1. avatar tinpot anto
    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/first-minister-peter-robinson-backs-wifes-view-that-gays-are-an-abomination-14023693.html


    [img:73fd14b479]http://leehopkins.net/images/despair_new.jpg[/img:73fd14b479]
  2. avatar mullinino
    ye couldnt make these people up.....come on,its hilarious!
    chris morris HAS to be involved in this somewhere...still,if you believe in god,youre gonna look like a dick somewhere down the line :wink:
  3. avatar Chi-Lite
    Fuck sake lads get over yourselves will ye.

    Nobody gives a ballix what yous think. You aren't qualified. when will ye learn. :lol:
  4. avatar trepanner
    The mind boggles at that, and then it boggles al over again at [i:9aa6a6673e]you[/i:9aa6a6673e]. Try to drag yourself kicking and screaming into at least the 1960s, for starters. Really, seriously.
  5. avatar Deestroyer
    [quote:42d4e03225="mullinino"]still,if you believe in god,youre gonna look like a dick somewhere down the line :wink:[/quote:42d4e03225]
    :lol:
  6. avatar Chi-Lite
    See but that's not funny like. It's like something a child would say.
  7. avatar trepanner
    Well in fairness so is "Uh! Gays!".
  8. avatar Chi-Lite
    Ha, yes, agreed. :-D

    Now we're on the same wavelength, see
  9. avatar PhatBob
    I can't believe the people that the majority of people want to put in charge of this excuse for a real life place.
    Fix the fcuking housing and education and employment problems and deal with watercharges and policing and stop fannying about shouting at gay people :evil:
  10. avatar Tiocfaidh Ar La
    [quote:90645324a5="Chi-Lite"]See but that's not funny like. It's like something a child would say.[/quote:90645324a5]
    nah, this is what a child would say about abomination if The D.U.P get their freckin way.....

    A creature so horrible that if you look at it for to long, your eyes will start to bleed. Lives in drainpipes and grease pits surrounding high schools and universities. The origins of the abomination goes something like this: a giant plague infested sewer rat rapes an AIDS carrying orangutan, in the ass, while in the restroom of a 747. The orangutan proceeds to shit out the ass baby that was conceived. The baby abomination gets ejected out of the plane along with a large amount of shit. While falling, the abomination gets hit by lightning and catches fire. Upon reaching the ground, the flaming abomination slams into a mountain side at terminal velocity and then rolls down the side, hitting every rock on the way down. Baby Bom-Bom then reaches a cliff where it falls off, still on fire, and lands on the ugly tree, where it falls hitting every branch on the way down. It then falls into a campground, still on fire, where a family proceeds to beat it with sticks and stomp it out with their golf cleats. They then dump it into an outhouse that has a good 20 ft of shit in the bottom. Here the abomination matures, stewing in the shit of countless years.
    Finally, the Abomination crawled out and made its home in the sewer system of a small north Georgia town.
    The power of its ugliness attract other uglies like a magnet, so there is an excess amount of nasty in this town.
    Seriously, this thing is so ugly that you will want to die when you see it. Its smell is indescribable, but this scenario may help. Take a very hairy, nasty, diseased, fat ,sweaty man with chronic diarrhea and then take a blow dryer to his ass. The warm air that cames off resembles the stench of the abomination.
    Has a bad case of not shutting the fuck up and hair loss, but only on top of the head. Frequently likes to show off its ass crack which the sight and smell of kills unprepared people. If you ever come across the abomination, who will know it and you will never again be the same.
    guy one: wassup want to drink some beers later?
    guy two: yeah sure but first I have to.....OH FUCK!!!!!MY EYES!!!
    guy one: wtf are you talking abo......JESUS CHRIST!!!MY EYES ARE BLEEDING!!!!WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT SMELL!!!
    guy two: *gasp* it....its the....abomination....*cough*...must have crawled out of the drain pipe or the grease pit.....*hack*.. don't think im going to be able to see the same again.
    guy one: OH SHIT ITS ABOUT TO SHOW US ITS ASS CRACK!!!! DONT LOOK WHATEVER YOU DO!!!DONT LO.............
    (both die upon the revealing of the ass crack)
  11. avatar Chi-Lite
    Here kid, I'm not reading any of your big long posts. I've skipped forward to the end of a few, and they're generally inane. Knock it on the head there :-D
  12. avatar PhatBob
    Hey there Peter Robinson himself defends yer man's right to express that tedious bollix - as long as he's not a sodomite - steady on
  13. avatar Tiocfaidh Ar La
    [quote:4836f3cb64="Chi-Lite"]Here kid, I'm not reading any of your big long posts. I've skipped forward to the end of a few, and they're generally inane. Knock it on the head there :-D[/quote:4836f3cb64]

    NO [color=green:4836f3cb64][/color:4836f3cb64] :D
  14. avatar clss_act_00
    I agree with Chi-Lite's "Get over yourselves lads", and wish the rest of the country would do the same
  15. avatar tinpot anto
    This guy is the FUCKING FIRST MINISTER in the name of fuck.

    I think I have every right to point out his obvious faults, and to be genuinely shocked that, as First Minister he has the stupidity to think he can get away with it.

    [quote:de5196fdb2]
    Hey there Peter Robinson himself defends yer man's right to express that tedious bollix - as long as he's not a sodomite - steady on [/quote:de5196fdb2]

    No the gays can express themselves in anyway they see fit, it is their existence which is not acceptable.
  16. avatar clss_act_00
    before I look like an idiot who hasn't followed this as closely as too much of the local public, did they say homosexuality is an abomination, or homosexuals are an abomination?
  17. avatar pauldoherty
    If it happened in any other country there would be uproar and he would be asked to resign....simple as. This wee island is indeed a fucked up place when muppets like that are in charge.
  18. avatar JTM
    [quote:494abf2730]If it happened in any other country there would be uproar and he would be asked to resign[/quote:494abf2730]

    Not to be picky but in Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, for example, this kind of opinion would be applauded, or at least broadly accepted.
  19. avatar tinpot anto
    [quote:21484fef1b]Not to be picky but in Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, for example, this kind of opinion would be applauded, or at least broadly accepted.[/quote:21484fef1b]

    Thankfully neither the Al Saud family nor President Umaru Yar'adua claim to act under a mandate from me, so they can be as offensive as they like, even if I don't like it.

    Robinson is acting as a REPRESENTATIVE of people here. He has a responsibility to do so fairly, and I have every right to complain as loudly as possible when he doesn't.

    For fuck sake like. "Unqualified" like marty? what the fuck? Do I need a fucking masters now in Gay in order to speak. You've made your views clear on this issue lots of times, basically you are happy to defer to the scripture because it supports your innate homophobia. You are no different from the Robbo's.
  20. avatar trepanner
    [quote:c2ab5f0c16="JTM"][quote:c2ab5f0c16]If it happened in any other country there would be uproar and he would be asked to resign[/quote:c2ab5f0c16]

    Not to be picky but in Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, for example, this kind of opinion would be applauded, or at least broadly accepted.[/quote:c2ab5f0c16]

    But the pesky Jesus shit wouldn't really swing there either, so it's a bit of a non-point.
  21. avatar sazchops
    It disgusts me to think morons like this have any kind of authority in this country. Saw yer woman Iris Robinson in the paper dancing along at the abortion law protest thing at stormont - it makes me sick to think people like this are supposedly running this country!! :x
  22. avatar fastfude
    Vote 'em out then.
  23. avatar nonlogic liam
    Dame Edna or Abortion girl for first minister...
  24. avatar clss_act_00
    EDIT, not worth it
  25. avatar my-angel-rocks
    To be honest, I have no issues with what he believes (I don't agree with him), but its that he tries to recast it as an infringement on his freedom of speech that annoys me.
  26. avatar The Ronster
    [quote:604f035335="fastfude"]Vote 'em out then.[/quote:604f035335]

    Can't. There's more wankers that like them than don't apparently.

    It's pretty obvious that they wouldn't be taking this line unless it was popular with their voters. They aren't stupid (well, they are, but you know what I mean).

    The main problem is that the homophobic agenda is popular right across all party lines. Most people in this country have no problem with expressing a dislike for 'the gays'. It only seems to be a ridiculous notion to have when you spend your time around like-minded people, which the 'scene' is full of. Alternative music is by-and-large a comfortable home for progressive ideas, and rock got over the notion of homophobia a good 40-odd years ago.

    Marty likes soul & R&B - is it a coincidence that that particular section of the musical spectrum still has a major problem with gayness, and always has?
  27. avatar Recycled Alien
    [quote:c0397a5134="tinpot anto"]defer to the scripture because it supports your innate homophobia.[/quote:c0397a5134]It's more a case of "find a bit of scripture to support your inate homophobia".

    I mean, if you were [i:c0397a5134]starting[/i:c0397a5134] from Jewish Law and condemning "abominations", you'd be up in arms against eating shellfish and rock-badgers, and other heinous crimes.
  28. avatar Chi-Lite
    First of all, Anto, that's absolute ballix and you know it.

