Am I the only athiest on here, who when...

[Sky Dancer]

Most would obviously agree that anyone being imprisoned for homosexuality would be ridiculous and an atrocity, so I think it's fairly obvious that nothing of that nature would ever happen in our country, unless of course Sharia Law were ever established.

As for your last question, I think someone that knowingly has HIV and has unprotected sex with anyone that is not made aware of their medical condition should face criminal charges of some kind. Doing so is potentially giving their partner a death sentence, is it not? Do you think people with HIV should run around having unprotected sex without informing their partners of their condition? Don't you think they should face criminal charges for that?

The bill makes no mention of unprotected sex. I don't know if you're aware of this but to be HIV positive is a chronic disease, and people who have HIV live normal lives, including having lovers.

Having unprotected sex without informing your partner that you are HIV should be a criminal offense. I'm against the death penalty. I don't think homosexuals should be put to death for it.

IMO it is more likely we will see a Christian theocracy in the US before a Muslim one.

And what is that opinion based on since we've been moving away from any kind of a theocrasy and moral standards have steadily declined in this country for the last 40 years or so. Your prediction/opinion is not based in fact.

My opinion about domionism taking hold in the US is based on the fact that a VP candidate with dominionsit views was almost elected.

Further, Bush was closely tied to dominionists. Pat Robertson, a mainstream Christian preacher is a dominionist.

Sarah Palin is not finished on the national political stage.

I've researched dominionism for some time now. It's the movement to make America a Christian nation.

Some people think we already are one.

Here is a quickie reference:

In the early 1990s sociologist Sara Diamond[14][15] and journalist Frederick Clarkson[16][17] defined dominionism as a movement that, while including Dominion Theology and Reconstructionism as subsets, is much broader in scope, extending to much of the Christian Right.[18] In his 1992 study of Dominion Theology and its influence on the Christian Right, Bruce Barron writes,

In the context of American evangelical efforts to penetrate and transform public life, the distinguishing mark of a dominionist is a commitment to defining and carrying out an approach to building society that is self-consciously defined as exclusively Christian, and dependent specifically on the work of Christians, rather than based on a broader consensus.[19]

According to Diamond, the defining concept of dominionism is "that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns". In 1989, Diamond declared that this concept "has become the central unifying ideology for the Christian Right"[14] (p. 138, emphasis in original). In 1995, she called it "prevalent on the Christian Right".[20] Journalist Chip Berlet added in 1998 that, although they represent different theological and political ideas, dominionists assert a Christian duty to take "control of a sinful secular society."[21]

In 2005, Clarkson enumerated the following characteristics shared by all forms of dominionism:[22]

1. Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.
2. Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.
3. Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.[22]

Other authors who stress the influence of Dominionist ideas on the Christian Right include Michelle Goldberg[23] and Kevin Phillips[24][25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

 

[Newby]

WorldNetDaily is a mainstream Christian internet news service. They support the Uganda bill.

If you would like references to specific demonizing of gays on TV and radio I will be happy to research them for you. Jerry Falwel, Ralph Reedl and Pat Robertson are well known mainstream Christians with a rigorous anti-gay message.

I refer you to the book, The Pink Swastika, by Scott Lively for one. Scott brags about his campaign in Uganda and how he delieverd an 'atomic bomb against gays and lesbians worldwide'.

I've actually never been on the World Net Daily site, nor do I see it as 'mainstream', but I just went there and searched their site using 'Uganda' and I came up with nothing relating to this bill you're talking about. So, do you have a link of some kind?

Never heard of Scott Lively or Ralph Reed, I don't listen to Pat Robertson and isn't Jerry Fallwell dead?

 

[Newby]

The bill makes no mention of unprotected sex. I don't know if you're aware of this but to be HIV positive is a chronic disease, and people who have HIV live normal lives, including having lovers.

Having unprotected sex without informing your partner that you are HIV should be a criminal offense. I'm against the death penalty. I don't think homosexuals should be put to death for it.

IMO it is more likely we will see a Christian theocracy in the US before a Muslim one.

