you quote him accurately, people call it mudslinging".

You seem to recognize the hatefulness of these normal constituents of the environment US resident non-Christians live in.

jan said:
If Jesus really believed that he was ''the light of this world'', and it was only through him one could see God, then his statement ''of myself alone, I can do nothing'', has no meaning.
Click to expand...
Untrue, as usual. Manifestly, he was making perfect sense: the light of the world in the sense there does nothing of itself.
 
Dr X said...
Elishiva,

I think Christians are very attentive to the insults and sneers of non-believers, but nearly deaf when it comes to the insults non-Christians endure on a constant basis.

I could devote an entire blog to nothing but posts enumerating the dishonest, offensive things Christians say about those who don't share their beliefs. In fact, this story is just such an example. Some Christians will read this story and get their backs up because of a fictional character a Christian deliberately created to insult them. Then they enjoy the fictional beating that's inflicted. But who is actually being demeaned? Not the Christian, the atheist. Somehow, though, many Christians will come away from a deliberately insulting story with the message that they are the victims. That interpretation turns reality upside down because this story is a Christian attack on non-believers. And it never seems to reach the consciousness of many Christians that they regularly engage in an unprovoked buckshot insults directed toward non-believers. They'll go right back to complaining that they are being persecuted without missing a beat.

I wish I could say that such moral sleight of hand were a rare occurrence among Christians, but it isn't. I'm tempted every day to deconstruct one of these stories in my blog, but I don't want to draw any more attention to them than they already receive.


August 11, 2010 at 1:37:00 PM MDT
 
PhysBang,

Christians are more than a random collection, they are groups of people who tie themselves together based on a set of writings and principles. Many of these principles are wrong, many are impractical, many are evil. These need to be criticized and those who group themselves together around evil principles should be shunned.
Click to expand...

These writing basically say that homosexuality is a sin. Why is that wrong, evil, and impractical?

jan.
 
Magical Realist,

Are you saying a homophobic Christian person ISN'T a Christian?
Click to expand...

Read what was written.

Members of NAMBLA ARE attracted to children of the same sex. But that doesn't mean they're gay. It means they're pedophiles.
Click to expand...

A pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children. So if the pedophile is homosexual, then he will be attracted to children of the same sex. If they are attracted to either sex, they are bi-sexual.

It's currently againt the law to have sex with anyone under the age of sixteen. One would be classed as a pedophile, were one to be having sex with a 14yo. Peter Tatchel a LGBT champion is campaigning for the age of consent to be lowered to 14 years of age. So if this becomes legal, it would be no longer Wconsidered pedophilia.
Would current ''pedophiles'' who are attracted to the same gender 14yo's, upgrade from ''pedophilia'' to ''homosexual'', and no longer be considered ''pedophiles.

jan.
 
iceaura,

It's true that many frequently encountered Christians and their chosen representation, intellectual leaders, etc, are deeply and publicly homophobic and are not challenged in their Christianity on that count - so many, and so routinely accepted by such large and varied Christian congregations, that the burden of proof now rests on anyone claiming to base their Christian faith on the Bible as revealed truth - but the rhetorical trick you describe is very rare.
Click to expand...

You have a different conception of ''homophobic'', than the actual definition of the word. Your conception means you can call anything you feel like, ''homophobic''.

Explain how believing homosexuality to be a sin, is homophobic?

If someone appears to you as a hater of Christians by posting quotes from commonly encountered Christians, does that give you pause for thought?
Click to expand...

It's what he's posting that gives reason to call him ''hater''.
He's not listening to individuals, he's simply ranting.

Look how quickly so many posters here jumped to accusations of false generalization - where no generalization appears.
Click to expand...

Why would ''so many poster'' accuse him of generalisation, if generalisation wasn't abound?
Sorry, but ''The Emporer's New Clothes'' sorcery doesn't work on me.

Recall Walter Mondale's essentially serious complaint about the media coverage of his campaign against Ronald Reagan: "If you quote him accurately, people call it mudslinging".
Click to expand...

MR's problem is his anger. He is acting totally irrationally, and it seems he won't be happy until everybody is forced by law, to not even think, anything negative about homosexuality.

You seem to recognize the hatefulness of these normal constituents of the environment US resident non-Christians live in.
Click to expand...

???

Untrue, as usual. Manifestly, he was making perfect sense: the light of the world in the sense there does nothing of itself.
Click to expand...

That's a load of bollocks. And you know it? :)

jan.
 
A pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children. So if the pedophile is homosexual, then he will be attracted to children of the same sex.
Click to expand...

Right. A person who is attracted to boys is a pedophile and not gay or homosexual. His orientation is towards children. Gay is an entirely different orientation that means you are attracted to adults of your same sex. A necessary distinction that homophobes like you deliberately avoid making. You DO understand the difference between a boy and a man don't you?

"Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted).

To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men's sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation."
 
Magical Realist said:
Right. A person who is attracted to boys is a pedophile and not gay or homosexual. His orientation is towards children. Gay is an entirely different orientation that means you are attracted to adults of your same sex. A necessary distinction that homophobes like you deliberately avoid making. You DO understand the difference between a boy and a man don't you?
Click to expand...

I agree completely.
I'll be interested to see if anyone wishes to disagree with you on this point.

The Catholic Church, in particular, tried to blur this distinction, and blamed the child-molesting problems of its priests on homosexuality.
That is a particularly twisted point of view, perverse you could say, and denies the real problems.
I don't think that the Catholic Church will progress until it comes to grips with homosexuality.
I think it will get there eventually.

I think you are conducting this thread very well MR.
With its subject matter, it could have degenerated into verbal attacks long ago, but you are keeping things fairly mellow,
because you haven't lost your temper and become abusive.
Not much, anyway.
 
Magical Realist,

Can you respond to this:

It's currently against the law to have sex with anyone under the age of sixteen.
So one would be classed as a pedophile, were one to be having sex with a 14 year old.
Peter Tatchel a LGBT champion is campaigning for the age of consent to be lowered to 14 years of age.
So if this becomes legal, it would be no longer considered pedophilia. Right?

Would current ''pedophiles'' who are attracted to 14 year old's of the same gender, upgrade from ''pedophilia'' to ''homosexual'', and no longer be considered ''pedophiles?
Click to expand...

Right. A person who is attracted to boys is a pedophile and not gay or homosexual.
Click to expand...

homosexual
1.sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.
noun
1.
a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
synonyms: gay, lesbian, gay person, lesbigay;

That is the definition. Stop using sorcery. :)

His orientation is towards children.
Click to expand...

If it's a male child, of the same gender (homo = same, sex = gender), why is it not homosexual?

Gay is an entirely different orientation that means you are attracted to adults of your same sex.
Click to expand...

''Gay'', used to mean happy.

A necessary distinction that homophobes like you deliberately avoid making.
You DO understand the difference between a boy and a man don't you?
Click to expand...

Firstly, please stop with the baseless accusations, I neither fear or hate you. Although I do fear the prophesies of Michael Swift.

Secondly, men and boys are both male. They are of the same sex.

"Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

Terrible attempt of an explanation.

As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted).

To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men's sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation."
Click to expand...

How do these ''expert panel of researchers'' know this?

jan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top