Edmonton Christian school: LGBQT's have mental illnesses

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Last week, the Pew Research Center released the results of a new survey concerning who Americans would want – or rather, wouldn’t want – for an in-law. While about 10 percent of Americans said they’d be unhappy if a family member married someone of a different political persuasion, and about 30 percent of Americans said they’d be unhappy if a family member married a gun owner, nearly 50 percent of Americans said that they’d be unhappy if a family member married an atheist.)
Based on this and MANY other studies of similar ilk I would suggest that it is the religious who hate, distrust, fear, or have irrational thoughts of nonreligious people, <see atheism>.

Yeah, the U.S. is a messed up place. I'd certainly never want to live there. But I try not to concern myself with the weird values and beliefs of people in foreign countries.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

jeez man, I was joking. I was once again, showing the dangers of religion.
I was never Catholic, nor touched by a priest, even though thousands were.
But, still, I'm not angry, just vocal in my opposition to religion.

Also, happy to hear, you are feeling better.

That's actually really despicable.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yeah, the U.S. is a messed up place. I'd certainly never want to live there. But I try not to concern myself with the weird values and beliefs of people in foreign countries.

Well the USA population is ~300M so thats a pretty big value. We could trek over to the mid east or asia and the results would be the same. Regardless, the religious are taught, anywhere they exist, that atheists are evil, we are the devil incarnate.

One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD’s name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother’s name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD’s will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, “Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD’s name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD’s name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)


Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Almost every atheist I know is far from angry. They are happy, devoted and well educated people. Thats why they argue their point, because if not them who? Do you think if we left it to the various religions that we would even be allowed to exist?
I think atheism is derived from the church (insert any denomination you want here) holding their lives hostage for many years. This hostage taking is also due to the fact that their parents and grandparents indoctrinated them into those faiths without their knowledge and acceptance.
The fact that Priests rape, Imams cut the clitoris and issue fatwa's is secondary.

Granted, I'm the only atheist I really know (in the sense I assume you're speaking), but most of the ones I experience or observe seem to have a lot of latent anger and outward aggression. Not all, but an anecdotal majority.

There's nothing wrong with arguing a point. There is a mutually detrimental way of arguing, and that is what I would like to see avoided. I've observed it rather openly on both sides in this thread alone.

I didn't feel like a hostage, but I did feel a little betrayed having been introduced into Catholicism and having that kind of personally conflicting messaging surround me throughout by life. I don't necessarily accept that atheism is generally derived in that manner (however, it certainly can and is to a large degree). I think it just takes a broad secular rejection of religious scripture, practices, and/or policy.

For me, fear came first. It felt like loss, and it definitely felt like uncertainty. Feelings in my core to which I was not accustomed. I took cues from other atheists in how to cope and respond: Carlin, Hitchens, etc. Just very confrontational. Anger became my outlet and a way to deal with uncertainty.

As for atrocities, direct and indirect, I know they are secondary. Perhaps I didn't emphasize that quite enough in my post. In my case they were tangible examples to fuel my anger and opposition, not that confronting them was a bad thing.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Yamer

That's actually really despicable.

You seem angry.
Didn't know the ole Catholic priest/altar boy dynamic was such a touchy subject.
We could switch to Warren Jeffs instead.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Granted, I'm the only atheist I really know (in the sense I assume you're speaking), but most of the ones I experience or observe seem to have a lot of latent anger and outward aggression. Not all, but an anecdotal majority.

There's nothing wrong with arguing a point. There is a mutually detrimental way of arguing, and that is what I would like to see avoided. I've observed it rather openly on both sides in this thread alone.

I didn't feel like a hostage, but I did feel a little betrayed having been introduced into Catholicism and having that kind of personally conflicting messaging surround me throughout by life. I don't necessarily accept that atheism is generally derived in that manner (however, it certainly can and is to a large degree). I think it just takes a broad secular rejection of religious scripture, practices, and/or policy.

For me, fear came first. It felt like loss, and it definitely felt like uncertainty. Feelings in my core to which I was not accustomed. I took cues from other atheists in how to cope and respond: Carlin, Hitchens, etc. Just very confrontational. Anger became my outlet and a way to deal with uncertainty.

As for atrocities, direct and indirect, I know they are secondary. Perhaps I didn't emphasize that quite enough in my post. In my case they were tangible examples to fuel my anger and opposition, not that confronting them was a bad thing.

The mere fact you had to deal with things like betrayal, loss and uncertainty later in life due to your family placing you into a situation beyond your control is sad. It is however a reality among millions. This is a MUCH bigger problem with Muslims, JWs, Mormons, Scientologists and others, where just the thought of leaving not only provides the inner turmoil, it also builds walls between you and your loved ones. Absolutely beyond me why governments allow these institutions to exist.
Power hungry institutions that exert total control over their minions.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Muslims, JWs, Mormons, Scientologists and others, where just the thought of leaving not only provides the inner turmoil, it also builds walls between you and your loved ones.

Or, in some countries...

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

You seem angry.
Didn't know the ole Catholic priest/altar boy dynamic was such a touchy subject.
We could switch to Warren Jeffs instead.

Upset for sure. That you would untruthfully claim to be a victim in that way to support your argument with no context alluding to the 'joke' is, in my view, abhorrent. I responded to you in what I thought was a very real and genuine way.

The fact you now seem so dismissive of the comment and trivial of the discussion at hand is disheartening.

If you just wanted to have a drive-by that's fine, but if you're looking to engage I would expect a bit more tact than that.