And what is that opinion based on since we've been moving away from any kind of a theocrasy and moral standards have steadily declined in this country for the last 40 years or so. Your prediction/opinion is not based in fact.

My opinion about domionism taking hold in the US is based on the fact that a VP candidate with dominionsit views was almost elected.

Further, Bush was closely tied to dominionists. Pat Robertson, a mainstream Christian preacher is a dominionist.

Sarah Palin is not finished on the national political stage.

I've researched dominionism for some time now. It's the movement to make America a Christian nation.

Some people think we already are one.

Here is a quickie reference:

In the early 1990s sociologist Sara Diamond[14][15] and journalist Frederick Clarkson[16][17] defined dominionism as a movement that, while including Dominion Theology and Reconstructionism as subsets, is much broader in scope, extending to much of the Christian Right.[18] In his 1992 study of Dominion Theology and its influence on the Christian Right, Bruce Barron writes,

In the context of American evangelical efforts to penetrate and transform public life, the distinguishing mark of a dominionist is a commitment to defining and carrying out an approach to building society that is self-consciously defined as exclusively Christian, and dependent specifically on the work of Christians, rather than based on a broader consensus.[19]

According to Diamond, the defining concept of dominionism is "that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns". In 1989, Diamond declared that this concept "has become the central unifying ideology for the Christian Right"[14] (p. 138, emphasis in original). In 1995, she called it "prevalent on the Christian Right".[20] Journalist Chip Berlet added in 1998 that, although they represent different theological and political ideas, dominionists assert a Christian duty to take "control of a sinful secular society."[21]

In 2005, Clarkson enumerated the following characteristics shared by all forms of dominionism:[22]

1. Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.
2. Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.
3. Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.[22]

Other authors who stress the influence of Dominionist ideas on the Christian Right include Michelle Goldberg[23] and Kevin Phillips[24][25]

Dominionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, you're welcome to your opinion, Sky, but I personally think you've been brain washed. Now we should be concerned about 'dominionists', whatever the hell that is?

Was Bush elected for that reason? Was anyone in politics elected for that reason? I don't think so. That's about the equivalent of me saying the boogie man is going to get you.

 

[Sky Dancer]

And what is that opinion based on since we've been moving away from any kind of a theocrasy and moral standards have steadily declined in this country for the last 40 years or so. Your prediction/opinion is not based in fact.

My opinion about domionism taking hold in the US is based on the fact that a VP candidate with dominionsit views was almost elected.

Further, Bush was closely tied to dominionists. Pat Robertson, a mainstream Christian preacher is a dominionist.

Sarah Palin is not finished on the national political stage.

I've researched dominionism for some time now. It's the movement to make America a Christian nation.

Some people think we already are one.

Here is a quickie reference:

In the early 1990s sociologist Sara Diamond[14][15] and journalist Frederick Clarkson[16][17] defined dominionism as a movement that, while including Dominion Theology and Reconstructionism as subsets, is much broader in scope, extending to much of the Christian Right.[18] In his 1992 study of Dominion Theology and its influence on the Christian Right, Bruce Barron writes,

In the context of American evangelical efforts to penetrate and transform public life, the distinguishing mark of a dominionist is a commitment to defining and carrying out an approach to building society that is self-consciously defined as exclusively Christian, and dependent specifically on the work of Christians, rather than based on a broader consensus.[19]

According to Diamond, the defining concept of dominionism is "that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns". In 1989, Diamond declared that this concept "has become the central unifying ideology for the Christian Right"[14] (p. 138, emphasis in original). In 1995, she called it "prevalent on the Christian Right".[20] Journalist Chip Berlet added in 1998 that, although they represent different theological and political ideas, dominionists assert a Christian duty to take "control of a sinful secular society."[21]

In 2005, Clarkson enumerated the following characteristics shared by all forms of dominionism:[22]

1. Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.
2. Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.
3. Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.[22]

Other authors who stress the influence of Dominionist ideas on the Christian Right include Michelle Goldberg[23] and Kevin Phillips[24][25]

Dominionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, you're welcome to your opinion, Sky, but I personally think you've been brain washed. Now we should be concerned about 'dominionists', whatever the hell that is?

