Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[GoatSlayer]

nah he played joey.

[krasher]

This post bugged me since it got written, but it kind of got drowned in a whole lot of issues. 'Loving God' you say? I think you should read your bible better....

Thats right, you read right! "Slay every many, woman and child. But the Virgins? You can keep them!"

What a kind and loving God, always spares the virgins for his followers

There is a bunch of scripture that talks about a loving God and if you learn how to read a bible it would make more sense. Maybe not complete sense, but life does not make complete sense so ambiguity is a reality that needs adjusting to. Your post is one sided, you also need to 'get to know your bible better' if you are suggesting that you represent a complete picture.

WTF am I doing back in this stupidly addictive thread anyway....

[Arnifix]

That wasn't the point being asserted, nor the point i was replying to. But i accept your inability to talk to my reply as being assent from you.

What are you talking about? What point were you trying to make? My quote has the relevant bit in it. The rest of your reply was irrelevant.

[Lazza]

I agree that, technically, the word is used incorrectly 95% of the time, but practically.............. it's pretty close :thumb: .

Right, so inaccuracy is ok when it supports your side of the argument.

Let's not hide behind semantics huh?

Homophobia as a clinical condition certainly does exist and has not been "officially rejected" as you so ridiculously claim...

In 2005 the APA rejected inclusion of homophobia in the DSM-IV, i.e. official rejection. You can justifiably argue about the terms of that rejection, but not the fact that it happened. Your George Weinberg is a sexual deviant of enormous proportions (no pun intended) and to use even his own words "I was loose in all the heterosexual ways that I could think of, and in other ways that I'd rather not put in print", and has a wierd fixation for attempting to normalise sexual deviations. Simply put, the man is abnormal.

Even he himself would restict the terms use to "A morbid and irrational dread which prompts irrational behavior flight or the desire to destroy the stimulus for the phobia and anything reminiscent of it", i.e. a clinical syndrome, a classical phobia, not petty schoolyard namecalling in a forum.

Actually i've done a bit of reading up on you....

Cheers for the personal abuse.

What your trying to do is hide your prejudice behind semantics and the precise definition of the word 'phobia'. Pretty fucken lame.

It's not a prejudice, it's my preference. I prefer steak to chicken, am I prejudiced against chicken, or gallusdomesticusphobic , or do I just prefer steak for some reasons?

Rather than being lame I'd suggest it exposes the homophobia myth for what it really is, an attempt to marginalise anti homosexual opinion. It would seem my understanding of the term "homophobia" matches more closely with Dr. Weinbergs anyway.

[KiLL3r]

There is a bunch of scripture that talks about a loving God and if you learn how to read a bible it would make more sense. Maybe not complete sense, but life does not make complete sense so ambiguity is a reality that needs adjusting to. Your post is one sided, you also need to 'get to know your bible better' if you are suggesting that you represent a complete picture.

WTF am I doing back in this stupidly addictive thread anyway....

lol learn how to read A bible. the bible is a book. its nothing special and im pretty sure most of us know how to read books.


i quite like fiction but the bibles a bit much for me

[krasher]

lol learn how to read A bible. the bible is a book. its nothing special and im pretty sure most of us know how to read books.


i quite like fiction but the bibles a bit much for me

Bible is more like a library actually. Your comment shows just how unqualified you are to make definitive statements about what a particular piece of the library may mean. I don't pretend that I 'know' what it all means, but it seems I have a touch more understanding of the context then some. Possible more desire to actually interpret it correctly rather than just God bash.

The word, Bible, comes from the Greek word biblia, meaning "books." Many times the earliest sacred scriptures were written on separate scrolls or vellum. When these separate documents were bound together they became known as ‘Bibles’."

[Fragin]

Right, so inaccuracy is ok when it supports your side of the argument.



In 2005 the APA rejected inclusion of homophobia in the DSM-IV, i.e. official rejection. You can justifiably argue about the terms of that rejection, but not the fact that it happened. Your George Weinberg is a sexual deviant of enormous proportions (no pun intended) and to use even his own words "I was loose in all the heterosexual ways that I could think of, and in other ways that I'd rather not put in print", and has a wierd fixation for attempting to normalise sexual deviations. Simply put, the man is abnormal.

