NationStates Jolt Archive

http://365gay.com/Newscon07/10/100407saudi.htm

Saudi prison authorities this week began administering 7,000 lashes to each of two men convicted of committing "homosexual acts", a local newspaper reported on Thursday.

The Okaz newspaper says that the sentence was being meted out in "phases" and was being conducted in a public square in the southwestern city of Al-Bahah.

Neither man has been named.

The floggings began on Tuesday. The men were dragged into the square, their shirts removed and they where whipped. They were then returned to prison. The process was repeated on Wednesday and will continue daily until all 7,000 lashes have been administered.

7000. Lashes. And some of you ask me why I loathe religion. :rolleyes:

Generally, I loathe religion too. But I find myself liking some religious folk. Maybe I'm too tolerant.

Because ALL religious people are like that, just like ALL gays are flamboyant attention whores. :rolleyes:

http://365gay.com/Newscon07/10/100407saudi.htm



7000. Lashes. And some of you ask me why I loathe religion. :rolleyes:

Why do you loathe religion?

No. Really. I can understand if you loathe certain aspects and 'laws' of a religion, but those could just as easily be political regulations.

Religion, in and of itself, is simply a belief system. It is all the thingamajigs that people tack onto the institution which cause the problems.

Religion is just an excuse for bigotry*. "After all, the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I can hate homosexuals; my special book and my God says it's proper."









* Note, some restrictions may apply. May cause computer damage, incontinence, explosion of user's head, coma, death, and/or halitosis. Do not open, crush, dispose of in fire, put in backwards, short-circuit, or mix with highly flammable substances - may explode, leak, or catch fire, resulting in injury and/or death.Do not operate or attempt to operate heavy machinery or engage in any form of debate. See state laws for any other restrictions. Contest not open to non-US residents, including Puerto Rico.

http://365gay.com/Newscon07/10/100407saudi.htm



7000. Lashes. And some of you ask me why I loathe religion. :rolleyes:
Well, that's the typical Arab for you. Heartless brutes.
Hmm? What I said was a gross generalization, and I shouldn't base my prejudices on a single event? Oh, okay.

Why do you loathe religion?

Religion is an idiocy that poisons everything - everything - it comes into contact with.

http://365gay.com/Newscon07/10/100407saudi.htm



7000. Lashes. And some of you ask me why I loathe religion. :rolleyes:

Particularly the religion of peace? :confused:

Because ALL religious people are like that

Your religion, Christian, is no better. It would do the same thing were we to let our guard down. Mark my word.

http://365gay.com/Newscon07/10/100407saudi.htm



7000. Lashes. And some of you ask me why I loathe religion. :rolleyes:

What do you expect from the followers of the mohammed paedophile?:rolleyes:

This would never happen in Iran.

http://365gay.com/Newscon07/10/100407saudi.htm



7000. Lashes. And some of you ask me why I loathe religion. :rolleyes:

Honestly I'm amazed they didn't just execute them.

Religion is an idiocy that poisons everything - everything - it comes into contact with.

Gandhi?

Because ALL religious people are like that, just like ALL gays are flamboyant attention whores. :rolleyes:

Homosexuality has nothing to do with being a flamboyant attention whore.

To claim, however, that religion has nothing to do with state-sponsored homophobia in countries like Saudi Arabia is simply absurd.

Religion is just an excuse for bigotry. "After all, the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I can hate homosexuals; my special book and my God says it's proper."

Then Religion isn't the problem, bigots are.

If I say "After all, since we live in a world that was created in a huge explosion and our species evolved slowly over time while weaker members of the species died out, I can shoot all homosexuals since their genetic mutation makes them adverse to reproducing and furthering the species." does that mean that scientific theories are the problem, or me?

This would never happen in Iran.

Because Iran just hang the faggots.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with being a flamboyant attention whore.

To claim, however, that religion has nothing to do with state-sponsored homophobia in countries like Saudi Arabia is simply absurd.

You can call it religion, you can call it politics, cultural values, social stigma, or utter crap, but the problem isn't the idea of a religion or belief system, the problem is a set of beliefs people hold which end up harming others.

That's horrible. :(

Oh, but just watch the religionists scamper to feed their persecution complex - you know, they're the ones we should be pitying and "understanding". *scoffs*

Because ALL religious people are like that, just like ALL gays are flamboyant attention whores. :rolleyes:

Certainly. Every sunday I gets me my scattergun and goes to hunt down sum gays 'n ay-rabs. Then rides back home on our horse'n'buggy (Arizona, we dont have cars here) back home ta brew us some moonshine then we pans fer gold! GOLD! EHEHEHEHHE!
*does an amusing dance*

On a serious note...
Theyre not decapitating/castrating gays anymore? Gone soft, the Saudi's have.