Was Bush elected for that reason? Was anyone in politics elected for that reason? I don't think so. That's about the equivalent of me saying the boogie man is going to get you.

Fine Newby. Just write me off again. Don't look into it on your own.

 

[Sky Dancer]

WorldNetDaily is a mainstream Christian internet news service. They support the Uganda bill.

If you would like references to specific demonizing of gays on TV and radio I will be happy to research them for you. Jerry Falwel, Ralph Reedl and Pat Robertson are well known mainstream Christians with a rigorous anti-gay message.

I refer you to the book, The Pink Swastika, by Scott Lively for one. Scott brags about his campaign in Uganda and how he delieverd an 'atomic bomb against gays and lesbians worldwide'.

I've actually never been on the World Net Daily site, nor do I see it as 'mainstream', but I just went there and searched their site using 'Uganda' and I came up with nothing relating to this bill you're talking about. So, do you have a link of some kind?

Never heard of Scott Lively or Ralph Reed, I don't listen to Pat Robertson and isn't Jerry Fallwell dead?

Ralph Reed used to work for Pat Robertson, now he is in politics himself. He spoke at length about 'stealth candicacy' as a Christian political strategy.

I did see a link from WND in regard to the Uganda bill but I may not have time to find it before work.

I work with kids in a public school. Something that SOME Christians would like to outlaw.

 

[Sky Dancer]

This video by World Net Daily writer Molotov (and believe me when I say that the name fits) Mitchell has been around for months. It was shocking when I first saw it and when I view it now, I am still repulsed.

In this video, Mitchell criticizes Rick Warren for speaking out against the infamous Ugandan "kill the gays" bill.

And just so that no one mistakes his position, Mitchell goes into detail as to why he thinks Uganda is correct for pushing this bill, which goes as far as punishing gays and lesbians with the death penalty.

Amongst Mitchell's points:

•The Bible is totally on Uganda's side

•Uganda is merely reacting because an "evil homosexual king, Mwanga" raped young boys and murdered a group of them who would not have sex with him (never mind that this incident took place between the years of 1885-1886)


•Uganda "doesn't want to kill homosexuals, they just want them to stop practicing homosexual acts"


•If gay Ugandans don't like the law, they can leave


•and the Founding Fathers would have agreed with Ugandans. I believe his words were (at 2:51): "Ugandans are making decisions that our very Founding Fathers made so long ago but we are terrified to touch today."

Alvin McEwen: World Net Daily Writer Evokes Martin Luther King, Jr. in Support of Ugandan 'Kill the Gays' Bill

 

[Sky Dancer]

South Carolina Sen. Jim Demint has become a kingmaker in the Tea Party movement. He has refused to back Republicans that the establishment has endorsed but who aren't sufficiently conservative enough in his eyes.

But what else does DeMint stand for? Well, according to the Spartan Herald-Journal, he's not too keen on allowing gays or unmarried women, who are sleeping with their boyfriends, to teach.


DeMint said "if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn't be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who's sleeping with her boyfriend -- she shouldn't be in the classroom," according to SHJ.

Should Gay or Unmarried Pregnant Women Be Teachers? Jim DeMint Says No - Page 25

 

[Foxfyre]

WorldNetDaily is a mainstream Christian internet news service. They support the Uganda bill.

If you would like references to specific demonizing of gays on TV and radio I will be happy to research them for you.

I refer you to the book, The Pink Swastika, for one.

Sure. If you have credible sources--and no, I won't accept radical leftwing Christian bashing blogs as sources--then sure. Let's see them. I want stations and names of people or names of programs that you are condemning. And remember you said MAINSTREAM Christian radio and TV stations, so let's focus on those only okay?

