Jump to content


Photo

Things That Don't Exist?


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 July 2016 - 01:59 AM

My dad used to say that a good idea becomes a bad idea when carried to a ridiculous extreme.

I think it's that way with the concept "group." The current idea is that we as individuals can belong to a group.  from just an informal organizational term  group has become an entity. To me that's where the idea group goes astray.

I was at the doctors office when my seat mate asked me what race I was? I informed him that I was a member of the human race--the only race I recognize. "No, I mean what ethnic group do you belong to?" I responded being a bit coy, "Well, you see, I don't believe you can own people. I was born and raised in America."

About that time he started becoming frustrated. He said he was Afro-American. He decided I was was white and then launched into a diatribe about how my ancestors had waylaid his ancestors and brought them over to America as slaves.

As a psychotherapist, I recognied his ploy. I see it all the time. My seat mate was a consumate victim/ blame placer. An injustice collector. According to his logic, I was responsible for what "my" people did to his people.

I do not identify as a skin color but as a unique individual with a unique name my mom and dad gave me at birth. I gave up the concept of race over 20 years ago. Gee, I thought to myself, do I have run a disclaimer for being an individual? I never had slaves and I was not responsble for what other idividuals did before I was born. I am an individual and I think we all are. Do I have to run a disclaimer? I do not feel responsble for what a bunch of dead folks did long ago. I hold myself responsible for what I do but, I do not hold myself responsible for what other individuals do. "Ahh yes, i thought to myself, the illusion of fusion."

He countered with, "You are ashamed of your race." "No, I am not. Race is an idea, a concept. Do you not understand my speech? I do not have, or belong to a race! Race is in my mind a concept or idea arbitrarily defined--as my dad said an idea carried to a rdiculous extreme. The idea group was created by a human. It is non living. Race, or group is not a concious entity. We all act unilateally.

Is "group" and "race" ideas whose time has past?


  • mike the wiz likes this

#2 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 22 July 2016 - 11:40 PM

One of the things wearing a label, especially a negarive one, helps its bearers to do is collect injustices. This neurotic agreement encourages the "illusion of fusion." We belong to a group whether we want to or not. Worse ye it's not a "group" we choose. We automatically belong to the group at conception.

Evo's are often at the forefront in categorizing people into grroups while speaking out of the other side of their mouth--contradicting themseles. Consider, Darwin's categorizing the diivision of the human race into five groups.

The United Natitoins now recognizes over 5,000 different ethnic groups. lol

Here's how it works. One "member' of a "group" does somethng to a "member" of another "group". When that happens, the deception kicks in. "'They' are attackig 'my' people!", the individual says to himself. Then everybody in the groups that has formed the neurotic agreements offends themseles on cue. I mean it really gets ridculous.

In the US and others countries whole populations have rioted destorying and loolting over one such incident. Often people that wouldn't give each other the time of day, join forces to hate the members of the "offending" group even though only one "member" of the group did the wrong. Yep, we can obsevre it all over our world all the time.

When people cross the dotted line on the map, they are immediately part of an offending group and "belong" to an opposing country. I guess the maps dotted line has some sort of magical powers. lol It's like we all cease being human caused by things we have no control over--like our phsyical features which allow us to be identified as individuals. Almost no one seems to realize the incongruencey. Instead we gullibly swallow this nonsense and perpetuate it.

If alleged atheists think their independance from religion would allow them to be more objective, I haven't observed it. Believing in evo hasn't seemed to help! What evo scientists teache against the race idea? Dawkins and Hawkins seem mute.They seem obsessed with how we got here rather than how to enoy and stay here.
The "real" issue is an individuals beliefs that cause dysfunction. The problem with the term "religion" is that it says little about what the individual philosopical rules are hiding below the particular label. Relgion's rules are individualized. The indidual decides which one he wants and want not to pply. Philosophical concepts are eclectic and often concflict others in the indiidual's collection.

Recently, several killings have occured under the guise of "racial" conflict (humans fighting humans). Like Satan wants, divide and conqueor--all thanks to neurotic agreements--the illusion of fusion and the illusion of race (i.e  someone belonging  to a different group). Whenever someone does wrong (even if he or she are the police, the wrong can not be logically carried to a group). Why?  Because we are individuals!This tactic only makes a bad situation worse. Violence is individually caused. It is best treated thusly.



#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 July 2016 - 05:08 AM

 

 

Mike: Here's how it works. One "member' of a "group" does somethng to a "member" of another "group". When that happens, the deception kicks in. "'They' are attackig 'my' people!", the individual says to himself.

 

That is exactly correct Mike, and you are eloquently describing the hasty-generalisation fallacy,. Where one individual from a group does something negative then every member of the group is tarnished.

 

What happened when that fellow came up to you an insisted your "race" oppressed his ancestors, was that he committed the opposite fallacy, which is a sweeping generalisation, when he saw you were white and had already concluded that because the group, "white" were guilty of racism to his mind, that because you were white, you were somehow guilty. Quite absurd when you think about it, for how can the colour of skin be so important in defining someone? Totally insane, I would have pointed at a freckle on my arm and said to him, "that part of me is black, now will you please take the four tonne chip on your shoulder and bury some other poor geezer with it instead of me, like erm - a genuinely racist person for example?" :D

 

I had Goku do this to me in a private message. He could see I offered no genuine anti-G*y, or h*m*ph*bic tendencies, so instead he appealed to the group, "theist" in order so that he could make me guilty of homophobia because of the few theists that might genuinely have fear and hatred towards G*y people.

