"I Am Not A Second Class Citizen"

[archibaldcrane]

One last thing before I go. Jacob is the Patriarch of the Jews, he's the father of the nation of Israel, Joseph is a direct descendant of him. Read Matthew 1. It's a long read

So Heli didn't father Joseph, or are you saying that Jacob is a great great grandfather of Joseph and "begat" in Matthew 1:16 is metaphorical because he didn't directly sire him?

[quannum]

why did god save all his gill-having creatures, but only "2 of each kind" of non-gill-having creatures?

[ronin sparthos]

Why didn't dinosaurs make it on the ark?

[bechyni]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1mzJDzPLfb...-Noahs-Ark.jpg

[BaneTheBrawler]

I am disappointed in the direction this thread traveled since my last post.

[Moosey]

I left earlier to go out and have a life etc... fully intending to come back and respond to your baited questions and antagonistic queries, but I figured it's not worth continuing since the majority of you aren't really willing to expand your minds, and are too cozy in your little comfort zones, afraid to even consider that there is something other than your line of thinking. Like I said earlier, you're very likely to get better results if you're going to have a debate or discussion with someone when you try to have a little respect, and every other reply isn't an insult or cheap shot.

I'm glad this board was created. I hope at least some people here are interested in having a respectful, civil conversation about religion/Christianity, and all that it entails.


I'll be around

Edit: I really was expecting more from this forum. I think some of you should probably read the rules before continuing to post here, because several of you are way out of line. http://www.bluegartr.com/threads/108...for-this-forum

[archibaldcrane]

Wait, so Heli or Jacob?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[Correction]

and every other reply isn't an insult or cheap shot.

These two statements are fundamentally incompatible. You might want to think about that for a second.

This was neither disrespectful nor a cheap shot; you're just ducking the only on-topic part of your massive derail. How is your insistence that gays abandon the defining component of their sexual identity not part of the oppression wrought upon gays in the aggregate in societies where Abrahamic religions dominate?

[SamanosukeShiva]

Moose, I think what makes people irritated at your argument is you kept saying there's "evidence" of this and that (Jesus died then resurrected for example) but you never really present what the evidence was you just say that there is one. Also, we were arguing about the accuracy of bible, but you kept referring back to the bible for your argument "cause this paragraph in the bible say this and that". Bible that people use today is different from the "original" bible that you talk about, you said so, and we know that much. But the fact that you know it's different, and not accurate, but still uses it for your argument is what makes us angry.

Having a discussion with atheists, you should know better than quoting bible, we don't believe in the bible, so no matter how much you quote it, it wont get through to us because as far as we're concern it's not an accurate nor a consistent source.

Anyway, the OP was about the gays and gay rights,.... here's my logic and what I think about it:

I'll break it down to 10 questions, so there is no miscommunication.

#1 Every human beings are entitled to their basic rights. Agree?
#2 Taking away basic human right is wrong. Agree?
#3 Basic human rights include the ability/access to marriage. Agree?
#4 Taking away the ability/access to marriage is wrong, refer to #1, #2 ,and #3. (I'm not talking about any particular group, still talking about everyone) Agree?
#5 "Straight" people are human beings. Agree?
#6 "Straight" people are entitled to their basic rights because they are human beings, refer to #1, #2, and #3. Agree?
#7 "Straight" people are able to marry, because marriage is a basic human right, refer to #1, #2, and #3. Agree?
#8 "Homosexual" people are human beings. Agree?
#9 "Homosexual" people are entitled to their basic rights because they are human beings, refer to #1, #2, and #3. Agree?
#10 "Homosexual" people should be able to marry, because marriage is a basic human right, refer to #1, #2, and #3. Agree?


Are we getting somewhere?

[Sera]

I think some day i'm going to make a thread so atheists and agnostics can discuss whether the destruction of religions like christianity should be a goal for non-theists and how should we go about accomplishing such a sinister act.

I would be ALL OVER this.

[Niiro]

Really guys?

I think you all need to take a step back, read this again...

the majority of you aren't really willing to expand your minds, and are too cozy in your little comfort zones, afraid to even consider that there is something other than your line of thinking.

I really was expecting more from this forum. I think some of you should probably read the rules before continuing to post here, because several of you are way out of line. http://www.bluegartr.com/threads/108...for-this-forum

Realize you've been trolled hardcore, and just walk away.

It's nobody's fault, it happens to everyone, don't blame yourself.

The moose is a cunning creature.

[Jonny]

Just be glad they are solitary animals.