    I don't even know what scripture says on the issue.

    Secondly; It's not even as if I agree with what Robinson says. I am, however, sick of the constant whining that "omg, I can't believe people are stupid enough to vote these people in, like, omg, people in this country are so stuuupiidd", particularly when it comes from those very same lefties who can't bear to hear that most people are stupid, and who deceive themselves with the notion that "if only everybody realised how right I was, it would all be ok".

    I'm not attempting to prove anything, but have any of you ever thought it possible that the vast majority of voters, yes, even in this country, actually take the time to think about things properly, and are no more stupid than a bunch of musicians on an internet forum, who, lets face it, act like children most of the time, except when they can handily pull out some self righteousness about whatever trendyliberal issue is on the go at the time, while bemoaning the fact that "omg, isn't everybody stuuppid".

    Maybe you're all fuckng stupid, is what I'm saying. Which is why the Green Party and the fucking SWP don't do so well at elections...and neither do Organise!

    I'm only saying like.
    And thirdly;

    [quote:1803b774f1]Marty likes soul & R&B - is it a coincidence that that particular section of the musical spectrum still has a major problem with gayness, and always has[/quote:1803b774f1]

    You fucking wha?
    Labi Siffre?

    I think you're mixing up R N B with Beyonce, and soul with Satanic metal, you wee daftie
  29. avatar pauldoherty
    Jesus Marty you've got it bad son....
  30. avatar PhatBob
    [quote:7127c66466]no more stupid than a bunch of musicians on an internet forum, who, lets face it, act like children most of the time, except when they can handily pull out some self righteousness[/quote:7127c66466]

    :lol:
  31. avatar tinpot anto
    I know like Marty, self-righteous like?

    Wouldn't know anything about that yerself there would ye?

    Let's face it you are the first to come on slabber anytime anything takes your fancy. i think what Peter Robinson says is disgraceful, and frankly I don't give a monkey's pish about wooly notions of freedom of speech and equality. He's a horrible old cunt, and he's said much worse in his time about Catholics, which I know for a fact you'd not blink in calling disgrace on every organ of public expression you could find.

    This time, however, you agree with him, and rather than having the balls to actually support him and his gay-bashing "oh-it's-the-sin-not-the-sinner" bullshit you are settling for an old easy dig at whoever pointed it out first.

    You're rumbled Malone.
  32. avatar Chi-Lite
    Nah, it's not an easy dig at all. I'm just bored with this oul ballix. It's an easy fucking subject to pick on in a really simplistic way, and that's why you all do it. There are deeper fecking problems here than the fact that Peter Robinson is a fundamentalist, but its an easy target, and it's also not long before the rest of us are roped in to it, and we get comments like the one above saying "if you believe in God you're gonna make a dickhead of yourself", or something like that.

    So fecking what. Yous are never interested in discussing the wider notions of sexual love or fucking morality, yous al just like to have a cheap dig at the fundamentalist christian, and with just a couple of leaps, rope the rest of us in too.

    And it's boring the ballix out of me.
  33. avatar Deestroyer
    [quote:226b4ecbc6="Chi-Lite"]See but that's not funny like. It's like something a child would say.[/quote:226b4ecbc6]
    Its charm lay in its childishness. From the mouths of babes and all that.

    Edit: whoops, I didn't realise there had been three pages of angry discussion before I hit reply. I've done myself a mischief.
    Last edited on , 1 times in total.
  34. avatar tinpot anto
    Marty you might be able to spend 45 minutes describing in precise theological terms the moral position of the Catholic Church as regards sex, love and relationships. I understand it full well myself. I don't agree with it in total, though aspects of it have a lot of merit. you agree with it in totality.

    Peter Robinson though doesn't understand that part of it at all. His argument is that Gayness is an abomination, because it says so in the bible, look there: it says abomination! I know that because that's EXACTLY what he said himself.

    Robbo is not just some guy you know, he's the First Minister of our Local Assembly. His views have a weight in society when expressed that means he should be very cautious about commenting. Expressing a view which describes homosexuals as "abomination" has a wider implication in their position in society than if you or I say it.

    And don't make that utterly spurious distinction of the sin not the sinner. Our First Minister spent 30 years of his life inciting hatred against catholics whilst skirting the precise legal definition very skillfully. If anyone should know how to hate monger successfully it's that fucker.
  35. avatar The enfant terrible
    This discussion has happened on here time and again. I think what might be more helpful is if we discuss why if everyone is so politically minded more people don't vote?
  36. avatar PhatBob
    Thats a dangerous proposition too though isn't it?

    I'd say more people don't vote because many people think the people they are presented with as choices are, for the most part, fuckwits who will achieve very little beyond keeping the old divides alive while getting rich off of our misery.

    And where would that get us?
  37. avatar The enfant terrible
    I agree in part with that but then that would lead us on to why don't more people become involved in politics. We have plenty of parties that could do with a bit more support: the workers party, SWP, communist party, woman's coalition, Rainbow George, take your pick.

    I've always been sceptical about how much we as individuals can influence what passes for democracy here but voting has to be better than just bitching.

    The fact that we got a politician from the Chinese community in at the last election shows we aren't all backwards. Come on people.
  38. avatar PhatBob
    I'm not involved with it because it was all so 'yer one thing or the other' when I was growing up that I thought 'Here now that's a pile of divisive oul balls...and my Ma won't let me go into the town cause of bombscares' and never looked back really.

    I vote like...don't get me wrong, but I feel really pessimistic when I do.

    Was glad to see Anna Lo get in there though right enough, that did make me feel better for a while.
  39. avatar blonderedhead
    I've never voted, but come the next election I'm definitely voting for the alliance party
  40. avatar fastfude
    [img:32345ada6b]http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/gallery/simpsons/SimpsonsSlaves.gif[/img:32345ada6b]
  41. avatar rentaghost
    [quote:ab7cbe9f79="blonderedhead"]I've never voted, but come the next election I'm definitely voting for the alliance party[/quote:ab7cbe9f79]

    why them? (asking out of professional and general curiosity)
  42. avatar Dirty Stevie Grizz
    Obviously a fan of beards and traybakes...
  43. avatar 10rapid
    I think what chi-lite is saying is that a lot of people agree with this view. Although I guess the DUP aren't a single issue party (not on that issue anyhow). Maybe a lot of people disagree but care more about the 'no surrender/no taigs about' issue than they do about sexuality.

    But where is the choice? I know the shinners are pro-equality but they're not really going to attract non-homophobe DUP voters are they?
    The UUP are probably more liberal. Certainly Trimble had yer man steven king as his advisor in his day and was trying to push a refrshingly secular interpretation of unioinism (just cos you're a catholic doesn't mean you can't vote for us mmmkay).
    Under reg empey however, it seems the party hardly even exists? Why aren't they making political capital out of all this to attract liberal, unionist voters who are repulsed by every bigoted outpouring from the DUP?

    Either because they're stupid and dearly need new leadership
    or,
    they're scared to disagree too much, lest they alienate too many of their own supporters by appearing too liberal.

    I'm not sure which, but fear it may be a mixture of both.
  44. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    I am glad I volountarily refuse to have anything to do with these idiots or vote for them. I would be rather ashamed if I voted any of these idiots.

    But seriously, it's not worrying that it's the first minister that says this. The really worrying thing is that the majority of the population agrees with him. If it was just him people could say "It's just the one idiot, who cares about his lunatic rambling", but if it's the majority of the people of Northern Ireland that think that homosexuality is an abomiation then we have a problem, a BIG problem.
  45. avatar That Man Fanjo
    [quote:8c4b123175="Chi-Lite"]
    I think you're mixing up R N B with Beyonce, and soul with Satanic metal, you wee daftie[/quote:8c4b123175]

    Ah-ha, but that's where you're wrong.

    This leading light in the black metal scene...
    [img:8c4b123175]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Gaahl_Gorgoroth.jpg[/img:8c4b123175]
    ... has come out of the cupboard, or whatever it is that happens.


    [Careful with them spikes, big lad - you'll have someone's eye out, or arse burst]
  46. avatar theavenue
    It's been said before, but religion and politics need to be kept seperate. His endorsement is atrocious and it sickens me that this open bigotry is permitted. What if the same were to be said about a race? Would this be allowed?
  47. avatar Daithi jasper
    Very doubtful, even for the DUP.
  48. avatar pauldoherty
    Marty Malone has joined the darkside.....he is Vadars right hand man....and lover...
  49. avatar spiceworld
    meh.....
  50. avatar Cugel
    [quote:013005cb35="theavenue"]It's been said before, but religion and politics need to be kept seperate.[/quote:013005cb35]

    This assertion as always puzzled me. Do you mean religion or do you mean faith? I may not be particularly religious but my faith affects my world view fundamentally. If I was to enter politics, my faith would have a very large effect on what I said or did. Anything else would be pretense. Can you be clearer as to what you mean by religion?
  51. avatar Chi-Lite
    Of course it would.

