Good on Kirk for standing up for what he believes. All these gay sex orgiers and homiciders with their P-E-N-I-Ses going into the anus, rupturing intestines, it's abhorrent to think about.

The My Little Pony Killer: scottydoesntknow: The My Little Pony Killer: hackhix: How did Scientology miss out on this gem of a recruit back in a day?

Kirk Cameron: So off the rails, even Scientology won't go there.

I honestly don't think many Christians want him as their speaker either. I've never known a single person, Christian or otherwise that actually listened to Kirk beyond wanting to laugh at his crazy rants

Huh. Come to think of it, do we even know what denomination he associates himself with?

It's not Scientology. They only want successful people. Ones with money.

Six_By_Nine: Hey, theists can be perfectly rational

Sorry, but no you can't. Religious belief is inherently irrational, as characterized by the "leap of faith" that one takes, often to the contrary of any evidence our grounding for that leap. See Kierkegaard.

In fact, the philosophy of rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching. Rationality is belief based on reason or evidence. Faith is belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority. Faith is a belief that is held with lack of, in spite of, or against reason and evidence.

Religion has made its attempts to prove its self on rational grounds, and the ontological, teleological, cosmological and design arguments were all found lacking. They all fall into infinite regress or the arguer has to resort to special pleading in order to make their case.

In other facets of life theists can behave rationally, but not when it comes to religious belief.

Fark you Kirk Cameron. You are not fit to unhook Julie McCullough's bra-strap. (Yeah I went there)



Anybody want to guess how the Kirk Cameron story ends? I don't see a happy ending for him. I see his inner-demons exploding after decades of repression and causing some kind of freaky Bob Crane-style motel tragedy in his future.

STRYPERSWINE: Nonsense. Kirk Cameron doesn't hate anybody and has never said anything specifically hateful, especially here, where he didn't even mention homosexuals at all.

Sucks that neither you nor Kirk are half as clever as you think you are. Maybe you should both console each other over a pair of Subway footlongs.

groppet: Story of Thumper

So it isn't really important that you MEAN the things you say, just that you say the words? Gosh, salvation sounds easy!

Seriously though, people like Thumper should not be allowed to vote. Was she at least hot?

Crappy writing by the author. Even being totally on the writers side of the argument and hating Kirk Cameron I can see that the authors argument is based on nothing but emotion and personal bias rather than any facts. making him no better than Kirk

Ah, I see. Kirk talks about gays: STFU, KIRK! Kirk DOESN'T talk about gays: STFU, KIRK!

At least you're consistent with your hypocrisy.

FloydA: i105.photobucket.com
AU GRATIN POTATO!!!!



/
//emma.watson.jpg

eraser8: KC: It needs to be a home that is filled with faith...

This is stated as a bald assertion. But, why is it important for a home to be filled with "faith?"

Anyone care to hazard a guess?

Faith is good insulation. A twelve-inch layer of faith will keep the average family home fully protected from even the strongest onslaughts of logic, knowledge, compassion or common sense. Of course, it won't do a bit of good if your kids open the door and let all that education blow in.

I was convinced NOM only hired the guy so they could go out in a blaze of ridiculousness that would eventually net someone a book deal. Which is probably still the case, but I doubt anyone's gonna notice they avoided going full retard by only making him part of the Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance.

/TFA is right about that being a stupid name.

Kirk claims to be loved by God, but consider this:

Kirk was a sanctimonious assbag to his show's cast and crew and now he makes low-budget slop that only the bluehairs who hit the Wal-Mart $5 bin will ever see.

Meanwhile, one of Kirk's co-stars, who wasn't a self-righteous homophobic judgemental douche, gets $20 million a picture, works with Scorsese, Eastwood, and Tarantino, and has banged half the Victoria's Secret catalog lineup.

Still think you're the one God loves, Kirk?

The Why Not Guy: Who is trying to restrict the rights of others based on religious beliefs? Us, or Kirk Cameron?

