Atheism in Christian societies - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

11/29/2007 12:40:58 PM · #51

Originally posted by cheekymunky:

Now I know where you stand on such maters, I won't persue it any longer.

I would NEVER stand on any maters! :) :) :)

Apple iPhone 5

11/29/2007 12:41:41 PM · #52

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

I've tried to correct Wikipedia in some of its misleading phrasing, but Wikipedia is about consensus (or mob rule) and the corrections keep getting undone.

Yes. 'Correcting' about 1,000 Wikipedia pages in the 'Christianity' project and then fighting the reverts is bound to keep you busy.

I never in my life realised that Catholics were viewed this way by fellow Christians in the US. Honestly, this has been a real eye-opener for me.

11/29/2007 12:42:02 PM · #53

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Everyone is born heterosexual.

Prove this, if you please.

11/29/2007 12:42:14 PM · #54

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
You are incorrect. There were Christians since the first century. In the places where Catholicism was the "only choice on the menu" it was due to the oppressive and evil domination of Rome -- not any form of Christianity.

What? What are you talking about? Catholicism is a form of Christianity!

Bzzt! Incorrect.

//www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/Catholicism/catholic.htm

11/29/2007 12:42:52 PM · #55

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
For instance, I have co-workers who are Hindu. They talk about Shiva and the stapler-god and the toast-god, etc. I still like them and work with them and respect their right to their own faith. But I do not repsect Hinduism itself because to the Christian, it's a false religion.

So the wafer-god is better than the toast-god?

God is never a wafer. Thats an heretical, non Christian teaching.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/29/2007 12:44:18 PM · #56

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
In your opinion. There are no widely accepted scientific studies that show homosexuality is a natural and unchosen lifestyle. There are some, but again, nothing concrete. I actually believe the disposition to it is something born with -- much like alcoholism.

Sorry, but it's not a mental illness. That particular myth was debunked long ago. The rest of what you say is therefore baseless.

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
But regardless, my point is still valid. It's wrong in the eyes of Christians, so Christians speaking out against it should be expected and respected.

Why on earth should intolerance be respected? I for one have absolutely no respect for any form of intolerance, much less intolerance cloaking itself in religious freedom or freedom of speech.

So you then are intolerent.

This is a very common and easily reducible argument. There is no requirement to tolerate those who are intolerant when matters of civil rights are endangered.

No ones civil rights are being endangered -- everyone already has equal rights under the law, so special rights aren't needed. Pretty simple really.

And no, if you're intolerant, you're intolerant. Just because the views you're intolerant of are ones you personally don't like, you cannot hide behind lies.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

11/29/2007 12:44:34 PM · #57

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
No one has said sexuality is a choice.

By â��no oneâ��, do you mean â��Iâ��?

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Protesting giving to those who choose this lifestyle special rights is simply political discourse. Sex and age and race are not chosen... so they don't equate.

Again, no one said sexuality was a choice. Everyone is born heterosexual. Some people choose to act on homosexual impulses and for that they do not deserve any special rights.

Many would disagree with your assertion that homosexuality is a choice. However, given your past history of "Christian" intolerance, I doubt any argument will change your opinion.

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

11/29/2007 12:44:40 PM · #58

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
You are incorrect. There were Christians since the first century. In the places where Catholicism was the "only choice on the menu" it was due to the oppressive and evil domination of Rome -- not any form of Christianity.

What? What are you talking about? Catholicism is a form of Christianity!

Bzzt! Incorrect.

//www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/Catholicism/catholic.htm

Thank you Kevin for re-affirming my decision to question my faith and moving me closer to embracing Atheism. If you can't even accept that we're all Christians, then you're welcome to it.

11/29/2007 12:45:40 PM · #59

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
I've tried to correct Wikipedia in some of its misleading phrasing, but Wikipedia is about consensus (or mob rule) and the corrections keep getting undone.

Yes. 'Correcting' about 1,000 Wikipedia pages in the 'Christianity' project and then fighting the reverts is bound to keep you busy.

I never in my life realised that Catholics were viewed this way by fellow Christians in the US. Honestly, this has been a real eye-opener for me.