 

In other words Mike, because I would treat a G*y person with the same respect and equality as I would anyone else, because that doesn't help Goku's agenda, which is to make out Christians are immoral, then he simply used the group, "theist" in order to force me to be guilty, of something I was innocent of as an individual.

 

I think a lot of people are very ignorant about Christians and what really motivates us. That is always how they appear. It seems very obtuse of them to not realise that we can't drop God and what He has said, simply for their convenience, without making their relative opinions, our God instead.



#4 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 July 2016 - 06:00 AM

I had Goku do this to me in a private message. He could see I offered no genuine anti-G*y, or h*m*ph*bic tendencies, so instead he appealed to the group, "theist" in order so that he could make me guilty of homophobia because of the few theists that might genuinely have fear and hatred towards G*y people.

 

In other words Mike, because I would treat a G*y person with the same respect and equality as I would anyone else, because that doesn't help Goku's agenda, which is to make out Christians are immoral, then he simply used the group, "theist" in order to force me to be guilty, of something I was innocent of as an individual.

You seem to have forgotten your own statements:

Who is moral, a G*y person that argues it is moral to have a G*y lifestyle or a G*y person that abstains from a G*y lifestyle for God?

 

Answer: The latter person was motivated by morality, the former person was motivated by DESIRE and painted over it with, "morality".

 

Or can you offer an explanation how that is not genuinely anti-G*y?



#5 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 23 July 2016 - 08:05 AM

One of the things wearing a label, especially a negarive one, helps its bearers to do is collect injustices. This neurotic agreement encourages the "illusion of fusion." We belong to a group whether we want to or not. Worse ye it's not a "group" we choose. We automatically belong to the group at conception.

Evo's are often at the forefront in categorizing people into grroups while speaking out of the other side of their mouth--contradicting themseles. Consider, Darwin's categorizing the diivision of the human race into five groups.
....

 

I think the 4 or 5 categorization of humans into racial classes was done by Carl Linnaeus and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. Both were Creationists during the enlightenment era that precedes the rise of Darwinism. They collect data and then pigeon-holed it into classes. So essentially it is based on accumulation of traits. 

 

While Darwin was influenced by British Empiricism, he wasn't one, when he postulated the his Theory of Evolution. He based his arguments on very limited knowledge, which he fitted into a presupposed postulate, which is the genealogical Tree into which he pushed all the species.

 

A more modern conversation about race:
https://archive.org/...sationAboutRace.

Also touches on the "reparation" debate. 



#6 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 July 2016 - 08:30 AM

 

 

Fjuri: Or can you offer an explanation how that is not genuinely anti-G*y?

 

How is it anti-G*y to describe facts? If you are a G*y person, you would not say that being G*y and having that lifestyle is immoral because you have a desire to have that lifestyle. 

 

I was giving an example of a genuinely moral motive, and a person who has moral-values that are actually TAILORED to fit their desires.

 

Obviously if a Christian that regards themselves as G*y, refrains from a G*y lifestyle, they are doing it for a genuine moral reason, that supersedes their desire to have that lifestyle. I know of one such person. That person struggles, it is not easy for them, they struggle with loneliness, etc...the point is, that person is showing outstanding moral courage, by not just acting on some superficial relative morality that is catered in a way to allow for sin and wrong-doing, but they are obeying God at a personal cost.

 

But those who would argue a G*y lifestyle is moral because they are G*y, let's face it, we all know they would be doing that so they can ease their conscience.

 

This is not anti-G*y. For me to simply talk about G*y people doesn't mean I am anti-G*y. What does such a term really mean anyway? If I was anti-G*y in the sense of anti-G*y people, obviously I wouldn't befriend G*y people. 

 

My only real experience of genuine homophobia was in my early teens. I am not G*y but I had three friends who were very obviously G*y. I hung around with them for kid-reasons, so I hung around with those G*y people. I remember one time someone punched me quite hard in my back and said to me, "queer". I think what he meant was, "I think you are G*y so I am hitting you for that reason." Obviously he inferred that because I was friends with G*y people, that I also must be G*y, such is the sophistication of a genuine homophobes thinking pattern. 

 

So I have experienced homophobia, but it very much came from Godless bullies that were definitely not Christian.

 

So I don't think saying, "G*y lifestyle is wrong and is a sin to God" is anti-G*y, when you think about it, as a Christian we are required to not be false-witnesses, so we have to tell other people what God says is sin, and what qualifies as sin in His sight.

 

I am not sure how you would define, "anti-G*y". I am also "anti-murder" or "anti-abortion", I am also, "anti-rape" or, "anti-adultery". It is not morally wrong to be against sin and on the side of the Lord, unless I am to presume that atheist morality is the correct morality, in which case, why aren't you defending the rights of G*y ants?

 

;D :P



#7 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 July 2016 - 08:56 AM

Hi Mark

I think the 4 or 5 categorization of humans into racial classes was done by Carl Linnaeus and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. Both were Creationists during the enlightenment era that precedes the rise of Darwinism. They collect data and then pigeon-holed it into classes. So essentially it is based on accumulation of traits.



While Darwin was influenced by British Empiricism, he wasn't one, when he postulated the his Theory of Evolution. He based his arguments on very limited knowledge, which he fitted into a presupposed postulate, which is the genealogical Tree into which he pushed all the species.


I am sure you are right. However, did these creationist use it to claim evolution? Did they mean it as a hierarchy where the categories were evidennce for evolution? Darwin used the categories to claim he, in a superior race, was further evolved than blacks who were closer cousins of the apes. The imagined direction in evolution is a progression onward and upward--there is litllle mention of devolution which one might imagine would happen.

No one seems to notice that that if we are more fit in the progrssion of evolution upwardly then that would mean since apes still exist the unfit can and often survivel.

