Atheistic Liberal News Media

[clirus]

Art Vandelay quote

Surely calling for the execution of an entire group of people qualifies as a violation of at least some of this Forum's rules.

Response

I would presume that you would also want the Bible defined as a violation of at least some of the Forum's rules since the Bible calls for the execution of an entire group of people.

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:3

I believe the State has a right and a responsibility to protect the health and safety of the nation.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Art Vandelay quote

Surely calling for the execution of an entire group of people qualifies as a violation of at least some of this Forum's rules.

Response

I would presume that you would also want the Bible defined as a violation of at least some of the Forum's rules since the Bible calls for the execution of an entire group of people.

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:3

I believe the State has a right and a responsibility to protect the health and safety of the nation.

Hopefully society will never devolve into the kind of disgusting intolerance that you vocally endorse. You are calling for the execution of an entire category of people, without the slightest hint of rational justification.

 

[clirus]

Hopefully society will never devolve into the kind of disgusting intolerance that you vocally endorse. You are calling for the execution of an entire category of people, without the slightest hint of rational justification.

I believe the deaths of two million people per year due to AIDS and the increase in Tuberculosis caused by homosexual activity as justification for rebuking homosexuality and for the State to seriously consider more drastic actions if homosexuals refuse to return to the closet.

Tuberculosis and HIV

TB is the leading infectious killer of people living with HIV, and accounts for an estimated 13% of AIDS deaths worldwide. HIV and TB are so closely connected that they are often referred to as co-epidemics or dual epidemics. The epidemics drive and reinforce one another: HIV activates dormant TB in a person, who then becomes infectious and able to spread the TB bacillus to others.

Untreated, someone with active tuberculosis will infect an estimated 10 to 15 people per year. The Stop TB Strategy is the internationally recommended standard for preventing, diagnosing and treating TB and includes recommendations for managing TB in people living with HIV. Recently a new TB strain, extensively drug resistant TB (XDR TB), has emerged, which is particularly dangerous for people living with HIV in whom it is frequently fatal. Preventing the development and spread of drug resistant TB through greater investment in TB services, improved community case finding and adherence support, and more effective infection control are essential.

-------------

In addition to the disease, death, destruction aspects of homosexuality, there is the Atheism of homosexuality and the desire to destroy the Christian Principles of the Bible that most homosexuals will not accept.

It has been a great human tragedy that there has been so much human suffering and hate of God by homosexuals that could have been avoided if the findings of the Center for Disease Control had been followed or the Bible would have been followed.

The mortal shame of homosexuality is that the AIDS epidemic was totally preventable. The book and movie, "The Band Played On" tells of how the Center for Disease Control had clearly identified the pathway of AIDS into America in 1983 and had asked the San Francisco government to close the homosexual bath houses that were spreading AIDS. The San Francisco government refused.

Amazon.com: And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic (9780312241353): Randy Shilts, William Greider: Books

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I believe the deaths of two million people per year due to AIDS and the increase in Tuberculosis caused by homosexual activity as justification for rebuking homosexuality and for the State to seriously consider more drastic actions if homosexuals refuse to return to the closet.

Clirus, you are becoming boring, posting the same old refuted nonsense. This has been addressed, and refuted, many times before. Try again.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It is obvious that we are not going to agree on the best approach to leading people to repentance.

Yes, silly us -- we don't believe in mass executions.

 

[Tielec]

Godwin's law...

Anyway:
sdmsanjose it seems like the difference between you and clirus is primarily because you place more weight on the new testament, whereas she believes the old testament is still relevant. To be fair there is probably something else going on in clirus' brain compartment that also pushes her a way down the extremist trail.
Still, how do you decide that her interpretation, which I would venture to say has probably been the favoured one for christians in the past, is the wrong one?
While as an atheist I like your message better, and I appreciate that you pole-axed clirus with a well selected passage, I feel that other passages could be used to support clirus' position.

 

[Harpuia]

I don't get it...

What has homosexuality ever done to you? Homosexual intercourse, to me, is something I tend to turn away from because I naturally find it repulsive (sorry), but that doesn't mean I want the stop LGBTs from their right to do... whatever it is they want and not try to stop diseases that may harm them.

