If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Right Wing Watch)   Are you Christian and pro-gay rights? Then you're just like slave owners and those who opposed women's right to vote   (rightwingwatch.org) divider line 240
    More: Dumbass, vote, intellectual honesty  
•       •       •

10633 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jul 2013 at 5:55 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



240 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-15 11:09:51 PM

lemonysprite: Guys, guys, calm down it's obviously a satirical site. Just look at this one! http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content /nothing-safe-austin-ruse-upset-h e-had-see-lesbian-food-network


Sweet, delicious homophobe butthurt..... mmmmm
 
2013-07-15 11:17:22 PM

ciberido: lemonysprite: Guys, guys, calm down it's obviously a satirical site. Just look at this one! http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content /nothing-safe-austin-ruse-upset-h e-had-see-lesbian-food-network

Sweet, delicious homophobe butthurt..... mmmmm


And you wonder why I find you interesting.
 
2013-07-15 11:32:55 PM

megarian: 39.   Having sex with a man "as one does with a woman" (18:22)
There it is. THIS apparently is THE important one.


Since men don't have a vagina, this rule is stupid and unneeded. Problem solved.
 
2013-07-15 11:41:27 PM

Government Fromage: megarian: 39.   Having sex with a man "as one does with a woman" (18:22)
There it is. THIS apparently is THE important one.

Since men don't have a vagina, this rule is stupid and unneeded. Problem solved.


True it would be pretty difficult but I've even heard weirder translations of that from some people that say you just can't have sex in the woman's bed, just putting that out there.
 
2013-07-15 11:45:26 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Government Fromage: megarian: 39.   Having sex with a man "as one does with a woman" (18:22)
There it is. THIS apparently is THE important one.

Since men don't have a vagina, this rule is stupid and unneeded. Problem solved.

True it would be pretty difficult but I've even heard weirder translations of that from some people that say you just can't have sex in the woman's bed, just putting that out there.


So, apparently Leviticus is very harsh on cuddling, and then falling asleep in the middle of conversation? I'm confused...
 
2013-07-16 12:06:29 AM

hubiestubert: tinfoil-hat maggie: Government Fromage: megarian: 39.   Having sex with a man "as one does with a woman" (18:22)
There it is. THIS apparently is THE important one.

Since men don't have a vagina, this rule is stupid and unneeded. Problem solved.

True it would be pretty difficult but I've even heard weirder translations of that from some people that say you just can't have sex in the woman's bed, just putting that out there.

So, apparently Leviticus is very harsh on cuddling, and then falling asleep in the middle of conversation? I'm confused...


I just choose to go to good seafood places and not worry about it ; ) And who does menstruation hut's anymore? So many F'd up thing's there.
 
2013-07-16 12:16:25 AM

Government Fromage: megarian: 39.   Having sex with a man "as one does with a woman" (18:22)
There it is. THIS apparently is THE important one.

Since men don't have a vagina, this rule is stupid and unneeded. Problem solved.


Holy fark.

EVERYONE WINS!
 
2013-07-16 12:20:21 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: hubiestubert: tinfoil-hat maggie: Government Fromage: megarian: 39.   Having sex with a man "as one does with a woman" (18:22)
There it is. THIS apparently is THE important one.

Since men don't have a vagina, this rule is stupid and unneeded. Problem solved.

True it would be pretty difficult but I've even heard weirder translations of that from some people that say you just can't have sex in the woman's bed, just putting that out there.

So, apparently Leviticus is very harsh on cuddling, and then falling asleep in the middle of conversation? I'm confused...

I just choose to go to good seafood places and not worry about it ; ) And who does menstruation hut's anymore? So many F'd up thing's there.


