St Nick's Theaterical Love For The Naughty-at-Heart
Responding to this nonsense:
[Link]
----
My initial reply:
Here is the test to see if you hold disdain for homosexuals:
How would you feel about it if someone said Jesus had been gay?
If the idea of it is offensive, then you do, in fact, look down on people for being gay.
--
In reply to me, the religious guy in the video said this:
--
-------------------
3. "fornication is sinful."
--
Not according to the actual meaning of the words used in biblical source texts.
Pre-C.E., the Israelite religion didn't think so.
Also, you are entirely off-topic to even raise this issue.
Ofcourse you get those from your bible-themed religion.
You're basically saying:
"My favorite book says we're supposed to have disgust for certain sexual behaviors and those who carry out those behaviors."
By taking that position, you're actually agreeing with the accusation you're replying to.
How "ridiculously stupid" could my accusation be in your eyes, when you're going so far out of your way to admit, justify, and support the accusation?
It's funny how you guys always remember what words mean and how language works ... when it suits your interests.
But the very moment you need to feign confusion about such things,
you suddenly can't remember what words mean or how language works.
That is EXACTLY why Christians have a global reputation for arguing that "words don't mean words".
4. "clearly..."
--
There's that word again.
---
5.
Jesus taught about marriage that a man leaves his mother and father and Cleaves to his wife and the two become one flesh.
---
a.) Nobody knows what the real "Jesus" ever said or did.
Your favorite book of poorly preserved, Iron Age Rumors ... doesn't count as good evidence for what the real guy ever said or did.
b.) The word "marriage" is indeed in modern Bibles.
However, the concept of marriage is not anywhere in any bible.
The word "marriage" is an attempt to whitewash the actual cultural beliefs and practices of the authors.
Every time that word appears, the source texts actually refer to the practice of men purchasing females (usually barely pubescent girls), from a girl's father, as sexual livestock.
It's what your bible calls it when an Israelite father sex-trafficks his own child to a fellow Israelite. -Per the will of "God".
Or purchasing a captured girl from a slave trader, whenever the girl was a foreigner.
Or merely acquiring a girl as "spoils of war" after murdering her family right in front of her.
By your logic, it's immoral to legally marry a WOMAN with her CONSENT and for LOVE, and then have SEX with her, because THAT IS NOT what Jesus said is supposed to happen.
The ENTIRETY of your religion is just a hot steaming pile of bullshit.
--
6.
"Playing the mind game of what if Jesus was be gay ..."
--
"what if Jesus was be gay?"
Really?
---
7. "...is equivalent to say he was a refugee or something like that"
--
Hold up.
Are you really not aware that the "Jesus" character in the gospel stories ... was a refugee?
Based on the Gospel of Matthew (Chapter 2), his family fled to Egypt to escape King Herod’s violent persecution, specifically the "massacre of the innocents".
That means they crossed international borders for safety.
----
8. It's just people with itching ears that want to hear what they want to hear.
---
Let's be clear about this.
I never said Jesus was gay.
I merely pointed out that IF anyone were to say such a thing, you would be offended.
I then pointed out that feeling offended automatically reveals how you really feel about homosexual desires, actions, and identity.
In reply, several Christians in your comment section agreed with me. They admitted that the very idea of it is offensive.
Meanwhile, ...
As a nonbeliever, I don't need or want to hear anything at all about your favorite literary characters.
It doesn't matter to me if you have any theories about what (if anything) ever gave him a woodie.
----
9. "It is extremely easy to know that something is sinful"
---
Ofcourse it is.
You just feel things
(whatever your religion tells you to feel).
And then you tell yourself, "God agrees with me".
Nothing could be easier.
------
10. "It is extremely easy to love a person regardless of their sin."
---
LOVE means being able to honestly look a person in the eyes and say:
"AS YOU ARE,
HERE AND NOW,
despite any flaws you may have,
you deserve to live in great peace and health ...
without end.
There is nothing new you need to think, feel, say, or do for this.".
But Christians DO NOT FEEL THAT WAY about anyone they regard as "unwashed" and therefore "unforgiven".
Neither does the "God" you believe in.
Instead, Christians imagine being morally superior to the "unwashed".
You might CLAIM moral or social equivalence with outsiders. But you spend far more time refuting it.
.jpg)
To put it another way, ...
