The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Van wrote:I'm no Bible scholar, but when the Bible speaks of homosexuality being "an abomination", the word "abomination" does not mean sinful; it means unclean. Eating dog shit is unclean--an abomination--but it's not a sin to eat dog shit.

Doesn't the Bible also speak of eating shellfish as an "abomination"? Standards of what is unclean and what isn't vary according to cultures and historical contexts.

There's an argument to be made that it's sinful not based on the act itself but of committing the act. If you subscribe to marriage being only possible between a man and a woman, and Jesus said any lustful thoughts or acts done with another, even prior to marriage, it would be considered adultery (which is a sin) to your (future) spouse by having sexual relations with the same sex. It's the same reason Catholics frown upon divorce. The fact that it was considered an "abomination" in the old testament is a moot point because the Old Testament based on Christian belief is nothing more than a historical context for the New Testament. If you want to start getting into the books which didn't make it into the final product you'll come across some where Jesus says there is no sin period, so its really dependent on what you subscribe to.

To those of you on the "religiot" tirade, you could take advice from your own fear and stop trying to shove non-Christian beliefs down FS' throat, it goes both ways. I used to be just like you, the militant atheists fighting against the Christian oppressors, and too often you lose sight that it is possible to have certain beliefs without having to apply them to the law of the land. Part of the reason I stopped going to atheist discussions is due to the zeal that comes with the uneducated who accept an idea that starts to gain popularity. Essentially becoming the other extreme, just as zealous and uneducated. Any good Christian knows that Jesus said let Caesar's be Caesar's, so believe it or not it's in the Bible that Christians shouldn't mess with the state and blatantly says it should be secular and separate from God's law, because anyone who has to be forced by the sword to act like a Christian is no Christian at all. If you weren't so busy ridiculing Christians and their faith and took the time to learn and understand it, you'd have much more success at beating their arguments than simply lowering yourself to the juvenile level of name calling.

ABNinfantryman wrote:

Van wrote:I'm no Bible scholar, but when the Bible speaks of homosexuality being "an abomination", the word "abomination" does not mean sinful; it means unclean. Eating dog shit is unclean--an abomination--but it's not a sin to eat dog shit.

Doesn't the Bible also speak of eating shellfish as an "abomination"? Standards of what is unclean and what isn't vary according to cultures and historical contexts.

There's an argument to be made that it's sinful not based on the act itself but of committing the act. If you subscribe to marriage being only possible between a man and a woman, and Jesus said any lustful thoughts or acts done with another, even prior to marriage, it would be considered adultery (which is a sin) to your (future) spouse by having sexual relations with the same sex. It's the same reason Catholics frown upon divorce. The fact that it was considered an "abomination" in the old testament is a moot point because the Old Testament based on Christian belief is nothing more than a historical context for the New Testament. If you want to start getting into the books which didn't make it into the final product you'll come across some where Jesus says there is no sin period, so its really dependent on what you subscribe to.

To those of you on the "religiot" tirade, you could take advice from your own fear and stop trying to shove non-Christian beliefs down FS' throat, it goes both ways. I used to be just like you, the militant atheists fighting against the Christian oppressors, and too often you lose sight that it is possible to have certain beliefs without having to apply them to the law of the land. Part of the reason I stopped going to atheist discussions is due to the zeal that comes with the uneducated who accept an idea that starts to gain popularity. Essentially becoming the other extreme, just as zealous and uneducated. Any good Christian knows that Jesus said let Caesar's be Caesar's, so believe it or not it's in the Bible that Christians shouldn't mess with the state and blatantly says it should be secular and separate from God's law, because anyone who has to be forced by the sword to act like a Christian is no Christian at all. If you weren't so busy ridiculing Christians and their faith and took the time to learn and understand it, you'd have much more success at beating their arguments than simply lowering yourself to the juvenile level of name calling.

You sound like a grown-up or something.

ABNinfantryman wrote:
To those of you on the "religiot" tirade, you could take advice from your own fear and stop trying to shove non-Christian beliefs down FS' throat, it goes both ways.

I didn't see anyone trying to shove other beliefs down his throat, can you point it out?

ABNinfantryman wrote: I used to be just like you, the militant atheists fighting against the Christian oppressors, and too often you lose sight that it is possible to have certain beliefs without having to apply them to the law of the land.

Be careful with generalized statements like these, since you don't really know anyone here. It can even seem like you're trying to shove your beliefs down others' throat based on stereotypical thinking...

ABNinfantryman wrote: Part of the reason I stopped going to atheist discussions is due to the zeal that comes with the uneducated who accept an idea that starts to gain popularity. Essentially becoming the other extreme, just as zealous and uneducated.