Otherwise I need for you to stop condemning all for the actions of a few. You claim you don't say ALL, but when called on your failure to qualify your presumably blanket condemnations of something, you usually ignore it or change the subject. You blew off Newby and you blew off me when we said we listen to Christian talk radio a LOT and we have not heard what you accuse it of. Wouldn't it be the honest thing to do to admit you haven't spent a lot of time listening? And you might not have a clue what you're talking about other than what Christian bashers have said about it?

You don't give the American government, easily 99% Christian, at Federal, state, and local levels, credit for denouncing the Ugandan bill? How about the large majority of Christian denominations and Christians around the world who have formally denounced it? How about the large majority of Christian scholars and leaders--Rick Warren, et al--who have denounced the bill, and others who are actively working with Christian leaders in Uganda to soften if not defeat the legislation? Don't they get any credit? I don't know if the Pope has issued a statement on this, but I know the Archbishop of Uganda has and he opposes it.

How about the large majority of Ugandans who support the bill? Do they not deserve at least a piece of your contempt and condemnation?

I know that one person who occasionally contributes pieces to the World Net Daily has come out supporting the Ugandan bill. I can find nothing to suggest that the World Net Daily owners, editors, or staff supports it or that it published anything Molotov Mitch wrote on that subject.

You didn't check that out though did you. You took what Huffington Post and other liberal trash machines said which was "World Net Daily contributor Molotov Mitch ran a video supporting the Ugandan bill" and ran with it. They dishonestly didn't report that most of Mitch's articles in the WND related to visual media and most of his stuff does not involve the WND, but they knew Christian bashers would pick up on the WND and focus on that. It didn't matter that his remarks were not published in the WND. And you took the bait hook line and sinker. You saw World Net Daily and it is "Christian' so let's bash them.

That's as silly as saying that a bank robber has a lake house in Indiana; therefore all of Indiana supports bank robberies.

 

[Sky Dancer]

It's fine Fox. You don't accept any evidence that you don't deem mainstream. WorldNetDaily is considered mainsteam by some.

I am heartened by the US governments condemnation of the kill gays bill.

Im surpristed to hear you admit that you think our government is 99.9% Christian. But we don't have a theocracy.

Are we a plurality or a Christian nation, Fox?

 

[Foxfyre]

It's fine Fox. You don't accept any evidence that you don't deem mainstream. WorldNetDaily is considered mainsteam by some.

I am heartened by the US governments condemnation of the kill gays bill.

You're right. There are reasonably credible news sources out there for the legitimate stuff and there are hundreds and thousands of fringe groups printing whatever garbage they can think up, distorting whatever they want to distort, and playing on the emotions and prejudices of their constituents who will take any bait they throw out there.

Are you going to acknowledge that the Huffington Post or whoever you picked up that quote from intentionally implicated World Net Daily when it was blameless? Or did you even bother to read that? I don't consider WND mainstream at all. It is a heavily biased and slanted rightwing publication that is not always objective. That's why I do not depend on them for my facts.

But if you are as fair and unjudgmental as you have said that you are, you will at least apologize for suggesting that the World Net Daily supports the Ugandan bill when you have zero evidence that they do. I accept that you're running away from the challenge I offered you to back up your Christian bashing statements.

 

[Newby]

My opinion about domionism taking hold in the US is based on the fact that a VP candidate with dominionsit views was almost elected.

Further, Bush was closely tied to dominionists. Pat Robertson, a mainstream Christian preacher is a dominionist.

Sarah Palin is not finished on the national political stage.

I've researched dominionism for some time now. It's the movement to make America a Christian nation.

Some people think we already are one.