In fairness, the hut was from a time before proper sanitation, and for tribal folks, that a woman could bleed for days, and NOT die, that was signs of powerful magics at work. With EVERY woman. Your sex had power, beyond just bewitching the men folks with scents and voice and touch and all the rest that makes menfolk go all wriggly inside. Is it any wonder that shamans wound up trying to steer their societies away from the competition? Not all of them, to be certain, but when you are trying to convince folks to follow your boogedy-boogedy shoo to get folks to give you stuff, and women just keep batting their eyes and inhaling suggestively, and getting the same sort of treatment, you have to give them credit for coming up with some whoppers for explaining why you shouldn't fall for women's magic, and instead invest heavily in the kind that the priests were selling. It was a sh*tty thing, but from the perspective of a long con, you have to give them credit for edging out the competition. Women. Moloch. All those other odd gods with funny names. God is jealous, and he won't stand for women folk getting the spotlight, or that fire god from across the river, with his flashy rituals and nekkid dancing with nubile girl critters who might convince God-fearing Israelites that mebbe they could face the danger, for a while...
 
2013-07-16 12:20:34 AM
ciberido: It's also worth pointing out that the Bible wasn't written in English, nor did Jesus ever speak English.  Any time someone "quotes" Jesus in English, it is at best a paraphrase (even if the original written record really were a perfect transcription, which they almost certainly weren't).  One must acknowledge that the real meaning could be lost in translation.

My favorite example of this, silly as it might be, is "thigh," which was used at the time as a euphemism for "penis."  So all of those stories in the Bible in which a man was "struck in his thigh" or "suffered an injury to his thigh" refer to nasty things happening to their penises.


codergirl42: The Bible was also written 200 years after Jesus. So any quotes attributed to him are gossip at best and outright lies at worst.


Yes, that was the "even if the original written record really were a perfect transcription, which they almost certainly weren't" part.  One would have to believe that generations of followers echoed what Jesus said, word-for-word, like a game of telephone (except without the errors which are inevitable without supernatural aid).

... which is the standard "inerrancy/infallibility" answer, by the way, that every word of the Bible reads exactly as God wished it to because he essentially dictated the entire thing.  Every person involved in writing the Bible was essentially just a secretary transcribing God's voice.  Some Christians take it a step further and claim that the King James version of the Bible IS an inhumanly-perfect translation because God basically told the people working on it what to write down in English.

It makes sense, I suppose, as much as believing that the world was made in seven days.  But it does cause problems in that any errors or contradictions the Bible may have would rather go against the idea.  So if you buy into "Biblican inerrancy" you have to somehow explain away the errors and (perhaps more damningly) contradictions.
 
2013-07-16 12:32:41 AM

hubiestubert: tinfoil-hat maggie: hubiestubert: tinfoil-hat maggie: Government Fromage: megarian: 39.   Having sex with a man "as one does with a woman" (18:22)
There it is. THIS apparently is THE important one.

Since men don't have a vagina, this rule is stupid and unneeded. Problem solved.

True it would be pretty difficult but I've even heard weirder translations of that from some people that say you just can't have sex in the woman's bed, just putting that out there.

So, apparently Leviticus is very harsh on cuddling, and then falling asleep in the middle of conversation? I'm confused...

I just choose to go to good seafood places and not worry about it ; ) And who does menstruation hut's anymore? So many F'd up thing's there.

In fairness, the hut was from a time before proper sanitation, and for tribal folks, that a woman could bleed for days, and NOT die, that was signs of powerful magics at work. With EVERY woman. Your sex had power, beyond just bewitching the men folks with scents and voice and touch and all the rest that makes menfolk go all wriggly inside. Is it any wonder that shamans wound up trying to steer their societies away from the competition? Not all of them, to be certain, but when you are trying to convince folks to follow your boogedy-boogedy shoo to get folks to give you stuff, and women just keep batting their eyes and inhaling suggestively, and getting the same sort of treatment, you have to give them credit for coming up with some whoppers for explaining why you shouldn't fall for women's magic, and instead invest heavily in the kind that the priests were selling. It was a sh*tty thing, but from the perspective of a long con, you have to give them credit for edging out the competition. Women. Moloch. All those other odd gods with funny names. God is jealous, and he won't stand for women folk getting the spotlight, or that fire god from across the river, with his flashy rituals and nekkid dancing with nubile girl critters who might convince God-fearing Israelites that mebbe they could face the danger, for a while...