If a culture found Christianity, even fringe Christianity repulsive and wanted to support the entire wiping out of the culture, it wouldn't ring well with anyone but the most fringe of people.

 

[clirus]

Godwin's law...

Anyway:
sdmsanjose it seems like the difference between you and clirus is primarily because you place more weight on the new testament, whereas she believes the old testament is still relevant. To be fair there is probably something else going on in clirus' brain compartment that also pushes her a way down the extremist trail.
Still, how do you decide that her interpretation, which I would venture to say has probably been the favoured one for christians in the past, is the wrong one?
While as an atheist I like your message better, and I appreaciate that you pole-axed clirus with a well selected passage, I feel that other passages could be used to support clirus' position.

Is the past interpretation correct or is the new interpretation correct?

I believe things have really disintegrated with the new interpretations and emphasis on God's Love instead of both God's Love and God's righteousness.

To me the documented two million deaths due to AIDS, 40% illegitimacy rates and 50% divorce rates are proof of the disintegration. I believe all sin leads to disease, death, destruction and poverty, but is just not as well documented.

I look around me and see massive misery, that I believe was caused by the failure to follow the commandments/doctrines of the Bible. If there is not a revival, I believe we are in the end times.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To me the documented two million deaths due to AIDS, 40% illegitimacy rates and 50% divorce rates are proof of the disintegration. I believe all sin leads to disease, death, destruction and poverty, but is just not as well documented.

You have claimed that most poverty is the consequence of sin, but have provided us with no evidence for this. You have also claimed that there are no devout Christians currently in the world who are experiencing poverty. A claim that you've also failed to support.

 

[Tielec]

Is the past interpretation correct or is the new interpretation correct?

I believe things have really disintegrated with the new interpretations and emphasis on God's Love instead of both God's Love and God's righteousness.

To me the documented two million deaths due to AIDS, 40% illegitimacy rates and 50% divorce rates are proof of the disintegration. I believe all sin leads to disease, death, destruction and poverty, but is just not as well documented.

I look around me and see massive misery, that I believe was caused by the failure to follow the commandments/doctrines of the Bible. If there is not a revival, I believe we are in the end times.

Is it any consolation to you that I (an atheist) thinks that your interpretation of the bible stays truer to its source? I am prescient that a massive weight of christian/atheist condemnation is probably about to come down on me, and I am open to being proven wrong.
Of course your other claims are nonsensical.

 

[clirus]

I don't get it...

What has homosexuality ever done to you? Homosexual intercourse, to me, is something I tend to turn away from because I naturally find it repulsive (sorry), but that doesn't mean I want the stop LGBTs from their right to do... whatever it is they want and not try to stop diseases that may harm them.

If a culture found Christianity, even fringe Christianity repulsive and wanted to support the entire wiping out of the culture, it wouldn't ring well with anyone but the most fringe of people.

Homosexuality has done little to directly harm me, but if a person "loves his neighbor" as a person or as all people (society) then homosexuality has done great harm.

Homosexuality is an overhead burden on society as is the disease, death, destruction and poverty of all the things God defines to be sin in the Bible. There is always the possibility that overhead burden will destroy the society. America may be at that point now.

I have never advocated wiping out homosexuality, but rather rebuking homosexuality. I have stated that the disease, death, destruction and poverty produced by homosexuality could become so excessive that society would create Civil Laws that limited homosexual activity as it did in the past.

Neither the Constitution nor the Bible gives anyone the "right" to do things that are evil/sin.

I personally would rather eliminate all government entitlement programs and go back to a "survival of the fittest" approach than to see society disintegrate.

I believe Christians are the fittest, so I do not fear survival.

 

[clirus]

Is it any consolation to you that I (an atheist) thinks that your interpretation of the bible stays truer to its source? I am prescient that a massive weight of christian/atheist condemnation is probably about to come down on me, and I am open to being proven wrong.
Of course your other claims are nonsensical.

I did observe that you stated you are an atheist, but you brought up a subject I wanted to discuss.

Many people want to call themselves "Progressives" with the concept that the new ideas are better, but I see no evidence the new ideas are better.

No idea of man is better than the ideas of God.