That's horrible. :(

Then Religion isn't the problem

Religion is the problem. It feeds and breeds this.

Then Religion isn't the problem, bigots are.

If I say "After all, since we live in a world that was created in a huge explosion and our species evolved slowly over time while weaker members of the species died out, I can shoot all homosexuals since their genetic mutation makes them adverse to reproducing and furthering the species." does that mean that scientific theories are the problem, or me?

Are you listening to the voices in your head again? ;)

does that mean that scientific theories are the problem, or me?

Obviously you.

But that's because you are twisting and distorting scientific theories to serve your own purposes... there is nothing whatsoever in the theory of evolution that justifies homophobia.

The holy texts and traditions of the major monotheistic religions, on the other hand, are full of such justifications. "See Leviticus 18:22" is a lot more clear-cut than the example argument you presented.

That's kinky.

Oh, but just watch the religionists scamper to feed their persecution complex - you know, they're the ones we should be pitying and "understanding". *scoffs*

Eh? Am I part of a generalized lump or separate species now or something?

You may have a valid point somewhere, but it is hidden in hostility and disgust.

Obviously you.

But that's because you are twisting and distorting scientific theories to serve your own purposes... there is nothing whatsoever in the theory of evolution that justifies homophobia.

The holy texts and traditions of the major monotheistic religions, on the other hand, are full of such justifications. "See Leviticus 18:22" is a lot more clear-cut than the example argument you presented.

Okay, and who created those justifications?
People, thats who.

Just like I created a justification using scientific theory, they created a justification by popping it into a religious text.

No difference really.

Gandhi?

Sullied, and his stances had nothing to do with his otherwise very violent - and quite homophobic - religion. India outlaws homosexuality and Hindu gangs regularly lynch gay people with impunity.

Because Iran just hang the faggots.

No, because there are no homosexuals in Iran. Duh. Didn't you hear when Ahmadinefuckwad said it?

:(

Don't be sad. Be angry.

but the problem isn't the idea of a religion or belief system

The problem is the proneness of religion to get people to accept, instead of a natural or rational morality, a morality dictated from above that commands them to oppress, marginalize, and abuse others.

To me that seems pretty intrinsic to at least organized religion.

Oh, but just watch the religionists scamper to feed their persecution complex - you know, they're the ones we should be pitying and "understanding". *scoffs*

:(

You may have a valid point somewhere, but it is hidden in hostility and disgust.

Oh, poor, little you.

I want to know what crime was committed by the guy who was sentenced to the hard labor of administering 7,000 lashes. My freakin' arm would fall off.

They hire Mexican migrant workers. ;)

http://365gay.com/Newscon07/10/100407saudi.htm



7000. Lashes. And some of you ask me why I loathe religion. :rolleyes:

I want to know what crime was committed by the guy who was sentenced to the hard labor of administering 7,000 lashes. My freakin' arm would fall off.

I want to know what crime was committed by the guy who was sentenced to the hard labor of administering 7,000 lashes. My freakin' arm would fall off.

Perhaps they take turns? You know, a dude gives 100, the next dude gives another 100, etc.

Either way, the whippers would make some good pitchers.

Okay, and who created those justifications?
People, thats who.

Who created religion?

Just like I created a justification using scientific theory, they created a justification by popping it into a religious text.

But justifying things with science actually requires some kind of connection to reality--otherwise, like your argument, it sounds absurd.

Putting things into a book that people are supposed to take on faith doesn't.

The holy texts and traditions of the major monotheistic religions, on the other hand, are full of such justifications. "See Leviticus 18:22" is a lot more clear-cut than the example argument you presented.

Except that only crazy people even attempt to follow the Old Testimate, and anybody that claims to be a perfect adherant to everything Leviticus says is a liar and therefore not a perfect adhereant to everything Leviticus says.
There are some condemnations of homosexuals in the New Testimate, but the worst of them basically say, "Homosexuality is bad. Dont do it."
And most of those are in debate due to the insanity that is Greek, because apparently the Greek for 'homosexual' and an ancient Greek equivalent to 'Jerk' are pretty much the same word.
So...this is all the fault of the Ancient Greeks. We must go back in time and kill Homer before he can assist in the development of the written Greek language.