Even he himself would restict the terms use to "A morbid and irrational dread which prompts irrational behavior flight or the desire to destroy the stimulus for the phobia and anything reminiscent of it", i.e. a clinical syndrome, a classical phobia, not petty schoolyard namecalling in a forum.



Cheers for the personal abuse.



It's not a prejudice, it's my preference. I prefer steak to chicken, am I prejudiced against chicken, or gallusdomesticusphobic , or do I just prefer steak for some reasons?

Rather than being lame I'd suggest it exposes the homophobia myth for what it really is, an attempt to marginalise anti homosexual opinion. It would seem my understanding of the term "homophobia" matches more closely with Dr. Weinbergs anyway.

A little inaccuracy needs to be tolerated if you want to get on in life. Just look at the spelling in this forum. What I find interesting is that someone feels the need to debate the finer points of the word homophobic and whether it is a true phobia or not, rather than accepting what the word clearly implies to 99% of the population.


Rather than debating whether homophobia has been officially rejected or not *rolls eyes*, I would rather examine your personal character...

You prefer steak huh? Medium rare or well done? Be careful now your answer will have a significant effect on your standing within this community...


Also, do you think that people who prefer chicken should be discriminated against, persecuted, beaten up and even murdered because of their preference?

Do you think that it's right for people who prefer steak to impose their tastes on chicken eaters and use electric shock therapy to try and make them eat steak? Your manual of mental disorders (DSM) listed homosexuality right up until 1974. This is the same book that, according to a report from Columbia University has problems that have "long been recognised" including "arbitrary distinction between normal personality, personality traits and personality disorder" and that the most commonly diagnosed personality disorder is 301.9, "Personality Disorder not Otherwise Specified" !!. What an awesomely helpful book.

Do you think that steak eaters who murder/persecute/discriminate against people because they like chicken are having a tough time because they're views are being 'marginalised'?:violin:

Do you think that because you like steak it's unnatural for other people to like chicken?

Do you think that chicken eaters/homosexuals getting discriminated against, beaten up, murdered or otherwise persecuted is a myth?

Rather than being lame I'd suggest it exposes the homophobia myth for what it really is,

Perhaps you do....

Cheers for the personal abuse.

Ok. Kinda kinky but what the hell. Any time you want some more i'm happy to help, just ask.... :asian:


BTW if anyone is wondering what "gallusdomesticusphobic" means - it's code for "I don't really have much of a comeback but this big word might make me look intelligent." :thumb:

[Lazza]

Rather than debating whether homophobia has been officially rejected or not *rolls eyes*, I would rather examine your personal character...

Do you think that steak eaters who murder/persecute/discriminate against people because they like chicken are having a tough time because they're views are being 'marginalised'?

Do you think that because you like steak it's unnatural for other people to like chicken?

Do you think that chicken eaters/homosexuals getting discriminated against, beaten up, murdered or otherwise persecuted is a myth?

You've gone a bit feral there. I was only commenting on the definition, validity, and use of the term "homophobia". If you want answers to those questions then you'd fare better asking them of someone who holds those views.

BTW if anyone is wondering what "gallusdomesticusphobic" means - it's code for "I don't really have much of a comeback but this big word might make me look intelligent." :thumb:

Not at all, "Gallus Domesticus" = domestic fowl. Gallusdomesticusphobic is a word I obviously whimsically construed to demonstrate my comparison. I assumed you'd "get it". I seem to have over-estimated you.

The fact remains the term "homophobic" is incorrectly labelled on anyone who expresses anti homosexual views. The deliberate implication of this is that it's the anti homosexual who has a mental disorder (a phobia). It appears there are those here that don't mind randomly accusing people they don't know of having a mental disorder. I'm quite happy not having to resort to that tactic for want of an actual argument. Having a wee hissy fit during sexual orientation discussions and branding someone as a "homophobic" may be a convenient escape at the time, but at best that's all it'll ever be.

[D_Unit]

HOLY SHIT!

