A couple of stupid Myths

[ScreamingEagle]

I have nothing against people that love and worship God. I have a problem with the people who are idiots about it. i.e. the young earth creationists and homophobes

I have no problem with religion. I have a problem with people that are stupid.

Ah, so you're a gay jack-Catholic. A tough cross to bear.

Most gays have Christian parents and were raised as Christians. They rebel against their Christian religion because they don't want to be told to keep it in their pants. So they seek out all sorts of different beliefs to fit their hormonal-induced and twisted sexual agenda. Tough to resist the siren call of sex no matter what kind of pervert you are. And with the gay lobby there is plenty of support to change from your Christian ways. Eventually Christian gays come to deny the existence of God and/or the teachings of the Bible because it is the only way they can rationally continue to act the way they do with any sense of pride. That's what the "Gay Pride" thing is all about. However, under God's law, it is said that Pride goeth before a fall.

 

[Powerman]

Ah, so you're a gay jack-Catholic. A tough cross to bear.

Most gays have Christian parents and were raised as Christians. They rebel against their Christian religion because they don't want to be told to keep it in their pants. So they seek out all sorts of different beliefs to fit their hormonal-induced and twisted sexual agenda. Tough to resist the siren call of sex no matter what kind of pervert you are. And with the gay lobby there is plenty of support to change to your Christian ways. Eventually Christian gays come to deny the existence of God and/or the teachings of the Bible because it is the only way they can rationally continue to act the way they do with any sense of pride. That's what the "Gay Pride" thing is all about. However, under God's law, it is said that Pride goeth before a fall.

Umm I'm not gay or catholic but if I was gay I'd probably rebel against a religion that claimed I was some sort of dirty sinner. If God doesn't like gay people tell him to stop making them.

 

[Powerman]

It's more like "actively teaching impressionable young minds that it's acceptable, despite the wishes of their parents"

Look. I don't care for gays any more than the next guy but teaching your kids that gays are evil isn't very productive.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Umm I'm not gay or catholic but if I was gay I'd probably rebel against a religion that claimed I was some sort of dirty sinner. If God doesn't like gay people tell him to stop making them.

Well, you said you have two devout Catholic parents. I am sure they did not raise you to be an atheist. Then one of the first things you complained about was people not accepting homosexuality. Sorry if I misjudged.

As with all things, God gave you free will to make your own choices. What made you choose to become an atheist?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Look. I don't care for gays any more than the next guy but teaching your kids that gays are evil isn't very productive.

Maybe some people just feel kindergarten isn't the place for normalizing anyone's sexual behavior. Kids are there to learn, Not to be retrained culturally. Public schools are overstepping their bounds in doing this.

 

[Annie]

Look. I don't care for gays any more than the next guy but teaching your kids that gays are evil isn't very productive.

Why would anyone teach their kids that being gay is normal? For that matter, why would anyone be getting into sex specific acts for children under 12? Now, I'm not speaking of 'where babies come from', but the acts themselves-whether strait or other.

 

[Powerman]

Well, you said you have two devout Catholic parents. I am sure they did not raise you to be an atheist. Then one of the first things you complained about was people not accepting homosexuality. Sorry if I misjudged.

As with all things, God gave you free will to make your own choices. What made you choose to become an atheist?

Well I used to be an altar boy believe it or not and the problem I had with the Catholic church was that it was ritual over substance. If you're a catholic you know that there is some truth to this. Every mass is the same other than the readings and the homily but the same structure every time. Anyways what lead me to be an atheist was when I actually started to read the bible. Oddly enough I was reading it to strengthen my faith and by the time I got half way through it I thought it was one of the most immoral and fictional books ever written. I believe that if there is a God then he is a just and peaceful God. Not the murdering immoral God in the old testament. Infant genocide isn't something that you would expect from a good God.

 

[Powerman]

Why would anyone teach their kids that being gay is normal? For that matter, why would anyone be getting into sex specific acts for children under 12? Now, I'm not speaking of 'where babies come from', but the acts themselves-whether strait or other.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think you should be teaching much about sex to very young people but let's face it, people are having sex at much younger ages. It's sad but 12 isn't too early to teach your kids about sex these days. The average girl has sex for the first time at 16 and plenty do it before then. Just something to think about if you have kids. And teaching kids that gay is normal is to teach them fact. Most straight people will be naturally disgusted by gay sex acts so you don't even have to teach them anything regarding the matter.

 

[Annie]

Well I used to be an altar boy believe it or not and the problem I had with the Catholic church was that it was ritual over substance. If you're a catholic you know that there is some truth to this. Every mass is the same other than the readings and the homily but the same structure every time. Anyways what lead me to be an atheist was when I actually started to read the bible. Oddly enough I was reading it to strengthen my faith and by the time I got half way through it I thought it was one of the most immoral and fictional books ever written. I believe that if there is a God then he is a just and peaceful God. Not the murdering immoral God in the old testament. Infant genocide isn't something that you would expect from a good God.