The serious bit is thus:
People who use religion (Christianity, anyway, I'm not sure about any of the other ones. Did Zoroaster condem homosexuality?) as an excuse to attack homosexuals are twisting it to their own end, much the same way the previous post twisted a scientific theory as an example.

I generally don't like religion, but this is just horrible. how could they do that?
religion goes to far.

Oh, poor, little you.

Haha?

I really want to know why you feel that all religion is the bane of humanity.
Using actual analysis, not just emotions and stories of atrocities.

Because as far as I see it, intolerant people are still the problem, not religion itself.

Who created religion?



But justifying things with science actually requires some kind of connection to reality--otherwise, like your argument, it sounds absurd.

Putting things into a book that people are supposed to take on faith doesn't.

People.
Who analyzed how things work in the natural world and created scientific theories based off of observed and supposed occurances?

True, it does require actual testing and analysis.
I thought my argument worked fairly well. Natural selection selects against those who are unsuccessful at producing offspring, homosexuals are not prone to reproduce, therefore are selected against. Therefore we are justified to assist the natural process.

Religion is just an excuse for bigotry*. "After all, the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I can hate homosexuals; my special book and my God says it's proper."

Actually, it doesn't. There are only two instances I can think of off hand where it is even mentioned. One is Sodom and Gomorrah, which God doesn't destroy because of homosexuality but because his angels get raped when they visit. Bad idea, raping angels.
The second place is Paul's Letter to the Romans. It is not condemned there either, but only listed among bad things that people in a city were doing.
And of course, the idea of brotherly love contradicts hating anyone, so it's not only not commanded but actually prohibited.
I suppose someone could say that the Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and says "relations" outside of marriage are wrong. But there's a big difference between "don't be an adulterer" and "don't be gay."

Don't be sad. Be angry.

It like reminds me of some of the nightmares I've had before. Terrifying. :(

I did feel angry, but that resulted in me falling over backwards from my chair, and that really hurt. My ribs are sore now. Ouch. :(

I never really fear angry. I think I've only felt truly angry a couple of times in my life. I hate it because it like physically hurts. But things like this are some of the only things that can make me really angry.

Not particularly keen on religion myself, but I think some are worse than others and this seems really more of a muslim thing. Yeah, christian societies used to do that kind of thing a lot but they seem to have mostly moved on from it, even among the more homophobic christian societies.

I really want to know why you feel that all religion is the bane of humanity.

Pick up a history book. Or a newspaper.

Because as far as I see it, intolerant people are still the problem, not religion itself.

Religion feeds and breeds intolerance. It is a cancer upon the psyche.

What it comes down to in the end is that the religions some people create and follow could do with some updating and revision. So can a lot of laws and cultural beliefs. Lets all fix humanity, yay.

Religion feeds and breeds intolerance. It is a cancer upon the psyche.

I'll keep an eye on my 'condition'.

Eh? Am I part of a generalized lump or separate species now or something?

You may have a valid point somewhere, but it is hidden in hostility and disgust.

Oh, poor, little you.

And smugness, don't forget that.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13105984']Not keen on religion myself, but this is really more of a muslim thing. Yeah, christian societies used to do that kind of thing a lot but they seem to have mostly moved on from it, even among the more homophobic christian societies.

They didn't move on. They were thwarted. And lest we brights keep thwarting them - counteracting their poison at every moment - they will resume this. It's what they strive for.

I'll keep an eye on my 'condition'.

A blind one. As is your ilk's custom.

Except that only crazy people even attempt to follow the Old Testimate,

Why is that "crazy"? Because they don't buy the ideology you want to impose on it?

Religious liberals love to accuse religious conservatives of perverting or abusing religion... but in truth they are just as guilty, if not more.

There are some condemnations of homosexuals in the New Testimate, but the worst of them basically say, "Homosexuality is bad. Dont do it."

There are no prescribed civil punishments in the New Testament, to my knowledge.

If you want a guide as to what government should prohibit, you have to go to the Old.

And most of those are in debate due to the insanity that is Greek, because apparently the Greek for 'homosexual' and an ancient Greek equivalent to 'Jerk' are pretty much the same word.

For the record, that is not, actually, what the disputes over translation are about.

People who use religion (Christianity, anyway, I'm not sure about any of the other ones. Did Zoroaster condem homosexuality?) as an excuse to attack homosexuals are twisting it to their own end

No, they aren't. They are interpreting their holy texts and traditions in a perfectly rational and well-supported manner.