When a CHRISTIAN says "Without GOD, I am nothing", they mean:
"Without the very sort of personal relationship that I have ... with this very specific GOD, ... I would not have any value. But since I DO have that with THIS exclusively real GOD, I therefore DO HAVE VALUE. So I went from no value ... to immense value, like coal being pressed into diamonds. And because of this, I shall shine forever! (instead of getting eventually shoveled into the fiery hearths of Hell)."
So when your cult says "even the unwashed have value", you mean that we ("The World") ... have:
AMAZING
POTENTIAL
FUTURE
VALUE.
But we must graduate into that value by "dying to our former selves", and being "reborn (effectively, replaced) as a whole new person; a new creation".
-Which we can only do by surrendering to your religion's authority, and then aligning ourselves (adequately) to your religion's demands.
Typical religious fundamentalists.
Always playing stupid word games.
"We totally don't think pink paint is evil. It's just evil to mix red and white".
Meanwhile,
talk is cheap.
And so is charity, whenever it's done as a mechanism for self-promotion, love-bombing, or Public Relations for a cult that spends far more energy ruining and ending vulnerable lives.
-----------
11."I know gay people that perfectly understand this"
---
Tricking gay people into misunderstanding your religion, ... is not useful as evidence that they've correctly understood your religion.
----------
12. "this is rational. "
--
Nothing about your religion is rational.
-----------
13. They understand if I have a different opinion than them about their conduct
---
It's not only about their conduct.
Your religion allows for the possibility that after you get into heaven, you'll be allowed to have romantic feelings about a woman.
But it does not allow for the possibility that any male person will be allowed to have romantic feelings for another male person.
Just as importantly, ...
You believe it's RIGHTEOUS for a man to have romantic feelings and sexual interests for a woman, down here on planet Earth.
But you believe it's disgusting and death-worthy (or torture-worthy) for a man to have romantic feelings or sexual interests in another man.
Even if a man never acts upon such feelings, you believe those feelings themselves are among the things that such a man must be "forgiven" for by getting "washed clean" and thus "saved" from the ETERNAL TORMENT that such sinful desires would otherwise warrant.
Thus, you believe gay people should feel a sense of moral disgust about such feelings, even if they can't just turn those feelings off.
And so any such man must denounce all such feelings as morally disgusting and as a symptom of spiritual sickness.
14. "... it does not mean that I hate them"
---
"hate":
extreme dislike or disgust
"them":
Pronoun meaning "that person" or "those people".
"person":
A living entity possessing personhood.
15. "or that I'm not inclusive"
--
Really?
So people who remain AT PEACE with their same-sex
feelings,
behaviors,
relationships,
and value assessments;
...
along with how those traits factor into their personal identity
...
will be "included" with everyone who is ultimately spared eternal damnation?
Or do you merely PERFORM respectful, equitable inclusion in the public eye, while you wait in eager anticipation for your GOD to enact a fully "due" and eternal violence upon them?
16. "or that I'm phobic or anything else."
You can say that.
But if any of your congregants' children were spending time alone socializing with gay kids, you would surely worry about their "spiritual sickness" spreading to congregant children.
[Link]
----
My initial reply:
Here is the test to see if you hold disdain for homosexuals:
How would you feel about it if someone said Jesus had been gay?
If the idea of it is offensive, then you do, in fact, look down on people for being gay.
--
In reply to me, the religious guy in the video said this:
--
"your test is ridiculously stupid.
Clearly the Bible teaches that fornication is sinful. And clearly Jesus taught about marriage that a man leaves his mother and father and Cleaves to his wife and the two become one flesh. Playing the mind game of what if Jesus was be gay is equivalent to say he was a refugee or something like that this is just the world talking and the narrative talking. It's just people with itching ears that want to hear what they want to hear. It is extremely easy to know that something is sinful and to love a person regardless of their sin. Unfortunately the so-called gay community does not seem to understand that . Or actually I should say some within it because I know gay people that perfectly understand this because this is rational. They understand if I have a different opinion than them about their conduct that it does not mean that I hate them or that I'm not inclusive or that I'm phobic or anything else. You're just repeating the narrative. The Narrative is always false."
------
In reply, I offer this:
1. "your test is ridiculously stupid."
---
Great.
Thanks for providing the title of your thesis.
----------------
2.
"Clearly the Bible teaches..."
--
Before I even get to the rest of that sentence, it's already wrong.