O_O


C...can I keep you?!?
 
2013-07-16 12:34:41 AM

ciberido: ciberido: It's also worth pointing out that the Bible wasn't written in English, nor did Jesus ever speak English.  Any time someone "quotes" Jesus in English, it is at best a paraphrase (even if the original written record really were a perfect transcription, which they almost certainly weren't).  One must acknowledge that the real meaning could be lost in translation.

My favorite example of this, silly as it might be, is "thigh," which was used at the time as a euphemism for "penis."  So all of those stories in the Bible in which a man was "struck in his thigh" or "suffered an injury to his thigh" refer to nasty things happening to their penises.

codergirl42: The Bible was also written 200 years after Jesus. So any quotes attributed to him are gossip at best and outright lies at worst.

Yes, that was the "even if the original written record really were a perfect transcription, which they almost certainly weren't" part.  One would have to believe that generations of followers echoed what Jesus said, word-for-word, like a game of telephone (except without the errors which are inevitable without supernatural aid).

... which is the standard "inerrancy/infallibility" answer, by the way, that every word of the Bible reads exactly as God wished it to because he essentially dictated the entire thing.  Every person involved in writing the Bible was essentially just a secretary transcribing God's voice.  Some Christians take it a step further and claim that the King James version of the Bible IS an inhumanly-perfect translation because God basically told the people working on it what to write down in English.

It makes sense, I suppose, as much as believing that the world was made in seven days.  But it does cause problems in that any errors or contradictions the Bible may have would rather go against the idea.  So if you buy into "Biblican inerrancy" you have to somehow explain away the errors and (perhaps more damningly) contradictions.


Have you ever read Jesus and the lost Goddess? Well it's worth the read.
ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2013-07-16 12:36:44 AM

megarian: hubiestubert: tinfoil-hat maggie: hubiestubert: tinfoil-hat maggie: Government Fromage: megarian: 39.   Having sex with a man "as one does with a woman" (18:22)
There it is. THIS apparently is THE important one.

Since men don't have a vagina, this rule is stupid and unneeded. Problem solved.

True it would be pretty difficult but I've even heard weirder translations of that from some people that say you just can't have sex in the woman's bed, just putting that out there.

So, apparently Leviticus is very harsh on cuddling, and then falling asleep in the middle of conversation? I'm confused...

I just choose to go to good seafood places and not worry about it ; ) And who does menstruation hut's anymore? So many F'd up thing's there.

In fairness, the hut was from a time before proper sanitation, and for tribal folks, that a woman could bleed for days, and NOT die, that was signs of powerful magics at work. With EVERY woman. Your sex had power, beyond just bewitching the men folks with scents and voice and touch and all the rest that makes menfolk go all wriggly inside. Is it any wonder that shamans wound up trying to steer their societies away from the competition? Not all of them, to be certain, but when you are trying to convince folks to follow your boogedy-boogedy shoo to get folks to give you stuff, and women just keep batting their eyes and inhaling suggestively, and getting the same sort of treatment, you have to give them credit for coming up with some whoppers for explaining why you shouldn't fall for women's magic, and instead invest heavily in the kind that the priests were selling. It was a sh*tty thing, but from the perspective of a long con, you have to give them credit for edging out the competition. Women. Moloch. All those other odd gods with funny names. God is jealous, and he won't stand for women folk getting the spotlight, or that fire god from across the river, with his flashy rituals and nekkid dancing with nubile girl critters who might convi ...


Only If you send me pics if y'all hook up ; )
 
2013-07-16 12:45:43 AM

megarian: O_O

C...can I keep you?!?


I'll be here all month. Don't forget to tip your waitress.

tinfoil-hat maggie: Only If you send me pics if y'all hook up ; )


That would always be up to the lady. I am not good people, but I like to at least think that I'm a fair gentleman. :*


 
2013-07-16 12:48:56 AM

hubiestubert: 14.   Drinking alcohol in holy places (10:9)
Catholics, we're looking right at you....


Transubstantiation takes care of that one.
 