Maybe there are other equally well-supported interpretations of the texts... I tend to be skeptical. But regardless, it can hardly be seriously claimed that the Bible (and other holy texts) cannot be legitimately interpreted to be harshly condemnatory of homosexuality.

What it comes down to in the end is that the religions some people create and follow could do with some updating and revision. So can a lot of laws and cultural beliefs. Lets all fix humanity, yay.

'Fix' as in 'mass sterilizations'? That'd be a good first step, I think.

Maybe there are other equally well-supported interpretations of the texts... I tend to be skeptical. But regardless, it can hardly be seriously claimed that the Bible (and other holy texts) cannot be legitimately interpreted to be harshly condemnatory of homosexuality.
It doesn't really, like I said above. That isn't to say the Bible supports homosexuality, but its appearances have been blown out of proportion.
It's true that it is possible to interpret it to condemn homosexuality, but I would attribute that the vagueness of the Bible, not any particular verse or chapter.

A blind one. As is your ilk's custom.

'My ilk'? First off, that word amuses me. Secondly, I respect your beliefs and grant that you are right in some cases, but now you are just spewing generalizations.

They didn't move on. They were thwarted. And lest we brights keep thwarting them - counteracting their poison at every moment - they will resume this. It's what they strive for.
Well I go to church (Parents make me) and I don't think all religious people are as bad as you say! The church I go to is quite morally strict on most things, including homosexuality, but I don't think that even the more homophobic among the congregation are really striving towards islamic savagery. Obviously I could be wrong as I can't tell what they're really like but I just doubt it.

Who analyzed how things work in the natural world and created scientific theories based off of observed and supposed occurances?

"How things work in the natural world"--a world they did not create.

I thought my argument worked fairly well. Natural selection selects against those who are unsuccessful at producing offspring, homosexuals are not prone to reproduce, therefore are selected against. Therefore we are justified to assist the natural process.

Is-ought. You can say whatever the fuck you want about evolution, it still doesn't tell us anything about the rightness of homosexuality. The theory of evolution, like all of science, isn't prescriptive: it doesn't tell us what we ought to do.

Religion, of course, does.

They've never even mentioned homosexuality at my church that I can remember, at least not any of the times that I've gone...

That's just as well. If the minister talks about homosexuality in every sermon, you should start to worry. Especially if he seems to know all the graphic details.

Because Iran just hang the faggots.

I don't think anyone survives 7000 lashes. Insanity.

"How things work in the natural world"--a world they did not create.

Is-ought. You can say whatever the fuck you want about evolution, it still doesn't tell us anything about the rightness of homosexuality. The theory of evolution, like all of science, isn't prescriptive: it doesn't tell us what we ought to do.

Religion, of course, does.

No, but their deity did.

Neither does the basis of a religion: people just tack on other 'rules' that they feel benefit their cause.

Take for example, Christianity and the Ten Commandments. Nowhere in there does it say anything about homosexuals and how they should be persecuted. All you need to do to be a Christian is believe in God and Jesus as the savior. You see anything in there that could harm other people? I don't. Its when other people shove their little agendas into religious texts, that it becomes an issue.

It doesn't really, like I said above. That isn't to say the Bible supports homosexuality, but its appearances have been blown out of proportion.
It's true that it is possible to interpret it to condemn homosexuality, but I would attribute that the vagueness of the Bible, not any particular verse or chapter.

Besides all that, Jesus was all for love and peace, and Messiah's trump prophets, saints and angels below Archangel level, if I remember correctly :P

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13106017']Well I go to church (Parents make me) and I don't think all religious people are as bad as you say! The church I go to is quite morally strict on most things, including homosexuality, but I don't think that even the more homophobic among the congregation are really striving towards islamic savagery. Obviously I could be wrong as I can't tell what they're really like but I just doubt it.

They've never even mentioned homosexuality at my church that I can remember, at least not any of the times that I've gone...

They've never even mentioned homosexuality at my church that I can remember, at least not any of the times that I've gone...
They don't mention that often at my church actually. Doesn't come up that much. But when it does they tend to take a fairly dim view on it.

I don't think anyone survives 7000 lashes. Insanity.

They were given daily, not in one batch.

And yes, religion is moronic. It is a crutch for those to weak to accept death, and a tool by which anachronistic bigotry is perpetuated.

I don't think anyone survives 7000 lashes. Insanity.