Here is a quickie reference:

In the early 1990s sociologist Sara Diamond[14][15] and journalist Frederick Clarkson[16][17] defined dominionism as a movement that, while including Dominion Theology and Reconstructionism as subsets, is much broader in scope, extending to much of the Christian Right.[18] In his 1992 study of Dominion Theology and its influence on the Christian Right, Bruce Barron writes,

In the context of American evangelical efforts to penetrate and transform public life, the distinguishing mark of a dominionist is a commitment to defining and carrying out an approach to building society that is self-consciously defined as exclusively Christian, and dependent specifically on the work of Christians, rather than based on a broader consensus.[19]

According to Diamond, the defining concept of dominionism is "that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns". In 1989, Diamond declared that this concept "has become the central unifying ideology for the Christian Right"[14] (p. 138, emphasis in original). In 1995, she called it "prevalent on the Christian Right".[20] Journalist Chip Berlet added in 1998 that, although they represent different theological and political ideas, dominionists assert a Christian duty to take "control of a sinful secular society."[21]

In 2005, Clarkson enumerated the following characteristics shared by all forms of dominionism:[22]

1. Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.
2. Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.
3. Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.[22]

Other authors who stress the influence of Dominionist ideas on the Christian Right include Michelle Goldberg[23] and Kevin Phillips[24][25]

Dominionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, you're welcome to your opinion, Sky, but I personally think you've been brain washed. Now we should be concerned about 'dominionists', whatever the hell that is?

Was Bush elected for that reason? Was anyone in politics elected for that reason? I don't think so. That's about the equivalent of me saying the boogie man is going to get you.

Fine Newby. Just write me off again. Don't look into it on your own.

Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy theory crap to me.

 

[Sky Dancer]

It's fine Fox. You don't accept any evidence that you don't deem mainstream. WorldNetDaily is considered mainsteam by some.

I am heartened by the US governments condemnation of the kill gays bill.

You're right. There are reasonably credible news sources out there for the legitimate stuff and there are hundreds and thousands of fringe groups printing whatever garbage they can think up, distorting whatever they want to distort, and playing on the emotions and prejudices of their constituents who will take any bait they throw out there.

Are you going to acknowledge that the Huffington Post or whoever you picked up that quote from intentionally implicated World Net Daily when it was blameless? Or did you even bother to read that? I don't consider WND mainstream at all. It is a heavily biased and slanted rightwing publication that is not always objective. That's why I do not depend on them for my facts.

But if you are as fair and unjudgmental as you have said that you are, you will at least apologize for suggesting that the World Net Daily supports the Ugandan bill when you have zero evidence that they do.

You are correct. A writer editorializing in WorldNetDaily is not the same as the organization itself coming out in favor of the kill gays bill.

WorldNetDaily hates homosexuals. It presents a consistenly negative view of us. My sincere apoligies for being less literal than you are in my statement. They are hardly blameless when it comes to gay bashing.

WND is mainstream enough to have wide readership. They are not the NYTimes or the New Yorker.

If I had more time I would trace the sources the Huffington Post used for their story.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's fine Fox. You don't accept any evidence that you don't deem mainstream. WorldNetDaily is considered mainsteam by some.

I am heartened by the US governments condemnation of the kill gays bill.

You're right. There are reasonably credible news sources out there for the legitimate stuff and there are hundreds and thousands of fringe groups printing whatever garbage they can think up, distorting whatever they want to distort, and playing on the emotions and prejudices of their constituents who will take any bait they throw out there.

Are you going to acknowledge that the Huffington Post or whoever you picked up that quote from intentionally implicated World Net Daily when it was blameless? Or did you even bother to read that? I don't consider WND mainstream at all. It is a heavily biased and slanted rightwing publication that is not always objective. That's why I do not depend on them for my facts.

But if you are as fair and unjudgmental as you have said that you are, you will at least apologize for suggesting that the World Net Daily supports the Ugandan bill when you have zero evidence that they do.

You are correct. A writer editorializing in WorldNetDaily is not the same as the organization itself coming out in favor of the kill gays bill.

WorldNetDaily hates homosexuals. It presents a consistenly negative view of us. My sincere apoligies for being less literal than you are in my statement. They are hardly blameless when it comes to gay bashing.

WND is mainstream enough to have wide readership. They are not the NYTimes or the New Yorker.

If I had more time I would trace the sources the Huffington Post used for their story.

Sky, can you read? Can you comprehend what you read?

The Molotov Mitch piece cited by Huffington Post was NOT IN THE WORLD NET DAILY. There is no evidence anywhere that the World Net Daily has published ANYTHING editorially or otherwise by ANYBODY that supports the Ugandan bill.