Considering the Bold, you are agnostic at best, not even close to atheist. Got to get it right.

 

[Powerman]

Considering the Bold, you are agnostic at best, not even close to atheist. Got to get it right.

Agnostic would probably be a better term for me because I don't completely rule out the existence of a God. But I was really speaking hypothetically there. From what I was taught about God he seemed pretty nice. Then I read the bible and found out that 1/3 of the trinity is an immoral murderer.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Well I used to be an altar boy believe it or not and the problem I had with the Catholic church was that it was ritual over substance. If you're a catholic you know that there is some truth to this. Every mass is the same other than the readings and the homily but the same structure every time. Anyways what lead me to be an atheist was when I actually started to read the bible. Oddly enough I was reading it to strengthen my faith and by the time I got half way through it I thought it was one of the most immoral and fictional books ever written. I believe that if there is a God then he is a just and peaceful God. Not the murdering immoral God in the old testament. Infant genocide isn't something that you would expect from a good God.

So a wrathful God scares you. I can see why you would want to avoid even the chance of going to Hell by just denying its existence.

What about the New Testament?

 

[Powerman]

So a wrathful God scares you. I can see why you would want to avoid even the chance of going to Hell by just denying its existence.

What about the New Testament?

The new testament isn't nearly as bad and has some good morals but is still filled with some absurdities. And I'm not afraid of a wrathful God. I just believe that the God of the old testament is about on par with Hitler. Genocide and mass slaughtering of infants....I'm trying to figure out how one can justify this.

 

[Annie]

The new testament isn't nearly as bad and has some good morals but is still filled with some absurdities. And I'm not afraid of a wrathful God. I just believe that the God of the old testament is about on par with Hitler. Genocide and mass slaughtering of infants....I'm trying to figure out how one can justify this.

You seem well enough educated to me. Personally, I don't buy into any literal interpretation of the Bible, even the New Testament. Contrary to many here, as a Catholic I just do not trust any translations of the Bible, due to the monks of the Middle Ages. Yea, I know all about the historical accuracies. Whatever.

I do believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, one person of the Triune God. We are redeemed by His Sacrifice.

As for the parables, stories, what have you, they were to speak to a live audience, that understood the nuances within those, which certainly isn't us, in the US, in 2005. Yet, they are timeless enough to be understood in the broader sense, by all.

No offense to those that believe differently, seriously.

 

[Nuc]

I don't think many Christians care how you live, as long as you don't force your lifestyle on us, and especially not on our kids. On the contrary, I think it is the non-Christians who want everyone else to be forced to accept condoms in schools, gay marriage, etc.

If we do care, it is only because we think that if you understood, you would choose heaven over hell. I am against anyone forcing their beliefs on another, but explaining a belief and forcing it on someone are two different things. Liberal policies, on the other hand, such as in-school lessons on how to put on a condom, are forced on everyone.

PS You don't seem bitter.

Religion should be taught at home, in church, and in private schools. Sexuality should be taught by parents. The schools are doing a poor job with the basics, such as language and math. When American kids can handle that (which appears will never happen) then we should start teaching optional things. Take all the crap out of the school, including DARE and all other unnecessary propaganda. Teach the kids how to read, study and think for themselves. I have no problems with politics and religion being discussed in current events classes as we do here as long as there is not an agenda. People are expecting school to fill all the voids in their children's upbringing when in fact it is not succeeding in the areas where it is relevant.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The new testament isn't nearly as bad and has some good morals but is still filled with some absurdities. And I'm not afraid of a wrathful God. I just believe that the God of the old testament is about on par with Hitler. Genocide and mass slaughtering of infants....I'm trying to figure out how one can justify this.

You say that you became an atheist because you think it was horrible for God to allow genocide and the killing of children. Have you done any research on this subject? I certainly am not a Biblical scholar but there are many who are and they have addressed the very same questions you have. Here is a small excerpt from the writings of Glen Miller who discusses the killing of the Amalekite children:

Just saying that it seems "always unjust to kill a child" is not enough—we would have to show that even the cases in normal human experience in which someone has to do this (e.g. the horrible, but all too frequent, situation in which a father is forced to decide in the labor room of a hospital between the life of his child OR the life of his wife...many/most bio-medical ethics experts will side with killing the child, to save the life of the mother/wife) the actions of the father would be "unjust" as well. For, if we even allow ONE EXCEPTION to this "always unjust" statement, we open up the possibility that whatever ethical principle allowed that exception MIGHT ALSO BE operative in other/this case, and we also open up the possibility that there may be other principles that would allow such an action (e.g. mercy killing--refugees that kill their own small children to keep them from being tortured, enslaved, mutilated, and/or then killed horribly by their tormentors).

What this means is that an individual’s personal moral intuitions, if they run counter to moral intuitions of other experts and peers, may need further analysis and qualification, before they could function plausibly in constructing a logical argument of God's non-existence.

