Continued theology discussion... Not sure what to call this really....

[Pauldohert]

So are you claiming that every time a newt regrows a limb or a dog licks its bollocks it's a miracle?

I dont claim anything - I was merely helping you with some facts to base your thinking upon?

 

[Pauldohert]

Is that supposed to be some sort of slight saying I'm gay? I suppose you would have to be a religous fuckwit to think being gay is a negative thing.

Who said I was religious? - Who said you were gay? - Who said there was anything bad about being gay?

All your ideas.

All works of your genius.

 

[chergh]

I dont claim anything - I was merely helping you with some facts to base your thinking upon?

You said god blessed newts and now you're saying it's a fact you seem to be claiming a lot.

Who said I was religious? - Who said you were gay? - Who said there was anything bad about being gay? All your ideas.

Fuckwit!

You said god blessed newts and then said it was a fact sounds religous to me.

You also said I "loved the dick" given how you put it it sounds like you are making it as a derogatory remark which would indicate I am gay or bisexual. My conclusions from your statement are quite logical.

So you sound like a god believing homophobe, or christian, to me.

 

[Pauldohert]

You said god blessed newts and now you're saying it's a fact you seem to be claiming a lot.



You said god blessed newts and then said it was a fact sounds religous to me.

You also said I "loved the dick" given how you put it it sounds like you are making it as a derogatory remark which would indicate I am gay or bisexual. My conclusions from your statement are quite logical.

So you sound like a god believing homophobe, or christian, to me.

It was you that called God a dick, and that belittles the love of God. Therefore belittles love for the dick - therefore must be a homophobe. Same logic - same wrong conclusion I am guessing.

The problem comes from the definition of God = dick. Which was your definition - and one supposed to be offensive - that you then feel to be on the end an insult based upon that offensive definition - is of your own doing.

Your religious intolerance extends to those like myself who are not even religious. I admire your fervour, a true zealot.

 

[chergh]

It was you that called God a dick, and that belittles the love of God. Therefore belittles love for the dick - therefore must be a homophobe. Same logic - same wrong conclusion I am guessing.

Eh? Incomprehensible gibberish would describe what you have said above.

The problem comes from the definition of God = dick. Which was your definition - and one supposed to be offensive - that you then feel to be on the end an insult based upon that offensive definition - is of your own doing.

now you're trying to obfuscate your homophobia. You tried to insult me by a thinly veiled reference to being gay.

Your religious intolerance extends to those like myself who are not even religious. I admire your fervour, a true zealot.

I support the right for people to believe in god should they wish to, I also support the rights of others to mock and insult their beliefs. What I do object to is people thinking that their religous beliefs should entitle them to impose their beliefs on others or they should be allowed to discriminate based on those beliefs.

 

[oumahexi]

Have you any evidence for this? Sounds like a fairy story to me

Look no further

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda

Must be true, I read it in Wikipedia

 

[dan-cat]

now you're trying to obfuscate your homophobia. You tried to insult me by a thinly veiled reference to being gay.

You're not getting it.

You mocked others' concept of God and that insult is being reflected back on to you. You're being cut with your own knife.

 

[dan-cat]

I support the right for people to believe in god should they wish to, I also support the rights of others to mock and insult their beliefs. What I do object to is people thinking that their religous beliefs should entitle them to impose their beliefs on others or they should be allowed to discriminate based on those beliefs.

You do realise that 'to mock and insult their beliefs' is discriminatory in itself don't you? To be honest I think you're a little lost.

 

[oumahexi]

It was you that called God a dick, and that belittles the love of God. Therefore belittles love for the dick - therefore must be a homophobe. Same logic - same wrong conclusion I am guessing.

ROFL why do I need to put ten chars in?

 

[chergh]

You're not getting it.

You mocked others' concept of God and that insult is being reflected back on to you. You're being cut with your own knife.

No you're not getting it, saying that I "love dick" is not an insult unless you consider being gay to be a negative thing.

You do realise that 'to mock and insult their beliefs' is discriminatory in itself don't you? To be honest I think you're a little lost.

Again you're not getting it. When I deny someone the right to attend a school because of their beliefs, or deny someone a job because of their beliefs then I am discriminating. That I mock belief in faeries or the belief that the earth is flat is not discrimination.