Depends on the type of whip used. 7,000 lashes delivered over a long period (they did say it was going to be carried out in 'phases') with, say, a nice suede model, wouldnt kill you directly...you might die of dehydration or something though.
A knout, on the other hand, is reported to take something like 20-25 good smacks to kill an adult male.
I dunno what the Saudi's use. Anybody got any idea what model theyre into?

Actually, it doesn't. There are only two instances I can think of off hand where it is even mentioned. One is Sodom and Gomorrah, which God doesn't destroy because of homosexuality but because his angels get raped when they visit. Bad idea, raping angels.
The second place is Paul's Letter to the Romans. It is not condemned there either, but only listed among bad things that people in a city were doing.
And of course, the idea of brotherly love contradicts hating anyone, so it's not only not commanded but actually prohibited.
I suppose someone could say that the Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and says "relations" outside of marriage are wrong. But there's a big difference between "don't be an adulterer" and "don't be gay."

I will agree that you are right on that.

Note, however, that I said "...is an excuse...". You can have something that appears to be rather normal but taken out of context, you can twist the original meaning to suit your agenda.

People can use whatever they want to cover and justify their bigotry, and to me religion is one of those things. They use often misquoted and out-of-context passages to justify their beliefs that may not otherwise be accepted.

This doesn't mean all people who have a religion do this, to me, I thought I was writing that people use it as one of many ways of justifying their hatred, which would otherwise have no other basis.

Religion is an idiocy that poisons everything - everything - it comes into contact with.

Oh the irony...

You sound like a mirror image of a fundi christian or hardcore muslim.

"Homosexuality is an idiocy that poisons everything - everything - it comes into contact with." Now that sounds like something Fred Phelps would say.

As for 7000 lashes, this has nothing to the with religion, which ranges from Taoism to Islam. It has to the with Islam, which is a religion, and Middle Eastern culture.

Oh and seeing that you are from Sweden, which has just a population of 9 million and accepts tens of thousands of immigrants from Middle East annually, good luck within 25 years...

This doesn't mean all people who have a religion do this, to me, I thought I was writing that people use it as one of many ways of justifying their hatred, which would otherwise have no other basis.

Oh, I'm sure they'd find a way. People are clever like that.

It doesn't really, like I said above.

Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13: "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

In your other post on this subject, you of course ignored both of these.

The second place is Paul's Letter to the Romans. It is not condemned there either, but only listed among bad things that people in a city were doing.

Romans 1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201;&version=31;)

"24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. "

I'm not sure how you read that as other than a condemnation.

Now, further on in the same chapter, Paul says:

"32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Admittedly, this statement comes after listing other sins... but it is hardly a stretch to interpret it to apply broadly to the sins Paul lists.

This is why religion is evil.

No, but their deity did.

Then they're describing what their deity created.

They're still describing something. Not inventing it.

Neither does the basis of a religion

The "basis" of any religion generally tends to be pretty closely associated with morality... that is why religious people are so often unwilling to accept that atheists can be moral.

Take for example, Christianity and the Ten Commandments.

Ten "ought" statements right there.

Nowhere in there does it say anything about homosexuals and how they should be persecuted.

No, but as you well know (or should if you don't), the Ten Commandments are not the totality of Christian ethics.

All you need to do to be a Christian is believe in God and Jesus as the savior.

To be a Christian, yes.

To be a proper Christian, a Christian who follows the laws of Christianity, a whole lot more is required.

Its when other people shove their little agendas into religious texts

The homophobia in the Bible doesn't require anyone shoving "their little agendas" into it. It's probably the most compelling interpretation on an honest reading.

People who want to reconcile basic moral decency with their religious beliefs, of course, have a pretty strong reason not to read it honestly at all... indeed, to "shove their little agendas" into it. It is this, ironically, which saves much of religion from being a bigoted abomination.

And yes, religion is moronic. It is a crutch for those to weak to accept death, and a tool by which anachronistic bigotry is perpetuated.

Wow, what a sweep. I'm sure you are speaking about all religions when you say that. Because if you've seen one you've seen'em all, right.

Click Stand;13106095']Wow, what a sweep. I'm sure you are speaking about all religions when you say that. Because if you've seen one you've seen'em all, right.

In a western context, essentially, yes.

Hinduism, buddhism and confucianism might induce tolerance, but the Ambrahamis religions, in practice, do not.

As for religion being a crutch, I stand by that assertion. It is.

They were given daily, not in one batch.I know.