In other words, the argument that I THINK someone might make about this might look like the following:
1. The biblical God CANNOT commit any unjust act (Authority: theological tradition)
2. God ordered the killing of children (Authority: biblical text)
3. The killing of children can never be a 'just' act, regardless of competing ethical demands in a given situation. (Authority: someone’s personal moral intuition)
4. God, therefore , ordered an 'unjust act'. (authority: substitution of terms)
5. The ordering of an 'unjust act' is itself an 'unjust act' (authority: not sure--this is somewhat controversial in ethical theory, but I will grant it here for the purposes of illustration)
6. The biblical God, therefore, committed an unjust act. (authority: substitution of terms)
7. Therefore, the biblical God CAN commit an unjust act. (authority: from the actual to the possible)

And at this point we would have a clear logical contradiction between statement #1 and #7, and presumably could conclude that that God could not exist (since our concept of this God contained a 'hard contradiction').

But notice the problem--the whole thing stands or falls on the accuracy of the personal moral intuition in Step 3. It there is no reason to believe it applies WITHOUT EXCEPTION, then our attempt at constructing a hard contradiction this way fails. I have already mentioned one case in which exceptional circumstances are generally considered by experts to apply (i.e., the labor room), and one other case that has a high degree of probability for being another (i.e., the refugee camp), and there might be more that could be advanced (some of which I will offer below). This, of course, puts the ball back in the individual’s court to do one of two things: (1) show that these exceptions do NOT hold--and that the father who chooses to terminate the baby's life, so that his wife doesn't die has committed a horrible, unjustified, and culpable crime at the level of deliberate murder; or (2) show that although there ARE legitimate exceptions, there could not be any valid exceptions that would be operative in our biblical case.

But in any event, someone would still have much, much work to do, to be able to even offer the 'it is a contradiction' position as an argument. Without such work, this objection is simple assertion, unsubstantiated opinion (e.g, 'hunch'?), or emotional statement.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/genocide.html#today

 

[Powerman]

What is sick is that there is actually some christian out there writing hot air such as this to justify infant genocide. It's not something you can defend.

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

Maybe some people just feel kindergarten isn't the place for normalizing anyone's sexual behavior.

I agree 100% but is that what is happening here?

If I showed a kindergarten kid a picture of a husband, a wife, and their 2 year old child, am I showing them a picture of a family or a picture of a man and a woman who practiced a little role playing before doing it doggy style 2 years and 9 months earlier? I'm guessing you would see nothing more than a family. So why would you immediately think SEX when I show that same child a picture of 2 moms and their 2 year old child? Unless the picture is at all sexually explicit (which would be 100% wrong in public school), showing a picture of 2 people with a child is not "normalizing anyone's sexual behavior" since the picture has nothing at all to do with sex, whether the 2 people are man and woman or man and man. So what is it about a picture of 2 men that immediately makes you think about them having sex?

 

[Annie]

I agree 100% but is that what is happening here?

If I showed a kindergarten kid a picture of a husband, a wife, and their 2 year old child, am I showing them a picture of a family or a picture of a man and a woman who practiced a little role playing before doing it doggy style 2 years and 9 months earlier? I'm guessing you would see nothing more than a family. So why would you immediately think SEX when I show that same child a picture of 2 moms and their 2 year old child? Unless the picture is at all sexually explicit (which would be 100% wrong in public school), showing a picture of 2 people with a child is not "normalizing anyone's sexual behavior" since the picture has nothing at all to do with sex, whether the 2 people are man and woman or man and man. So what is it about a picture of 2 men that immediately makes you think about them having sex?

Kindergarten is NOT the place for moral equivalency, personally while I don't have a problem with homosexuality-out of my face-I don't think it's ever equivalent. That is what you are implying.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I agree 100% but is that what is happening here?

If I showed a kindergarten kid a picture of a husband, a wife, and their 2 year old child, am I showing them a picture of a family or a picture of a man and a woman who practiced a little role playing before doing it doggy style 2 years and 9 months earlier? I'm guessing you would see nothing more than a family. So why would you immediately think SEX when I show that same child a picture of 2 moms and their 2 year old child? Unless the picture is at all sexually explicit (which would be 100% wrong in public school), showing a picture of 2 people with a child is not "normalizing anyone's sexual behavior" since the picture has nothing at all to do with sex, whether the 2 people are man and woman or man and man. So what is it about a picture of 2 men that immediately makes you think about them having sex?

Sex is implied. A family is a reproductive unit. Always has been.

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

Kindergarten is NOT the place for moral equivalency, personally while I don't have a problem with homosexuality-out of my face-I don't think it's ever equivalent. That is what you are implying.

I think we both agree that kindergarten is not the time or place to teach children about sexual orientation. This is why I ask the question: why is it that a picture of a man, a woman, and their child is a picture of a family, while a picture of a woman, a woman, and their child is a picture of homosexuality? What is it about the first picture that doesn't shove sexual orientation in your face while the second picture does? How about a third picture of a black man, a white woman, and their child? Is that picture making the moral statement that it is okay for the races to mix?