Questions for those who don't believe in God

[jAZ]

Thought manipulation and the rape of language are exclusively liberal games, as far as I can see. I can't think of any conservative examples.

ROFL

Uhh... "WMD"?

 

[jAZ]

one is either "tolerant" of homosexuality - meaning that he thinks it a lifestyle choice - no better or worse than any other - or he is "phobic". Do you see the manipulation? I refuse to play their game.

Not true... I'm the liberal here... so let me tell you what I believe.

Your avearge, bible following, homosexual objecting Christian isn't homophobic. They might be anti-gay, but they aren't homophobic. Homophobic is reserved for the guy or girl who so objects to the very thought of being gay that they have a visceral response. They "hate" gays. They don't merely object to the lifestyle, they hate the person who lives it. Some of the most extreme homophobes will go so far as to effectively lynch a kid (Matthew Sheppard) for little more than being openly gay.

There is a middle ground that as far as I know is unlabled, and I think that's where most people who object to being gay fall. Most of those people are NOT homophobic. If you run around scream "faggot" at people, you probably aren't the average American. You are probably homophobic.

 

[musicman]

Not true... I'm the liberal here... so let me tell you what I believe.

Your avearge, bible following, homosexual objecting Christian isn't homophobic. They might be anti-gay, but they aren't homophobic. Homophobic is reserved for the guy or girl who so objects to the very thought of being gay that they have a visceral response. They "hate" gays. They don't merely object to the lifestyle, they hate the person who lives it. Some of the most extreme homophobes will go so far as to effectively lynch a kid (Matthew Sheppard) for little more than being openly gay.

There is a middle ground that as far as I know is unlabled, and I think that's where most people who object to being gay fall. Most of those people are NOT homophobic. If you run around scream "faggot" at people, you probably aren't the average American. You are probably homophobic.

Even by your own ridiculously generous interpretation, then, the term is subjective to a point that renders it useless.

You can do what you want. You can give it up, or keep fighting for the lie.

Others are free, as well - to acquiesce - sheeplike - to the perversion of language and terminology for political ends; the very thought control you condemn so vigorously (with your fingers crossed, no doubt) - or to call bullshit.

I choose to call bullshit.

 

[liberalogic]

Why are we here? Seriously.. why? If you say because of Evolution - fine, but why? Why'd it happen?

If humans are an accident that happened in the Universe then where does your sense of self-preservation come from? Why do you care if the human race continues on after you're dead?

I mean, we're all just here by chance, right?

If you've ever watched "Everybody Loves Raymond" there is a great episode where Ray thinks his daughter wants to know about sex, but she really wants to know why we are here in the context that you pose the question. It's quite funny and shows the comlexity of that question.

I don't think there really is an attainable answer...if God did create us, then who created God? Aquinas tried to answer the question by saying that God exists outside of space and time, therefore he does not have a creator. That really doesn't do it for me, but I guess that we can never really be sure of that answer and if God really does exist.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

A few terms perhaps more descriptive of how some people feel than Homophobia (minus their correct word endings):

Homoopprobrium

Homodisesteem

Homodenunciation

LOL!

 

[Nienna]

If you've ever watched "Everybody Loves Raymond" there is a great episode where Ray thinks his daughter wants to know about sex, but she really wants to know why we are here in the context that you pose the question. It's quite funny and shows the comlexity of that question.

I don't think there really is an attainable answer...if God did create us, then who created God? Aquinas tried to answer the question by saying that God exists outside of space and time, therefore he does not have a creator. That really doesn't do it for me, but I guess that we can never really be sure of that answer and if God really does exist.

Have you ever heard of Pascal's wager? It's set up as a chart where one side is if God exists or doesn't exist, the other side is whether you believe or not. I
1) If God doesn't exist, and you believe, well, maybe you have a harder time on earth.
2) If God doesn't exist, and you don't believe, nothing lost.
3) If God exists, and you believe, you're in good shape.
4) If God exists, and you don't believe, you go to Hell.

Weighing the benefits against the punishments, he found that it was worthwhile to believe.

 

[dmp]

Not true... I'm the liberal here... so let me tell you what I believe.

Your avearge, bible following, homosexual objecting Christian isn't homophobic. They might be anti-gay, but they aren't homophobic. Homophobic is reserved for the guy or girl who so objects to the very thought of being gay that they have a visceral response. They "hate" gays. They don't merely object to the lifestyle, they hate the person who lives it. Some of the most extreme homophobes will go so far as to effectively lynch a kid (Matthew Sheppard) for little more than being openly gay.