Moreoer, Darwin apparently downplayed the fact that human software has the very prominet feature that we can learn. He seemed to ignore the effect that learning might play between his so called different races. I think it was a grievous error. Educatin plays a maor role. I was a teacher.

We now have the computer which can sort the human race into virtually as many groups as we wish. We can even sort it down to 7 billion individuals which is probably what God intends. :)

My interest in his categories is if they have any pernicious effect on individual human behavior (free choice). I suspect they don't in that we observe indentical behavior amongst all the so called groups.

I clicked on the link you provided. It didn't work. I would loved to read what was there. So, if you can provide anoher link or cut and paste it, I would appreciate it.



#8 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 July 2016 - 09:43 AM

How is it anti-G*y to describe facts? If you are a G*y person, you would not say that being G*y and having that lifestyle is immoral because you have a desire to have that lifestyle. 

 

I was giving an example of a genuinely moral motive, and a person who has moral-values that are actually TAILORED to fit their desires.

You're not describing facts. You're describing your opinion. 

 

Obviously if a Christian that regards themselves as G*y, refrains from a G*y lifestyle, they are doing it for a genuine moral reason, that supersedes their desire to have that lifestyle. I know of one such person. That person struggles, it is not easy for them, they struggle with loneliness, etc...the point is, that person is showing outstanding moral courage, by not just acting on some superficial relative morality that is catered in a way to allow for sin and wrong-doing, but they are obeying God at a personal cost.

So if I struggle with killing infidels, if I struggle with suppressing my non-killing nature, I can be showing outstanding moral courage when I take up arms to punish the godless people???

 

You base your morality on denying your own nature and putting something else above yourself?

 

But those who would argue a G*y lifestyle is moral because they are G*y, let's face it, we all know they would be doing that so they can ease their conscience.

LOL. You really are a homophobe. How can you state such hateful things? 

 

This is not anti-G*y. For me to simply talk about G*y people doesn't mean I am anti-G*y. What does such a term really mean anyway? If I was anti-G*y in the sense of anti-G*y people, obviously I wouldn't befriend G*y people. 

OMG

You're befriending them, but calling them immoral at the same time?

You seem to think that there is only a single form of anti-G*y behavior. You don't realize the harm you do by telling people them their very nature is wrong.

 

My only real experience of genuine homophobia was in my early teens. I am not G*y but I had three friends who were very obviously G*y. I hung around with them for kid-reasons, so I hung around with those G*y people. I remember one time someone punched me quite hard in my back and said to me, "queer". I think what he meant was, "I think you are G*y so I am hitting you for that reason." Obviously he inferred that because I was friends with G*y people, that I also must be G*y, such is the sophistication of a genuine homophobes thinking pattern. 

 

So I have experienced homophobia, but it very much came from Godless bullies that were definitely not Christian.

LOL, Christians ain't a group, Godless bullies are :rolling eyes:

 

So I don't think saying, "G*y lifestyle is wrong and is a sin to God" is anti-G*y, when you think about it, as a Christian we are required to not be false-witnesses, so we have to tell other people what God says is sin, and what qualifies as sin in His sight.

 

I am not sure how you would define, "anti-G*y". I am also "anti-murder" or "anti-abortion", I am also, "anti-rape" or, "anti-adultery". It is not morally wrong to be against sin and on the side of the Lord, unless I am to presume that atheist morality is the correct morality, in which case, why aren't you defending the rights of G*y ants?

And this is what I mean when I state you base your morality outside yourself. You're hiding behind the Book telling It states that G*y behavior is wrong instead of thinking for yourself. What harm is done by engaging in a G*y lifestyle?

 



#9 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 July 2016 - 09:51 AM

When I was very new in the faith, I was so excited about finding out who created me and why He did so.

 

I thought sin was my major issue. And so I asked God to give me the ability not to sin. He said, no. The only being that did not sin in the flesh was Jseus. He said, I needed to learn how to forgive sin and what was called the weightier matters of the law, love, mercy, kindness and forgiveness (accepting reality).

I had a 27 year old in counseling. He was extremely h*m*ph*bic. Dysfunctional so. I wondered how I could help him get over what seemed an obsession. Then Jesus's statement, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" came to mind! I had concluded that Jesus meant nobody is any better than anyone else. As the scripture says, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Thus, we are all equals.

So after thinking about it I thought I had the answer to get the young man over his obsession an dysfunctional phobia. I told the young man that masturbation was a H*mos*xual act. I thought he would think about it and figure out he was no better than anyone else. But It backfired on me! He became indignant and vowed with intense emotion he would never masturbate again!!!! I had helped make a bad situation worse! I lamented. LOL Must of been what Jesus wrote on the ground that made the difference?



#10 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 July 2016 - 10:29 AM

 

 

Fjuri: LOL. You really are a homophobe. How can you state such hateful things?

 

The two highlighted words are called question-begging-epithets. Had you sought to actually understand my position, you would see that what I was actually saying was that as Christians we, "hate the sin, love the sinner".

 

 

Fjuri: OMG

You're befriending them, but calling them immoral at the same time?

 

No, not really. Really what I am specifically saying, is that God has told us that certain actions are sinful.

 

Believe it or not Fjuri, I myself am saying nothing about G*y people, I am only reporting the truth about what the bible says. The claims in the bible, that God exists, and is God, and He is omniscient, the inerrant word of God the bible, is obviously our holy book and we see it as inerrant. So basically because that is what we genuinely believe, we cannot preach any other message about what it says other than what it really says about such things. With that in mind, given you know that 1. I am a Christian, 2. I believe and accept the bible as God's word, the question is, given that knowledge you have of me, what do you expect me to say about the G*y act?