 

[dan-cat]

No you're not getting it, saying that I "love dick" is not an insult unless you consider being gay to be a negative thing.

He's using YOUR definition of God and applying it within a religious context. Any resulting insult that you manage to interpret from that is of your own making. YOU are saying God refers to a penis, nobody else. The notion of being gay springs from YOUR interpretation alone.

Again you're not getting it. When I deny someone the right to attend a school because of their beliefs, or deny someone a job because of their beliefs then I am discriminating. That I mock belief in faeries or the belief that the earth is flat is not discrimination.

From your previous posts, it doesn't surprise me that you fail to see the relation between insulting and discriminatory behavior.

 

[chergh]

He's using YOUR definition of God and applying it within a religious context. Any resulting insult that you manage to interpret from that is of your own making. YOU are saying God refers to a penis, nobody else. The notion of being gay springs from YOUR interpretation alone.

I used dick as an adjective not a noun, thereby indicating god isn't a very nice person. Paul used dick as a noun and the double entendre within his comment is obvious.

From your previous posts, it doesn't surprise me that you fail to see the relation between insulting and discriminatory behavior.

If I am discriminating then perhaps you could explain where I am discriminating? For it to be discrimination I must be excluding theists from something that I am allowing atheists to be involved in.

A quick look on google brings up this definition of discrimination from the UN:

"Discriminatory behaviors take many forms, but they all involve some form of exclusion or rejection."

This definition seems reasonable so please explain how I am discriminating.

 

[Rich]

You do realise that 'to mock and insult their beliefs' is discriminatory in itself don't you?

Does the same follow for insults slung at athiests by bible punchers, does the same also apply to Catholics who have been given the right by law to discriminate against gays in this country?

 

[dan-cat]

I used dick as an adjective not a noun, thereby indicating god isn't a very nice person. Paul used dick as a noun and the double entendre within his comment is obvious.

You're just receiving, from your own interpretation, what you think is fair to dish out. Perhaps you've learnt that insulting behavior towards others shouldn't be as cherished as you originally thought. Getting a little tired of your hypocrisy to be honest.

"Discriminatory behaviors take many forms, but they all involve some form of exclusion or rejection."

This definition seems reasonable so please explain how I am discriminating.

Trying to entirely divorce the habitual insulting of a belief by a group of non-believers from discrimination is at best, myopic.

 

[dan-cat]

Does the same follow for insults slung at athiests by bible punchers, does the same also apply to Catholics who have been given the right by law to discriminate against gays in this country?

Yes. You shouldn't insult people based on their outlook on life just because it's different from your own.

 

[chergh]

Getting a little tired of your hypocrisy to be honest.

Maybe you should be more tolerant?

 

[Rich]

Yes. You shouldn't insult people based on their outlook on life just because it's different from your own.

So why then is it not illegal in this country now to discriminate against the gay community by Catholics?

 

[dan-cat]

Maybe you should be more tolerant?

I'm not the one condoning insulting behavior.

 

[dan-cat]

So why then is it not illegal in this country now to discriminate against the gay community by Catholics?

No idea. Doesn't sound good.

 

[Adam Caramon]

I have to side with chergh on this one. chergh used his interpretation of the bible to show the usual contridiction in the bible (i.e. god is a being of love, loves you, gives you free will, etc, but if you don't do what he wants you go to hell for all eternity). Therefore chergh said god seems a dick.

Paul said that cherg loved the dick, which changes the meaning of the word. Maybe he thought he was being funny, that could have been this intent. But he seems to shy away from that line of reasoning in his later posts, which takes us back to the idea that it was an insult to chergh.

So chergh insults god (and perhaps by extension those who believe in god), and Paul insults him back. All well and good except then Paul claims he did not insult chergh, confusing the situation.

You're not getting it.

You mocked others' concept of God and that insult is being reflected back on to you. You're being cut with your own knife.

Not exactly. chergh insulted the concept of god, and Paul insulted chergh with a completely different type of insult. Is Paul justified in insulting chergh? Perhaps, but its a different type, therefore saying "that insult" is not accurate, as it is a completely different insult.