Well, they aren't viewed that way by "fellow Christians", but by Christians.

And to be fair, that's not the common viewpoint. In the 60s or so an ecumenical movement tried to bring the two groups together to create the incompatible mishmash that we have today.

11/29/2007 12:46:22 PM · #60

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
No one has said sexuality is a choice.

By â��no oneâ��, do you mean â��Iâ��?

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Protesting giving to those who choose this lifestyle special rights is simply political discourse. Sex and age and race are not chosen... so they don't equate.

Again, no one said sexuality was a choice. Everyone is born heterosexual. Some people choose to act on homosexual impulses and for that they do not deserve any special rights.

Many would disagree with your assertion that homosexuality is a choice. However, given your past history of "Christian" intolerance, I doubt any argument will change your opinion.

What intolerance have I shown? I'd love to know.

To "tolerate" something you by definition must disagree with it.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/29/2007 12:47:33 PM · #61

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
You are incorrect. There were Christians since the first century. In the places where Catholicism was the "only choice on the menu" it was due to the oppressive and evil domination of Rome -- not any form of Christianity.

What? What are you talking about? Catholicism is a form of Christianity!

Bzzt! Incorrect.

//www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/Catholicism/catholic.htm

Thank you Kevin for re-affirming my decision to question my faith and moving me closer to embracing Atheism. If you can't even accept that we're all Christians, then you're welcome to it.

Hey... if a "Catholic" rejects Mary as divine, the authority of the Pope, The RCC as the only true church, and other such heresies, I would be glad to call them Christian -- but if they reject all those teachings, they would not really be Catholic would they?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

11/29/2007 12:48:31 PM · #62

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

There were Christians since the first century. In the places where Catholicism was the "only choice on the menu" it was due to the oppressive and evil domination of Rome -- not any form of Christianity.

More staggering ignorance. How could Roman persecutors impose Catholicism when they weren't even Catholic?

"Christians were often given opportunities to avoid further punishment by publicly offering sacrifices or burning incense to Roman gods, and were accused by the Romans of impiety when they refused."

More to the point, where were all the Baptists and Methodists 600 years ago?

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/29/2007 12:50:20 PM · #63

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Subtle word twist on your part. Catholicism is not Christianity. I don't know what individual Catholics are.

Ah, yes, it reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart... I don't hate Catholics... I LOOOOVE Catholics... I want to SAAAVE Catholics from Hell!

sorry for the eye opener, [user]jhonan[/user], but it's a fairly common talking point among fundamentalist Christians that Catholicism is not Christianity. What's somewhat new to me, though, are these implied claims that there was an unbroken alternative tradition that existed alongside Catholicism. That's about as likely as Catholicism's claims of apostolic succession.

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

11/29/2007 12:50:32 PM · #64

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

And no, if you're intolerant, you're intolerant. Just because the views you're intolerant of are ones you personally don't like, you cannot hide behind lies.

Accusing your fellow posters of lying simply to cover up the flimsiness of the rest of what you say shows poor skills at arguing.

milo655321

Nikon D70

11/29/2007 12:51:16 PM · #65

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

You should review your premises. Theyâ��re contradictory.

Premise A: Everyone is born heterosexual.
Premise B: Sexuality is not a choice.
Premise C: Some people have homosexual impulses.

If everyone is born heterosexual and sexuality is not a choice, from whence come homosexual impulses?

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

11/29/2007 12:52:26 PM · #66

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
There were Christians since the first century. In the places where Catholicism was the "only choice on the menu" it was due to the oppressive and evil domination of Rome -- not any form of Christianity.

More staggering ignorance. How could Roman persecutors impose Catholicism when they weren't even Catholic?

"Christians were often given opportunities to avoid further punishment by publicly offering sacrifices or burning incense to Roman gods, and were accused by the Romans of impiety when they refused."

More to the point, where were all the Baptists and Methodists 600 years ago?

You last point is not really a point. Baptists and Methodists are denominations WITHIN Christianity... For the most part, they hold to the basic and (gasp) fundamental tenets of the Christian faith. Denominations form and fall all the time, but so long as they adhere to the fundamentals, there is no problem.