 

Here we have something that is called a logical disjunction, where because of those two facts I can only give two answers to the question, "is the G*y act wrong".

 

1. It is according to the scriptures.

2. It isn't according to the scriptures.

 

If I give the second answer then I am a false witness, and am lying about what the bible tells us. So then, given I am a Christian, given I do believe the bible really is from God I am forced to give the only remaining answer. 

 

That logic is astoundingly clear. For as a genuine Christian, what else can I do? Can I say, "it's fine to have a G*y lifestyle, no problem at all, God must be wrong"?

 

How can I give that answer?

 

So then, given every genuine bible-believing Christian is forced to say that God has told us it is a sin, logically speaking, that means we can't be "h*m*ph*bic", otherwise you would be saying that Christians, all Christians, become Christian because they are homophobes.

 

Think about it - the true cause of me saying the G*y lifestyle is wrong and is a sin, is because God has told us this in scripture, not because I hate G*y people, because every true bible believing Christian, has to say that it is wrong.

 

Logically that proves it does not come from homophobia or hatred of G*y people, for if it did then obviously it would have nothing to do with the scripture and would be a hatred that came from me, without any scriptural influence.

 

 

 

Fjuri: LOL, Christians ain't a group, Godless bullies are

 

Not really, I wouldn't imply that you are a Godless bully because you are an atheist.

 

If you are an atheist it doesn't follow you are a homophobe bully, but if you are a homophobe bully, it does follow you are atheist to Christianity at least, because of what the scripture says, about how, "hate" proves we are not really children of God but love proves that we are.

 

 

 

Fjuri: You really are a homophobe. How can you state such hateful things

 

That's just an ad-hominem attack. You have to provide reasoning, not just state a one-liner that has emotive buz-words in it and no argumentation. Otherwise you give me permission to tu-quoque;

 

"you really are a Christian-phobe Fjuri. How can you state such hateful things?" (see, I provided no reasoning, I just said it. Big deal, what does that prove?)

 

Obviously I have no hatred, I am just stating that people that don't know God have morals that cater for their desires. Are you saying it is not a fact that a G*y person would have G*y desires?

 

If we agree it is a fact and those desires are strong, to the point where those people desperately desire a G*y relationship, do you agree that if they desire it badly enough it might be rather predictable that they would argue that it was perfectly moral?

 

Please answer. Do they have G*y desire? Is it likely they would say that desire is immoral, given it is "part of their nature"? Please answer.

 

These ARE the facts of relative-morality, that morality can be provably shown to be created so that it caters for desires by designing those moral values to INCLUDE those desires as within "morally acceptable" behaviour. 

 

For example the moors-murderer had a morality of existentialism, he reasoned that "all actions are lawful" because God doesn't exist and morality is relative, he basically created a philosophy which allowed him to argue that murdering children was fine and dandy.

 

Realistically what would we expect him to argue given he had a desire to murder children for S@xual pleasure? Is it not rather predictable that he would argue that he was not doing anything wrong within his own morality? (which highlights just what a NONSENSE it is to argue that "we don't need God to be moral". Think about it - the moors murderer would also argue he did not need God to be moral, and he would argue that he did not break his own moral code by murdering children, so what better example is there of how weak the argument is that atheists argue when they argue that they, "don't need God to be moral". of course they don't - because they play God by inventing their own morality, which is a way of simply defining sin and wrong actions, as "right".)

 

:acigar:

 

(disclaimer: I am not saying that this means that you are a terrible sinner, equatable with the moors murderer, after all, don't forget that I did say that I would prefer to be on a street with you driving a truck than with a religious extremist crackpot driving a truck. So don't jump to conclusions.)



#11 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 July 2016 - 10:53 AM

Mike, that guy who was a h*m*ph*bic client, is an example of someone that has a very severe sin-problem, hate and prejudice has twisted their thinking and warped it, and they don't know the Lord so they can't escape their hate. In some sense that is a dangerous person because if he vowed to never masturbate again just because you told him it was a G*y act, then this shows that his thinking was in every sense of the word, WARPED. It wouldn't surprise me if someone like that ended up actually being violent towards G*y people. We can only pray that he took what you said on board, and confessed his terrible sinful prejudice to God, and got help with his twisted views. It is a shame that so many people become victims of hate. If only people knew of the love of God and how it can heal these bitter prejudices.



#12 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 July 2016 - 11:40 AM

Mike,

Mike, that guy who was a h*m*ph*bic client, is an example of someone that has a very severe sin-problem, hate and prejudice has twisted their thinking and warped it, and they don't know the Lord so they can't escape their hate. In some sense that is a dangerous person because if he vowed to never masturbate again just because you told him it was a G*y act, then this shows that his thinking was in every sense of the word, WARPED. It wouldn't surprise me if someone like that ended up actually being violent towards G*y people. We can only pray that he took what you said on board, and confessed his terrible sinful prejudice to God, and got help with his twisted views. It is a shame that so many people become victims of hate. If only people knew of the love of God and how it can heal these bitter prejudices.

Actually I was worried that he might kill himself. I never saw him again. I praayed a lot for him though.

Of course I didn't gie up on him but, he became so rigid he left therapy.

Yes, I totally agree. What I wanted him to see is that we are all more important to God than "sin". The young man's sin was that he would not forgive himself and others gayness. Thus gayness became his unpardonable sin. He believed certain sins were more important than God. A particular sin had become his idol.

God is creating us because He wants us to exist. Some of us sometimes forget He is still creating us. We can fall in love with life and worship it more than God.

At the hospital they played a light melody of tinkling bells on the PA everytime a new baby was born. I heard them several times during the two weeks I was there.