2013-07-16 12:55:18 AM

hubiestubert: tinfoil-hat maggie: megarian: That was detailed, informative, and just plain fun. Thanks.

Hubie may be one of the smartest most well reasoned people I know on fark, and that's no joke.

Aw shucks. Now I'mma blush...


But now what do we do with Congress? There aren't enough stones!
 
2013-07-16 12:57:04 AM

hubiestubert: megarian: O_O

C...can I keep you?!?

I'll be here all month. Don't forget to tip your waitress.

tinfoil-hat maggie: Only If you send me pics if y'all hook up ; )

That would always be up to the lady. I am not good people, but I like to at least think that I'm a fair gentleman. :*


Well duh, that's why I posted to megarian. She can figure out what she will and won't do ; )
Same as mw mostly pics are right out no way but there are times, well ; )
 
2013-07-16 12:59:18 AM

Gyrfalcon: hubiestubert: tinfoil-hat maggie: megarian: That was detailed, informative, and just plain fun. Thanks.

Hubie may be one of the smartest most well reasoned people I know on fark, and that's no joke.

Aw shucks. Now I'mma blush...

But now what do we do with Congress? There aren't enough stones!


If we chiping away at him he'll runn maybe someone smart could post what a sitting senator makes : ).
 
2013-07-16 01:03:53 AM

42_42_42: The thing is, those that use quotes from the Bible to support anti-homosexual bigotry are completely ignoring the historical and social context in which the Bible was written.

They are obviously cherry-picking which of all of the hundreds of Old  Covenant "laws" they want to follow--those same laws which Jesus's sacrifice and the New Covenant are supposed do away with, so they shouldn't be using those for justification for anything anyway.

And Paul didn't want anyone to fark anyone, period because he thought the world was going to end, like, tomorrow, so we all should spend all of our time praying. Obviously, the world didn't end when he thought it would and if everyone had done as he advocated, Christianity would have died out just like the Shakers.

These bigots are actually the ones misinterpreting/misunderstanding the Bible, not the pro-gay rights Christians.

The bigots are most certainly not following Jesus's message.

But, then, the vast majority of people who proclaim themselves Christian don't know anything really about the religion they profess. If they did, a lot of these problems would go away.

/Episcopalian, aka a Christian that doesn't throw logic and thinking out the window


This!

/Also Episcopalian.
//The last church I attended had a gay pastor who was married to the guy who ran the choir.
 
2013-07-16 01:25:26 AM
ciberido: I wonder, though, do you suppose it's just more trolling when he talks about "strawman arguments," or is "strawman" being redefined to mean "an argument I don't like"?

Martian_Astronomer: Years ago after reading one too many internet arguments about religion, I proposed the classification of the "ontological strawman defense," which is basically a specific form of question-begging. It goes something like this:

The first person presents his argument:

Premise 1: (blah blah blah)
Premise 2: (blah blah blah)
...
Premise X: This is one of the best arguments in the history of philosophy and is totally sound.
...
Ergo, Conclusion.

The second person, unimpressed, argues against premises 1 through X-1.
The first person fires back and says "Aha! You refuse to acknowledge premise X, 'This is one of the best arguments in history,' therefore, you're attacking a strawman, and not my real position. I win."



What you're describing sounds a lot like the Gish Gallop, which Wikipedia calls "Shotgun argumentation."  Basically you give 100 crappy arguments in favor of your position (which might really be only 20 arguments, each reworded 5 times, or even 5 arguments reworded 20 times), and when your opponent trashes 99 of them, you claim victory because she "failed" to counter EVERY argument.  Very common on Fark (and probably many other places, for that matter).

But then again, that doesn't seem to be QUITE what you're talking about, either.  What you seems to be describing is like a combination of Gish Gallop with an appeal to authority, maybe?

Martian_Astronomer: / All this to say that cries of "strawman" are pretty much the first thing learned by erstwhile keyboard warriors who imagine themselves to have a good grasp of logic and argumentation. Frequently it's the only thing.
// And if your only tool is a hammer...
/// Seriously, when was the last time you heard someone call out "Inverse Gambler's Fallacy!" in an internet argument?


