Prez wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 12:48:

Beamer wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 09:53:
You call me irrational, but disliking something for irrational reasons is hatred. Given the lack of rational reasons to oppose gay marriage, all that is left is hate and fear, which are mostly the same thing.

Nope. Flat-out, utterly wrong. You are so blinded by emotion that you aren't even making sense. Take a deep breath and really think about whatyou just said. It isn't even close to being true. Am I to believe you hate Christians because of your irrational belief about them? Of course not. The whole concept is childishly silly.

Draugr wrote on Feb 1, 2012, 16:37:

Prez wrote on Feb 1, 2012, 16:19:
So you don't subscribe to it? Don't follow it. Simple. Leave others to do so if they wish. I still can't see why this is so hard a concept for people.

Well, this is where it hangs for me, the bible also permits you to own slaves, beat them, and your wife.

Jesus Christ you're melodramatic.

Aside from the decidedly anti-Christian slant this thread and board has, no one is attacking anyone.

From the beginning of my involvement I've simply been trying to ensure that Christians are represented fairly, especially since people here have no interest in tempering their emotional response to harmless religious activism.

You use terms like "attack on gays" because you know it stirs up thoughts of oppression and violence, making your point seem more salient.

If he were calling for violence in response to this (something you probably wish he'd do so you could feel better about despising him and his followers)

He is advocating peaceful opposition, nothing more.

You say you respect free speech, but what I'm getting is that you only respect speech that you agree with. All else must be demonized and destroyed.

Prez wrote on Feb 1, 2012, 16:19:
So you don't subscribe to it? Don't follow it. Simple. Leave others to do so if they wish. I still can't see why this is so hard a concept for people.

Prez wrote on Feb 1, 2012, 16:19:
So you don't subscribe to it? Don't follow it. Simple. Leave others to do so if they wish. I still can't see why this is so hard a concept for people.

Bhruic wrote on Feb 1, 2012, 14:18:

If that's all he were doing, I'd have no problem with it. But when he starts spouting stuff like "the biggest threat to the empire may be homosexual activists", he's no longer just asking people to indicate they are unhappy, he's attacking gays. Same with "a lot of them expressing anger that their kids will be exposed to this Star Warped way of thinking". Hell, even the line you quoted from the Bible is an attack on gays.

Now I'm not saying he doesn't have the right to speak out, free speech and all that, but that also doesn't mean other people don't have the right to call him out on his speech. If you want to attack other groups because you perceive them as terrible sinners, don't be surprised when you get attacked in return for being douchebags.

Call me crazy, but if all he is asking his people to do is show Bioware/ EA that they're unhappy about the addition of same-sex relationships by avoiding the game and writing a letter or email explaining why, that hardly sounds worthy of the rage and gnashing of teeth on display here.

Perhaps you might think that about this thread. But If you are saying in the US, I would disagree that Christians are a maligned group in America. Every Potus has been a Christian of one type or another. In 2007, 78.4% of people in american who are religious identify as Christian. of the 112th congress, 88% claim to practice some form of Christianity. They are certainly better represented than any other religious group in america.

He's not trying to draw that comparison with regard to their actions, he's just trying to illustrate that not all beliefs are worthy of respect, however earnestly you may believe them. Often extreme examples are used to show that a line must actually exist, and it's then just a matter of determining where it should be drawn.

Prez wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 23:22:

Also, you're making a mistake in assuming that pedophilia with same gendered victims, and sexual orientation are inextricably linked, when in fact, that's not always the case.

I actually wasn't. I used the specific case of Sandusky, who is in fact homosexual and a predator as it turns out. In any case I *think* we mostly agree given the rest of your post.

I am interested in, above all, fairness to everyone, which includes gays and particularly Christians, since they are being unfairly represented and maligned here. One could say I have not one but two dogs in this fight because my friend and sister are gay and my wife and children are Christian, and all of them are wonderful and loving people.

Prez wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 23:00:

Sepharo wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 22:40:
So what do you think about Mormons? Are they not Christians? Who decides if they are or if they aren't? The Pope? Isn't he the anti-christ?

I understand the point your making but there is no authority behind "Christian". Do you think The Bible, with its multiple books, authors, revisions, translations, and interpretations, can be definitive?

Well a Christian would tell you the "authority" is Christ himself, but since he hasn't been around in 2000 + years (historically speaking there seems to be little doubt that a man by that name did exist around 33 A.D.) I guess practically speaking the authority would have to be the 4 books depicting his life, commonly known as the "Gospels".

They are the common thread among all branches of Christianity from 7th Day Adventist to Jehovah's Witness. Though they vary wildly in other aeas, this seems pretty constant.

More important (or at least more pertinent to the original topic) is what Christians believe their Biblically-mandated duty to oppose homosexuality actaully entails. All it really ends up being is voting 'no' on gay marriage referendums and electing officials who will vote against gay marriage legislation in Congress at the State and Federal level. Truth be told, many I have talked to are willing to allow homosexual unions that are afforded the same recognition and benefits that hetero marriages currently have as long as the word "marriage" remains defined as being between a man and a woman. This stems from their belief that "holy matrimony" is a blessed sacrament given to man by God and to allow same-sex marriages would be a perversion of a divine gift.