Hmm, I never realized Emperor Cameron had that kind of power.
Actually, the only time I ever hear of him is when people on Fark mention him.
I have friends and family who are homosexual, they neither bash Christianity nor mention Kurt.
Must be more stable in their beliefs than some here.

Kurmudgeon: The Why Not Guy: Who is trying to restrict the rights of others based on religious beliefs? Us, or Kirk Cameron?

Hmm, I never realized Emperor Cameron had that kind of power.
Actually, the only time I ever hear of him is when people on Fark mention him.
I have friends and family who are homosexual, they neither bash Christianity nor mention Kurt.
Must be more stable in their beliefs than some here.

lol

So let me get this straight (no pun intended): Cameron has this 4 minute video about marriage and religion and family, doesn't mention gay people ONCE and the writer feels that the whole thing is against gay people? Does the writer also wear a tin foil cap and think the JFK zombie is going to eat him during the coming End Days?

If you're anti-Kirk Cameron, that's fine (he is a nut), but while you have the opinion that he's talking down on gay people, if he doesn't say it, you can't prove it and are possibly looking for something that just isn't there (in this instance).

And while we're on the subject of celebrities that are relevant, how about that Marc Price, huh? WOW whatta actor! That movie, Trick Or Treat, was incredible! What range he has... man!

Kali-Yuga: Six_By_Nine: Hey, theists can be perfectly rational

Sorry, but no you can't. Religious belief is inherently irrational, as characterized by the "leap of faith" that one takes, often to the contrary of any evidence our grounding for that leap. See Kierkegaard.

In fact, the philosophy of rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching. Rationality is belief based on reason or evidence. Faith is belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority. Faith is a belief that is held with lack of, in spite of, or against reason and evidence.

Religion has made its attempts to prove its self on rational grounds, and the ontological, teleological, cosmological and design arguments were all found lacking. They all fall into infinite regress or the arguer has to resort to special pleading in order to make their case.

In other facets of life theists can behave rationally, but not when it comes to religious belief.

So, basically, what you're saying is that there's atheism, and then there's fanaticism. Got it.

I wish my life were so simple that it's either one thing or the other. Glad you've got it so easy.

Okoboji: So let me get this straight (no pun intended): Cameron has this 4 minute video about marriage and religion and family, doesn't mention gay people ONCE and the writer feels that the whole thing is against gay people? Does the writer also wear a tin foil cap and think the JFK zombie is going to eat him during the coming End Days?

If you're anti-Kirk Cameron, that's fine (he is a nut), but while you have the opinion that he's talking down on gay people, if he doesn't say it, you can't prove it and are possibly looking for something that just isn't there (in this instance).

And while we're on the subject of celebrities that are relevant, how about that Marc Price, huh? WOW whatta actor! That movie, Trick Or Treat, was incredible! What range he has... man!

His message is pretty clear: straight marriage is the "god sanctioned" way to save America.

It is thinly veiled anti-gay propaganda pushed forward by a hate group. Pretend you don't see it all you want ... doesn't change what it is.

I wonder how he does this, knowing the kid who played "Boner" suicided. Yeah. True story.

/f*cking people live in fantasy-land
//f*ckin' morons

Farking Canuck

Okoboji: So let me get this straight (no pun intended): Cameron has this 4 minute video about marriage and religion and family, doesn't mention gay people ONCE and the writer feels that the whole thing is against gay people? Does the writer also wear a tin foil cap and think the JFK zombie is going to eat him during the coming End Days?

If you're anti-Kirk Cameron, that's fine (he is a nut), but while you have the opinion that he's talking down on gay people, if he doesn't say it, you can't prove it and are possibly looking for something that just isn't there (in this instance).

And while we're on the subject of celebrities that are relevant, how about that Marc Price, huh? WOW whatta actor! That movie, Trick Or Treat, was incredible! What range he has... man!