As to that, again, when Farker1 badly mischaracterizes something Farkette2 says, it's hard to tell from a single exchange whether it's an honest misunderstanding or a dishonest, deliberate strawman.  I try to go by Hanlon's Razor when it comes to that sort of thing: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."   But I also keep track and look for patterns.  If there is sufficient evidence that it's NOT stupidity, then I'm forced to conclude it's malice.
 
2013-07-16 01:31:49 AM
So, wouldn't that make you a hero?
 
2013-07-16 01:32:57 AM
FTFA: "If the progay clerics and organizations and [sic] had any intellectual honesty, they would inform their followers that they are part of a longstanding tradition of lying for financial gain."

Maybe this is my experience debating, but as soon as "intellectual honesty" is called into question, you usually find out the person making the claim defines it as basically the opposite of what "intellectual honesty" actually is.

If you're going to call out a fallacy, you call out the argument. If you've got nothin', you just act shocked, shocked at the person's approach.
 
2013-07-16 01:37:41 AM

fusillade762: Mouser: "Sexual immorality", whether it's adultery, sodomy, fornication, or just spanking it to girly magazines, is a form of idolatry.  It is worship of one's sexuality above the God who created it.

Jesus said a man cannot serve two masters.  You can serve God, or you can serve your cock.  Pick one.

Replace "cock" with "money" and the same argument could be made about capitalism.


Point of order: Money is not evil, per se.  The love of money is (1 Timothy 6:10).  Yet Jesus said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:25).  So the distinction is rather fine: while money is not evil TECHNICALLY, you shouldn't want money, and if you have it, you really shouldn't keep it.

So, yeah, many Christians (myself included) would argue that greed and selfishness are far worse sins than ANY sort of sexual immorality (excluding things which victimize another person, such as rape).  And it would seem that Jesus said as much.
 
2013-07-16 01:38:41 AM

Mouser: "Sexual immorality", whether it's adultery, sodomy, fornication, or just spanking it to girly magazines, is a form of idolatry.  It is worship of one's sexuality above the God who created it.


You know what sexual immorality is? Anything that involves coercion, manipulation, or deception.

Aside from adultery, your examples don't cover that, and any God that could come up with prostate glands and bonobo chimps isn't going to be offended.
 
2013-07-16 01:48:56 AM
ciberido: Why, is there something bad about the term "pro-gay"?

Pincy: No, there is nothing bad about the term itself.  Can you define what "progay" means though?  Obviously the haters are using it as an insult.  I support equal rights for everyone.  I've never called myself "problack" or "prowomen".  I don't think I've ever heard those terms used before.  They aren't bad, they just don't make sense.

ten foiled hats: Here is kind of my thing, and I asked earlier, but I still don't get it.  I mean, I use the term as well, and have no qualms whatsoever about it, but it doesn't make the most sense to me, just on it's face.  It's superfluous and creates a dichotomy where none should exist.  I'm a straight white male, and I'm pretty f*cking pro-straight-white-male rights, except I'm pro those rights being everyone's rights, whether it's minorities voting or gays getting married or what have you.  What gay rights?  Do they mean straight rights for gays?  Does that then make the rights gay?  Do my straight rights become gay rights?  Or are we just talking about the same damned rights, and they're rights and that's it?



I'm reminded of the tenancy of some people to refer to pro-choice as "pro-abortion."  It's inaccurate, because most pro-choice people aren't really pro-abortion so much as just wanting women to have the right to make their own decisions about abortion.  Personally, I'd be much happier if there were few if any abortions: it would be far better if women who didn't want to be pregnant never got impregnated in the first place.  But that doesn't mean that I or the government have any business taking that option out of any woman's hands.

Another example of what may be the same sort of thing: the idea that feminism is anti-men, or that feminists mean to reverse the relative positions of the sexes and replace patriarchy with matriarchy.

Maybe "pro-gay" is an attempt (deliberate or unintentional) to misrepresent what pro-gay-rights folks are about, as if there were some sort of "gay agenda" which would lead to gay people trampling over straight folks rights.

media.tumblr.com
Like so.
 