#13 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 July 2016 - 12:09 PM

Believe it or not Fjuri, I myself am saying nothing about G*y people, I am only reporting the truth about what the bible says. The claims in the bible, that God exists, and is God, and He is omniscient, the inerrant word of God the bible, is obviously our holy book and we see it as inerrant. So basically because that is what we genuinely believe, we cannot preach any other message about what it says other than what it really says about such things. With that in mind, given you know that 1. I am a Christian, 2. I believe and accept the bible as God's word, the question is, given that knowledge you have of me, what do you expect me to say about the G*y act?

 

Here we have something that is called a logical disjunction, where because of those two facts I can only give two answers to the question, "is the G*y act wrong".

 

1. It is according to the scriptures.

2. It isn't according to the scriptures.

 

If I give the second answer then I am a false witness, and am lying about what the bible tells us. So then, given I am a Christian, given I do believe the bible really is from God I am forced to give the only remaining answer. 

 

That logic is astoundingly clear. For as a genuine Christian, what else can I do? Can I say, "it's fine to have a G*y lifestyle, no problem at all, God must be wrong"?

 

How can I give that answer?

A repeat from previous post:

And this is what I mean when I state you base your morality outside yourself. You're hiding behind the Book telling It states that G*y behavior is wrong instead of thinking for yourself. What harm is done by engaging in a G*y lifestyle?

What is immoral about an act that is not harmful done to anyone else? Every other immoral act is detrimental to another person, yet this one is not. Any particular reason why this is?

 

That logic is astoundingly clear. For as a genuine Christian, what else can I do? Can I say, "it's fine to have a G*y lifestyle, no problem at all, God must be wrong"?

 

How can I give that answer?

 

So then, given every genuine bible-believing Christian is forced to say that God has told us it is a sin, logically speaking, that means we can't be "h*m*ph*bic", otherwise you would be saying that Christians, all Christians, become Christian because they are homophobes.

 

Think about it - the true cause of me saying the G*y lifestyle is wrong and is a sin, is because God has told us this in scripture, not because I hate G*y people, because every true bible believing Christian, has to say that it is wrong.

What you say is hateful. I've shown you how harmful it is to G*y people. I'm not saying you are hateful. These are separate issues. Your words, your fruit though. You are under the assumption that your holy book contains only good things. Don't you agree that saying people their very nature is wrong, harming them, making them constantly unhappy is not a good thing?

 

That's just an ad-hominem attack. You have to provide reasoning, not just state a one-liner that has emotive buz-words in it and no argumentation. Otherwise you give me permission to tu-quoque;

 

"you really are a Christian-phobe Fjuri. How can you state such hateful things?" (see, I provided no reasoning, I just said it. Big deal, what does that prove?)

If you read my post, I provided evidence further down the post:

"You don't realize the harm you do by telling people them their very nature is wrong."

 

Obviously I have no hatred, I am just stating that people that don't know God have morals that cater for their desires. Are you saying it is not a fact that a G*y person would have G*y desires?

Did you see me deny the fact that a G*y person has G*y desires? I do deny that relative morality is based upon a person's desires. Relative morality is based on innate, genetic factors and learned, cultural factors. Not on the desires of individuals. 

 

If we agree it is a fact and those desires are strong, to the point where those people desperately desire a G*y relationship, do you agree that if they desire it badly enough it might be rather predictable that they would argue that it was perfectly moral?

Me, Fjuri argues that is perfectly moral and yet I have no G*y desires.

 

Please answer. Do they have G*y desire? Is it likely they would say that desire is immoral, given it is "part of their nature"? Please answer.

Their answer regarding the morality would be based upon the cultural upbringing of that individual and how he underwent it.

 

These ARE the facts of relative-morality, that morality can be provably shown to be created so that it caters for desires by designing those moral values to INCLUDE those desires as within "morally acceptable" behaviour. 

These ARE the facts of relative-morality.

 

For example the moors-murderer had a morality of existentialism, he reasoned that "all actions are lawful" because God doesn't exist and morality is relative, he basically created a philosophy which allowed him to argue that murdering children was fine and dandy.

 

Realistically what would we expect him to argue given he had a desire to murder children for S@xual pleasure? Is it not rather predictable that he would argue that he was not doing anything wrong within his own morality? (which highlights just what a NONSENSE it is to argue that "we don't need God to be moral". Think about it - the moors murderer would also argue he did not need God to be moral, and he would argue that he did not break his own moral code by murdering children, so what better example is there of how weak the argument is that atheists argue when they argue that they, "don't need God to be moral". of course they don't - because they play God by inventing their own morality, which is a way of simply defining sin and wrong actions, as "right".)

We lock people like that up for our safety, not because the acts are immoral.



#14 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 23 July 2016 - 03:34 PM

I had Goku do this to me in a private message. He could see I offered no genuine anti-G*y, or h*m*ph*bic tendencies, so instead he appealed to the group, "theist" in order so that he could make me guilty of homophobia because of the few theists that might genuinely have fear and hatred towards G*y people.

 

In other words Mike, because I would treat a G*y person with the same respect and equality as I would anyone else, because that doesn't help Goku's agenda, which is to make out Christians are immoral, then he simply used the group, "theist" in order to force me to be guilty, of something I was innocent of as an individual.

 

I think a lot of people are very ignorant about Christians and what really motivates us. That is always how they appear. It seems very obtuse of them to not realise that we can't drop God and what He has said, simply for their convenience, without making their relative opinions, our God instead.

 

You totally misunderstood.