This thread is to 65 pages already! GGGGGGGGG!!!!!!

[DDM]

Who's gay?

[Fragin]

You've gone a bit feral there. I was only commenting on the definition, validity, and use of the term "homophobia". If you want answers to those questions then you'd fare better asking them of someone who holds those views.

I wasn't expecting you to give answers dude..... They were rhetorical questions - look it up. :asian:

Not at all, "Gallus Domesticus" = domestic fowl. Gallusdomesticusphobic is a word I obviously whimsically construed to demonstrate my comparison. I assumed you'd "get it". I seem to have over-estimated you.

No i got it ok. No problem there. Google is fantastic for shit like that . It doesn't btw.... make you look intelligent. It makes you look like the worlds greatest try-hard.

The fact remains the term "homophobic" is incorrectly labelled on anyone who expresses anti homosexual views. The deliberate implication of this is that it's the anti homosexual who has a mental disorder (a phobia). It appears there are those here that don't mind randomly accusing people they don't know of having a mental disorder. I'm quite happy not having to resort to that tactic for want of an actual argument. Having a wee hissy fit during sexual orientation discussions and branding someone as a "homophobic" may be a convenient escape at the time, but at best that's all it'll ever be.

Why do you keep going on about the word 'homophobic'? I've already agreed with you that it is used incorrectly. Are you trying to score a point or something? You can't score a point if i've already agreed with you....

[ThaFleastyler]

Man, homosexuality is just so gay.

Seriously, as I think I posted earlier (or in another thread; posts tend to merge into each other over time), I think homosexuality is against God, but I don't judge against people who are actually homosexuals - whats the point? Theres lots of things that are against God, but if I judged every single one I'd be pretty damn lonely (as well as being self-judgmental, probably).

[Tiwaking!]

There is a bunch of scripture that talks about a loving God and if you learn how to read a bible it would make more sense. Maybe not complete sense, but life does not make complete sense so ambiguity is a reality that needs adjusting to. Your post is one sided, you also need to 'get to know your bible better' if you are suggesting that you represent a complete picture.

lol learn how to read A bible. the bible is a book. its nothing special and im pretty sure most of us know how to read books.


i quite like fiction but the bibles a bit much for me

The point Hand!cap was trying to raise was that God is *only* kind and loving. Odd. There is plenty of scripture to prove otherwise.

So which one is he? Kind and loving or a genocidal virgin raper?

And I believe that it is not I, but YOU who need to know their Bible better. Mainly for the Gospel according to Judas, but also due to other discoveries as well

[Lazza]

(OMG he doesn't know what a rhetorical question is!)

I wasn't expecting you to give answers dude.....

You open a series of questions with "I would rather examine your personal character...", then ask a series of questions and now claim they're rhetorical. Either literary structure and conveying your thoughts isn't your strong point, or the questions weren't rhetorical. If you didn't indicate you wished to "examine your (my) personal character", I may have taken the questions as rhetorical.

No i got it ok. No problem there. Google is fantastic for shit like that . It doesn't btw.... make you look intelligent. It makes you look like the worlds greatest try-hard.

So you're saying you didn't get a "Your search - Gallusdomesticusphobic  - did not match any documents." Understood what I meant anyway, but chose to just insult me (as below)? Thanks for the insight.

BTW if anyone is wondering what "gallusdomesticusphobic" means - it's code for "I don't really have much of a comeback but this big word might make me look intelligent."

Why do you keep going on about the word 'homophobic'? I've already agreed with you that it is used incorrectly. Are you trying to score a point or something? You can't score a point if i've already agreed with you....

Your conspiracy theory above is bizarre to say the least. I simply responded to your post and repeated my points. I have a limit for petty bickering, it's been reached.

[Arnifix]

I believe that homosexuals are like grapefruit. I don't like the taste, therefore I don't eat them. If other people do, fair enough, glad the grapefruit aren't going to waste.

[Simon_NZ]

a modern day fountain of wisdom arnifix.

[Arnifix]

a modern day fountain of wisdom arnifix.

I like to think of myself as a philosopher on a low-carb diet.