How so?
a.) There is no such thing as "The Bible".
There are many "bibles".
Each version disagrees with the other versions.
No version is perfect.
No version stands out as objectively better than competing versions.
b.) Bibles are internally contradictory.
In other words, bibles are not univocal.
c.) There is no "cleary" when it comes to religious fundamentalist interpretations. Most of what you guys come up with is rooted in the messiness of your own mentally acrobatic imaginations.
d.) Bibles do not provide their own meaning.
Here is a distinguished Biblical scholar explaining how wrong you are about that:
3. "fornication is sinful."
--
Not according to the actual meaning of the words used in biblical source texts.
Pre-C.E., the Israelite religion didn't think so.
Also, you are entirely off-topic to even raise this issue.
Ofcourse you get those from your bible-themed religion.
You're basically saying:
"My favorite book says we're supposed to have disgust for certain sexual behaviors and those who carry out those behaviors."
By taking that position, you're actually agreeing with the accusation you're replying to.
How "ridiculously stupid" could my accusation be in your eyes, when you're going so far out of your way to admit, justify, and support the accusation?
It's funny how you guys always remember what words mean and how language works ... when it suits your interests.
But the very moment you need to feign confusion about such things,
you suddenly can't remember what words mean or how language works.
That is EXACTLY why Christians have a global reputation for arguing that "words don't mean words".
4. "clearly..."
--
There's that word again.
---
5.
Jesus taught about marriage that a man leaves his mother and father and Cleaves to his wife and the two become one flesh.
---
a.) Nobody knows what the real "Jesus" ever said or did.
Your favorite book of poorly preserved, Iron Age Rumors ... doesn't count as good evidence for what the real guy ever said or did.
b.) The word "marriage" is indeed in modern Bibles.
However, the concept of marriage is not anywhere in any bible.
The word "marriage" is an attempt to whitewash the actual cultural beliefs and practices of the authors.
Every time that word appears, the source texts actually refer to the practice of men purchasing females (usually barely pubescent girls), from a girl's father, as sexual livestock.
It's what your bible calls it when an Israelite father sex-trafficks his own child to a fellow Israelite. -Per the will of "God".
Or purchasing a captured girl from a slave trader, whenever the girl was a foreigner.
Or merely acquiring a girl as "spoils of war" after murdering her family right in front of her.
By your logic, it's immoral to legally marry a WOMAN with her CONSENT and for LOVE, and then have SEX with her, because THAT IS NOT what Jesus said is supposed to happen.
The ENTIRETY of your religion is just a hot steaming pile of bullshit.
--
6.
"Playing the mind game of what if Jesus was be gay ..."
--
"what if Jesus was be gay?"
Really?
---
7. "...is equivalent to say he was a refugee or something like that"
--
Hold up.
Are you really not aware that the "Jesus" character in the gospel stories ... was a refugee?
Based on the Gospel of Matthew (Chapter 2), his family fled to Egypt to escape King Herod’s violent persecution, specifically the "massacre of the innocents".
That means they crossed international borders for safety.
----
8. It's just people with itching ears that want to hear what they want to hear.
---
Let's be clear about this.
I never said Jesus was gay.
I merely pointed out that IF anyone were to say such a thing, you would be offended.
I then pointed out that feeling offended automatically reveals how you really feel about homosexual desires, actions, and identity.
In reply, several Christians in your comment section agreed with me. They admitted that the very idea of it is offensive.
Meanwhile, ...
As a nonbeliever, I don't need or want to hear anything at all about your favorite literary characters.
It doesn't matter to me if you have any theories about what (if anything) ever gave him a woodie.
----
9. "It is extremely easy to know that something is sinful"
---
Ofcourse it is.
You just feel things
(whatever your religion tells you to feel).
And then you tell yourself, "God agrees with me".
Nothing could be easier.
------
10. "It is extremely easy to love a person regardless of their sin."
---
LOVE means being able to honestly look a person in the eyes and say:
"AS YOU ARE,
HERE AND NOW,
despite any flaws you may have,
you deserve to live in great peace and health ...
without end.
There is nothing new you need to think, feel, say, or do for this.".
But Christians DO NOT FEEL THAT WAY about anyone they regard as "unwashed" and therefore "unforgiven".
Neither does the "God" you believe in.
Instead, Christians imagine being morally superior to the "unwashed".