Maybe God is dealing with you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I personally would rather eliminate all government entitlement programs and go back to a "survival of the fittest" approach than to see society disintegrate.

I believe Christians are the fittest, so I do not fear survival.

If Atheists and gays would die out because they aren't 'fit', then how do you explain the fact that Atheists and homosexuals have existed for millennia, even before the introduction of welfare programs?

I have never advocated wiping out homosexuality, but rather rebuking homosexuality.

That's not true. You called not only for rebuke, but for the option of elimination.

Look here, your own words:

I believe the State has the right to either rebuke or execute homosexuals because there is health, safety and economic justification.​

I believe homosexuality should be rebuked, but if homosexuals do not return to the closet from which they came, then other measures should be considered by the State. ... I believe the State has a right and a responsibility to protect the health and safety of the nation.​

You have very clearly indicated that to 'protect the nation' gays must be rebuked, go back into their closets, and if they refuse, then 'other measures', including the option of elimination, should be considered.
You harbour a disgustingly intolerant ideology that would kill people.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Homosexuality has done little to directly harm me, but if a person "loves his neighbor" as a person or as all people (society) then homosexuality has done great harm.

Well then clearly you haven't been hurt in the slightest.

Homosexuality is an overhead burden on society as is the disease, death, destruction and poverty of all the things God defines to be sin in the Bible. There is always the possibility that overhead burden will destroy the society. America may be at that point now.

Then again, it's probably not.

I have never advocated wiping out homosexuality, but rather rebuking homosexuality. I have stated that the disease, death, destruction and poverty produced by homosexuality could become so excessive that society would create Civil Laws that limited homosexual activity as it did in the past.

And those laws would run contrary to the principles (the real principles) that this country was founded on.

Neither the Constitution nor the Bible gives anyone the "right" to do things that are evil/sin.

Actually, the Constitution does -- and the Bible is irrelevant.

I personally would rather eliminate all government entitlement programs and go back to a "survival of the fittest" approach than to see society disintegrate.

Religion would be the first thing to go.

I believe Christians are the fittest, so I do not fear survival.

Oh, you've got a wke-up call coming -- let's just say you're the last people I want to watching my back when the Zombie Apocalypse happens.

 

[clirus]

You have claimed that most poverty is the consequence of sin, but have provided us with no evidence for this. You have also claimed that there are no devout Christians currently in the world who are experiencing poverty. A claim that you've also failed to support.

I believe you are much like Doubting Thomas.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I believe you are much like Doubting Thomas.

Except that Doubting Thomas was eventually shown the proof he asked for -- nobody's expecting you to deliver the goods.

 

[clirus]

If Atheists and gays would die out because they aren't 'fit', then how do you explain the fact that Atheists and homosexuals have existed for millennia, even before the introduction of welfare programs?



That's not true. You called not only for rebuke, but for the option of elimination.

Look here, your own words:

I believe the State has the right to either rebuke or execute homosexuals because there is health, safety and economic justification.​

I believe homosexuality should be rebuked, but if homosexuals do not return to the closet from which they came, then other measures should be considered by the State. ... I believe the State has a right and a responsibility to protect the health and safety of the nation.​

You have very clearly indicated that to 'protect the nation' gays must be rebuked, go back into their closets, and if they refuse, then 'other measures', including the option of elimination, should be considered.
You harbour a disgustingly intolerant ideology that would kill people.

I do not believe God wants sin eliminated but rather that sin be rejected. That is free will.

The only way to find if a bird loves you is to set it free and see if it returns.

I believe all that I have said about homosexuals is in agreement with the three levels of action.

I believe the Bible teaches all things should be dealt with by the following three levels of action;
1) If it is good - accept it and nourish it.
2) If it is evil - rebuke it but tolerate it.
3) If it threatens your existence - destroy it before it destroys you. This is self defense, which both the individual and society have a right and responsibility to do.

The first two are from the New Testament of the Bible and represent the Law of Love. The third is from the Old Testament of the Bible and represents the Law of Purity/Self Defense. The New Testament deals more with personal responsibility and the Old Testament deals more with the preservation of society. The Old Testament and the New Testament together present God's Law, a means of survival for a person, a nation and a world.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I do not believe God wants sin eliminated but rather that sin be rejected. That is free will.