His message is pretty clear: straight marriage is the "god sanctioned" way to save America.

It is thinly veiled anti-gay propaganda pushed forward by a hate group. Pretend you don't see it all you want ... doesn't change what it is.


Only by the sheer definition of marriage is it anti-gay. Hate group? No - you only want it to be. Actually, the only hate is really on the people coming down hard on what he is saying. He is not advocating hate or violence....but most of the posts in this thread are. If you don't like what he is saying - don't listen.....but no, that's not how you operate. It won't be long before you and yours are railing against Christians as hate groups....then you will be after the Jews (or maybe it will be the Jews first and then the Christians - either way) But hey - It's your thing....do what you want to do.

karnal: Only by the sheer definition of marriage is it anti-gay

As defined by anti-gay hate groups. There are plenty of definitions that are inclusive to all and don't attempt to deny basic rights to citizens.

Farking Canuck

karnal: Only by the sheer definition of marriage is it anti-gay

As defined by anti-gay hate groups. There are plenty of definitions that are inclusive to all and don't attempt to deny basic rights to citizens.


I think that you think if you keep repeating hate group over and over it will stick.....and it probably will for some. Good luck with that. I prefer just to ignore him...it's much easier than being hateful.....but you seem to have your rap down pat - so go for it.

It's a real drag to some that other people have an opinion.

Just ignore whoever, just like I ignore the dipshiat PC cops.

"God makes it really clear that society and civilization is really held together by the glue of families."

So if families are the glue, killing the first-born son is more of the duct-tape?

karnal: Farking Canuck

karnal: Only by the sheer definition of marriage is it anti-gay

As defined by anti-gay hate groups. There are plenty of definitions that are inclusive to all and don't attempt to deny basic rights to citizens.


I think that you think if you keep repeating hate group over and over it will stick.....and it probably will for some. Good luck with that. I prefer just to ignore him...it's much easier than being hateful.....but you seem to have your rap down pat - so go for it.

So you don't think denying someone their basic rights is an expression of hate?

Farking Canuck


karnal: Farking Canuck

karnal: Only by the sheer definition of marriage is it anti-gay

As defined by anti-gay hate groups. There are plenty of definitions that are inclusive to all and don't attempt to deny basic rights to citizens.


I think that you think if you keep repeating hate group over and over it will stick.....and it probably will for some. Good luck with that. I prefer just to ignore him...it's much easier than being hateful.....but you seem to have your rap down pat - so go for it.

So you don't think denying someone their basic rights is an expression of hate?


Once again, by definition, Civil rights are rights guaranteed in the constitution. Marriage is not mentioned in the constitution.

Where in the constitution does it say marriage is one man and one woman?

Where does it say that hateful pricks are allowed to make laws based off of their magic books?

From TFA: "...treating them like they are subhuman, impossible of experiencing love and basic civil rights"

I guess he means "incapable of" but....grrrr.

There's no hate like tolerant hate.

Farking Canuck


Where in the constitution does it say marriage is one man and one woman?

Where does it say that hateful pricks are allowed to make laws based off of their magic books?



Doesn't mention marriage at all in the constitution - you should stop tilting at windmills.

NateAsbestos: groppet: Story of Thumper

So it isn't really important that you MEAN the things you say, just that you say the words? Gosh, salvation sounds easy!

Seriously though, people like Thumper should not be allowed to vote. Was she at least hot?

Thumper is not hot she is about 5 ft 180-200 lbs too much makeup , buuut her sister is hot as hell.

Six_By_Nine: Kali-Yuga: And that's how a lot of us rational people see theists

Hey, theists can be perfectly rational. Those of us who are hate those kinds of theist just as much as you do. Can I ask you respectfully not to lump us all into that group?

But you all believe in a God.

Six_By_Nine: So, basically, what you're saying is that there's atheism, and then there's fanaticism. Got it.

Sorry but no. l stated that all religious belief is inherently irrational, and then backed up my assertion with facts.