    It's a joe fallacy to think you could ever separate them. Or should. It's like saying that personality should be separate from politics, in which case we'd have to get the automatons in. That's what Uncle Joe Stalin did! Nazis!
  52. avatar The Grace Jones
    [quote:171606e3da="Chi-Lite"]Of course it would.

    It's a joe fallacy to think you could ever separate them. Or should. It's like saying that personality should be separate from politics, in which case we'd have to get the automatons in. That's what Uncle Joe Stalin did! Nazis![/quote:171606e3da]

    As a Christian you have no duty to allow yourself to be cheated, but you have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that you are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows.
  53. avatar theavenue
    [quote:0bb371cc59="Cugel"][quote:0bb371cc59="theavenue"]It's been said before, but religion and politics need to be kept seperate.[/quote:0bb371cc59]

    This assertion as always puzzled me. Do you mean religion or do you mean faith? I may not be particularly religious but my faith affects my world view fundamentally. If I was to enter politics, my faith would have a very large effect on what I said or did. Anything else would be pretense. Can you be clearer as to what you mean by religion?[/quote:0bb371cc59]

    A quick look at any country that is a theocracy is indication as to why religion and/or faith should be kept seperate. Israel for example. Also, right now, if you look on youtube, you'll find surplus videos of Americans being interviewed about who they're voting for in the upcoming election next week. Most of these videos are filled with religious fanatics who are voting based on McCains faith. They don't care about his politics, his policies or his ridiculous choice of VP. They say they aren't voting for Obama because his mother was an atheist and his father was muslim. I have seen several videos where people are quoted as saying, "it's all in his name, obama".

    I would cast my vote based on their policies, not because they believe in a silly invisible man. That's how it should be done. Voting based on beliefs is not politics.

    And in this case, here we have two people in the media who are condemning homosexuality, blatant ignorance and bigotry are allowed to do so because they claim it's in their bible. Their 2000 year old text book that was written by man. Again, I ask, what if a politician condemned another race? What if I said, "blacks out", but it's okay because my bible ambiguously said so?
  54. avatar Cugel
    [quote:54d3b90446="theavenue"][quote:54d3b90446="Cugel"][quote:54d3b90446="theavenue"]It's been said before, but religion and politics need to be kept seperate.[/quote:54d3b90446]

    This assertion as always puzzled me. Do you mean religion or do you mean faith? I may not be particularly religious but my faith affects my world view fundamentally. If I was to enter politics, my faith would have a very large effect on what I said or did. Anything else would be pretense. Can you be clearer as to what you mean by religion?[/quote:54d3b90446]

    A quick look at any country that is a theocracy is indication as to why religion and/or faith should be kept seperate. Israel for example.[/quote:54d3b90446]

    You have completely managed to avoid addressing my question and done nothing but offer straw men.

    What exactly do you mean by religion? Religion (faith) and politics does not necessarily mean theocracy. Atheism and politics does not automatically equal sense and fairness. You sound like you may be an atheist, but atheism is not a neutral position. Atheism is the antithesis of belief, not the absence of belief.
  55. avatar theavenue
    I'm talking about personal convictions.
  56. avatar Cugel
    [quote:39554aedf0="theavenue"]I'm talking about personal convictions.[/quote:39554aedf0]

    Why would anyone [b:39554aedf0]without[/b:39554aedf0] personal convictions [b:39554aedf0]ever[/b:39554aedf0] want to get involved in politics?
  57. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    I personally think atheism will in nearly all cases come up with a more rational outcome in politics than anyone that brings in faith and religion.
    I don't think anyone that uses faith and religion as basis for their political beliefs should be allowed to have government jobs. I mean, how could someone (and not talking about Robinson in particular, but generally everyone that is very religious or faith conscient that holds official State posts all around the world) that believes that homosexuality is an abomination just because the Bible said so or that believes in a theory such as Creationism that has no historical nor scientifical structure be allowed to hold such posts?
  58. avatar Recycled Alien
    [quote:c794cb421c="Cugel"] but atheism is not a neutral position. Atheism is the antithesis of belief, not the absence of belief.[/quote:c794cb421c]That's quite false.
    I don't believe in fairies, I don't believe in God, I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns. But I don't go round fiercely NOT believing in invisible pink unicorns. I hardly ever think about it. It's not important.

    It's a typical debating tactic of the religious to assert that, somehow, lack of belief in fairies is logically equivalent to belief in fairies. That's bogus.
  59. avatar Steven Dedalus
    [quote="Recycled Alien"][quote:cc314d2de2="Cugel"] That's quite false.

    It's a typical debating tactic of the religious to assert that, somehow, lack of belief in fairies is logically equivalent to belief in fairies. That's bogus.[/quote:cc314d2de2]

    Ah, but have you never come accross a militant atheist? The kind who is SO convinced of the non-existance of God that they literally go round, [i:cc314d2de2]preaching [/i:cc314d2de2]at everyone as to how they are wrong...

    They're worse than televangelists.
  60. avatar The enfant terrible
    I think the notion of separating faith and politics is nonsense. If you have a religious politician then their faith is going to influence their decisions regardless of whether they publicly admit it or not. We as the public should take more responsibility for who we vote into power and stop whining about it when the obvious happens.
  61. avatar Cugel
    [quote:ae5c56db35="POSITIVExYOUTH"]I personally think atheism will in nearly all cases come up with a more rational outcome in politics than anyone that brings in faith and religion.
    I don't think anyone that uses faith and religion as basis for their political beliefs should be allowed to have government jobs. I mean, how could someone (and not talking about Robinson in particular, but generally everyone that is very religious or faith conscient that holds official State posts all around the world) that believes that homosexuality is an abomination just because the Bible said so or that believes in a theory such as Creationism that has no historical nor scientifical structure be allowed to hold such posts?[/quote:ae5c56db35]

    And who do you propose be the one to police this? Who gets to decide what is acceptable belief and what isn't?

    [quote:ae5c56db35="Recycled Alien"]I don't believe in fairies, I don't believe in God, I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns. But I don't go round fiercely NOT believing in invisible pink unicorns. I hardly ever think about it. It's not important.

    It's a typical debating tactic of the religious to assert that, somehow, lack of belief in fairies is logically equivalent to belief in fairies. That's bogus.[/quote:ae5c56db35]

    And a typical debating tactic of the atheist is to throw up this type of straw man.
  62. avatar The Grace Jones
    [quote:f60a3a9c49="Cugel"]
    And a typical debating tactic of the atheist is to throw up this type of straw man.[/quote:f60a3a9c49]

    This sentence says exactly [i:f60a3a9c49]nothing[/i:f60a3a9c49]. I appreciate that this touches a nerve with you, but you need to appreciate that it's pure Santa Claus to many others.
  63. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    [quote:157c0415e0="Cugel"]And who do you propose be the one to police this? Who gets to decide what is acceptable belief and what isn't?[/quote:157c0415e0]

    Common sense as one thing, then laws (yes, I actually would welcome a law that prohibits people that are involved into religious activism) and naturally science.
    It's not that difficult to see the difference between people that have religious faith but still manage to propose policies and ideas that are not necessarily faith-connected and those that bring in their religious bigotry and bullshit into politics, like our dear Robinson.
  64. avatar Cugel
    [quote:b0e967259d="The Grace Jones"][quote:b0e967259d="Cugel"]
    And a typical debating tactic of the atheist is to throw up this type of straw man.[/quote:b0e967259d]

    This sentence says exactly [i:b0e967259d]nothing[/i:b0e967259d]. I appreciate that this touches a nerve with you, but you need to appreciate that it's pure Santa Claus to many others.[/quote:b0e967259d]

    Fair enough - but the point is, many, many people believe in God (a god). This is not equated with pink unicorns, fairies, Santa or anything else. The Judaeo Christian view of God is much bigger than any of those things. The straw man of pink unicorns or the FSM addresses the question with ridicule, which is not addressing the issue. I fully accept that people don't believe in God - and that is up to them. Their not believing in Him does not prove anything.
  65. avatar The Grace Jones
    Many, many people do and think all kinds of crazy shit, and their strength in numbers over any currently popular set of beliefs does not manage to make pointing to homosexuals as a biblical abomination any different in it's essence from Hitler using the bible to demonstrate that the Jews were an abomination too; it goes beyond just "atheism" at these points for me, if it were to be demonstrated beyond any doubt that the God of Abrahamic religion does indeed exist then I'd [i:03a5d50ba1]still[/i:03a5d50ba1] deny Him on the basis that if He does exist then He is plainly a total bastard.

    There are no two ways about this; there is no wiggle room in calling our fellow humans "abominations" for any reason; if you can't see that this is just plain damn wrong then [i:03a5d50ba1]you[/i:03a5d50ba1] are missing some plainly evident, fundamental, essential belief to me, one that is both more useful and more helpful than Because The Beardy Man Upstairs Said So.
  66. avatar Cugel
    Forget it
  67. avatar Tele
    Godwin's law.
  68. avatar The Grace Jones
    Godwin's Law was invoked on page 4 already, try to keep up. :wink:
  69. avatar That Man Fanjo
    [quote:84aafc9780="The Grace Jones"]
    There are no two ways about this; there is no wiggle room in calling our fellow humans "abominations" for any reason; if you can't see that this is just plain damn wrong then [i:84aafc9780]you[/i:84aafc9780] are missing some plainly evident, fundamental, essential belief to me, one that is both more useful and more helpful than Because The Beardy Man Upstairs Said So.[/quote:84aafc9780]

    Almost had me sucked in there... but this argument (Beardy Man notwithstanding) overlooks the existence of spides. They are an abomination. Gayners don't necessarily make the world worse. Spides do.