2013-07-16 01:52:52 AM

Tomahawk513: artemusprine: cookiefleck: In my experience, here and on other online forums, once I've admitted to people that, yes I'm Catholic but am pro choice, supporting of the LGBTQ community, I get the whole "well, you can't be a good person, even though you donate time and money to those wanting to advance rights for all, just because you're Catholic"

I honestly don't understand this...  If you merely called yourself Christian you would be able to cite numerous verses that support a fair and equal treatment of the members of the LGBTQ community.  You could say you aren't held to Rabbinical law by Jesus' teaching.  But in calling yourself Catholic you are claiming to be a member of an organization you don't agree with.  Why not join a church whose teachings are compatible with your beliefs?

As a Catholic generally in cookiefleck's shoes, it's just not that simple.  It's like being a Browns fan.

Each and every year, you go out, hoping you'll finally have a good team (change stances on key issues).  But inevitably, they let you down (and fire someone who advocated support for gay marriage, or whatever).  But you can't just leave, you grew up with this team and you genuinely want them to succeed.  So maybe, to show your displeasure, you stop going to the games (mass) and stop buying their merchandise (collections), but once your diehard-fan family finds out, they start accusing you of abandoning the team (leaving the faith).
Maybe, if you're old enough, you can remember a time when they were a good team and hadn't yet lost sight of what was really important, the fans (helping the poor).  They're different now, though, and only seem to care about the fundamentals (fundamentalists), even if it costs them the game (membership, especially young people).
So really, there's not much you can do.  You don't really want to switch to another, better managed team (switching religions), although it would be nice to finally be part of a winning organization.  Maybe, you hope, enough peo ...


Sunk cost fallacy is a biotch.
 
2013-07-16 02:10:30 AM
I'm not pro-gay, I'm just anti-government interference in our personal lives... Or to put it another way, I'm pro-liberty.
 
2013-07-16 04:33:45 AM

vernonFL: Jesus supported traditional marriage so much that he himself never got married, and encouraged his followers to not get married.


Wrong. PAUL encouraged Jesus' followers not to get married. Correct, however, that Jesus never married.

Jesus also refused to murder an adulteress or even condemn her, but apparently, we're supposed to ignore that part and be judgmental little pricks because "GAWD wills it!" Or at least the preacher man does. Which is why I don't usually have much to do with most preacher men and take my cues from what Jesus actually did and said.

Even as a follower of Christ, I tend to think like Ghandi is alleged to have said: "I like your Christ; I do not like you Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
 
2013-07-16 06:28:26 AM

ciberido: What you're describing sounds a lot like the Gish Gallop, which Wikipedia calls "Shotgun argumentation."


Eh, it's not quite like that, because the Gisp Gallop involves a litany of disparate and unrelated arguments, where the "ontological strawman defense" can involve a list of (mostly) coherent and related arguments that build towards a specific point. The final "I am right" premise isn't necessarily an appeal to authority either, just a generic question-begging assumption.
 
2013-07-16 06:43:29 AM

gimmegimme: I know this sounds crazy, but why don't we just stop believing that Bronze Age myths are real?


Yeah. Stone Age myths are the one true path.

www.sewanee.edu
 
2013-07-16 07:10:57 AM
I don't think this blithering moron is aware just how many schisms and opinions and differences there are in 'Christianity'... Make no mistake, it is not a united religion and it has as much diversity in thought and theology as there is diversity in people.

The blasphemous fundamentalist hate spewing anti-Jesus Christians (who would be first in line to crucify Jesus again if he were to come back tomorrow) who are so vocal and embarrassing do not represent Christianity as a whole.

The main point is is FARL ALL religion as a whole and do not confuse it with faith. The twisted mentally messed up arseholes who claim to be Christian, are no more representative of the group than a misogynist is of men as a whole, a gold-digger of women as a whole, a racist of white people as a whole, a jihad moron of Muslims or a drug dealer of a black people as a whole.
 
2013-07-16 08:11:52 AM

Ant: Ow! I just sprained my brain trying to do the mental contortions necessary to understand this.