[private_hell]

I like to think of myself as a philosopher on a low-carb diet.

why dont you write a book - call it a philosopher on a low carb diet

[Fragin]

You open a series of questions with "I would rather examine your personal character...", then ask a series of questions and now claim they're rhetorical. Either literary structure and conveying your thoughts isn't your strong point, or the questions weren't rhetorical. If you didn't indicate you wished to "examine your (my) personal character", I may have taken the questions as rhetorical.



So you're saying you didn't get a "Your search - Gallusdomesticusphobic  - did not match any documents." Understood what I meant anyway, but chose to just insult me (as below)? Thanks for the insight.





Your conspiracy theory above is bizarre to say the least. I simply responded to your post and repeated my points. I have a limit for petty bickering, it's been reached.

Oh dear someone needs a hug. You are "personally against homosexuality" and have "dozens of reasons why" and feel marginalised and hurt that someone said you had a mental illness when it's not a real phobia sob sob. CRY ME A FUCKEN RIVER. Gay people have died because of arsewipes with half a brain who "feel a little threatened". Googling "homophobia murder" is a sobering exercise. Here's an excerpt from the first entry:

"Mr Dobrowski, 24, was punched and kicked to death on Clapham Common, a known gay cruising area, on October 15 last year. He was alive when police found him but he died in hospital the next day from severe neck, head and facial injuries. His wounds were so horrific he was unrecognisable to family members and had to be identified through his fingerprints."

Your at your limit for pettiness are you? That's laughable considering your constant and headache-inducing repetition of the whole "homophobe is not a true phobia" monologue. Me? i'm happy to continue for much longer because people like you need to be exposed for what you are - prejudiced, and quite frankly, it's sickening.

At least Killer has the balls to admit it!

Your points regarding conspiracy theories etc are too stupid to respond to.

[Simon_NZ]

maybe a catholic priest molested him?

[Fragin]

maybe a catholic priest molested him?

fuck knows what his problem is. i really don't care :violin:

[Lazza]

maybe a catholic priest molested him?

awww i love you too man. lets have bum secks while lazza watches

headache-inducing repetition

what you are - prejudiced

Oh dear someone needs a hug.

not a real phobia sob sob

At least Killer has the balls to admit it

are too stupid to respond to

fuck knows what his problem is. i really don't care

A parting word...

"Equally important is the rule against personalizing an argument. Personal attack has become so common in our time, especially in politics, that it has an official title – “The politics of personal destruction”. When your own case is weak, you go after the opponent – impugning his character and the “purity” of his motives or intentions. This diverts attention away from the lack of substance in your case."

From "The Vanishing Art of Arguing", by Woody Zimmerman.

[Fragin]

Holy fuck you have completely and utterly missed the point. My case is you dude. Your prejudice. And there is certainly a lot of substance to it.

Your too late with the "personalising an argument" card on these forums. Somebody already knows all about it. -> http://forums.iconzarena.co.nz/showpost.php?p=347792&postcount=196

[Lazza]

Holy fuck you have completely and utterly missed the point. My case is you dude. Your prejudice. And there is certainly a lot of substance to it.

Your too late with the "personalising an argument" card on these forums. Somebody already knows all about it.

Let me get this straight, your comment...

bum secks while lazza watches

...was not intended to suggest I'm a voyeur, but to reveal or identify my "prejudice". And not only that you go further to suggest that somehow there is "certainly a lot of substance to it (that claim). And that's just one example of the personal abuse from you.

Sorry but you're getting into the twilight zone there. It's impossible to counter incoherency.

[Fragin]

awww i love you too man. lets have bum secks while lazza watches

That was a joke. HARDEN THE FUCK UP!!

One thing i've noticed is that when people start to get owned they either just disappear into the ether or they look for "personal abuse" - normally quoting the forum guidelines for good measure.

I know that bum secks comment was hard to deal with. Such a stinging attack uh huh. You feel hurt and confused that someone would attack you so :violin: Here's a cunning plan - hit the "report bad post" button on that post and the full weight of the law will come crashing down on me! Then you can jump and dance with glee on my grave! Mwahahaha make the nasssssty man go away.....