    For Grud's sake, I was talking to a teacher the other day, and she told me that in her school [i:84aafc9780]one [/i:84aafc9780]spide had got six girls up the duff in the space of two years. Six. In two years.
    I think if I had a kid, I'd rather he/she turned out to be a gay than a hive-spide.
  70. avatar Sinnerb0y
    Gok Wan's law then... :roll:
  71. avatar my-angel-rocks
    [quote:e7f17271b6="theavenue"]It's been said before, but religion and politics need to be kept seperate.[/quote:e7f17271b6]

    To say that someone with a belief in (a) god should not be in politics is as inane as saying someone with a belief in a capitalistic economic system should not be in politics. Their actions are influenced by their beliefs and their worldview.

    Whether or not you agree or disagree on a politician's beliefs (on anything, either god, capitalism, bus colour, enviromental...whatever) is neither here nor there. They've been elected, this is democracy.

    I'm always impressed by how active people in the US are when it comes to elections in promoting their candidate and pointing out flaws in the others (albeit with some regrettable level of dirty tricks). Here people moan and complain and how the politicans are a bunch of twats and morons, but come election time most will just shut up, wait til the election is over and then start complaining again about how the same bunch of twats and morons got elected.
  72. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    [quote:7c4f43a221="my-angel-rocks"][quote:7c4f43a221="theavenue"]It's been said before, but religion and politics need to be kept seperate.[/quote:7c4f43a221]

    To say that someone with a belief in (a) god should not be in politics is as inane as saying someone with a belief in a capitalistic economic system should not be in politics. Their actions are influenced by their beliefs and their worldview.

    Whether or not you agree or disagree on a politician's beliefs (on anything, either god, capitalism, bus colour, enviromental...whatever) is neither here nor there. They've been elected, this is democracy.

    I'm always impressed by how active people in the US are when it comes to elections in promoting their candidate and pointing out flaws in the others (albeit with some regrettable level of dirty tricks). Here people moan and complain and how the politicans are a bunch of twats and morons, but come election time most will just shut up, wait til the election is over and then start complaining again about how the same bunch of twats and morons got
    elected.[/quote:7c4f43a221]

    Ah no, there is a fundamental difference between religion and political belief. Political belief is based upon interpretation of FACTS that actually occurred and that can be proved to be right (or in the opposing view, wrong). Religious belief is based NOT based on facts. Is based on suppositions, on something that cannot be proved and that lacks any kind of proof for it's existence.
    So long story short, you can have whatever political belief because whatever it might be because you can proove them through a logical interpretation of facts and through a logic and reational analysis of determined ideas. Thing that cannot happen with religion because yo cant proove anything whatsoever.

    Therefore it may be 'democracy' and people that are elected have a right to take their seat. That is why these religious bigots shouldn't have the right to stand for election to start with.
  73. avatar The enfant terrible
    [quote:c51c8fad7e="That Man Fanjo"]Gayners don't necessarily make the world worse. Spides do.[/quote:c51c8fad7e]

    Spides don't spread the AIDS.
  74. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:76cefe614f="The Grace Jones"][quote:76cefe614f="Cugel"]
    And a typical debating tactic of the atheist is to throw up this type of straw man.[/quote:76cefe614f]

    This sentence says exactly [i:76cefe614f]nothing[/i:76cefe614f]. I appreciate that this touches a nerve with you, but you need to appreciate that it's pure Santa Claus to many others.[/quote:76cefe614f]

    This, however, is also a straw man. the fact is that you simply do not understand what it is you're denying. It's like quadrilateral equations.

    I also do not believe in fairies, or Santa Claus, or "silly invisible men". For the record.
    However, I'm sure you all know the gist of this, so I'll try not to get bogged down.

    As for the specific issue, I think the language used was fairly unacceptable, and I wouldn't say it to anyone. However, it's a serious issue if you want to demonise a particular view of sexual morality.

    So, out of interest, would you all still find it unacceptable if they had both simply said "homosexuality is morally wrong"? I suspect some of you would.

    Now, if they constantly brought up the subject in order to harangue people, that's a different matter. But if they had mildly said, when specifically asked their views, that it is morally wrong, would you all feel the same outrage?

    Serious question like.
  75. avatar clivemcl
    The thing is, the Christian stance IS that Homosexuality is an Abomination.

    The trouble is, some christians think that means they are allowed to see it as an abomination.
    Or at least we interpret what they are saying as a personal feeling of abomination.

    Truth is scripture is telling us that GOD sees it as an abomination.

    God also see lots of things as abominations (ie detestable) - murder, adultary, but also smaller things like lies and slander and hatred.

    Truth be told, God would see Iris and Robbo as abominations the way he sees everyone as abominations.

    This is why (as the story goes) we need Jesus, because he took the punishment, and now ALL of us who were destined for Hell, now have the possibility of Heaven.

    No-one is more abominable than another, and no-one is loved more than another.

    I'm not arguing for either case, simply filling in the blanks that havnt come through in the media.

    Hopefully this is the full story.

    I'm sure if you asked Iris and Robbo, they would tell you they are also Sinners, and that without Christ they are also an abomination.

    I would expect an arguement regarding 'why would God make someone born Homosexual if they werent allowed to be'.

    The response from the christian faith I'm sure would say: Well similarly, for men (mostly) it is our natural instinct to have sex with any woman we find attractive, yet it is commonly accepted that man should marry and then not have any other women.

    If you argue the 'if its natural..' arguement you would have to allow your husbands and wives to sleep around then!

    I'm reluctant to get into a debate here, I just hope I gave some of you an insight, it all seemed a little one way there.

    Finally,
    Should Robbo have said this as a politician - Definatly Not! Plonker!
  76. avatar Recycled Alien
    [quote:88b5ab4103="clivemcl"]The thing is, the Christian stance IS that Homosexuality is an Abomination.[/quote:88b5ab4103]Oh, really? Tell me what Jesus had to say about sexuality.
  77. avatar Chi-Lite
    Stupid argument again.

    Christianity IS NOT solely composed of the words of Christ. There aren't enough of them. :D
    He never said he was God either, ya wingnut.
  78. avatar my-angel-rocks
    [quote:8299219141="POSITIVExYOUTH"]Ah no, there is a fundamental difference between religion and political belief. Political belief is based upon interpretation of FACTS that actually occurred and that can be proved to be right (or in the opposing view, wrong).[/quote:8299219141]

    Really? You can prove that capitalism or anarchism or are right or wrong? Is there even a single universal "right" or "wrong" for these concepts? Right or wrong for whom?

    [quote:8299219141]Therefore it may be 'democracy' and people that are elected have a right to take their seat. That is why these religious bigots shouldn't have the right to stand for election to start with.[/quote:8299219141]

    Its not really democracy if you start limiting the options. This is why the electrate are given the choice to choose what they say is right or wrong.

    If you disagree, despotism probably isn't the solution. (Although as that is a political belief that is based on FACTS you can prove whether it is or isn't)
  79. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    [quote:b3c9660eb5="my-angel-rocks"][quote:b3c9660eb5="POSITIVExYOUTH"]Ah no, there is a fundamental difference between religion and political belief. Political belief is based upon interpretation of FACTS that actually occurred and that can be proved to be right (or in the opposing view, wrong).[/quote:b3c9660eb5]

    Really? You can prove that capitalism or anarchism or are right or wrong? Is there even a single universal "right" or "wrong" for these concepts? Right or wrong for whom?[/quote:b3c9660eb5]

    Well, in a way you can.
    Depending on what side you are of a certain issue you can prove that capitalism or anarchism are right or wrong. And not through proving the idea itself but by proving the starting point of the idea, using actual recorded facts to support your thesis and by analysing speficic facts and figures to support your idea. Same can be done if you are opposed to them.
    With religion you can't. First of all because you can't prove the existence of God and secondly because you can't prove 3/4 of what is written in the Bible actually happened.
  80. avatar Chi-Lite
    This is the most incomprehensible post I've ever read.

    What?

    What?

    You can prove that Capitalism is both right and wrong at the same time, but you can't prove supposed historical facts?

    Jesus Mary and Joseph!
  81. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    [quote:13c6f16b55="Chi-Lite"]This is the most incomprehensible post I've ever read.

    What?

    What?

    You can prove that Capitalism is both right and wrong at the same time, but you can't prove supposed historical facts?