If you're directly implying that those who disagreed with FS' beliefs are "uneducated who accept an idea that starts to gain popularity. Essentially becoming the other extreme, just as zealous and uneducated", then you've just crossed over to the ad absurdum arena.

ABNinfantryman wrote: Any good Christian knows that Jesus said let Caesar's be Caesar's, so believe it or not it's in the Bible that Christians shouldn't mess with the state and blatantly says it should be secular and separate from God's law, because anyone who has to be forced by the sword to act like a Christian is no Christian at all.

Yes, yes, yes, there's the "shoulds" that come from the bible, then there's the reality of practices that directly contradict those. If all christians ever followed were what Jesus said, and nothing else (like the interpretations of humans with false divine inspirations), then maybe life would be a bit better for those around them. But that's not the case, so maybe you ought to compare the difference between what you read in the bible, and how christians act in real life. It's useless for you to argue on the theoretical value of Jesus' teachings, unless they're put into practice.

ABNinfantryman wrote: If you weren't so busy ridiculing Christians and their faith and took the time to learn and understand it, you'd have much more success at beating their arguments than simply lowering yourself to the juvenile level of name calling.

Again, since you don't really know "us" here, you wouldn't know just how much "we" understand most christian religions. For another, there is very little religious argument that can stand up to any scientific or objective logic, but the purpose of the "anti" posts, especially mine, is not to counter any religious argument, but rather to propose that what is touted as a religious belief should stay strictly in the religious domain.

As far as "juvenile" name calling is concerned, I rather think that calling some people "religiots" is a lot less offensive than labelling others as abominations and sinners simply for who they are, don't you agree?

AdAstra wrote:I didn't see anyone trying to shove other beliefs down his throat, can you point it out?

You must be joking with this request otherwise you're truly delusional if you think the response to FrontSight has been accepting.

Be careful with generalized statements like these, since you don't really know anyone here. It can even seem like you're trying to shove your beliefs down others' throat based on stereotypical thinking...

Not a belief, an observation of the statements made by the participants in this discussion.

If you're directly implying that those who disagreed with FS' beliefs are "uneducated who accept an idea that starts to gain popularity. Essentially becoming the other extreme, just as zealous and uneducated", then you've just crossed over to the ad absurdum arena.

I'm directly implying that the majority of "atheists" these days saw Religulous (or something similar) once and jumped on the bandwagon without going any further in their education of the issue.

Yes, yes, yes, there's the "shoulds" that come from the bible, then there's the reality of practices that directly contradict those. If all christians ever followed were what Jesus said, and nothing else (like the interpretations of humans with false divine inspirations), then maybe life would be a bit better for those around them. But that's not the case, so maybe you ought to compare the difference between what you read in the bible, and how christians act in real life. It's useless for you to argue on the theoretical value of Jesus' teachings, unless they're put into practice.

Now who's "stereotyping"? You can believe what you want, but there are many Christians on the left, who are unfortunately beaten down by the vocal atheist side of the house. You're worried about the application of God's law in state matters? I spent my first grade school years in the Bible Belt as an atheist, guy, to much ridicule and other forms of prejudice often hearing about the flames of hell I was destined for. On the flip side, I've had great Christian friends who stood up with me, and both of my grandmothers are sweethearts who donate a lot of their time and energy helping people by trying to emulate Jesus, and they're not calling for the integration of Christian beliefs into the state. Last I checked Atheism/Agnosticism still only accounts for 10% of the country, where as over 50% of the nation believes in gay marriage and it gains support every day as well as the dissolution of DADT. So guess what, the people who agree with you and outnumber you are believers in some form or another. And here you are raking them over the coals. Issues like DADT, gay marriage, and the restoration of gay rights would have been impossible if not for the support of people like FrontSight.

Again, since you don't really know "us" here, you wouldn't know just how much "we" understand most christian religions. For another, there is very little religious argument that can stand up to any scientific or objective logic, but the purpose of the "anti" posts, especially mine, is not to counter any religious argument, but rather to propose that what is touted as a religious belief should stay strictly in the religious domain.

Which is what FrontSight said so what you're really upset about is...

As far as "juvenile" name calling is concerned, I rather think that calling some people "religiots" is a lot less offensive than labelling others as abominations and sinners simply for who they are, don't you agree?

This. He called them sinners and that ruffles your feathers. You ignored everything else about his post where he agreed with your last sentiment, but you latched on to him calling them sinners. He acknowledges that it's due to his religious belief and he doesn't wish his belief to be public policy, that's what's important, and that's what he has said.