Obviously like all mental illnesses there is a spectrum, fanatics are on one end and so called moderates on the other.

STRYPERSWINE: There's no hate like tolerant hate.

Yup, reminds me of those hateful black folks that wanted to sit at the white counters at the local diner.
So much hate in some people.

groppet: NateAsbestos: groppet: Story of Thumper

So it isn't really important that you MEAN the things you say, just that you say the words? Gosh, salvation sounds easy!

Seriously though, people like Thumper should not be allowed to vote. Was she at least hot?

Thumper is not hot she is about 5 ft 180-200 lbs too much makeup , buuut her sister is hot as hell.

Yikes. Well I am truly sorry for your lots [the time you had to spend dealing with Thumper]

ten foiled hats: ten commandments type stuff?

Actually, the ten commandments were far more boring than the popularly reported decade or laws. If you read Exodus with an attentive eye, it's pretty clear that the ten commandments are found in Exodus 34:10-28 (if I remember correctly), and include things like "the feast of the unleavened bread shalt thou keep," "six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest," "thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord God," "thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk," and so on. The commonly reported ten commandments were actually more of a classic treaty formulation: they were the minima that the Lord demanded before being willing to negotiate further. The people of Moses had to promise certain things before the Lord would deign to work with them; a rational reader would observe that the Lord never directly limited the promise to those individuals, and presumably the offer extends to everyone who can agree that killing, stealing, and adultery are wrong, that parents should be honoured, that any worship directed heavenward be limited to what you're willing to send to this one God (including zero belief-- as long as you don't worship any other God before that one God, you're fine), etc. Hell, the reported ten commandments don't even demand monotheism-- adherents are just not supposed to worship any other God more than the one God. In fact, it was expected that most of the original audience would believe in other Gods, including God's consort or wife. A lot of that got swept away in later revisions, but it's all still in the text, even in most good translations.

The whole exchange was really very reasonable. Of course, problems arose from the same source whence problems always arise: people messed it up.

Kali-Yuga: us rational people
Sigh. Come on, now. The way you phrase your post is deliberately antagonistic without cause. There are oodles of rational theists who consider the Divine a matter of faith (not blind credulity), similar to how some atheists take the existence of universal infinity on faith-- they haven't done the research themselves, but they credit those who have done for their efforts and celebrate the vastness of the world they inhabit. Obviously, nutters abound on each side, but they oughtn't detract from either.

The divide isn't between rationalists and theists, it's between nutters and sane folk; belief in some divine presence is secondary to the primary madness of the few.

stoli n coke: Kirk claims to be loved by God, but consider this:

Kirk was a sanctimonious assbag to his show's cast and crew and now he makes low-budget slop that only the bluehairs who hit the Wal-Mart $5 bin will ever see.

Meanwhile, one of Kirk's co-stars, who wasn't a self-righteous homophobic judgemental douche, gets $20 million a picture, works with Scorsese, Eastwood, and Tarantino, and has banged half the Victoria's Secret catalog lineup.

Still think you're the one God loves, Kirk?

God also theoretically loved Jesus, and look what happened there. I'm not sure why God's love is supposed to be all that.

Kali-Yuga: Sorry, but no you can't. Religious belief is inherently irrational, as characterized by the "leap of faith" that one takes, often to the contrary of any evidence our grounding for that leap. See Kierkegaard.

The Episcopal church relies on three components: scripture, tradition, and reason. None trumps the others, and they believe that the three all work together. Certain elements of scripture, for example, stretch credulity; with the application of reason, Episcopalians are taught to reconcile those bits with firsthand knowledge of the world. So the bits in the Old Testament that mention, for example, the sun as though it physically moved around the Earth are taken as best-guess mistakes because reason and intellect have shown that the Earth really moves about the Sun. The writers didn't know it, but we do, so better information trumps early guesswork. It's actually quite civilised.