    Jesus Mary and Joseph![/quote:13c6f16b55]

    Well, if you are pro-capitalist you can prove it to be right by referring to specific historical facts and examples and offering an analysis that supports your thesis and if you are anti-capitalist you can prove it to be wrong by referring to other historical facts and/or providing alternative analysis on the historical facts used by pro-capitalists.
    Thing that, and I repeat it, cannot be done in religion because you cannot prove 3/4 of what religion bangs on about in the Bible (or Quran or whatever sacred text).
  82. avatar T Entertainment
    "Tell me what Jesus had to say about sexuality."

    "Christianity IS NOT solely composed of the words of Christ."

    Right, this is interesting. I often hear the Christian argument that Christ's view of people in general negates the 'homosexuality is an abomination' argument.
    Marty, you appear to be objecting to that.

    Let me ask of Marty a simple question, which really only requires a one word - or one line - answer: do [i:abbbc5528b]you[/i:abbbc5528b] think homsexuality is an abomination?

    And could a Christian who definitely [i:abbbc5528b]doesn't[/i:abbbc5528b] think that, tell me how they can get past the fact that the Bible - the word of God - says exactly that on a number of occasions?
  83. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:3571ebec6b="T Entertainment"]"Let me ask of Marty a simple question, which really only requires a one word - or one line - answer: do [i:3571ebec6b]you[/i:3571ebec6b] think homsexuality is an abomination?[/quote:3571ebec6b]

    I must admit, I'm not altogether sure what the word "abomination" means. So rather than have language foisted on me, let me say it in my own words. I believe that homosexuality is a spiritually and morally unfulfilling lifestyle, and that it doesn't live up to the fullness of life and love for which we all strive.

    I wouldn't harangue anybody for it, anymore than I harangue unmarried mothers, one night stands, or serial adulterers.

    Now, Chris, had Iris and Peter simply said, when asked, something along those lines, would you still find it unacceptable for a politician?

    [quote:3571ebec6b]Well, if you are pro-capitalist you can prove it to be right by referring to specific historical facts and examples and offering an analysis that supports your thesis and if you are anti-capitalist you can prove it to be wrong by referring to other historical facts and/or providing alternative analysis on the historical facts used by pro-capitalists.[/quote:3571ebec6b]

    In other words, you come up with an explanatory analysis....this is also what is done in religious thinking.


    [quote:3571ebec6b]Thing that, and I repeat it, cannot be done in religion because you cannot prove 3/4 of what religion bangs on about in the Bible (or Quran or whatever sacred text).[/quote:3571ebec6b]

    You can prove the historical facts as much as many other things that are taken as true. Facts about Babylonian ritual, for example, or Hittite military technique. The bible offers an explanatory analysis, not just of specific historical facts (althought it does do this), but also of life and existence in general.
  84. avatar The Ronster
    Are there any gays out there who feel spiritually and morally unfulfilled?

    Anyone?


    What if you don't believe in spirituality or don't have much time for relativistic concepts like morality?
  85. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    [quote:ecf952b26e="Chi-Lite"]
    In other words, you come up with an explanatory analysis....this is also what is done in religious thinking.
    [/quote:ecf952b26e]

    Difference being, the explanatory analysis made in historiography and political theory is done on FACTS and well established historical events.
    Religion cannot claim to have such a fundamental starting point.


    [quote:ecf952b26e="Chi-Lite"]
    You can prove the historical facts as much as many other things that are taken as true. Facts about Babylonian ritual, for example, or Hittite military technique. The bible offers an explanatory analysis, not just of specific historical facts (althought it does do this), but also of life and existence in general.[/quote:ecf952b26e]

    Specific historical facts? Think you are getting something wrong here.
    The Bible is NOT based in historical facts. Historiography and historical analyisis is done on documents, artefacts, architectural findings and such thing, history is done through FACTS and EVIDENCE. Religion can't provide neither, it can't provide neither documents nor evidence to support the claim that what is written into it did actually happen and can be considered a historical documents.
    Arguing that the Bible can be used as a reliable and well documented historical document is complete and utter lunacy.
  86. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:201fd86283]What if you don't believe in spirituality or don't have much time for relativistic concepts like morality[/quote:201fd86283]
    Well then you shouldn't have a fucking problem with someone calling you an abomination then, innit. :P

    [quote:201fd86283]The Bible is NOT based in historical facts. Historiography and historical analyisis is done on documents, artefacts, architectural findings and such thing, history is done through FACTS and EVIDENCE.[/quote:201fd86283]

    Lets see now...documents.
    The Gospels, Epistles and many other such documents dating from the first century.

    Artefacts

    The existence of Christian Artefacts from the first century AD onwards throughout all of western civilisation.

    Architectural findings

    Many many architectural findings point to customs, rituals and behaviour of the times, and fit in with the gist of certain stories. We don't have Jesus' skeleton (surprisingly), but then neither do we have Caesar's.

    [quote:201fd86283]
    Religion can't provide neither, it can't provide neither documents nor evidence to support the claim that what is written into it did actually happen and can be considered a historical documents.[/quote:201fd86283]

    Jesus Christ, it is based on DOCUMENTS, many of which can be conclusively dated to the first century AD, with some evidence of previous oral accounts. Fuck me.
    [quote:201fd86283]Arguing that the Bible can be used as a reliable and well documented historical document is complete and utter lunacy. [/quote:201fd86283]

    Well, it's certainly well-documented, more so than any other account in the history of, well, history. And it, like, comes from the past.


    EDIT:


    [quote:201fd86283]Chi-Lite wrote:

    Artefacts

    The existence of Christian Artefacts from the first century AD onwards throughout all of western civilisation.

    Architectural findings

    Many many architectural findings point to customs, rituals and behaviour of the times, and fit in with the gist of certain stories. We don't have Jesus' skeleton (surprisingly), but then neither do we have Caesar's.[/quote:201fd86283]

    They do not prove that what is written in the Bible is right.

    Architectural findings can't prove ANY event, given that it's just stuff. They can provide some of the context, and likely evidence which fits with some of the stories.

    [quote:201fd86283]Just prooves the existence of Christianity and the developement of the infrastructure.
    Prooving the existence of Christianity and prooving what Christianity preaches is very different.[/quote:201fd86283]

    Well yes. But then you have a strange idea of what constitutes "proof", as shown by your comments about simultaneously proving and disproving "Capitalism", which is just mad.




    [quote:201fd86283]Chi-Lite wrote:

    Jesus Christ, it is based on DOCUMENTS, many of which can be conclusively dated to the first century AD, with some evidence of previous oral accounts. Fuck me.

    Please direct me to these document, because to my knowledge there is NO OFFICIAL ROMAN document that prooves the existence of a 'Jesus' whatsoever.[/quote:201fd86283]


    And you only believe the Romans do you?



    [quote:201fd86283]Contemporary historians make no reference to Jesus or his actions whatsoever[/quote:201fd86283]

    Given that, during his lifetime, he made very little impact on great historical and imperial events, that is not surprising. What do exist though, are lots and lots of near contemporary acvcounts, which can often be shown to have derived from an even-nearer-contemporary oral source. There are many historical events that are known in this way.


    [quote:201fd86283]And if you refer to the Gospels as documents for his existence, then I am sorry, but they do not constitute valid and reliable historical documents.[/quote:201fd86283]

    Why? They represent accounts which, given minor changes, which you would expect, outline a general narrative and course of events on which they pretty much completely agree, and which derive from accounts, if not of the time, then at least from soon soon after.


    [quote:201fd86283]Chi-Lite wrote:

    Well, it's certainly well-documented, more so than any other account in the history of, well, history. And it, like, comes from the past.
    The Bible itself may be extremely well documented, but that is not the same as saying that what is written in the Bible is well documented. The book itself is very well documented, won't argue that. But to say that the events of the Bible are some of the best documented in history is complete horseshit.[/quote:201fd86283]


    This is a strange thing to say. The book is well-documented, but not its contents? So what is well-documented, like, the paper it's written on or something?

    [quote:201fd86283]And as for it coming from the past it doesn't mean anything. The stories about leprechauns, fairies and the such come from the past but that doesn't mean they existed or that what is said happened[/quote:201fd86283]

    No. Stories about leprechauns etc are written mythology, and even at the time were accepted as such. the many many accounts of the bible all purport to document something that actually happened. Like Eusebius, say, or the Bayeaux tapestry. That doesn't mean beyond all doubt that Constantine did win the battle of Milvan bridge, or that the battle of Hastings really took place. But I'll bet you they did.

    [quote:201fd86283]Once again, it's down to the most basic principles of historical analysis and the theory behind it.[/quote:201fd86283]

    Indeed. Something of which you appear to have very little grasp.
    Last edited on , 1 times in total.
  87. avatar T Entertainment
    "I must admit, I'm not altogether sure what the word "abomination" means." - You really should be in politics Marty, with obfuscation like that. This is certainly the first time I've ever heard you struggle with the definition of a word. And this is a word which has barely been out of public discourse in about six months now.