Please try to at least grasp that and acknowledge it before people think you've completely gone off the edge here.

But as long as we're into challenges here, how about posting an article from World Net Daily that is negative toward homosexuals. That would be a good start to make your remarks at least a little bit credible.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Okay, you're welcome to your opinion, Sky, but I personally think you've been brain washed. Now we should be concerned about 'dominionists', whatever the hell that is?

Was Bush elected for that reason? Was anyone in politics elected for that reason? I don't think so. That's about the equivalent of me saying the boogie man is going to get you.

Fine Newby. Just write me off again. Don't look into it on your own.

Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy theory crap to me.

I suppose to you it does. When you have FoxFyre saying that the government of the US is 99.9% Christian, and people arguing that the US is a Christian not secular, not pluralistic nation it sounds less conspiracy to me.

But feel free to write me off however you wish.

 

[Newby]

It's fine Fox. You don't accept any evidence that you don't deem mainstream. WorldNetDaily is considered mainsteam by some.

I am heartened by the US governments condemnation of the kill gays bill.

You're right. There are reasonably credible news sources out there for the legitimate stuff and there are hundreds and thousands of fringe groups printing whatever garbage they can think up, distorting whatever they want to distort, and playing on the emotions and prejudices of their constituents who will take any bait they throw out there.

Are you going to acknowledge that the Huffington Post or whoever you picked up that quote from intentionally implicated World Net Daily when it was blameless? Or did you even bother to read that? I don't consider WND mainstream at all. It is a heavily biased and slanted rightwing publication that is not always objective. That's why I do not depend on them for my facts.

But if you are as fair and unjudgmental as you have said that you are, you will at least apologize for suggesting that the World Net Daily supports the Ugandan bill when you have zero evidence that they do. I accept that you're running away from the challenge I offered you to back up your Christian bashing statements.

 

[Newby]

You're right. There are reasonably credible news sources out there for the legitimate stuff and there are hundreds and thousands of fringe groups printing whatever garbage they can think up, distorting whatever they want to distort, and playing on the emotions and prejudices of their constituents who will take any bait they throw out there.

Are you going to acknowledge that the Huffington Post or whoever you picked up that quote from intentionally implicated World Net Daily when it was blameless? Or did you even bother to read that? I don't consider WND mainstream at all. It is a heavily biased and slanted rightwing publication that is not always objective. That's why I do not depend on them for my facts.

But if you are as fair and unjudgmental as you have said that you are, you will at least apologize for suggesting that the World Net Daily supports the Ugandan bill when you have zero evidence that they do.

You are correct. A writer editorializing in WorldNetDaily is not the same as the organization itself coming out in favor of the kill gays bill.

WorldNetDaily hates homosexuals. It presents a consistenly negative view of us. My sincere apoligies for being less literal than you are in my statement. They are hardly blameless when it comes to gay bashing.

WND is mainstream enough to have wide readership. They are not the NYTimes or the New Yorker.

If I had more time I would trace the sources the Huffington Post used for their story.

Sky, can you read? Can you comprehend what you read?

The Molotov Mitch piece cited by Huffington Post was NOT IN THE WORLD NET DAILY. There is no evidence anywhere that the World Net Daily has published ANYTHING editorially or otherwise by ANYBODY that supports the Ugandan bill.

Please try to at least grasp that and acknowledge it before people think you've completely gone off the edge here.

But as long as we're into challenges here, how about posting an article from World Net Daily that is negative toward homosexuals. That would be a good start to make your remarks at least a little bit credible.

I was getting ready to ask for the exact same thing. I wanted to see examples of what she called hate and negative.

 

[Newby]

Fine Newby. Just write me off again. Don't look into it on your own.

Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy theory crap to me.

I suppose to you it does. When you have FoxFyre saying that the government of the US is 99.9% Christian, and people arguing that the US is a Christian not secular, not pluralistic nation it sounds less conspiracy to me.

But feel free to write me off however you wish.