 

You said that the G*y lifestyle was "harmful", and I was explaining to you that the harm within the G*y community came about due to medical ignorance in the past, and psychological abuse towards that community by the general public which has been exacerbated by theists.

 

It was not any kind of analysis or judgement about your own actions or guilt. That said I did say the Christian paradigm is h*m*ph*bic, which is trivially true as the Christian paradigm is explicitly discriminatory against the G*y community and calls it righteousness.

 

What we are trying to say is that the morality you think is coming from God, is in fact the relative morality of a sect of people some two to three thousand years ago.



#15 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 July 2016 - 02:29 AM

Alleged atheists, Fjuri, Gokut et al

Here is my argument agains some of the philosophical concepts you and Fjuri use. You fail to see humans as indiduals which they are. You try to put people in boxes that they don't fit in. You push the neurotic agreement group from a loose organiational term to some kind of controlling factor. It's like you can't or won't accept that though we share superficial characteristic physical in nature those characteristics don't control us. We are all individuals and need to be treated as such.

You look at the splinter in your brothers eye and don't see the log in your own eye. I accept you. You do the same thing to us which you claim we do to g*ys. So when I use seldom use the term G*y, I do not believe they are not individuals anymore than I mean that people don't have different color skins. G*y is a behvior not an entity. That's what I am trying to say about the abuse of an idea (concept, group etc).

You claim no God but don't seem to realize that's the same as being anti G*y. Why don't you give up your theist bashing? Set "us" a "good" example. Until then let he that is without sin cast the first stone.

Morality can be reduced to two core ideas: good or evil, which is the same as love or hate. So which side are you on? I blieve in love. Which side are ou on? Answer if you have the courage to decide?


  • mike the wiz likes this

#16 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 July 2016 - 03:33 AM

 

 Goku: You said that the G*y lifestyle was "harmful", and I was explaining to you that the harm within the G*y community came about due to medical ignorance in the past, and psychological abuse towards that community by the general public which has been exacerbated by theists.

 

There is physical harm caused by the G*y act because in case you don't know very obvious things, a flesh pipe was not designed to penetrate a man-tunnel. If you believe it was, please now provide the anatomical evidence to support your claim.
 
Also, think how silly it is to argue that any harm from the G*y lifestyle came from medical ignorance. If that is true, and that was the cause of the harm, then what about the harm the G*y act caused BEFORE medical science existed? Can you answer this question directly please and not avoid it? Here is the question; if a lack of medical educations causes the damage caused by G*y s@x then what caused the damage caused by G*y s@x before medical science existed? ?(moreover me and Mike would provide G*y people with any medical help, and they are free to access that help, so we don't accept guilt-by-association.)
 
Your argument is that murder isn't the cause of murder for stabbing-victims, but rather the cause of their murder was their lack of education that would teach them to wear a protective shield
 
It's a classic error which I see in court a lot, where people CONFLATE the lack of a preventive measure, with cause.
 
Example: "had you worn a seat belt you wouldn't have been harmed, so Bob was not in the wrong to run a red light and smash into your car".
 
Here you commit a classic error, so you're you're dardly in any position to tell us our thinking is wrong for accepting the Lord's word, the bible when your thinking is this clouded.
 

 

Goku:  That said I did say the Christian paradigm is h*m*ph*bic, which is trivially true as the Christian paradigm is explicitly discriminatory against the G*y community and calls it righteousness

 

 

 

 What is the, "Christian paradigm"? What you see as the, "Christian paradigm" I see as the genetic fallacy. We only have one genuine Christian source, the bible. It says nothing h*m*ph*bic, which is defined as prejudice and hatred towards people and we are commanded not to cast the stone by Christ, a we are Christians, not O.T. Jewish. (gentiles)

 

The bible is taken as a whole by us and says, "God is love" and there is, "no unrighteousness in Him". We can't just look at the statement about the G*y act but we have to look at all of the scriptures together as a whole, and see what the message is. The fruit of the spirit doesn't allow us to be prejudiced nor does Christ's commands. You have given a morally relative opinion that the bible is false. I can find others that would disagree, why are they wrong and you right, if it is all a matter of relativity? (what, did you think I would forget again?) LOL!

 

Like Mike says, you are using the group thing to imply "us" and "them", You say, "theist" as though to imply homophobia comes from theism, and us creationists, and you the, "we" are innocent.

 

Lol!

 

 

 

 

Goku: What we are trying to say is that the morality you think is coming from God, is in fact the relative morality of a sect of people some two to three thousand years ago.

 

Let's assume that is true for a moment. What then would make their morality, "wrong" and your morality, "right" if all morality is relative and there isn't some objective "right and wrong" that exists? :acigar:

 

Think about it, here in this post I had to show how cloudy your judgement was by the mistakes you made, yet you imply my judgement is wrong in accepting the bible

 

So if you were trying to say, "I think you idiots believe in a false book", then sorry to say this but this post demonstrates that I'm, "LAUGHING at the superior intellect."

 

At least TRY and understand Mike's first post of the thread.



#17 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 July 2016 - 03:50 AM

Unless Goku answers my questions instead of re-ranting, I suggest the readers dismiss his posts. Please Jury, dismiss his statements, because if he can't answer my questions and can only avoid them and instead provide a new rhetoric that EVADES them, then the most pertinent question the jury must ask is this; "why can't Goku answer the questions?" "Why can he only formulate new rhetoric instead of answering the questions put to him, and evade them?"

 

Question: if all views of morality are relative, why is the biblical relative morality, wrong, and Goku's morality, "right" given under that circumstance, there can't be a relative group which is right and another that is wrong, for they would all be opinion-based?