    "So rather than have language foisted on me," - BY THE WORD OF GOD, THE BIBLE!
    Hardly foisted if you are a willing adherent of that creed.
  88. avatar Chi-Lite
    It's not obfuscation, it's not a word i would use, were I translating the Bible from its original greek and hebrew. I actually am not too sure what it means, I'd imagine it's generally used in a specific religious context meaning "against the wishes of God" or some such. Which is fair enough. You can hardly take offence at that if you're an atheist. And if you don't go in for "morality and all that", then you can't take offence at anything, sure it's all relative.

    As for "the Word of God", Jesus didn't write the Old and New Testaments in modern English, though a lot of you seem to think that he did. So what about the question i asked ye then, Chris et al?
  89. avatar clivemcl
    From the sound of what is being said, I'm not sure my post has been read properly, or at least its being ignored...
  90. avatar clivemcl
    [quote:445bc7d02e="Recycled Alien"][quote:445bc7d02e="clivemcl"]The thing is, the Christian stance IS that Homosexuality is an Abomination.[/quote:445bc7d02e]Oh, really? Tell me what Jesus had to say about sexuality.[/quote:445bc7d02e]

    John 8

    3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

    But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

    9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

    11"No one, sir," she said.
    "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."


    Jesus STILL sees sin as a problem in her life, but he does not condemn her, he points out that everyone is a sinner, and he loves the woman.
  91. avatar T Entertainment
    "Go now and leave your life of sin."

    Ah, but there's rub - in the case of a homosexual, then he or she would have 'leave that life of sin?'

    Put baldly: is the practice of homosexuality a sin? Yea or nay?


    Oh Marty, I've never said it's 'unacceptable' for them to say anything (within the law). That's freedom of speech for you.

    And do you think the practice of homsexuality is a sin, or not?
  92. avatar captain a
    christianity in general is hoppin with homosexuals in my experience, and as an organisation pushes sexual segregation and gender specific orders. but so far as most subjects go, debating with a christian is sort of pointless, as it would be just as easy to pick up the bible, and anything you want to argue about, find a contradicting paragraph and qoute it back at yourself ad infinitum untill you realise that in the forum of religion, you are not really dealing with an individual, more so a person who has been taught or in some cases decided to seek all moral guidance from one book.
    the origins of the bible go much further back then the quoted 100ad, many of the chapters were supposedly rewrites of tales based on a guy called 'zoroaster' combined with other texts, to give context.. so to analyse it historically a person has to take in the politics from egypt to europe in the past 8000 years to really grasp what elements are in there. then my bible history is based on two books... peace out hippies.
  93. avatar daveshorty
    EVERYBODY LOOK AT ME!!
  94. avatar my-angel-rocks
    [quote:26a13f02d0="POSITIVExYOUTH"]Well, if you are pro-capitalist you can prove it to be right by referring to specific historical facts and examples and offering an analysis that supports your thesis and if you are anti-capitalist you can prove it to be wrong by referring to other historical facts and/or providing alternative analysis on the historical facts used by pro-capitalists.[/quote:26a13f02d0]

    What exactly are these historical facts on which capitalism is based?

    Political and economic theories are based on people's observations of the world. As are religious theories.
  95. avatar Recycled Alien
    [quote:983382d3b1="Chi-Lite"]Stupid argument again.

    Christianity IS NOT solely composed of the words of Christ. There aren't enough of them.[/quote:983382d3b1]Exactly! All the rest of it is MADE UP.

    Particularly by that St. Paul. When you read his epistles to the early churches you can tell that he's winging it -- just making it up as he goes along. :)
  96. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    [quote:be626e4f00="Chi-Lite"]
    Artefacts

    The existence of Christian Artefacts from the first century AD onwards throughout all of western civilisation.

    Architectural findings

    Many many architectural findings point to customs, rituals and behaviour of the times, and fit in with the gist of certain stories. We don't have Jesus' skeleton (surprisingly), but then neither do we have Caesar's.
    [/quote:be626e4f00]

    They do not prove that what is written in the Bible is right. Just prooves the existence of Christianity and the developement of the infrastructure.
    Prooving the existence of Christianity and prooving what Christianity preaches is very different.


    [quote:be626e4f00="Chi-Lite"]
    Jesus Christ, it is based on DOCUMENTS, many of which can be conclusively dated to the first century AD, with some evidence of previous oral accounts. Fuck me.
    [/quote:be626e4f00]

    Please direct me to these document, because to my knowledge there is NO OFFICIAL ROMAN document that prooves the existence of a 'Jesus' whatsoever. Contemporary historians make no reference to Jesus or his actions whatsoever and the historians that post-date Jesus do not talk in any deatail at all about him or his existence suggesting that they may have spoken through hear-say.
    And if you refer to the Gospels as documents for his existence, then I am sorry, but they do not constitute valid and reliable historical documents.


    [quote:be626e4f00="Chi-Lite"]
    Well, it's certainly well-documented, more so than any other account in the history of, well, history. And it, like, comes from the past.[/quote:be626e4f00]

    The Bible itself may be extremely well documented, but that is not the same as saying that what is written in the Bible is well documented. The book itself is very well documented, won't argue that. But to say that the events of the Bible are some of the best documented in history is complete horseshit.
    And as for it coming from the past it doesn't mean anything. The stories about leprechauns, fairies and the such come from the past but that doesn't mean they existed or that what is said happened.

    Once again, it's down to the most basic principles of historical analysis and the theory behind it.
  97. avatar RabbBennett
    Please stop directing post at Marty until further notice, he's run out off credit...... :wink:
  98. avatar my-angel-rocks
    [quote:81534fee2a="Recycled Alien"]Particularly by that St. Paul. When you read his epistles to the early churches you can tell that he's winging it -- just making it up as he goes along. :)[/quote:81534fee2a]

    And this is news?
  99. avatar my-angel-rocks
    [quote:1e087d735b="POSITIVExYOUTH"]Proving the existence of Capitalism and proving what Capitalism preaches is very different.[/quote:1e087d735b]

    Fixed it for you...
  100. avatar montanayaz
  101. avatar Jimmy Seagus
    [i:1ff5741738]I believe that homosexuality is a spiritually and morally unfulfilling lifestyle, and that it doesn't live up to the fullness of life and love for which we all strive.[/i:1ff5741738]


    It's not so much a lifestyle as such, is it? - more a predetermined and integral part of a person's being.
    I mean, whitewater rafting, extreme sports and bungee jumping, that's a lifestyle. How do you know it's unfulfilling and why do you imagine that everyone is actually [i:1ff5741738]striving[/i:1ff5741738] for a fullness of love and life?
  102. avatar Mickeycolensoparade
    Aye but, is Louis Walsh openly practicing?

    I'll let you decide whether I mean homosexuality or christianity.
  103. avatar unplugged
    for once...as the age old mobster johnny tightlips would say...i aint saying nothing.

    then johnny tightlips is quite a gay name too.
  104. avatar The enfant terrible
    Talking about queers called Johnny, check this out:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5L6gjL5wC4

    How bad is that? It's the worst thing they've done yet.
  105. avatar Chi-Lite
    Ah fuck it, I'll not bother

    [quote:b465fd1d45="Jimmy Seagus"]why do you imagine that everyone is actually [i:b465fd1d45]striving[/i:b465fd1d45] for a fullness of love and life?[/quote:b465fd1d45]

    Maybe you're not. But I reckon you are. Don't you think it would be nice? :-D
  106. avatar rentaghost
    How can I be sure when your intrusion's my illusion?
    How can I be sure when all the time you change my mind?
    I ask for more and more, how can I be sure?

    When you don't give me love, you give me pale shelter
    You don't give me love, you give me cold hands
    And I can't operate on this failure
    When all I wanna be is completely in command

    How can I be sure for all you say you keep me waiting?
    How can I be sure when all you do is see me through?
    I ask for more and more, how can I be sure

    When you don't give me love, you give me pale shelter
    You don't give me love, you give me cold hands
    And I can't operate on this failure
    When all I wanna be is completely in command

    I've been here before, there is no why, no need to try
    I thought you had it all, I'm calling you, I'm calling you
    I ask for more and more
    How can I be sure?

    When you don't give me love, you give me pale shelter
    You don't give me love, you give me cold hands
    And I can't operate on this failure
    When all I wanna be is completely in command
  107. avatar trepanner
    [quote:a9cfd007f0="Chi-Lite"]Ah fuck it, I'll not bother

    [quote:a9cfd007f0="Jimmy Seagus"]why do you imagine that everyone is actually [i:a9cfd007f0]striving[/i:a9cfd007f0] for a fullness of love and life?[/quote:a9cfd007f0]

    Maybe you're not. But I reckon you are. Don't you think it would be nice? :-D[/quote:a9cfd007f0]

    Compared to the other option, which is "Shall surely be put to death", if memory serves, it seems, well [i:a9cfd007f0]nicer[/i:a9cfd007f0], at least. Alright, you've convinced me. It's a sin. Fruitners should all repent, repress their bum-urges and join the priesthood. "Problem" solved.
  108. avatar Tele
    Nice to see so many people who are certain about these issues. I assumed that no-one knew whether God exists or not.