How do you explain that the US is by majority Christian, yet you're sitting in your home an openly gay female and married? How did that happen to begin with?

 

[Foxfyre]

Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy theory crap to me.

I suppose to you it does. When you have FoxFyre saying that the government of the US is 99.9% Christian, and people arguing that the US is a Christian not secular, not pluralistic nation it sounds less conspiracy to me.

But feel free to write me off however you wish.

How do you explain that the US is by majority Christian, yet you're sitting in your home an openly gay female and married? How did that happen to begin with?

She didn't even get the number right. I said the U.S. government was 99% Christian. They run on that knowing it will get them votes. But I didn't say 99.9%.

 

[Immanuel]

Then, why hassle atheists? You believe in God, they don't, so what?

Just for some clarity here... who started this thread?

Immie

An atheist started the thread. Your point?

The point is that you accused Christians of starting threads to attack atheists and it sure seemed that you meant this thread. That was not the case here.

Grump is generally a good person to have a discussion with. It seems he can communicate without resorting to some of the tactics of others on here. I generally enjoy reading his comments whereas there are other atheists on this board that quite frankly are not worth spending time reading let alone communicating with.

Immie

 

[mudwhistle]

I guess we have different interpretations of the video; I didn't get that out of it. Faith and intellect are two separate things, imo. Intelligent people can and do believe in God.

His point is about some religious people trying to turn their faith into a logically-sound argument for the existence of God or gods. Faith and logic are mutually exclusive in this kind of argument. While an atheist can't prove the non-existence of some kind of god (whatever that word means), they can disprove the specific theistic claims made by a believer about their God... if the topic comes up and the believer tries to turn their faith into fact. I think that's why Dr Grump used The Light as an example in the OP.

The 2:15 mark in the video was the most interesting part to me, where he talks about agnosticism--how a believer in a god can technically be agnostic.

Maybe you ignored the assumptions of the video that not really having a belief is more intelligent then having one. It's a constant state of confusion when you can't make up your mind. It seems the video believes this may be a better state thinking in shades of gray rather then as the video states "flawed" black and white thinking. This indicates a bias against making choices.....particularly where belief in a supreme-being is concerned.

Having principles is important in life. Not having any seems the desired state according to your video.

Make a choice then live by it. Your vid thinks this is undesirable.

I feel no need to prove that God exists. You ether believe or you don't. Anyone's lack of belief does not effect nor change my beliefs. I feel that as a spiritual being that he exists because the Holy Spirit spoke to me. This doesn't make me stupid, just lucky. Nothing I did caused this to happen....it just did and I accept it. It makes me no better then anyone else. Anyone who feels it does really hasn't been blessed with this gift because having this gift is a life changer. The fact that I know that God exists and that he has revealed it to me doesn't mean I can go through the rest of my life looking down on others who haven't received this gift. That's what many atheist and false Christians tend to do. I don't sneer at anyone for their beliefs and when someone sneers at me for mine I feel they haven't a clue where my beliefs come from.

I'm fairly moderate about politics, so I know all about the "constant state of confusion".

"Flawed black and white thinking" is just another way of saying false dichotomy. I believe he's right about that. There is middle ground between believing God, and not believing in any kind of god. Someone in the middle could disprove theistic claims about God, but still believe that it's possible there's some kind of higher power out there. That's where I fit in.

Belief is a personal thing that doesn't have to, or need to, follow logic or the scientific method. It's like debating over a favorite color.

When it comes to having faith you ether do our you don't. You don't sort of have faith.

It's like taking Kung Fu. You ether do or you don't. If you sort of study Kung Fu you're like a grape on the highway. Eventually you'll get squished. Same thing goes for Christians. Someone with faith is like a rock. If you sort of have faith the slightest thing will cause you to lose it and get squished. But if you're a rock then it's almost impossible to get squished.

If you feel that he was right about false dichotomy you don't sort of believe. You just don't. There ether is or their isn't a higher power out there. And who says it has to always seem logical. It's only logical if you've been visited by the Holy Spirit. As Jesus often said, to everyone else it's total confusion.