Many parts of rational life can seem irrational if you look at them right, but rationality is adaptable. At a certain point, everyone takes some facts on faith. I believe when astrophysicists talk about the atmospheric composition of other planets, but I've never been there and neither have they. The science seems to hold true, though, so I take their word without much arguing; if the source is good enough, I don't even bother to check their data. That's a kind of faith, not much different to the sort of generalised belief in a divinity shared by many millions on the planet. It's a very narrow definition of "rational" that categorically excludes any belief in a divinity.

Farking Canuck: Where does it say that hateful pricks are allowed to make laws based off of their magic books?

This is beyond stupid. Magic books? Really? First of all, those "magic books" are responsible for civilisation as we know it. They codify and encourage kindness and decency. Sure, they can also be used for evil, and the world knows they have done-- just as any powerful group of words can be used for evil (as, for example, the American Constitution). Without those "magic books," Hammurabi's code might still be in effect, with lex talionis our guiding principle. Some of those books really are magic, in that they change lives.

Take, for example (and at the risk of peripherally Godwining this thread), Chiune Sugihara, a Japanese vice-consul in Lithuania during World War 2. He saw that people were in trouble and had strict orders not to grant visas to anyone without sufficient money and background checking. But he was an Orthodox Christian convert and his wife had just read the Lamentations of Jeremiah, so in talking over the conflict between his orders and his conscience, she cited to the book and advised him to screw his career and help the people who needed help. He saved somewhere between 6000 and 10,000 lives, maybe more, on the strength of only part of that "magic book." Or look at Aristedes de Sousa Mendes, who violated direct orders from his government (Portugal was aggressively neutral at that point in the War) and created an assembly line to grant visas to everyone in need who applied, and wound up personally saving something like 30,000 lives. He did it, of course, because he would "rather stand with God against man than with man against God." Again, on the strength of just one (or two, depending whom you ask) "magic book" (or "books"). There are hundreds of stories like that. I'm sure there are also hundreds of stories about people using bits of the "magic books" to justify truly evil deeds. The books are simply very powerful stories; believe them or don't, they still have had a profound impact on the development of human life.

It could be argued, in fact, that all human laws can ultimately be traced back to one "magic book" or another. I could probably make a reasonable case that the law codes themselves are "magic books." So, yes: laws based on "magic books" have always been fair game, and most of them are good calls. But go on deriding them as some deride others' beliefs by referring to God as a "sky wizard." You're very clever, and certainly dead original.

Kali-Yuga: Sorry but no. l stated that all religious belief is inherently irrational, and then backed up my assertion with facts.

No, you backed up your assertion with moots and rhetoric. Kierkegaard's opinions, however elegantly stated, do not in themselves constitute fact. Nor are your assertions, however blithely you wallow in your stunted theory of mind, facts even if you state them as such. Your narrow experience with religion (and narrow it must be for you to cite a "leap of faith" as inherent to all religious belief) is desperately incomplete, but you presume greater knowledge than you have and greater ignorance in the targets of your scorn than they deserve. It actually seems that your belief in the irrationality of religion borders on its own sort of faith, which is, as a "magic book" once phrased it, the "evidence of things not seen." Granted, it also glossed faith as "the substance of things hoped for"-- specifically, the hope that things can improve. What's wrong with believing in our ability to treat each other better than others had done in past? What's wrong with believing things most of us cannot see (like, for example, gluons)? Why is that acceptance so worthy of derision?

The sad thing is, I'm not even a devout; I just get annoyed when assholes dismiss faith as though it weren't arguably the most important, one way or another, factor in the history of humanity. Without faith, there's no intelligence.But I suppose you've already illustrated that quite nicely.

xpisblack: First of all, those "magic books" are responsible for civilisation as we know it. They codify and encourage kindness and decency.

Sure. They are pro slavery, anti-women, condone rape, contain rape, incest and murder of family members. Great books!