    Thanks Fastfude! Just goes to show when you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME. LOL.
  109. avatar Jimmy Seagus
    [i:f9a22014fa]Maybe you're not. But I reckon you are[/i:f9a22014fa]

    Hahahaha

    The arrogance of god-botherers is mind-blowing stuff, eh?

    It would be [i:f9a22014fa]nice[/i:f9a22014fa] if you didn't presume to project [i:f9a22014fa]your[/i:f9a22014fa] ideals onto others.
  110. avatar Chi-Lite
    Ha, that is not an ideal, but an open end recognition of differing goods.

    Are you trying to tell me that you DON'T want a happy and fulfilled life? Am I arrogant to assume you do? Put me right here, you really want to live a life of lonely misery, that's right isn't it? :lol:
  111. avatar Jimmy Seagus
    No, the point is you *don't know* what other people want, and it is ridiculous of you to assume that you do.
    I may want a 5 door Ford Focus and a cheeseburger for all you know, yet you [i:f7b421d8b6]KNOW[/i:f7b421d8b6] that everyone is on a David Carradine Kung Fu-style quest for their inner self.

    You are Sally Jessy Raphael and I claim my 5.
  112. avatar T Entertainment
    So, practising homosexuals are not fulfilling their potential as human beings. In 'love and life'?

    It's actually somehow still shocking that you don't realise just how offensive and plain ignorant what you're saying is!
    Last edited on , 1 times in total.
  113. avatar tinpot anto
    The real issue is why so many Christians feel that gayness is so important to them that they should castigate it at every opportunity. And why influential Christians in positions of power seem to want to perpetuate, rather than challenge that situation.

    Surely even the 10 commandments are the most important set of laws to God. When was the last time you heard any Christian politician feel the need to devote TV time to the coveting of oxen?

    There's something wrong with that. Even you, Marty must admit that the amount of comment on homosexuality is completely disproportionate to it's status as a sinful act.

    At the end of the day the only person it could conceivably harm is oneself, in the context that any sex outside the making of kids within a christian marriage is harmful, or sinful.

    The real obvious thing that angers everyone is that Peter Robinson and his cunt of a wife are not remotely interested in upholding the scripture or being good christians.

    This is the real truth of the matter:

    They are bigots. Gay people make them feel a bit funny about themselves, so they are looking for a way to criticise them. Even better, most of their voters agree with them so if they say it they might bolster up a few votes, especially after being so cosy with they shinners over the last while.

    The bible says it's an ABOMINATION sure, that will do.

    That's the only logic involved in their epxression of this.

    Surely you can see that that's not only the truth of this mattter, but that as such it is demeaning and insulting not only to gays but also debases Christianity as a tool for increasing Love, Happiness and Peace in the world.

    They are using the teachings of Christ as a tool for selfish political expediency. Tell me that's not a fucking disgrace again.
  114. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:b1a25a9cff="Jimmy Seagus"]No, the point is you *don't know* what other people want, and it is ridiculous of you to assume that you do.
    [/quote:b1a25a9cff]

    Ok, let's straighten this out. Everybody wants happiness and fulfilment, to suggest that they don't is a complete fallacy and contradiction.

    The question is in what does happiness and fulfilment consist? I'm arguing that it can't be fully achieved within the spehere of a same-sex sexual relationship, that is all. I was earlier going to give a lot of reasons, but I couldn't be annoyed.

    To try to argue that people might not want happiness and fulfilment is to talk shite.

    That's the only point I was making in this regard.

    The wider argument about whether homosexuality can constitute a totally fulfilled life of love and happiness is a complex one. I also admit, and have done before, that I could be wrong. It's a view i hold, which seems rational to me, but which I don't claim to be infallible.

    Is that ok?

    [quote:b1a25a9cff]The real issue is why so many Christians feel that gayness is so important to them that they should castigate it at every opportunity. And why influential Christians in positions of power seem to want to perpetuate, rather than challenge that situation. [/quote:b1a25a9cff]

    I agree, that is the real issue. I think there is absolutely no call for Robinson or anyone else to be banging on about it all the time...however, if they are asked, I think they should give an honest answer and not be castigated for it.

    [quote:b1a25a9cff]They are bigots. Gay people make them feel a bit funny about themselves, so they are looking for a way to criticise them[/quote:b1a25a9cff]

    I certainly do agree that they are bigots.
    However, as far as I'm aware, they don't actively go out of their way to find opportunities to criticise homosexuals. In fact, as far as I'm aware, ALL of these recent controversies have arisen as a result of them being asked direct questions by the media, and answering those questions truthfully.

    If they decided to bring it up regularly in the Assembly, or bang on about it at their party conference, you would have a point.

    But they don't. All they're guilty of is being a soft target for malicious interviewers who want a bit of controversy. And, lo and behold, thousands of wankers on internet forums province-wide quickly fall into line. :P

    In short, Anto, your argument - that they deliberately raise the issue of homosexuality at every opportunity in order to criticise people - has little or no basis in fact.

    They simply do not do this. If they really wanted to use it as an excuse to harangue homosexuals at every opportunity, they would mention it all the time. The fact that both of them have only mentioned it when asked a direct question puts lie to that.
  115. avatar T Entertainment
    "thousands of wankers on internet forums province-wide quickly fall into line"

    Man who genuinely believes 'practising' gay men and women cannot fulfil their potential as human beings sees through bullshit which the rest of us can't? I see.
  116. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:455087815b="T Entertainment"]"thousands of wankers on internet forums province-wide quickly fall into line"

    Man who genuinely believes 'practising' gay men and women cannot fulfil their potential as human beings sees through bullshit which the rest of us can't? I see.[/quote:455087815b]

    Try "have not fulfilled one minor aspect of their human potential"...

    You make it sound like I'm suggesting they are not fully human, which I categorically am not.

    I also believe that a bachelor who spends his whole life as a singleton does not fulfil one particular aspect of his potential as a human...

    that does not make him less human, or a sinner. What makes him a sinner is if, despite his bachelor status, he has lots of sex.

    Same thing.

    Those of you who have absolutely no problem with bachelors having sex will obviously see no problem with homosexuality.

    Fairy nuff
    Last edited on , 1 times in total.
  117. avatar trepanner
    "What makes him a sinner is if.."
    "...is if he collects sticks on the Sabbath", amongst myriad other things.

    Q. If you know so much about happiness and fulfillment, why are you such an angry wee wanker?
  118. avatar T Entertainment
    "Try "cannot fulfil one minor aspect of their human potential"..."

    Minor aspect? Oh, come on - it's the central aspect of the human existence (for most people, with some psychiatrically challeneged exceptions), and you surely know that.

    And if it's such a minor aspect, why does it exercise you so? And if it doesn't exercise you, why do you jump in every time to write pages and pages essentially defending those who call gay people 'abominations'? It kinda appears it does indeed bother you very much indeed. Seriously tho.
  119. avatar Chi-Lite
    Ha, if talking shite on an internet forum while bored in work means I'm Bovverrred, well, flip me. :lol: It's a wee argument to have, ya know.

    I'm not a wee wanker. D'ya wanna go for a drink? :P
    Last edited on , 1 times in total.
  120. avatar trepanner
    No, it's a sin!
  121. avatar Chi-Lite
    Ha ha, see trying to have an argument with yous boys about sin and sexual morality, it's like trying to teach a blind man with no arms how to play darts like eric bristow
  122. avatar trepanner
    [quote:41bb02c993="Chi-Lite"]Ha ha, see trying to have an argument with yous boys about sin and sexual morality, it's like trying to teach a blind man with no arms how to play darts like eric bristow[/quote:41bb02c993]

    It's worse than that, Ted; it's like trying to teach a blind man that Leviticus 21:17-23 sez he's not fit to approach the altar of God.
  123. avatar Chi-Lite
    With that shirt!

    Bill, you're fucking right he's not. :lol:

    Tell me what she's like
    Tell me what she's like

    Well you know how the English upper classes
    are thick and ignorant?
    And you've seen the scum from Notting Hill and Moseley
    The CND?
    They describe nice things as wonderful
    She never would say that
    she is totally different in every way
    She is so, sa, ahsa ahsa sa sa sa

    What's she like
    What's she like
    In time, in time
    Tell me what she's like
    Tell me what she's like

    Bill...I'm trying
    I'm trying to tell you what she's like
  124. avatar trepanner
    Are you not out of posts yet, infidel?!
  125. avatar tinpot anto
    Nah Marty, the idea that Iris Robinson only mentioned the gays when explicitly asked about it is complete balls. It was her that said they could be "Cured".

    Surely the one thing stopping gays from fulfilling their existence as human beings is something that God put in them when they were born. Namely to not fancy the opposite sex.

    Catholic morality in particular is very keen to say that never having sex is no bar to a fulfilling life, and neither it is, in fact people cope with all sorts of deprivations and problems and lead complete and full lives in every way, whether that's sex, money, disability or whatever.


    This idea you're coming out with that a gay man is not fulfilling his human potential is as ignorant a view as I've ever heard uttered from any fools mouth.