ABNinfantryman wrote:

AdAstra wrote:I didn't see anyone trying to shove other beliefs down his throat, can you point it out?

You must be joking with this request otherwise you're truly delusional if you think the response to FrontSight has been accepting.

There's a difference between showing disagreement and "shoving beliefs down his throat". I didn't see the gun making him shove the arguments down his throat, so if you have, then point it out. The request stands.

ABNinfantryman wrote:

AdAstra wrote:Be careful with generalized statements like these, since you don't really know anyone here. It can even seem like you're trying to shove your beliefs down others' throat based on stereotypical thinking...

Not a belief, an observation of the statements made by the participants in this discussion.

OK then, so your corrected statement is "you're trying to shove your observation down others' throat based on stereotypical thinking?

ABNinfantryman wrote: I'm directly implying that the majority of "atheists" these days saw Religulous (or something similar) once and jumped on the bandwagon without going any further in their education of the issue.

Wow, you've surveyed the the majority of atheists? Then you've just crossed over to the ad absurdum arena.

ABNinfantryman wrote: Now who's "stereotyping"? You can believe what you want, but there are many Christians on the left, who are unfortunately beaten down by the vocal atheist side of the house.

On what issues? I have never seen christians who agree on gay marriage, or the moral and political rights of homosexuals, ever shouted down by non-christians. This is because those christians do really adjust their beliefs to accept gays as no less moral than themselves, i.e. non-sinners. What I see is non-christians disagreeing with christians that homosexuals are lesser people because they are "sinners", or that they are "morally corrupt", because this becomes the basis for politicians to anchor their prejudicial policies on.

ABNinfantryman wrote: You're worried about the application of God's law in state matters? I spent my first grade school years in the Bible Belt as an atheist, guy, to much ridicule and other forms of prejudice often hearing about the flames of hell I was destined for. On the flip side, I've had great Christian friends who stood up with me, and both of my grandmothers are sweethearts who donate a lot of their time and energy helping people by trying to emulate Jesus, and they're not calling for the integration of Christian beliefs into the state.

Good for them.

ABNinfantryman wrote: Last I checked Atheism/Agnosticism still only accounts for 10% of the country, where as over 50% of the nation believes in gay marriage and it gains support every day as well as the dissolution of DADT. So guess what, the people who agree with you and outnumber you are believers in some form or another.

Well, I'm not convinced of your figures, but it's irrelevant because you haven't shown that the 50% you mention are practicing christians. Show the figures that say the majority of the country's christians support gay marriage and DADT repeal, and you'll be more convincing.

ABNinfantryman wrote: And here you are raking them over the coals. Issues like DADT, gay marriage, and the restoration of gay rights would have been impossible if not for the support of people like FrontSight.

I find it hard to believe that he who confessed his belief that homosexuality is a sin, will support gay marriage.

ABNinfantryman wrote: This. He called them sinners and that ruffles your feathers. You ignored everything else about his post where he agreed with your last sentiment, but you latched on to him calling them sinners. He acknowledges that it's due to his religious belief and he doesn't wish his belief to be public policy, that's what's important, and that's what he has said.

You still don't get it - the point of his post was, so what if homosexuals are sinners, so are most people trying to join the military so let's let them all in. It's misguided patronization: it's like me saying you're immoral for no reason other than I believe so, but other people do immoral things also so it's okay for you and them to join the club.

I realize you've appointed yourself the champion of Frontsight and all other christians, but this thread stopped being useful many posts ago and there's nothing further to be squeezed from this topic.

AdAstra wrote:Well, I'm not convinced of your figures, but it's irrelevant because you haven't shown that the 50% you mention are practicing christians. Show the figures that say the majority of the country's christians support gay marriage and DADT repeal, and you'll be more convincing.

Guy, you're being dense for the sake of it, but just to humor myself. According to the CIA World Fact Book, 4% of the nation identifies as being an atheist, 12.1% are unaffiliated, 59.5% are Christian (I'm lumping Catholics and protestants together), 1.7% are Jewish, 0.7% are Buddhist, 0.6% Muslim, 2.5% are other or unidentified. Lets even say that the 12.1% are agnostics (which is what I'm assuming that means any how), that's still only 16.1% of the country, and if over 50% of the country now supports gay marriage and the repeal of DADT there would have to be Christian supporters, it's simple math, and it's assuming that all agnostics and atheists support gay rights which not all of them do.

this thread stopped being useful many posts ago and there's nothing further to be squeezed from this topic.

Funny, I had the same thought, no point in arguing with bigots, their justifications are endless.