Farking Canuck: Sure. They are pro slavery, anti-women, condone rape, contain rape, incest and murder of family members. Great books!

So, "same-sex" is okay, but "same-family" is wrong? Let's hear your reasoning for this.

HAMMERTOE: Farking Canuck: Sure. They are pro slavery, anti-women, condone rape, contain rape, incest and murder of family members. Great books!

So, "same-sex" is okay, but "same-family" is wrong? Let's hear your reasoning for this.

I was pointing out the atrocities that the bible condones and you think that means I support incest??

Let me rephrase without the sarcasm. It is quite simple: The bible is a perverse twisted piece of cave-man fiction from which hate groups cherry pick passages to justify their hate.

FloydA: HAMMERTOE: Farking Canuck: Sure. They are pro slavery, anti-women, condone rape, contain rape, incest and murder of family members. Great books!

So, "same-sex" is okay, but "same-family" is wrong? Let's hear your reasoning for this.

It's a simple matter of social good.
Same sex marriages produce happy couples. Same family marriages produce FOX News viewers.

Where does same-family same-sex rate on the scale? I watched a chick eating out her cousin at a swing party about 18 years or so ago. The next morning, I paddled the latter's lovely bottom with a ping pong paddle whilst singing a few verses of "Everybody Loves Somebody (Sometime)".

FloydA: HopScotchNSoda: FloydA: HAMMERTOE: Farking Canuck: Sure. They are pro slavery, anti-women, condone rape, contain rape, incest and murder of family members. Great books!

So, "same-sex" is okay, but "same-family" is wrong? Let's hear your reasoning for this.

It's a simple matter of social good.
Same sex marriages produce happy couples. Same family marriages produce FOX News viewers.

Where does same-family same-sex rate on the scale?

Genesis 19:30-38, IIRC

Oh, riiiiiight. So it's cool. Excellent.

FloydA: HopScotchNSoda: FloydA: HopScotchNSoda: FloydA: HAMMERTOE: Farking Canuck: Sure. They are pro slavery, anti-women, condone rape, contain rape, incest and murder of family members. Great books!

So, "same-sex" is okay, but "same-family" is wrong? Let's hear your reasoning for this.

It's a simple matter of social good.
Same sex marriages produce happy couples. Same family marriages produce FOX News viewers.

Where does same-family same-sex rate on the scale?

Genesis 19:30-38, IIRC

Oh, riiiiiight. So it's cool. Excellent.

Well, if you want to found a religion, it's fine, I suppose.
If you want to found a society that makes some sort of sense, maybe not so much.
;-)

It added to an already excellent party one cold Wisconsin week-end.

HAMMERTOE: So, "same-sex" is okay, but "same-family" is wrong? Let's hear your reasoning for this.


Remember, "it must be kept in mind that incest has long been the sacred prerogative of royalties and divinities."

Farking Canuck: Sure. They are pro slavery, anti-women, condone rape, contain rape, incest and murder of family members. Great books!