Depends on the type of whip used. 7,000 lashes delivered over a long period (they did say it was going to be carried out in 'phases') with, say, a nice suede model, wouldnt kill you directly...you might die of dehydration or something though.
A knout, on the other hand, is reported to take something like 20-25 good smacks to kill an adult male.
I dunno what the Saudi's use. Anybody got any idea what model theyre into?I don't know and I really don't want to know, either. I remember coming across a news (!) video of a caning a while ago. The man's flesh was gaping open in a deep wound after about the third hit. It was truly horrifying. So yeah, a lash is not the same as a cane, but then 7000 is not the same as three. Even if given out "in phases".

Seven thousand.

No, I don't think you'd survive that.

Edit: And I don't mean for this to become a discussion of the grisly details of torture.Just pointing out that I'd think this sentence is a de facto death sentence anyway.

In a western context, essentially, yes.

Hinduism, buddhism and confucianism might induce tolerance, but the Ambrahamis religions, in practice, do not.

As for religion being a crutch, I stand by that assertion. It is.

Why confine religion by physical or cultural borders. Throughout this thread when someone says "religion" I'm assuming they mean all religion not just the cherry-picked religions that fit what they are saying.

Yeah, Saudi Arabia is a shithole...we know

Not bad. My question though is when they're done. I mean, do they stay gay, this inviting uh...being lashed thousands of times all over again?

But if people stopped being sinners, all those poor Whippers in Saudi Arabia would be unemployed! :( Think of the executioners! They have families to feed!

7000. Lashes.

Not bad. My question though is when they're done. I mean, do they stay gay, this inviting uh...being lashed thousands of times all over again?

But if people stopped being sinners, all those poor Whippers in Saudi Arabia would be unemployed! :( Think of the executioners! They have families to feed!

But they have the training to 'whip' up some dinner.

good, the people of norilsk16 have decalred thus: it is something that brings this country great joy, to know those who have been demeaning the glory of this great nation of oil.. will know now justice

Do you think this is the RP forum?
Was that sarcastic?
Or are you trying to be incendiary?

good, the people of norilsk16 have decalred thus: it is something that brings this country great joy, to know those who have been demeaning the glory of this great nation of oil.. will know now justice

http://365gay.com/Newscon07/10/100407saudi.htm



7000. Lashes. And some of you ask me why I loathe religion. :rolleyes:
But just remember that Islam is the religion of peace. We really shouldn't judge -- it's a cultural thing.

And smugness, don't forget that.

Depending on your point of view, Fassigen is either the rampant manifestation of Nietzche's Slave Morality in action or a wannabe homosexual Early Malcolm X screaming "Kill Straighty, Kill Christy, Kill Jewy, Hell, Kill Everything Else."

In either case, he's always looking for the next fix of Attention to get a hit off of.

And gee, another thread that rides on the coattail of the Islamaphobia Fad.

"Let's use the specific example of an ass-backwards oppressive regime that's the home of the most anal retentive fundamentalist version of Islam to try and paint all Muslims across the world as hivemind Homo-cidal barbarians."

There's a shocker.

:rolleyes:

good, the people of norilsk16 have decalred thus: it is something that brings this country great joy, to know those who have been demeaning the glory of this great nation of oil.. will know now justice

(Is this supposed to be an IC post? I mean, if so, it belongs in uh...II.)

And yeah, we gotta think of the poor whippers. Dey took our jerbs!

Depending on your point of view, Fassigen is either the rampant manifestation of Nietzche's Slave Morality in action or a wannabe homosexual Early Malcolm X screaming "Kill Straighty, Kill Christy, Kill Jewy, Hell, Kill Everything Else."

In either case, he's always looking for the next fix of Attention to get a hit off of.

Amen brother.

Because ALL religious people are like that, just like ALL gays are flamboyant attention whores. :rolleyes:

or trolls like the OP

Fass you're really coming off as a jerk in this thread. You have a chance to get sympathy from people, but you just turn them off with your arrogance and trolling.

I'm a religious person. I don't hate gay people. This story presents a chance for you to get sympathy but your stupid display is just turning me off.

How would you like it if I were to come and make broad generalizations about gays based on you? I bet you wouldn't like it, but I hope you're seeing the irony here.

Click Stand;13106113']Why confine religion by physical or cultural borders. Throughout this thread when someone says "religion" I'm assuming they mean all religion not just the cherry-picked religions that fit what they are saying.