You might CLAIM moral or social equivalence with outsiders. But you spend far more time refuting it.
.jpg)
To put it another way, ...
When a CHRISTIAN says "Without GOD, I am nothing", they mean:
"Without the very sort of personal relationship that I have ... with this very specific GOD, ... I would not have any value. But since I DO have that with THIS exclusively real GOD, I therefore DO HAVE VALUE. So I went from no value ... to immense value, like coal being pressed into diamonds. And because of this, I shall shine forever! (instead of getting eventually shoveled into the fiery hearths of Hell)."
So when your cult says "even the unwashed have value", you mean that we ("The World") ... have:
AMAZING
POTENTIAL
FUTURE
VALUE.
But we must graduate into that value by "dying to our former selves", and being "reborn (effectively, replaced) as a whole new person; a new creation".
-Which we can only do by surrendering to your religion's authority, and then aligning ourselves (adequately) to your religion's demands.
Typical religious fundamentalists.
Always playing stupid word games.
"We totally don't think pink paint is evil. It's just evil to mix red and white".
Meanwhile,
talk is cheap.
And so is charity, whenever it's done as a mechanism for self-promotion, love-bombing, or Public Relations for a cult that spends far more energy ruining and ending vulnerable lives.
-----------
11."I know gay people that perfectly understand this"
---
Tricking gay people into misunderstanding your religion, ... is not useful as evidence that they've correctly understood your religion.
----------
12. "this is rational. "
--
Nothing about your religion is rational.
-----------
13. They understand if I have a different opinion than them about their conduct
---
It's not only about their conduct.
Your religion allows for the possibility that after you get into heaven, you'll be allowed to have romantic feelings about a woman.
But it does not allow for the possibility that any male person will be allowed to have romantic feelings for another male person.
Just as importantly, ...
You believe it's RIGHTEOUS for a man to have romantic feelings and sexual interests for a woman, down here on planet Earth.
But you believe it's disgusting and death-worthy (or torture-worthy) for a man to have romantic feelings or sexual interests in another man.
Even if a man never acts upon such feelings, you believe those feelings themselves are among the things that such a man must be "forgiven" for by getting "washed clean" and thus "saved" from the ETERNAL TORMENT that such sinful desires would otherwise warrant.
Thus, you believe gay people should feel a sense of moral disgust about such feelings, even if they can't just turn those feelings off.
And so any such man must denounce all such feelings as morally disgusting and as a symptom of spiritual sickness.
14. "... it does not mean that I hate them"
---
"hate":
extreme dislike or disgust
"them":
Pronoun meaning "that person" or "those people".
"person":
A living entity possessing personhood.
personhood
noun
one's distinctive personal identity
Parts of how a heterosexual Christian manifests as a person in the world include:
their heterosexual
feelings,
behaviors,
relationships,
and value assessments;
along with how those facets factor into their personal identity.
These dimensions of "self" are not the only things that define their personhood.
But they cannot be separated from their individual personhood.
Just as importantly, I'll say again:
You either AGREE with the infinitely negative value your GOD ascribes
to the souls who rest unwittingly upon an invisible conveyor-belt to Hell
... or else you DISAGREE with your GOD.
Which is it?
Parts of how a heterosexual Christian manifests as a person in the world include:
their heterosexual
feelings,
behaviors,
relationships,
and value assessments;
along with how those facets factor into their personal identity.
These dimensions of "self" are not the only things that define their personhood.
But they cannot be separated from their individual personhood.
Just as importantly, I'll say again:
You either AGREE with the infinitely negative value your GOD ascribes
to the souls who rest unwittingly upon an invisible conveyor-belt to Hell
... or else you DISAGREE with your GOD.
Which is it?
15. "or that I'm not inclusive"
--
Really?
So people who remain AT PEACE with their same-sex
feelings,
behaviors,
relationships,
and value assessments;
...
along with how those traits factor into their personal identity
...
will be "included" with everyone who is ultimately spared eternal damnation?
Or do you merely PERFORM respectful, equitable inclusion in the public eye, while you wait in eager anticipation for your GOD to enact a fully "due" and eternal violence upon them?
16. "or that I'm phobic or anything else."
You can say that.
But if any of your congregants' children were spending time alone socializing with gay kids, you would surely worry about their "spiritual sickness" spreading to congregant children.
Comments
Post a Comment