DL Foster probably dislocated his shoulder reaching for the explanations of his opinion.
 
2013-07-16 10:05:10 AM

jonny_q: Coco LaFemme: Because let's face it, if you're anti-gay rights, you hate gays. There's no way to intelligently defend a stance that assumes homosexuals should be afforded second-class citizen status to heterosexuals unless you hate homosexuals.

This is just plain not true. I don't really want to argue the finer points of it, and I don't have a problem with people being for or against gay marriage. By saying that those against gay marriage logically must hate guys, you have a bad starting point for discussion, because there is plenty of room for A to be true and B to be false.


Well, they may not "hate" in a full-blown ragey sense... But, they quite obviously must consider gay people to be something less than human, if they're in favor of denying them basic human rights... That may not be hate, per se, but it's at least disdain and superiority... I'm sure many slave-owners didn't "hate" their slaves either, but that doesn't make the way they treated them any better... (Since the moron from the article already made the slave-owner reference, I feel safe in returning the favor in the other direction without feeling like I'm making a pseudo-Godwin...)
 
2013-07-16 11:33:45 AM

cjoshuav: tinfoil-hat maggie: I've got you farkied as "cool preacher dude" so I may be reading that soon.

I'm honored.  I have you as "funny outdoorsy chick"

Also, I'll just leave this here regarding the Bible.


As a liberal, gay-friendly Christian, this is the one claim fundamentalist attack me with most: that they are "Bible-Believing" Christians, whereas anyone less fundamentalist than them "doesn't really believe" the Bible.  Or they call us "Cafeteria Christians" because, they say, we "pick and choose the parts of Christianity we like and ignore the rest."

And that's true.  We do.  The problem is, they do as well, and don't admit it, or even know it.

But it's extremely frustrating, especially when they don't even know the parts of the Bible which they're ignoring exist.

My personal favorite, if you want a quick-and-easy go-to example when dealing with fundamentalists, is Ecclesiastes 9:8, "Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment."  Odds are any Christian (no matter how much they claim to take the Bible absolutely literally, word for word) won't be dressed in white from head to foot, and even if he or she is, there's still a pretty good chance they won't have anointed their head with ointment that day.  So it's pretty easy to spot that as soon as they open their mouth.

There's a book called "The Year of Living Biblically" that goes into this at some depth, if you want more examples.
 
2013-07-16 11:52:51 AM

ciberido: There's a book called "The Year of Living Biblically" that goes into this at some depth, if you want more examples.


I have that book, it is great.
 
2013-07-16 12:01:16 PM
ciberido:  There's a book called "The Year of Living Biblically" that goes into this at some depth, if you want more examples.

I actually reviewed his book and corresponded with him.  It's a good read.

I do have an article that lists a few key ones if you ever need it.
 
2013-07-16 12:07:36 PM

PsiChick: jonny_q: Coco LaFemme: Because let's face it, if you're anti-gay rights, you hate gays. There's no way to intelligently defend a stance that assumes homosexuals should be afforded second-class citizen status to heterosexuals unless you hate homosexuals.

This is just plain not true. I don't really want to argue the finer points of it, and I don't have a problem with people being for or against gay marriage. By saying that those against gay marriage logically must hate guys, you have a bad starting point for discussion, because there is plenty of room for A to be true and B to be false.

They're actively supporting denying other people rights. I don't think anyone gives a shiat as to why. Maybe they should, but when you've got the same end result either way...



At the very least, the burden is on the anti-gay-marriage folks to defend their position, not to simply complain that calling them hateful "isn't true" or "isn't fair" while protesting that they don't have the time or inclination to argue the finer points.

Anti-gay-marriage folks, the presumption is, and SHOULD BE, that you are hateful bigots.  Don't like that?  Don't think it's fair?  Then make your case.

And, just to show I am fair-minded, here's a tip: "The Bible says so" by itself won't get you very far.  Not saying you can't possibly use it as part of your defense, but keep in mind you'll need a bit more.
 