Or, rather, the religions of particular significance to their context. I do notice you seem to avoid disaffirming any criticism of the Abrahamic religions. Why is that?

It's what they strive for.

your kidding right?

the fundamentalist side may strive to put gays back in prsion for being gay (or in the loony bin) but not even the majority of fundies (phelps and neo-nazis are not the majority to my knowledge) strive to instate a death penalty or the like for homosexuality.

and note I say fundies, because most religious people DONT GIVE A SHIT.









and how dare you make me defend religion to any degree....

How confusing this all is.
On one hand I have you, Fass, the homosexual who clearly despises all religion. On the other, I have the Catholic homosexual friends who did offetry at Christmas day mass.. They apparently have absolutely no problem with religion. Are they not "true" homosexuals? Have they turned their backs on homosexuality? Or are they just normal people who happen to believe in a God? Probably the latter.

Anyway, the differences are striking.

... This story presents a chance for you to get sympathy but your stupid display is just turning me off.

I've never seen Fass solicit sympathy. That's why I like him. I doubt his objective has anything to do with turning you on, either. :)

Or, rather, the religions of particular significance to their context.

Context has nothing to do with claiming "all religion is a bad thing" or whatever has been said in this thread. If people wanted to condemn Abrahamic religion then that should have been said...it wasn't.

I do notice you seem to avoid disaffirming any criticism of the Abrahamic religions. Why is that?

I have no problem with criticizing religion, if you have evidence then showing isn't a problem to me, just as long as it is specific and not generalizing. If you want to state all religion is bad based on this you'll need a lot more evidence.

But just remember that Islam is the religion of peace. We really shouldn't judge -- it's a cultural thing.

One good thing is they do not do this in every Muslim country. Another thing is they do not kill them as they do in Iran however I do not know what is worse 7000 lashes or death. Wouldn't someone die from bleeding to death?

The irony here is that "gay" Saudi's come to Morocco all the time because it is not illegal. However they do get busted for "gay" prostitution so much it is a problem.

Another reported story is that the King of Morocco is most likely bi-sexual.

Religion is quite possibly the worst thing that's ever happened to humanity.

Religion is quite possibly the worst thing that's ever happened to humanity.

It is a double edged sword really. It has done a lot of good for humanity and on the same hand it has done much harm.

Religion is quite possibly the worst thing that's ever happened to humanity.

Oh..look children..*points* it is another one of 'Them'.

:p

I feel that I should start off this post by stating what I believe, so here goes:

1.) There probably isn't a God, big g. I mean, I think that there definitely isn't one in the Abrahamic sense, and there probably isn't any sort of deity period.

2.) We're probably better off this way. Having a real God would suck.

3.) If anything can be considered God, it is the fundamental forces, balances, properties, and qualities that allow the universe as we know it to exist and function.

4.) Religion served a purpose in the past to advance society to a certain point, and is now attempting to reign it back in to that cutoff point. Thus, in a short, catchy slogan, religion is dead. Or should be, leastways.

That said, you're all wrong. Well, let me rephrase; most of you were dead wrong, some of you were probably a little bit right but sill mostly wrong, and a very few of you who I didn't notice got the whole thing right.

Religion at its most fundamental is a bunch of people getting together and attempting to create a unified truth about the function of the universe via a clear, comparatively simple, and comparatively reasonable answer to the questions that cannot be solved through direct observation and idle speculation. Most religions have come to the conclusion that some omnipotent, unchangeable force (or a set of less powerful forces, as it were) caused the world to be this way; this is a god, little g, a concept which, in this case, incorporates God, demons, angels, karma, the Tao, yin-yang, spirits, and physics.

Yes, science is a religion, and physics (okay, chemistry too) is its god. Science; a bunch of people (scientists) getting together and attempting to create a unified truth about the function of the universe via a clear, comparatively simple, and comparatively reasonable answer to the questions (WTF is w/ teh univers, d00d?) that cannot be solved through direct observation and idle speculation.

Now, science isn't really a religion, for one simple reason; it isn't about belief, really. At no point will a cleric of science (professor, researcher, what have you) ask you to just trust him, that this is how it works, no questions asked, we can't prove it to you, but it is. A priest will, because the driving force of faith-based religions is just that, faith; science doesn't need that, it can be proven. Science will never ask for your heart and your faith, just your eyes and a touch of logic.