 

Question: Why does goku self-righteoussly, always commit begging-the-question by assuming that his morality is correct and we must answer to it, and why does Fjuri pretend we must answer to his morality as though they are God and we are their subjects? Indeed, why do all atheists act this way and argue-from-outrage? Example: "you are a disgrace, all of the oppression and hate towards G*y people you Christians have caused! I am furious that you have the gaul to even talk to me!"

 

(note the highlighted parts of the following quote).

 

Link: An argument from outrage is considered an inappropriate rhetorical device because it does not anticipate the audience or listener forming their own conclusions. Although an emotional appeal is recognized as a legitimate rhetorical device, called "pathos," doing so without also incorporating the elements of logic or ethics into the argument is considered to be one of the three rhetorical fallacies.

A logical fallacy occurs when the writer or speaker fails to logically support their point of view. There are several types of logical fallacies in rhetoric including red herrings, hasty generalizations and non sequiturs. Emotional fallacies include group thinking, flattery and scare tactics. In addition to the argument from outrage, ethical fallacies include scapegoating, personal attacks and guilt by association.

https://www.referenc...8980105b4f85f56

Example of Fjuri's ethical fallacy; "you are homophobe how can you state such hateful things....OMG!"

 

(notice that the Christian isn't even allowed to discuss the G*y issue without being called a homophobe, so as to appeal to the audiences sense of shared-outrage)

 

If I am a homophobe just because I tell the truth about what God has said about sin, then "if my grandma had wheels she'd be a wagon." - Mr Scott - Star Trek, The Search For Spock.



#18 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 24 July 2016 - 05:42 AM

You totally misunderstood.

 

You said that the G*y lifestyle was "harmful", and I was explaining to you that the harm within the G*y community came about due to medical ignorance in the past, and psychological abuse towards that community by the general public which has been exacerbated by theists.

Actually, the G*y lifestyle was only "harmful" for a relatively short period of time. There has been documentation about such behavior in the past (eg in Greece) when AIDS was not yet present in human being. So only from around 1920-now has there been real harmful effects for a G*y lifestyle.

 

There is physical harm caused by the G*y act because in case you don't know very obvious things, a flesh pipe was not designed to penetrate a man-tunnel. If you believe it was, please now provide the anatomical evidence to support your claim.

 
Also, think how silly it is to argue that any harm from the G*y lifestyle came from medical ignorance. If that is true, and that was the cause of the harm, then what about the harm the G*y act caused BEFORE medical science existed? Can you answer this question directly please and not avoid it? Here is the question; if a lack of medical educations causes the damage caused by G*y s@x then what caused the damage caused by G*y s@x before medical science existed? ?(moreover me and Mike would provide G*y people with any medical help, and they are free to access that help, so we don't accept guilt-by-association.)
 
Your argument is that murder isn't the cause of murder for stabbing-victims, but rather the cause of their murder was their lack of education that would teach them to wear a protective shield
 
It's a classic error which I see in court a lot, where people CONFLATE the lack of a preventive measure, with cause.
 
Example: "had you worn a seat belt you wouldn't have been harmed, so Bob was not in the wrong to run a red light and smash into your car".
 
Here you commit a classic error, so you're you're dardly in any position to tell us our thinking is wrong for accepting the Lord's word, the bible when your thinking is this clouded.

I think this section can be dismissed. The harmful effects caused by the G*y act is only very recent and with medical care can be prevented.

 

I do like to note that this harmful effect affects both G*y and non-G*y people. The only reason why in our parts of the world it affects G*y people more then non-G*y people is that people are more afraid of child-birth then of diseases.

 

What is the, "Christian paradigm"? What you see as the, "Christian paradigm" I see as the genetic fallacy. We only have one genuine Christian source, the bible. It says nothing h*m*ph*bic, which is defined as prejudice and hatred towards people and we are commanded not to cast the stone by Christ, a we are Christians, not O.T. Jewish. (gentiles)

 

The bible is taken as a whole by us and says, "God is love" and there is, "no unrighteousness in Him". We can't just look at the statement about the G*y act but we have to look at all of the scriptures together as a whole, and see what the message is. The fruit of the spirit doesn't allow us to be prejudiced nor does Christ's commands. You have given a morally relative opinion that the bible is false. I can find others that would disagree, why are they wrong and you right, if it is all a matter of relativity? (what, did you think I would forget again?) LOL!

 

Like Mike says, you are using the group thing to imply "us" and "them", You say, "theist" as though to imply homophobia comes from theism, and us creationists, and you the, "we" are innocent.

From your mouth:

Here we have something that is called a logical disjunction, where because of those two facts I can only give two answers to the question, "is the G*y act wrong".

 

1. It is according to the scriptures.

2. It isn't according to the scriptures.

 

If I give the second answer then I am a false witness, and am lying about what the bible tells us. So then, given I am a Christian, given I do believe the bible really is from God I am forced to give the only remaining answer. 

So in fact, according to you the bible says h*m*ph*b*c things.

 

Unless Goku answers my questions instead of re-ranting, I suggest the readers dismiss his posts. Please Jury, dismiss his statements, because if he can't answer my questions and can only avoid them and instead provide a new rhetoric that EVADES them, then the most pertinent question the jury must ask is this; "why can't Goku answer the questions?" "Why can he only formulate new rhetoric instead of answering the questions put to him, and evade them?"

 

Question: if all views of morality are relative, why is the biblical relative morality, wrong, and Goku's morality, "right" given under that circumstance, there can't be a relative group which is right and another that is wrong, for they would all be opinion-based?

There is indeed no absolute declaration of one group being right and another being wrong.

That doesn't mean that individuals of one group cannot be h*m*ph*b* because they follow a particular h*m*ph*b*c doctrine, right?