They're in part historical records, and human history condoned rape and slavery and more. Or would you rather we just pretend that never happened? That's clearly the logical action to take, right? I mean, the US Constitution also condones slavery, or did before it was redacted and changed by later generations. But here's a difficulty: without the original wording of the three-fifths compromise (the text of which was superseded by the 13th and 14th Amendments), those later amendments seem redundant. The 17th Amendment supersedes article 1 section 3. The US Constitution broadly fits the requirements of a "magic book," and is certainly put on a pedestal equating it with "holy books"; it's the rough equivalent of 17 book-pages and isn't even 250 years old, and it contradicts itself at least three times and contains passages that are clearly open to vastly different interpretations. Its early bits condone slavery-- and this was modern-style slavery, which excluded the moderate segments of ancient slavery. Back in the Roman day, some people entered into slavery for purely financial reasons, and were released after set times. Even in the Torah, written something like 3000-odd years ago, there's a clear progression in the treatment of slaves. Exodus tells that Israelites can only keep male Hebrew slaves for only six years to be freed in the seventh; Leviticus amends that to abjure the keeping of Hebrew slaves by Jews. By time the New Testament books (which are much less about stating law, save for the big one Jesus gave his disciples about loving neighbours as selves, and are much more like trashy advice columns for seemingly wayward devout, each neatly tailored to the stereotypical sins of each recipient as seen by the abnormally sanctimonious git who wrote them-- I'm looking at you, here, author of Timothy) came about, the mentions of slaves are mostly limited to parables and exhortations of reciprocal responsibility-- slaves were supposed to obey their masters, and masters were supposed to treat their slaves well. Today, that still seems appalling, but the contemporary alternative was that slaves were simple property, no more deserving of kindness or mercy as a table or a gelded bull. Judging their laws by our standards is a ridiculous endeavour-- we ought simply try to make sure their societal mistakes never get repeated once we've identified them as mistakes. Historical records, especially ones with clearly fanciful elements included (such as the Bible, the Iliad, Gilgamesh, the Histories of Herodotus, or just about any other ancient text), are only as useful to us today as they don't conflict with other traditions or our own reason. For example...

FloydA: Genesis 19:30-38, IIRC

This would be the same Lot whose grandfather lived to the ripe age of 205, whose wife was reportedly turned into a pillar of salt after looking back at the flaming brimstone that had just been hurled down onto his hometown from the sky because his neighbours had tried to gang-rape two angels of the Lord visiting from the actual metaphorical Heaven, made physical by their travel. But obviously, that's all meant literally and is in no way connected to older mythological traditions or symbolism.

The irony of this post-- "Farking Canuck: It is quite simple: The bible is a perverse twisted piece of cave-man fiction from which hate groups cherry pick passages to justify their hate."-- would be amusing if it weren't so pathetic. Oh, but right, it doesn't count as hate if it's directed at people you only disdain, no matter how misleading and ill-informed your rhetoric. You deride some devout for believing these books, then make their same mistake of thinking it's to be taken as literal truth. That doesn't make you better, it makes you just as stupid as the fundies you purport to scorn. Congratulations-- you've successfully portrayed yourself as a fundamentalist atheist. The thing is, you could be better than this. You could put actual thought into the text instead of the same level of prejudiced interpretation they use-- you assume it's all false, they assume it's all true. Well done-- you've faith-leapt into another grungy lich-pit of self-important theosophy and made a self-involved ego-trip of it in which you're right and they're wrong despite using the same source materials, interpretations, and blind faith in your own correctness.

The Bible is a book written and edited over something like 1500 years, possibly even going back as far as 1400 BCE. How many of us take the epic of Gilgamesh literally? It was long considered a "magic book," and discusses, as a matter of course, Gods and monsters and immortals (including Utnapishtim (himself a form of Atrahasis), the clear cultural referent the Biblical Noah story borrowed as a myth that most at the time would have heard as the myth it was, not literal truth). But some few idiotic fundies preach literal interpretation, so you obey them and denounce the whole document and endeavour of religion. Fine. You don't believe it. Some people do, and they approach it just as rationally as you do. Probably more, because they rely on present information and not faith that later research and knowledge will uncover the truth behind present mysteries.

Only an idiot would take the Bible as literal truth universally applicable to present life, and most adherents aren't that kind of idiot. They pay attention to the universal bits (like "don't lie," "don't commit murder," love each other," and so on) and try to reconcile the dated and contradictory bits. But fundies on each side take it literally and cherry-pick isolated tales to lionise or decry the whole thing; their idiocy is the same in scope and depth. So again I say to you good job joining their pathetic ranks so very publicly.

xpisblack: Only an idiot would take the Bible as literal truth universally applicable to present life

And yet idiots like Kirk here apply it to justify his hate for gays.

I'm glad we agree that the people who try to use the writings from this sick twisted book to deny people equal rights are idiots.