Religion is meant to keep people together, to give them a reason to care, to help, to hope, and to look forward. Yes, it's a tad corny, but the whole idea is too. When man was nothing but a haggard gaggle of Homo Sapiens, and we hadn't yet earned the "Sapiens," we needed no reason to procreate, to aid others, to pitch in, or to move on; it was instinctive. But, as intellectual progress* marched on, our instincts were overcome by inquisition and confusion and restlessness; humanity, if you will, was having its first bout with teen angst. We were lost, and found ourselves in a world where we had arisen into sapience quite suddenly and without warning, and nobody knew where to go from there.

That's where spirituality and philosophy came in. Spirituality gave us answers and direction; it unified us, where once we were wandering free like horses with the barn door open. We had a reason, we had an idea, we had a good solid basis on which to form a society, and for a while, it worked. We formed entities to organize and draft our religion, and to keep us under control by the tenants thereof; we created groups and territories belonging to just one religion; we created works of art, and music, and stories to bring glory upon our religion and its great and mighty go, little g; and, most importantly, we killed those ignorant bastards who didn't believe the same things as us. Thus were government, ownership, the arts, and conflict born. A new sun arose on the flat plains of history, and its name was Religion.

But it couldn't last forever.

Somewhere, possibly during the Industrial Revolution, possibly during the Renaissance, maybe even during the days of Rome and Greece, religion began to falter and splutter. Worried that it would fall over, zealots rushed to their own pillars of faith, each desperate to cling to old ways, old ideals, rather than embracing the new wave; science, a religion with no god, a philosophy without belief, a set of ideas founded solely on observation and reasoning. Thus, for the last 100, 500, 200, or whatever years, religion has been clinging to what was, even as it falls, ever so slowly, into the dank cistern of eternity, while science attempts to keep people's attention long enough for them to find out what's really going on.

Thus, there isn't anything definitively wrong with religion, because religion itself does not mean "no gays allowed." Nor is religion still vital today, because we no longer need it and it's holding us back. Mine is a third opinion, that religion is not inherently bad, has in fact been beneficial before, but is now a bane on society. I hope at least some of you concur.

Or I'm dead wrong. That could happen.

* I do hate that term. It denotes a continual march toward intelligence comparable to that of humans in which all life is caught, when anyone with a brain can tell that intelligence, or more accurately human intelligence, is just another adaptation, like an eyeball, or a tail, or a penis. Yes, I said penis, in a non-jeering, non-retarded, wholly appropriate manner. Gasp.




What in hell does :gundge: mean?

It is a double edged sword really. It has done a lot of good for humanity and on the same hand it has done much harm.

Any good that religion may spuriously be able to lay claim to is completely overshadowed by several thousand years of shit.

I doubt his objective has anything to do with turning you on, either. :)
Wow that was poorly woreded.;)

Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13: "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

In your other post on this subject, you of course ignored both of these. Except it does not say who is doing the Judging or the Condemning. also, it focuses on the act, not the person committing the act.

Matthew 7:1-5.
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

on a further note, all these problems the conservatives and religous right are facing kinda fits this doesn't it?

see what happens when they fail to follow the Word of God?

Romans 1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201;&version=31;)

"24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. "

I'm not sure how you read that as other than a condemnation.

Now, further on in the same chapter, Paul says:

"32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Admittedly, this statement comes after listing other sins... but it is hardly a stretch to interpret it to apply broadly to the sins Paul lists.
It is condemnation, but not for what you think. The three verses before what you quoted states.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Sounds like those that turned away from God and his teachings.

and again, who is doing the Condemnation? not man, but God. we are not supposed to judge each other's actions according to the Bible but Judge our own actions. That's why I will not listen to those like Phelps, nor anyone who is ready to condemn others for their sins.

God, Jesus, and others often refer to a spiritual Death and not a physical one when sin is concerned.

Depending on your point of view, Fassigen is either the rampant manifestation of Nietzche's Slave Morality in action or a wannabe homosexual Early Malcolm X screaming "Kill Straighty, Kill Christy, Kill Jewy, Hell, Kill Everything Else."

In either case, he's always looking for the next fix of Attention to get a hit off of.

And gee, another thread that rides on the coattail of the Islamaphobia Fad.

"Let's use the specific example of an ass-backwards oppressive regime that's the home of the most anal retentive fundamentalist version of Islam to try and paint all Muslims across the world as hivemind Homo-cidal barbarians."

There's a shocker.

:rolleyes:

Agreed 100%.

Although since there's an either-or statement there I suppose it doesn't make sense to agree 100%. In that case, I'll have to go with the latter.