The only way to find if a bird loves you is to set it free and see if it returns.

I believe all that I have said about homosexuals is in agreement with the three levels of action.

I believe the Bible teaches all things should be dealt with by the following three levels of action;
1) If it is good - accept it and nourish it.
2) If it is evil - rebuke it but tolerate it.
3) If it threatens your existence - destroy it before it destroys you. This is self defense, which both the individual and society have a right and responsibility to do.

The first two are from the New Testament of the Bible and represent the Law of Love. The third is from the Old Testament of the Bible and represents the Law of Purity/Self Defense. The New Testament deals more with personal responsibility and the Old Testament deals more with the preservation of society. The Old Testament and the New Testament together present God's Law, a means of survival for a person, a nation and a world.

In other words, you believe that it is morally permissible for the elimination of homosexuals to be considered a legitimate option should they refuse to abide by your command to get back in the closet.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I believe you are much like Doubting Thomas.

You believe much, but prove little.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Post by Tielec

Godwin's law...

Anyway:
sdmsanjose it seems like the difference between you and clirus is primarily because you place more weight on the new testament, whereas she believes the old testament is still relevant. To be fair there is probably something else going on in clirus' brain compartment that also pushes her a way down the extremist trail.
Still, how do you decide that her interpretation, which I would venture to say has probably been the favoured one for christians in the past, is the wrong one?
While as an atheist I like your message better, and I appreciate that you pole-axed clirus with a well selected passage, I feel that other passages could be used to support clirus' position.

“Still, how do you decide that her interpretation, which I would venture to say has probably been the favoured one for christians in the past, is the wrong one?”

It is not that Clirus’s quotes of the Bible are wrong, but it is her lack of the understanding of the main theme of the Bible that is where we are most different.

The NEW Testament’s main theme is hope, redemption, and acceptance for all. Even the Old Testament has some of that theme. God continuously was providing hope and redemption for the people. He even had Rehab the Harlot (Non-Israelite) to become the great, great….great grandmother of Jesus Christ.

Clirus’s main theme is to tell people of the punishment of sin and tells large groups of people that they are evil. Just one example of Clirus’s theme is reprinted below:

Quote of Clirus
Romans 6:23 states, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Atheists did not like that because they were proven to be the evil people and Christians were the good people. If pointing out the Atheistic Lifestyle leads to disease, death, destruction and poverty is judgmental, so be it. I am proud to represent God on earth.
Ref: Post 53

My reprinted response below will also point out the main differences that Clirus and I have.

I do believe that Atheists are in need of forgiveness and redemption through Jesus Christ: just like you and I needed that grace. I don’t think you calling them evil is the best way to influence them to realize the love of God through Jesus Christ.

Yes, admitting that we are sinners is a step in redemption but it is the changing of the heart that brings people to the belief that Jesus has opened the door to God’s grace and brings them into the faith.

I am not saying that telling people that they are sinners is never productive; I am just saying that I think that with wisdom, telling people that they are sinners is best to be delivered with loving kindness and not in a way that is judgmental.

Clirus, It is admirable that you want to do what you said, you said,
“I sure want to make a statement that the wages of sin is death, so that some person may be deterred from that first sin that traps them into a life of sin.”

I hope that you are successful. However, I do think that a change of heart and the faith in God’s kindness and grace will also keep them from a sin that traps them into a life of sin. Furthermore, if they are not deterred and fall into sin, then God’s patience, tolerance, and kindness will bring them to repentance and they will be set free.

Romans 2
4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

Even the Old Testament shows God’s KINDNESS, TOLERANCE and PATIENCE with the house of Israel. Israel was an adulteress people with their relationship with God for CENTURIES yet God made a new covenant so that there would be HOPE and REDEMPTION! See Old Testament verse Jeremiah 31:31-33 below:

Jeremiah 31 (New International Version)

31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them, "
declares the LORD.

33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.


Finally in summary:
Like many people I decided on my interpretation of the Bible based on my readings of the whole Bible and my life experiences. It is my conclusion that HOPE, REDEMPTION, and ACCEPTANCE for all is the real main purpose of God. I also have concluded, based on scripture, that God's kindness leads people toward repentance more than telling people of judgment and that they are evil.