[DiracSpike]

I think Trump getting elected melted what was left of his brain. Just a brutal joke and general take.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Jokes

I didn't say you shouldn't make jokes. I'm not a big fan of putting limits on what comedy is allowed to make light of. I just said they should at least be funny jokes.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Cheese

The mere fact you had to deal with things like betrayal, loss and uncertainty later in life due to your family placing you into a situation beyond your control is sad. It is however a reality among millions. This is a MUCH bigger problem with Muslims, JWs, Mormons, Scientologists and others, where just the thought of leaving not only provides the inner turmoil, it also builds walls between you and your loved ones. Absolutely beyond me why governments allow these institutions to exist.
Power hungry institutions that exert total control over their minions.

Maybe sad, but mostly just unfortunate. I guess I was lucky to have the wherewithal to recover in what I think is a meaningful way. I never and still don't resent my family, that is just the way they were taught to rear a child. My Church group and support was pretty good. I was the one that chose to be abrasive and destructive when I left.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I didn't say you shouldn't make jokes. I'm not a big fan of putting limits on what comedy is allowed to make light of. I just said they should at least be funny jokes.

I'm not sure if making a joke, and joking are one and the same.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Well the USA population is ~300M so thats a pretty big value. We could trek over to the mid east or asia and the results would be the same. Regardless, the religious are taught, anywhere they exist, that atheists are evil, we are the devil incarnate.

One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD’s name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother’s name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD’s will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, “Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD’s name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD’s name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)


Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

So, this is patently false and your usage of passages from the Old Testament is grossly misleading at best or utterly irrelevant at worst.

In the first place, I don't presume to speak for all religions "anywhere they exist," but as a religious person I suspect I am eminently more qualified to address the supposition than are you. I was raised in a pretty conservative Evangelical household and was never led to believe by my parents, pastors or teachers that atheists were evil—at least not any more so than anyone else. In my upbringing atheists were to be pitied for having been grossly misled, and it was incumbent upon us as "believers" to enlighten atheists to the truth of the gospel and salvation. I presently do my best to teach my children that all people deserve our respect and good will regardless of their religion, culture, or rejection thereof. I don't personally know a single individual in my own vast network of practicing Christians, Jews and Muslims who would endorse any such hatred against atheists. This is a straw man and you should know better.

Second, your citation of ancient invectives utterly fails in the light of the socio-religious context of the day in which these were written. Without going into much detail, (1) "blasphemy" is NOT synonymous with "atheism"—it was the careless usage of the name of a deity in a culture that subscribed supernatural significance to the act of "naming." (2) The rejection of a verdict pronounced by a judge or a priest is actually a piece of primitive civil legislation with an unfortunately barbaric consequence. This is the antiquated equivalent to modern charges of contempt or abrogation for a governing civil or judicial authority and again, it has nothing to do with atheism. (3) The third passage is most absurd, since it is an invective precisely against something exclusively religious (performing a cultic act on behalf of another god than YHWH) which presumes theism—NOT atheism.

Yes. It is true that religion inflames tribalistic instincts that threaten our peaceful coexistence as a species, but you are only exacerbating the problem with your tired, ignorant, drive-by straw-man depictions of "religion."

[REDVAN]

Duff, I knew you were joking...

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Upset for sure. That you would untruthfully claim to be a victim in that way to support your argument with no context alluding to the 'joke' is, in my view, abhorrent. I responded to you in what I thought was a very real and genuine way.

The fact you now seem so dismissive of the comment and trivial of the discussion at hand is disheartening.

If you just wanted to have a drive-by that's fine, but if you're looking to engage I would expect a bit more tact than that.

my argument? the one where I wasn't angry?

I'm glad to see people are so offended by the actions of a group of pedos. cloaked in religion.

anyways, you're clearly more upset than I would have imagined, so accept my sincerest apologies, or not, and let it go, or not.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Duff, I knew you were joking...

I kind of thought it was obvious, if it ever did happen, I wouldn't be sharing it on an OT hockey forum

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I was raised in a pretty conservative Evangelical household and was never led to believe by my parents, pastors or teachers that atheists were evil—at least not any more so than anyone else.

out of interest, what did your conservative Evangelical upbringing teach about lgbt people?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

How does your friend feel about lbgt people? Do fictional characters give him/Her the meaning and purpose of hating and discriminating against people?

That's the gist of this thread.

My friend does not believe in hate or discrimination when it comes to the LGBT people. Her personal God is one that believes in acceptance and love for all people.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

out of interest, what did your conservative Evangelical upbringing teach about lgbt people?

In the 1970s and 1980s it was fairly common among Evangelicals to view homosexuality as a form of rebellion. It was considered a flagrant rejection of God's natural order, but as with many things within a fairly sharp apocalyptic worldview it was also easy to forgive people for being misled by dark, spiritual forces.

In the 1990s I believe there was a predominant shift in thinking among Evangelicals to treat homosexuality like a mental illness, and out of this emerged conversion therapy.

Most Evangelicals I know today are at a loss about how to reconcile primitive teachings from a handful of biblical texts with a growing recognition that sexual orientation is an unavoidable biological reality. A close pastor friend of mine recently told me that this was the next bastion of Christian theology to crumble, and it is happening quickly.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

my argument? the one where I wasn't angry?

I'm glad to see people are so offended by the actions of a group of pedos. cloaked in religion.

anyways, you're clearly more upset than I would have imagined, so accept my sincerest apologies, or not, and let it go, or not.

Originally Posted by DuffMan

I kind of thought it was obvious, if it ever did happen, I wouldn't be sharing it on an OT hockey forum

It wasn't close to obvious, and I think you know that. And if you were truly unsure of how people would have been affected by that statement then perhaps you do not truly grasp the magnitude.

Either way, this is the first time you have offered an apology, and although it comes off as insincere (apologies rarely include stipulations) I'm willing to grant you it's not and move on.