RC rejects replaces and distorts many of those basic fundamental doctrines and therefore is not considered Christian.

Apple iPhone 5

11/29/2007 12:52:50 PM · #67

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Well, they aren't viewed that way by "fellow Christians", but by Christians.

Bzztt! Wrong again. No, no and no. Your facts are unfounded. And directing us to some crappy homepage on page 50 of Google doesn't change history.

Catholicism is part of Christianity. Whichever Christian church you belong to is a part of Christianity. Catholics are Christians. These are the irrefutable facts. Wacko websites and reverted Wikipedia entries don't count.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/29/2007 12:53:06 PM · #68

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
No one has said sexuality is a choice.

By â��no oneâ��, do you mean â��Iâ��?

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Protesting giving to those who choose this lifestyle special rights is simply political discourse. Sex and age and race are not chosen... so they don't equate.

Again, no one said sexuality was a choice. Everyone is born heterosexual. Some people choose to act on homosexual impulses and for that they do not deserve any special rights.

Many would disagree with your assertion that homosexuality is a choice. However, given your past history of "Christian" intolerance, I doubt any argument will change your opinion.

What intolerance have I shown? I'd love to know.

To "tolerate" something you by definition must disagree with it.

Look at just about any post you've made in a non-photography thread and your intolerance in the name of your religion is self evident.

11/29/2007 12:53:46 PM · #69

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Subtle word twist on your part. Catholicism is not Christianity. I don't know what individual Catholics are.

Ah, yes, it reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart... I don't hate Catholics... I LOOOOVE Catholics... I want to SAAAVE Catholics from Hell!

sorry for the eye opener, [user]jhonan[/user], but it's a fairly common talking point among fundamentalist Christians that Catholicism is not Christianity. What's somewhat new to me, though, are these implied claims that there was an unbroken alternative tradition that existed alongside Catholicism. That's about as likely as Catholicism's claims of apostolic succession.

Sorry, I'll have to find a source for you, but there are documented recordings of Christianity existing alongside RCC.

11/29/2007 12:54:47 PM · #70

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
And no, if you're intolerant, you're intolerant. Just because the views you're intolerant of are ones you personally don't like, you cannot hide behind lies.

Accusing your fellow posters of lying simply to cover up the flimsiness of the rest of what you say shows poor skills at arguing.

I didn't acuse him of lying, but his own flimsy regurgitated argument that he felt shot down the truth of his own intolerance.

11/29/2007 12:55:41 PM · #71

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Sorry, I'll have to find a source for you, but there are documented recordings of Christianity existing alongside RCC.

While you're at it, dig up that proof that everyone is born heterosexual.

11/29/2007 12:56:38 PM · #72

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
No one has said sexuality is a choice.

By â��no oneâ��, do you mean â��Iâ��?

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Protesting giving to those who choose this lifestyle special rights is simply political discourse. Sex and age and race are not chosen... so they don't equate.

Again, no one said sexuality was a choice. Everyone is born heterosexual. Some people choose to act on homosexual impulses and for that they do not deserve any special rights.

You should review your premises. Theyâ��re contradictory.

Premise A: Everyone is born heterosexual.
Premise B: Sexuality is not a choice.
Premise C: Some people have homosexual impulses.

If everyone is born heterosexual and sexuality is not a choice, from whence come homosexual impulses?

Nothing contradicts. Your born, natural sexuality is heterosexual. Everyone is born that way. Some people have physical urges to engage in sex with all manner of unnatural things... The physical urge is not the same as the wiring.

11/29/2007 12:57:15 PM · #73

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
And no, if you're intolerant, you're intolerant. Just because the views you're intolerant of are ones you personally don't like, you cannot hide behind lies.

Accusing your fellow posters of lying simply to cover up the flimsiness of the rest of what you say shows poor skills at arguing.

I didn't acuse him of lying, but his own flimsy regurgitated argument that he felt shot down the truth of his own intolerance.

Uh... that was me. And... huh? You're beginning to not make sense in other ways.