2013-07-16 12:18:01 PM

Government Fromage: megarian: 39.   Having sex with a man "as one does with a woman" (18:22)
There it is. THIS apparently is THE important one.

Since men don't have a vagina, this rule is stupid and unneeded. Problem solved.


Maybe by "as one does with a woman" he meant "bugging your boyfriend to put out even after he told you he had a headache"?
 
2013-07-16 12:31:45 PM

ciberido: cjoshuav: tinfoil-hat maggie: I've got you farkied as "cool preacher dude" so I may be reading that soon.

I'm honored.  I have you as "funny outdoorsy chick"

Also, I'll just leave this here regarding the Bible.

As a liberal, gay-friendly Christian, this is the one claim fundamentalist attack me with most: that they are "Bible-Believing" Christians, whereas anyone less fundamentalist than them "doesn't really believe" the Bible.  Or they call us "Cafeteria Christians" because, they say, we "pick and choose the parts of Christianity we like and ignore the rest."

And that's true.  We do.  The problem is, they do as well, and don't admit it, or even know it.

But it's extremely frustrating, especially when they don't even know the parts of the Bible which they're ignoring exist.

My personal favorite, if you want a quick-and-easy go-to example when dealing with fundamentalists, is Ecclesiastes 9:8, "Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment."  Odds are any Christian (no matter how much they claim to take the Bible absolutely literally, word for word) won't be dressed in white from head to foot, and even if he or she is, there's still a pretty good chance they won't have anointed their head with ointment that day.  So it's pretty easy to spot that as soon as they open their mouth.

There's a book called "The Year of Living Biblically" that goes into this at some depth, if you want more examples.


Fundamentalists tend to be quite choosy about their interpretations. This isn't exactly a feature that is unique to Christianity. Muslims kill a LOT more Muslims over differences of opinion on the Koran, and how to live within its teachings. Jews differ wildly as well. Buddhists come in a LOT of camps, and the Dharma is pretty much right out there, but with layers of teachings from various folks, it is not easy to get two camps even near the same page. The difficulty is that each camp feels that theirs is the "right" way to worship, and everyone else is deluded. In this country even, before we adopted our Constitution, and under the Articles of the Confederation, we had official state faiths. And it got a fair number of people killed because of differences over how to worship the same deity. Which one might think was against that whole "thou shalt not kill" motif that the Bible has going on, well, except when it comes down to defending the faith it seems.

There are several inter-faith organizations, and the Unitarian-Universalists who bring folks of several faiths under one roof, and oddly enough, when folks get together to discuss their shared faith, they tend to find that they have more in common, but folks love to get wrothy over schisms. It makes them feel special. Chosen. And that is a heady feeling, and it's no wonder that so many folks are trying to bring in more folks with this sort of thing. It is the same thing with any good con: you make the mark feel smarter and sharper than everyone else. They can't fail, because they're just that good and that right and that special. It isn't about the passages, it isn't about the behavior, it's about feeling superior.
 
2013-07-16 01:28:18 PM

ciberido: As a liberal, gay-friendly Christian, this is the one claim fundamentalist attack me with most: that they are "Bible-Believing" Christians, whereas anyone less fundamentalist than them "doesn't really believe" the Bible. Or they call us "Cafeteria Christians" because, they say, we "pick and choose the parts of Christianity we like and ignore the rest."


I, for one, certainly prefer the Christians who focus more on the New Testament and the actual words of Christ than those who seem hung up on the Old Testament and ignoring everything Christ actually said you should do... I'm not a believer, but I certainly think the world would be a lot more peaceful and friendly place if everyone who called themselves a Christian actually followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, rather than whatever OT nonsense they pick and choose (or just make up)... But, then I suppose it's hard to justify ones own hatreds and prejudices using only the words of Jesus, so that's presumably why so few pay any attention to what he said... I just wish they'd use some other name for themselves, so I could tell them apart from the actual Christ-following Christians, who are generally decent people...
 
2013-07-17 02:16:44 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Have you ever read Jesus and the lost Goddess? Well it's worth the read.


No, but I'll put it on my list, thanks.
 
Displayed 40 of 240 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report