Richard Dawkins on God's behavior in the OT

[miknik5]

Get over yourself.

Your posts were unclear. I and @ximmix told no lies. If we misinterpreted what you said then that is down to your ambiguous posting. Please note, the reader, not the writer gets to decide whether or not a post is clear. I recommend you keep that in mind in future. That way you will find life on forums becomes less stressful and you won't feel compelled to make false accusations against other members.

Again, you misrepresent (lie, distort, slander) me...but that is okay, I will no longer reply to your posts...

May I make a suggestion?

Don't start a response with:
Get over yourself.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Here we agree and atheists have every reason to complain in this regard.
I don't see how hetero couples are made to suffer just because there is a same sex couple next door that even has acquired some sort of legal union.

So it's not that we never agree!

And since it is a Dawkins thread, it's worth mentioning that Dawkins harps on Christians being purportedly dangerous (same video as above).
So I hope that Christians could acquire a somewhat neutral stance on government legislation concerning same sex unions soon.
Thomas

Why do atheists have a reason to complain?
You agree with SSM?
So you realize that the MEANING of marriage will change but you don't care?

 

[thomas_t]

Why do atheists have a reason to complain?
You agree with SSM?
So you realize that the MEANING of marriage will change but you don't care?

governments can only define what's a legal marriage. God's view might differ.
Atheists have a reason to complain, because Christians attack here, as I see it.
The worst thing you could reproach the LGBT+ community of in the context of marriage... is them defining words.
The Christians here attack, in my opinion. They want more rights than them.

Since sexuality is part of the someone's identity, Christians attack them in their identity when they want to decide in which kind of relationship they may or may not live.
Personally, I stay neutral to questions such as is homosexuality a sin or is gay marriage good in and of itself. But I do hold that if straight couples are allowed to marry, LGBT+ should be allowed to do the same. They should not be treated as inferior.
My concern is that conservative Christians may stop attacking the LGBT+ community for what they are: gay, lesbian, bi or trans. They should not try to convey the image of LGBT+ people being under them in hierarchy.

Since this is a Dawkins thread and he constantly criticises Christians for attacking others... conservative Christians lay us open to this precise criticism. He can now say "as we can infer from how they treat LGBT+ people... these Christians are dangerous."

EDITED for grammar

 

[GodsGrace101]

government can only define what's a legal marriage. God's view might differ.
Atheists have a reason to complain, because Christians attack here, as I see it.
The worst thing you could reproach the LGBT+ community of in the context of marriage... is that they define words.
The Christians here attack, in my opinion. They want more rights than them.

Since sexuality is part of the someone's identity, Christians attack them in their identity when they want to decide in which kind of relationship they may or may not live.
Personally, I stay neutral to questions such as is homosexuality a sin or is gay marriage good in and of itslef. But I do hold that if straight couples are allowed to marry, LGBT+ should be allowed to do the same. They should not be treated as inferior.
My concern is that conservative Christians may stop attacking the LGBT+ community for what they are: gay, lesbian, bi or trans. They should not try to convey the image of LGBT+ people being under them in hierarchy.

Since this is a Dawkins thread and he constantly criticises Christians for attacking others... conservative Christians lay us open to this precise criticism. He can now say "as we can infer from how they treat LGBT+ people... these Christians are dangerous."

EDITED

Oh boy.
You're a young guy and I wonder what you know of history. LGBT history, that is.

I'd love to discuss this...here?
And I'm too tired right now...past 10 pm here.
Care to start a new thread?
If so, tag me in.
If not, I'll see you here in the morning.

 

[Skreeper]

Why do atheists have a reason to complain?
You agree with SSM?
So you realize that the MEANING of marriage will change but you don't care?

The meaning of words changes all the time.

That's just how language works.

 

[thomas_t]

I'd love to discuss this...here?

I don't.
- It's a section in which Christians should not debate themselves.
However, I posted in this regard here, because it touches the question whether or not Christians are indeed dangerous as Dawkins would say.
- But I don't like to debate this for another reason ( and that's why I also don't want to open up another thread in this regard): "homosexuality is sin!" is the mantra of conservatice Christians, they keep harping on it. The same way they always do. If someone is LGBT+ and coming from a Christian environment they already heard this a hundred times. All you could possibly say now they can recite by heart, already. Because they know in advance what you are going to say now. Why repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat again and again the same old mantra everyone knows already so well by heart, I'm asking myself. There is not one individual in the West that does not know that Christians keep "educating" their LGBT+ fellow citizens in a never ending array of "homosexuality is sin" statements, I'm afraid.

- there's another reason: they can't reply. They can't speak their mind freely as the terms of this board prohibit it. So why do conservatives reserve the right for themselves to repeat for the hundredth time what they have already been saying for decades? They can't wait to repeat while the other side is not entitled to present their stance even once?
Tell me: is that fair? The terms of service being what they are, the conservatives should calm down and remain silent also, this would be just, I think.
From the ToS: "Homosexuality, same-sex marriage, bisexuality, transsexualism and transgenderism may not be promoted* on CF (including member profiles). Several debate forums allow homosexuality, same-sex marriage, bisexuality, transsexualism and transgenderism to be discussed from a political, legal, historical, and civil rights point of view. Please check the Statement of Purpose thread for individual debate forums before posting. Homosexuality, same-sex marriage, bisexuality, transsexualism and transgenderism may be discussed, without promotion*, [...]"

BTW I'm not saying it is not a sin... no no. I stay neutral on these issues such as it being a sin.
Just explaining why I think it would be wrong to discuss homosexuality in this environment.
If you must discuss it here... I would try to point out where I see the dangers in this line of thinking. In an attempt to see if Dawkins is right or not in his analysis concerning Christians being dangerous towards others.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not against the terms of service. They are what they are. This post is about what is fair when the one side already told their things and the other side is not entitled to present their view even once.

 

[Joy]

MOD HAT ON

After Staff Review
Thread is Now
Permanently Closed
RV: Flaming and Goading​

MOD HAT OFF​