There is a middle ground that as far as I know is unlabled, and I think that's where most people who object to being gay fall. Most of those people are NOT homophobic. If you run around scream "faggot" at people, you probably aren't the average American. You are probably homophobic.

...and you are Christophobic and probably Conservativophobic, and I'd bet Republicanophobic, too!

And Mister Arrogant, you are NOT 'THE' Liberal here...you're one liberal.

 

[007]

Not true... I'm the liberal here... so let me tell you what I believe.

Your avearge, bible following, homosexual objecting Christian isn't homophobic. They might be anti-gay, but they aren't homophobic. Homophobic is reserved for the guy or girl who so objects to the very thought of being gay that they have a visceral response. They "hate" gays. They don't merely object to the lifestyle, they hate the person who lives it. Some of the most extreme homophobes will go so far as to effectively lynch a kid (Matthew Sheppard) for little more than being openly gay.

There is a middle ground that as far as I know is unlabled, and I think that's where most people who object to being gay fall. Most of those people are NOT homophobic. If you run around scream "faggot" at people, you probably aren't the average American. You are probably homophobic.

Bull - - - Shit.

ho·mo·pho·bi·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-fb-)
n.
1). Fear of lesbians and gay men.

Do you get that moron? *FEAR* People are NOT *AFRAID* of queer's, they are *SICKENED*! And that pea brain, is NOT HOMOPHOBIA.

Please educate yourself before you come in here and spout these OLD, TIRED, WORN OUT liberal tag words. The conservatives on this board DO NOT BUY IT!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

jaz, the prefix baro ITSELF means: "weight, pressure" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=baro ). So it's a good fit for what it signifies, unlike "homophobia" which attempts to attach a whole new concept, that of fear, to that which it signifies.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Bull - - - Shit.



Do you get that moron? *FEAR* People are NOT *AFRAID* of queer's, they are *SICKENED*! And that pea brain, is NOT HOMOPHOBIA.

Please educate yourself before you come in here and spout these OLD, TIRED, WORN OUT liberal tag words. The conservatives on this board DO NOT BUY IT!

Cmon Prider, no need for the name calling. Just sound him on the issue, if you are right, that will make him look silly without making you look silly too.

 

[jAZ]

Bull - - - Shit.



Do you get that moron? *FEAR* People are NOT *AFRAID* of queer's, they are *SICKENED*! And that pea brain, is NOT HOMOPHOBIA.

Please educate yourself before you come in here and spout these OLD, TIRED, WORN OUT liberal tag words. The conservatives on this board DO NOT BUY IT!

If I were you, I'd stop running around acting arrogant and ignorant... It's not helping the discussion. I've already been though that. Here, I'll help you catch up. It's a long thread, so don't sweat it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=375115#post375115

It's been used to capture in a few letters the idea that certainly exists. It's a lable for an idea. That some selected group of people despise homosexual conduct. I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with my statement.

I would say that "phobia" (or "fear") isn't particually accurate, so in that sense it's not the best word. But the thought that word conveys is pretty accurate even if the root suffix is not.

 

[jAZ]

jaz, the prefix baro ITSELF means: "weight, pressure" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=baro ). So it's a good fit for what it signifies, unlike "homophobia" which attempts to attach a whole new concept, that of fear, to that which it signifies.

From your own link...

"From Greek baros, weight."

Note the absence of "pressure" in the original Greek definition. That absence is EXACTLY my point. The modern world added the term "pressure" to the original definition because the word was (mis)used to describe a weather tool (not a physics tool).

Thanks for proving my point very clearly with your own link.

 

[jAZ]

And Mister Arrogant, you are NOT 'THE' Liberal here...you're one liberal.

Thanks, I think?

 

[jAZ]

Even by your own ridiculously generous interpretation, then, the term is subjective to a point that renders it useless.

No, it's pretty damn useful to describe such people.

Others are free, as well - to acquiesce - sheeplike - to the perversion of language and terminology for political ends; the very thought control you condemn so vigorously (with your fingers crossed, no doubt) - or to call bullshit.

Yeah, because langauge isn't a just purely a product of human creation or anything. When ever it's adopted or changed, it's political.

I choose to call bullshit.

Yes, and you are pretty emotionally tied to that opinion, so I don't expect to be able to stop you.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

From your own link...

"From Greek baros, weight."

Note the absence of "pressure" in the original Greek definition. That absence is EXACTLY my point. The modern world added the term "pressure" to the original definition because the word was (mis)used to describe a weather tool (not a physics tool).

Thanks for proving my point very clearly with your own link.

That slight change is consistent with what the word actually stands for, a measuring device for AIR PRESSURE. The addition of PHOBIA, to homo to reference "homopprobrium", thanks abbey, is completely out of place and IS an attempt to insert the concept of FEAR where it may or may not exist. THAT"S twisting speech for political ends, the ends, in this case, being the villification of those may merely JUDGE the gay lifestyle.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

That slight change is consistent with what the word actually stands for, a measuring device for AIR PRESSURE. The addition of PHOBIA, to homo to reference "homopprobrium", thanks abbey, is completely out of place and IS an attempt to insert the concept of FEAR where it may or may not exist. THAT"S twisting speech for political ends, the ends, in this case, being the villification of those may merely JUDGE the gay lifestyle.

ITs not the creation of the word homophobia that is attempting to insert fear where it doesnt exist, its the liberals who improperly apply it.

The word is fine, cmon, use your common sense, homopprobrium would never work. Words evolve as usage of them is easy. Im sure most, if not all the other phobias would have the same technical problems you are complaining about.

But those who wish to use the term homophobe improperly will jump on something else if it wasnt available. It isnt the word that is wrong, its the users of it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

ITs not the creation of the word homophobia that is attempting to insert fear where it doesnt exist, its the liberals who improperly apply it.

No. I actually believe it was miscreated with a politcal purpose in mind. Barometer is not another "good example". It's wholly different. "homophobia" was created to deceive and slander, to discourage and malign judgement itself.

 

[deaddude]

No. I actually believe it was miscreated with a politcal purpose in mind. Barometer is not another "good example". It's wholly different. "homophobia" was created to deceive and slander, to discourage and malign judgement itself.

RWA the Bible discourages judgement, "judge not lest ye be judged" is specifically discouraging judgement.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

RWA the Bible discourages judgement, "judge not lest ye be judged" is specifically discouraging judgement.

judge, yet forgive. Jesus never foresaw the complete moral erosion this phrase would be twisted to condone.

 

[dmp]

RWA the Bible discourages judgement, "judge not lest ye be judged" is specifically discouraging judgement.

Good commentary, emphasis mine:

Jesus declares that the person judging will be judged (v. 1) because judging assumes a divine prerogative; final judgment belongs to God alone, and those who seek to judge others now will answer then for usurping God's position (see also 6:12-15).

God Will Judge Us the Way We Judge Others (7:1-2)

By this point in the sermon, no one who has been taking Jesus' words seriously will feel much like judging anyone else anyway. Still, we humans tend to prefer applying ethics to other people rather than ourselves. (For example, husbands tend to prefer quoting Paul's instructions on marriage to their wives rather than his admonitions to them, and vice-versa. Likewise, I have sometimes listened to a sermon thinking, I wish so-and-so had shown up for church today.) So just in case we have been too obtuse to grasp that Jesus addresses us rather than others in 5:3-6:34, Jesus renders the point explicit in 7:1-5. We are objects of God's evaluation, and God evaluates most graciously the meek, who recognize God alone as judge.

Even if we knew people's hearts, we could not evaluate degrees of personal guilt as if we understood all the genetic and social influences that combine with personal sinful choices in making some people more vulnerable to particular temptations (such as alcohol or spouse abuse) than others. Most important, Jesus warns us that even if we knew people's hearts, we would be in no position to judge unless we had lived sinless lives, never needing God's forgiveness (vv. 3-5; compare 6:12, 14-15).

Many people have ripped this passage out of context, however. Jesus warns us not to assume God's prerogative to condemn the guilty; he is not warning us not to discern truth from error (see 7:15-23). Further, Jesus does not oppose offering correction, but only offering correction in the wrong spirit (v. 5; compare 18:15-17; Gal 6:1-5).

Having right beliefs about judging is not enough. Although Jesus regards scribal and Pharisaic righteousness as inadequate (Mt 5:20), it is not because scribes and Pharisees professed the wrong doctrine on this issue. Most of the sages would have probably agreed with his basic perspective here (compare, for example, Sirach 28:1-3; m. 'Abot 2:5), and even the particular image of measuring back what one measures out (Mt 7:2-as in "what goes around comes around") was proverbial wisdom. Jesus' contemporaries often affirmed his principle and even used the same illustration, but Jesus demands more than agreement from disciples: he demands obedience (vv. 24-27).