[Ashmada]

I think some day i'm going to make a thread so atheists and agnostics can discuss whether the destruction of religions like christianity should be a goal for non-theists and how should we go about accomplishing such a sinister act.

Use man's best friend, FIRE?

How many people heard "God said" shortly before being executed by the almighty Inquisition btw? I'm sure the screams of agony drowned out the important messages being relayed.

"deus vult" (god wills it) was a popular motto at the time. 'specially when loving your neighbour with the tip of your sword.

There is enough evidence to believe the events of Jesus Christ's life, death, and resurrection for me to believe it.

It's that guy that says I don't have the education to understand his (far-fetched and apologetical) interpretation of the bible. XD.

You want to look intelligent, Moosey-boy? Don't make silly claims like that.
Or back them up, it'd be a lot funnier than what you've got going at the moment.

Come on, tell us, what's that evidence you've got?
If you're interested in "intelligent discussion" and not just trolling, surely it isn't much to ask for you to back up your claims, is it?

[Uzor]

Moosey; you can't claim the bible is evidence of Jesus Christ's life. If you do; you could also claim that the events of Ezio Auditore happened. There is historical proof that the things in the game did happen, after all.

My point is; Yes. There is evidence to support that Jesus did live. There is not, however, evidence to support that he did some of the things the bible claims he did. The bible could be like any other science fiction book, only based on a true person. According to the synoptic gospels; Jesus refuses to give a miraculous sign to prove his authority - possibly because he can't. I could go out on the street and claim I'm the son of God, and when people ask me to prove it, I'll just say "No, I don't want to. You'll see in the afterlife that you were wrong!". Does that make me right?

As for the miracles in the Gospel of John, historians have found no evidence to support that what Jesus did ever actually happened. Additionally; it's likely that a lot of the things are the ramblings of a high person. When you're high, you can get all of these ideas, etc. No; I'm not saying Jesus was a drug addict, but you DO know that baptisms during this time involved covering the entire body in cannabis oil and then washing it off in the river, right? Messiah - which is what the Christians call Jesus - means just that. The anointed.

Drugs are used in many cultures/tribes as a way for shamans/priests etc. to communicate with the dead, or to have visions. It's not hard to believe it was used for similar reasons during the period Jesus was alive - especially since they used cannabis oil to baptize.

Is it really so hard to imagine that they smoked pot around the dinner table? I can see the event play out myself - Jesus and his buddies sit there smoking a joint and joke around and laugh, and he get the brilliant idea to pretend that the wine his his blood and that the bread is his flesh.

[Melena]

I left earlier to go out and have a life etc... fully intending to come back and respond to your baited questions and antagonistic queries, but I figured it's not worth continuing since the majority of you aren't really willing to expand your minds, and are too cozy in your little comfort zones, afraid to even consider that there is something other than your line of thinking. Like I said earlier, you're very likely to get better results if you're going to have a debate or discussion with someone when you try to have a little respect, and every other reply isn't an insult or cheap shot.

I'm glad this board was created. I hope at least some people here are interested in having a respectful, civil conversation about religion/Christianity, and all that it entails.


I'll be around

Edit: I really was expecting more from this forum. I think some of you should probably read the rules before continuing to post here, because several of you are way out of line. http://www.bluegartr.com/threads/108...for-this-forum

Someone cozy in his comfort zone and unable to expand his mind telling others to get out of there comfort zones and expand our mines. Get the fuck out of here troll. About the only intelligent thing that's come out of you is that is that your not going to respond to the "baits "i.e. actual questions that your accusing as troll bait to duck out of answering".

[Moosey]

Someone cozy in his comfort zone and unable to expand his mind telling others to get out of there comfort zones and expand our mines. Get the fuck out of here troll. About the only intelligent thing that's come out of you is that is that your not going to respond to the "baits "i.e. actual questions that your accusing as troll bait to duck out of answering".

How exactly am I cozy in my comfort zone? Do you think someone who is cozy in there comfort zone would come into a thread knowing full well there is probably going to be nothing but opposition to his position and is likely to get bashed/troll to oblivion? How am I not willing to expand my mind? I never said anything contrary to these things.

And as a response to an earlier post, I haven't used the bible at all as evidence for Jesus's claim to be God. I haven't given any of the evidence I've talked about yet. When I get home, I'll talk about that more.

[Milkster]

How exactly am I cozy in my comfort zone? Do you think someone who is cozy in there comfort zone would come into a thread knowing full well there is probably going to be nothing but opposition to his position and is likely to get bashed/troll to oblivion? How am I not willing to expand my mind? I never said anything contrary to these things.

And as a response to an earlier post, I haven't used the bible at all as evidence for Jesus's claim to be God. I haven't given any of the evidence I've talked about yet. When I get home, I'll talk about that more.

Do you believe that LGBTQQ individuals deserve the rights that come with being heterosexual? Every single right?

[Correction]

When I get home, I'll talk about that more.

Here's a wild suggestion; don't. Because it's a huge, self-centered derail that's gone on too long. Either talk about gay rights in the context of the OP or find another thread.

[Moosey]

Moose, I think what makes people irritated at your argument is you kept saying there's "evidence" of this and that (Jesus died then resurrected for example) but you never really present what the evidence was you just say that there is one. Also, we were arguing about the accuracy of bible, but you kept referring back to the bible for your argument "cause this paragraph in the bible say this and that". Bible that people use today is different from the "original" bible that you talk about, you said so, and we know that much. But the fact that you know it's different, and not accurate, but still uses it for your argument is what makes us angry.

Having a discussion with atheists, you should know better than quoting bible, we don't believe in the bible, so no matter how much you quote it, it wont get through to us because as far as we're concern it's not an accurate nor a consistent source.

Anyway, the OP was about the gays and gay rights,.... here's my logic and what I think about it:

I'll break it down to 10 questions, so there is no miscommunication.

#1 Every human beings are entitled to their basic rights. Agree?
#2 Taking away basic human right is wrong. Agree?
#3 Basic human rights include the ability/access to marriage. Agree?
#4 Taking away the ability/access to marriage is wrong, refer to #1, #2 ,and #3. (I'm not talking about any particular group, still talking about everyone) Agree?
#5 "Straight" people are human beings. Agree?
#6 "Straight" people are entitled to their basic rights because they are human beings, refer to #1, #2, and #3. Agree?
#7 "Straight" people are able to marry, because marriage is a basic human right, refer to #1, #2, and #3. Agree?
#8 "Homosexual" people are human beings. Agree?
#9 "Homosexual" people are entitled to their basic rights because they are human beings, refer to #1, #2, and #3. Agree?
#10 "Homosexual" people should be able to marry, because marriage is a basic human right, refer to #1, #2, and #3. Agree?


Are we getting somewhere?

I quoted the bible in instances where it was questioned, so I quoted because it was relative to that particular discussion.

1. Humans are entitled to basic rights, yes.

2. Denying someone basic human rights is wrong, yes, in most cases. The outliers in that scenario are criminals/those with mental disabilities that make them dangerous/unfit for society, and the right that would be taken away is their freedom do generally do as they please, and interact with other humans in a civil manner, because they are incapable of doing so. Other than that, sure.

3. I do not feel that Marriage is a basic human right. The ability to choose who you love/want to be with is. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman and God. I have nothing against gay people having domestic partnerships that give them the same privileges as married couples, from a government standpoint. If you don't care about God, I don't think you'd want to be married.

4. I believe marriage is a privilege. See #2 for clarification.

5. I should hope so, otherwise you got some 'splainin to do Lucy

6. Everyone in this country is entitled to basic human rights.

7. See #3.

8. There are some that I am not so sure of. I know some weird people, but I know plenty of straight people whose humanity is also in question.

9. Homosexuals are entitled to basic human rights, yes.

10. See #3

Do you believe that LGBTQQ individuals deserve the rights that come with being heterosexual? Every single right?

What do you consider rights? What constitutes a basic human right, in your opinion?

Here's a wild suggestion; don't. Because it's a huge, self-centered derail that's gone on too long. Either talk about gay rights in the context of the OP or find another thread.

I do agree that it's a derail, I disagree that it is self-centered though. I have plans to make a separate thread about that sort of thing though.



If I am understanding correctly: Homosexuals, in general, apparently feel like second-class citizens, that is, citizens who's feelings/wants/needs are put behind another group, because you don't have the benefits that legally married straight couples have?

Is it a matter of benefits of being married? Or just being able to be with who you want to be with?

[SamanosukeShiva]

So you're saying, homosexuals can every every benefit and privileges that comes with a union, but they just can't call it marriage?

You're using christian based definition for marriage, "marriage" is not a christian only thing, it has existed for a long time over many cultures and nations, and some doesn't even include religion. At this point you're just arguing for the sake of the name marriage, like "Marriage" is a copyrighted term. Again, not a christian only thing.