If there are no absolute declarations of on group being right and another being wrong, does that make the KKK no longer a racist organisation? LOL

According to the bible h*m*ph*b*c behavior is good, right? (please think outside the physical violence spectrum)

 

Question: Why does goku self-righteoussly, always commit begging-the-question by assuming that his morality is correct and we must answer to it, and why does Fjuri pretend we must answer to his morality as though they are God and we are their subjects? Indeed, why do all atheists act this way and argue-from-outrage? Example: "you are a disgrace, all of the oppression and hate towards G*y people you Christians have caused! I am furious that you have the gaul to even talk to me!"

I don't pretend you must answer to my morality. I've stated facts. 

You've stated h*m*ph*b*c things.

Discriminatory things are by their very nature hateful.

 

(note the highlighted parts of the following quote).

https://www.referenc...8980105b4f85f56

Example of Fjuri's ethical fallacy; "you are homophobe how can you state such hateful things....OMG!"

I don't accuse you of what the group you've associated yourself with has done. I am validating what you, Mike the Wiz, is saying yourself.

 

(notice that the Christian isn't even allowed to discuss the G*y issue without being called a homophobe, so as to appeal to the audiences sense of shared-outrage)

 

If I am a homophobe just because I tell the truth about what God has said about sin, then "if my grandma had wheels she'd be a wagon." - Mr Scott - Star Trek, The Search For Spock.

 

You were stating that "as a matter of fact" they are only lustful, sinful, immoral beings. As if there is no discussion about it. And then you're surprised you find yourself in a position where you find discussion difficult? LOL Get real mate. If you want discussion, at least pretend that you don't know everything and you are willing to listen to what people have to say.



#19 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 July 2016 - 09:31 AM

Goku said:

Goku: You said that the G*y lifestyle was "harmful", and I was explaining to you that the harm within the G*y community came about due to medical ignorance in the past, and psychological abuse towards that community by the general public which has been exacerbated by theiststs.

You are perpetuating nonsense.
We are individuals. There is no entity called theists or G*y. You are abusing a term personyfing it like you do evo. What you are obscuring by doing so is the fact that we each have the choice to create and believe what we want about the the world outside our mind.

Even when people hurl all kinds of nasty comments at any of us we have to decide what to do with those insults. Granted it is difficult to control our mind in a positive manner when people are saying nasty things because we are not taught to do it. But, the old adage,"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me!" If we all rule ourselves as I and the bible advocates we won't have to concern ourselves so much with what others think. Do you have a better solution? Please let me know.

Goku: That said I did say the Christian paradigm is h*m*ph*bic, which is trivially true as the Christian paradigm is explicitly discriminatory against the G*y community and calls it righteousness

You act like you believe we have free choice. Aren't we like Stephen Hawking says "just" biological robots? Your argument seems to indicate we can repent? Funny that because it agrees with what the Bible says.

Correction: individuals are responsible for what they think and do. There is no command in the NT that says render evil for evil. It says do good to those that curse you. That is what I do. I don't think niether Mike nor I have any hostility towards you or Fjuri. I have never said I would ignor you or not consider  responding when you asked yme to respond. I think you need to set the example of what you want frorm others.

Since both Mike and I are not anti-individuals, nor are we terrorists for individuals that are G*y, we do not accept we do harmn to them. I do not hate anyone that is made in the image of God but believe its best if we all rule ourseles with less concern for what others believe dysfunctional though it be.

 

My thoughts and only my thoughts cause my emotions. Ditto for you. The need to control others is directly related to the essence of terrorism. Rule you and then try to sell the idea to others to teach them to rule themselves. I think that's the best solution. Do we agree?

Goku: What we are trying to say is that the morality you think is coming from God, is in fact the relative morality of a sect of people some two to three thousand years ago.

There you go again. Morality is not an entity so stop persnyfying it. I love my brothers and sisters and so can forgive them if they do wrong. That's my morality--L-O-V-E. g*ys are my brothers and sisters and I care more than anything they could do. God loved us more than any sin we could commit. That's why He invented forgveness. Get over it and stop with the us vs them crap.
 


  • mike the wiz likes this

#20 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 July 2016 - 10:11 AM

Well said Mike. And we should remember what a powerful emotion hate is. Like you Mike, I don't want hatred and bitterness in my system. Jesus said if we hate we are in danger of the commandment, "do not murder".

 

An atheist can't magically tell someone they have hate because only the person with hate can know they are feeling that emotion. The only way to know hate is if there is a clearly overt display of hatred such as calling people harsh and mean-spirited, prejudiced names, etc, and trying to stop them from living freely.

 

As you know we have no hatred in our babarized systems.Attached File  newbaba2.jpg   4.79KB   0 downloads :D I find it amusing to be accused of hatred, because obviously I know that I don't hate, the same way an innocent man in prison knows he is innocent of a crime people accuse him of committing. 

 

I am not worried if they continue to accuse me because Jesus said, "blessed are you" when they say false things about you. Words have no power to hurt us or make us something we're not. 

 

We bless Fjuri and Goku, and re-invite them to friendship. Prediction: hostility from Fjuri, silence from Goku. Lol!

 

(surely they must ask themselves why they can't friendify us - isn't that a sign of prejudice? If a G*y person joined EFF, me and Mike would friendify them straight away. It doesn't matter to me if Bob's man-pipe gets lodged inside Pete's lust shaft, causing satan's grapes to grow, and I would be happy to recommend a haemorrhoid cream to exorcise those grapes, and even pay for it if they were desperate.) :rotfl3: Just don't ask me to tread grapes, I don't engage in strange fetish behaviours.  :rotfl3: 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users