All in all, I really don't think any of that, while a bit goofy, should qualify them for most of the scorn and ridicule they constantly endure. It certainly doesn't put them in the same class as goddamn Shariah Law barbarians or terrorists.

Prez wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 22:17:
Put as simply as it can be stated, the Westboro idiots are not Christians because they do not behave the way Christ is purported to have behaved in the Bible.

Prez wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 23:00:

Sepharo wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 22:40:
So what do you think about Mormons? Are they not Christians? Who decides if they are or if they aren't? The Pope? Isn't he the anti-christ?

I understand the point your making but there is no authority behind "Christian". Do you think The Bible, with its multiple books, authors, revisions, translations, and interpretations, can be definitive?

Well a Christian would tell you the "authority" is Christ himself, but since he hasn't been around in 2000 + years (historically speaking there seems to be little doubt that a man by that name did exist around 33 A.D.)

Prez wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 23:00:
They are the common thread among all branches of Christianity from 7th Day Adventist to Jehovah's Witness. Though they vary wildly in other aeas, this seems pretty constant.

More important (or at least more pertinent to the original topic) is what Christians believe their Biblically-mandated duty to oppose homosexuality actaully entails. All it really ends up being is voting 'no' on gay marriage referendums and electing officials who will vote against gay marriage legislation in Congress at the State and Federal level. Truth be told, many I have talked to are willing to allow homosexual unions that are afforded the same recognition and benefits that hetero marriages currently have as long as the word "marriage" remains defined as being between a man and a woman. This stems from their belief that "holy matrimony" is a blessed sacrament given to man by God and to allow same-sex marriages would be a perversion of a divine gift.

Prez wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 23:00:
All in all, I really don't think any of that, while a bit goofy, should qualify them for most of the scorn and ridicule they constantly endure. It certainly doesn't put them in the same class as goddamn Shariah Law barbarians or terrorists.

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 21:25:

Bhruic wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 21:00:

Can't prove a negative? Oh you mean the lack of evidence, right? So You think this big thing we are in, that we call the universe, isn't evidence?

It's evidence that the universe exists. It's not evidence of some entity creating it.

You don't know that. THAT is my point. You seem to get this to a degree, but you still deny it. That's fine, but don't act like you've finally nailed the case, because you are far from that.

I haven't denied it at all. I don't know if there is or isn't a "god". I'm not going to believe there is one, however, unless someone can give good evidence for the existence of such a being.

Actually, fuck that last paragraph, here's a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

The first line from that page:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

Yes, I'm aware of the definition. That's why I used it correctly. Someone (like myself for example) can be an agnostic atheist. That would mean they don't know if there's a "god", but they don't believe there is one. Someone could be a gnostic atheist, and believe that they know for certain there is not a god. Someone could be a gnostic theist, and think there's certainly a god, or someone could be an agnostic theist, and not know for certain there's a god, but believe there is one regardless.

Claiming to be an agnostic doesn't remove you from the debate over atheism vs theism, it just means you aren't claiming certain knowledge. Do you believe there is a god? If so, you are a theist. Do you not believe there is a god? Then you're an atheist. It's belief that determines, not knowledge.

I'm pretty sure you're wasting your energy here. Anyone with any inclination at all to be honest about this subject could find all of this out in about 5 minutes if they actually wanted to. He seems to be more interested in defending his beliefs, however irrational and baseless they may be, rather than engaging in an actual debate or discussion where you must accept that you may be wrong or at least not fully informed about some things. Unfortunately that's all too common in just about all discourse we're subjected to these days.

Bhruic wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 21:00:

Can't prove a negative? Oh you mean the lack of evidence, right? So You think this big thing we are in, that we call the universe, isn't evidence?

It's evidence that the universe exists. It's not evidence of some entity creating it.

You don't know that. THAT is my point. You seem to get this to a degree, but you still deny it. That's fine, but don't act like you've finally nailed the case, because you are far from that.

I haven't denied it at all. I don't know if there is or isn't a "god". I'm not going to believe there is one, however, unless someone can give good evidence for the existence of such a being.

Actually, fuck that last paragraph, here's a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

The first line from that page:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

Yes, I'm aware of the definition. That's why I used it correctly. Someone (like myself for example) can be an agnostic atheist. That would mean they don't know if there's a "god", but they don't believe there is one. Someone could be a gnostic atheist, and believe that they know for certain there is not a god. Someone could be a gnostic theist, and think there's certainly a god, or someone could be an agnostic theist, and not know for certain there's a god, but believe there is one regardless.

Claiming to be an agnostic doesn't remove you from the debate over atheism vs theism, it just means you aren't claiming certain knowledge. Do you believe there is a god? If so, you are a theist. Do you not believe there is a god? Then you're an atheist. It's belief that determines, not knowledge.

Also, you're making a mistake in assuming that pedophilia with same gendered victims, and sexual orientation are inextricably linked, when in fact, that's not always the case.

Prez wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 21:30:

And do I really need to point out how ridiculous it is mentioning that "all Americans did this to Muslims"? WTF???

Sepharo wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 22:40:
So what do you think about Mormons? Are they not Christians? Who decides if they are or if they aren't? The Pope? Isn't he the anti-christ?

I understand the point your making but there is no authority behind "Christian". Do you think The Bible, with its multiple books, authors, revisions, translations, and interpretations, can be definitive?