    You're going to have to condemn those with a low sperm count, women who are unable to bear children. They are born without the potential to be "fully human" following the logic of your eyes. Never mind the rest of a multitude of disorders that prevents people being fully human.

    Gays are born as such. They do not possess the potential to fulfill procreation, in the "normal" way any more than someone with a severe mental disability or someone with another condition which prevents them from having children. Whether through a physical problem or one of sexuality. As I understand the theological situation, we are to understand all humans through their potential to be human, rather than the reality of it, in order that all those created in the image of God are respected as God's children.

    Referring to those who cannot have children as "not fulfilling their human potential" is ignorant, insulting and utterly un-christian of you.
  126. avatar Chi-Lite
    I'm telling ye.
    Last edited on , 2 times in total.
  127. avatar tinpot anto
    You're really trying much too hard here, marty to try and string any sense out of what your talking. Whenever anyone challenges you suddenly "potential" and "potentiality" have a subtle meaning we are all missing, allowing you to lay into the gays and disavow your words in the same breath.

    It's cowardly and ignorant.


    You are still defending the use of christian teaching to promulgate hate and bigotry and you know it. I can hardly think of much worse sins.

    And on the contrary Marty, as a Buddhist I beleive that desire itself is the cause of unhappiness, and is inevitable for all living beings. Self sacrifice and discipline are essential practices for your Buddhists, but with a very important caveat that if sacrificing something is leading to too much pain then it's actual going to damage your progress and harm others around you.

    Just as can be amply demonstrated by the example of nearly every single gay man or woman forced into a loveless marriage or a lifetime of embittered religious servitude by religious and social bigotry.
  128. avatar sazchops
    [quote:2e85648ebd]Maybe you could provide some examples of an occassion on which she has introduced the topic of homosexuality, apropos nothing? I suspect you can't. [/quote:2e85648ebd]

    I suspect I can. How about when there was a discussion on paeodphiles and she came out with "the only thing worse than a paedophile is a homosexual?" The topic was completely unrelated to homosexuality. The woman is a hateful ol' bag!

    "You are still defending the use of christian teaching to promulgate hate and bigotry and you know it. " - agreed!
  129. avatar Chi-Lite
    Damn internet!
    Last edited on , 1 times in total.
  130. avatar Chi-Lite
    Actually, I take it all back.

    And I'm not even slegging, what am I doing arguing about this madness with yous boys. Fuck sake.

    Sorry lads.
    Last edited on , 4 times in total.
  131. avatar trepanner
    [quote:a37373e525="Chi-Lite"]
    Actually that's not what she said. If you want I can refer you to the Hansard report, which I FUCKING WROTE, to show you that that's NOT what she said.
    [/quote:a37373e525]

    Yes please?


    Ah, you withdrew your offer in favour of this :

    [quote:a37373e525="Chi-Lite"]Actually that's not what she said. Perhaps you should check that one out, and provide a link.[/quote:a37373e525]

    So ok :
    [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7517500.stm[/url]

    [quote:a37373e525]DUP MP Iris Robinson has said her views on homosexuality may have been misrepresented in an official report.

    Hansard reported her as saying that "there can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality, than sexually abusing innocent children." [/quote:a37373e525]

    So Marty, [i:a37373e525]did[/i:a37373e525] she say it, or is she telling the truth in saying that the report that [b:a37373e525]YOU FUCKING WROTE[/b:a37373e525] got it wrong? :)
    Last edited on , 1 times in total.
  132. avatar tinpot anto
    Marty don't be a disingenuous cock.

    What she actually said was much much worse.

    [quote:0ad3767726]I cannot think of anything more sickening than a child being abused. It is comparable to the act of homosexuality. I think they are all comparable. I feel totally repulsed by both."[/quote:0ad3767726]

    You know that Iris Robinson is a hate-filled bag who hates the gays for no reason other than that she is a bigotted old crow, and that her position will secure her electoral status.

    Her reference to scripture is irrelevant, her christianity is irrelevant. All of your arguments about whether a persons potential to "procreate" or to "express their love of god through procreation" or whatever other bullshit spurious distinction you are going to make are irrelevant.

    I know why she said what she did, and why Sammy and Peter all said the same thing.

    it's because she's a hate-filled bigot. You are defending her, using scripture etc., but still you are defending a bigot. You are condoning therefore her bigotry.

    I know you well enough to know that you think Iris Robinson is a hate-filled old bigot. Which is precisely why I cannot for the life of me understand why you seek to defend her bigotry and demean the core beleifs of the very religion you so passionately believe in and espouse.
  133. avatar fopp
    There is almost no room left in the internet.
  134. avatar tinpot anto
    [quote:028c729863]No...I'm defending my own view, which you insist on associating with hers. OK? [/quote:028c729863]

    Nobody mentioned your view. You were straight in after only 2 posts to let everyone know it. All the other stuff was a big fucking hole you dug yourself and are still digging, and I have no sympathy for you,

    If you didn't think that coming into this argument and making your points would be percieved as at least tacitly supporting the position of the Robbo's then you have been taking the stupid pills.
  135. avatar ryanego
    [quote:6980f72d69]I don't believe that the sexual love felt between a same sex couple is as deep and profound as that between differing sexes.
    [/quote:6980f72d69]

    What about if a heterosexual,loving, married couple do it the other way?

    Is that better or worse than the gays? By definition, it can't be the same.

    I propose we represent "sexual love" on a scale ranging from 1 (evil), to 5 (holy). Iris Robinson and her psychiatrist friend could then use these Chi-Lite scales to diagnose, and appropriately treat homosexuals.
  136. avatar remedy malahide
    [quote:3639708484="fopp"]There is almost no room left in the internet.[/quote:3639708484]
    :lol:
    [img:3639708484]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/PhotozOnline/Scotty.jpg[/img:3639708484]
    "Aye Aye Captain but the internets can't take much more of our shit talking, she be close to overload."
    Last edited on , 1 times in total.
  137. avatar The enfant terrible
    I think you can be in love with different people in different ways and that a man can only feel love for another man if money is involved. That said I think most people are to some degree bisexual and I don't think sexual preference is natural for homo or heterosexuals, I go with the nurture argument (and no, that's not the same as your aunt or gran saying people are gay only because they've been molested. I think the process is a lot more subtle and less traumatic than that).
  138. avatar tinpot anto
    It's both, like everything. But some people are just destined to be gay from the get go, for some it's really down to who you fall in love with. :)
  139. avatar captain a
    what have we learned from this?? has anyone taken on anything new or is all just folks getting deeper up thier own holes?
  140. avatar tinpot anto
    The Internet: Not a suitable forum for serious debate since 1992. :lol:
  141. avatar Leif Bodnarchuk
    [quote:11342195a5="captain a"]what have we learned from this?? has anyone taken on anything new or is all just folks getting deeper up thier own holes?[/quote:11342195a5]

    I have the flu and have been up since 4am.

    Anyway...

    Man and woman walk into a pub - woman shouts, "gays are poofs, sez so in the bible!!"
    They both scarper.
    Ladies and gents, WE are in the pub. THEY are outside, listening.

    It's clear even on this thread, the division between the religious and non - what good does it do, to compare our spiritual differences and hammer out right and wrong, while peaceful people suffer intolerance? (I'm talkin 'bout 'them gays' in this instance.)

    It doesn't take a genius to tell if people are being marginalised. While we debate the finer biblical points of "gay" we ignore HARD FACTS like whether or not "gays" pay taxes, contribute positively to society, teach, make good beer, defend their country, etc, etc. What happens in the bedroom is one tiny iota of ANY person's life.

    I've never seen two dudes do anything more than kiss in my presence. Unless we or Robbo are hangin' out in gay brothels, experiencing all the (wonderful, joyous, erotic, dark, LOL!) pleasures and displeasures of the gay flesh, how can we say (using anything but reasonable deduction) that two dudes gettin' it on is an abomination? It's simply inflammatory and it serves a purpose - to get us talking - to polarise us - to reveal to those in power where they stand without holding an election. I reckon it's an old trick.

    And as for their 'opinion' of gays - they're just pickin' it out of a book! They're not experts! Name-calling and all the rest (on our parts) is just as silly. WE don't know Robbo and co for real, just like they don't know about gay culture.

    'Fulfillment' : we can all only do ONE thing at a time. When we do that one thing, there are infinite things we are NOT doing.
    How can any of us lead a fulfilling life on someone else's terms? We can't.
    Forcing anyone to live by our standards without knowing the facts is a form of ignorance.

    Should the ignorant be in power?

    Robbo and his wife have thrown up a flare - like on a battlefield, if you see enemy movement, the flare has done its job. If the enemy doesn't move and has ignored your flare, you don't know your enemy. Not knowing the enemy can be the death of any politician's career.

    By pouring our hearts out and following our passions (rather than hard, everyday facts) in either disgust or support, politicians learn how best to manipulate further situations to their advantage. In other words, just because someone says something you perceive as stupid, does not mean you are doing the world of good by bolting in and telling the world what you think.

    I am aware I've just done that. :wink: