"Ground Zero mosque leader says gay people were abused as children"
-
I haven't said anything that shows I'm angry. Because I'm not. We disagree and I'm trying to explain my ideas. I'm not sure if you''re angry or not - seems like you might be. One last attempt:
1. A serf is not an indentured servant. Being essentially owned by a company that pays you in script is not a choice. Contracts, however unfair, are enforceable by police, courts and jails. If there are no other options I wonder how freely the indentured servant's choice was. Not only that, who do you think came up with the indentured servant idea? The poor person or the rich person with power? Hmmm.
2. You said flatly "the Bible sanctioned slavery" as if that made everything in it invalid. I responded by saying tell the whole story, It will be difficult indeed to discuss anything if I have to know by heart everything you've ever posted. For me to say 'people evolved' is not endorsing or showing my beliefs in any way. Most people in the world have some sort of rights and are no longer property of the king. I use of the words "people evolved" to convey that idea. Would "societies evolved" be better? However, to the heart of the matter - I don't pretend to have all the answers about God. Perhaps an analogy will serve - children are born into this world, otherwise obviously people would die off. Growing up is essentially the same for all, birth, growth, learning and pain; sorrows and happiness, illness and death. Why must there be pain to learn? Why must everyone experience sadness? But that is the way it is, the best parent cannot prevent any of those things. I think that is how it is with the world development. For centuries most people couldn't read. Vaccines were only invented 70 years ago. None of this proves God doesn't exist. It means we are the two year old child who is yet to understand and yet even as adults (religious or atheist alike) there are still many things beyond our understanding.
3. I said as plainly as I know how more than once there are hundreds of think tanks and opinion pieces written every day. You can find someone who said almost anything you want AFTER the fact. I've also said that I do not remember the opinion polls but they were from US News, not Rush Limbaugh. I said I will research PNAC. what do you want?
I have no idea why GWB does what he does, I'm sure you never ever ever heard me defend him, since I can't stand him either.
I also say I do understand about preachers spewing hate (which you did not put in quotes!) but I mention same sex marriage and the other stats about divorce etc. not to dispute you but to agree religion's role is diminishing. You don't see that, you mention only GWB.
Your last point about Asia, where did I say it was "just Muslims?" I thought this post was about the Mosque at Ground zero which means Muslims…..
-
I give up.
You have a way of disconnecting my responses to what you wrote, so there is no point continuing further.
-
as I mentioned on another thread with you I think - people couldn't choose between being a slave and getting a job at the corner Walmart! That option wasn't there. People evolved.
I remember this, and it didnt quite make sense there at first. But I understand its reason for being put forth. This inductive (allowing for) view of religion — slavery as a corollary to the times — contrasts with my and raphjd's deductive (not allowing for) view of religion for one particular reason — as an example of parts of the Bible that had to be there, because of the times, and therefore that edict and many others should be acceptable — as a way of bringing in the back door (slavery justified=Bible OK) what won't fit in through the front (slavery is abhorrent=Bible not OK). I can see no other reason why this was brought up, other than to imply justification for it being there in the first place.
But notice how other timeless provisions in the Good Book are not directly mentioned by him: Children out of line? beat them with a rod {Proverbs 13:24,20:30, and 23:13-14}; Children talking back to parents? kill them {Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Mark 7:9-13, and Matthew 15:4-7} in addition to provisions that we stone people to death for heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, worshipping graven images, and practicing sorcery. These are not mentioned, and for good reason — it is only by ignoring such barbarisms that the Bible can be reconciled with life in the modern world.
His argument shows that religion has nothing underwriting it other than the unacknowledged neglect of the letter of the divine law.
-
Raphjd - you can quit discussing if you like but I'll say this - you are cherry picking! Or you completely change the focus! So what if GWB wears religion on his sleeve. Prove or even postulate he is acting in concert or at the behest of an organized religious group.
If he acts on his own religious beliefs, or belief system if not religious, don't we all do that?
I think I've tried to respond to almost everything you've put forth.
I did find a poll - a commenter posted a link to Investor's Daily on Huffington Post - 84% of Egyptians want a theocracy. 73% want adulterers stoned etc. **** STuff like that - I may have the numbers a bit off. But when you criticize Christianity, you have to go back centuries to St. Augustine! If you say the Pope doesn't condemn violence and I say he did, you say not soon enough. This is not rational discussion.
Spintendo - Slavery and the Bible was brought up in post #12 by Raphjd. I didn't mention all those other things because I'm not trying to reconcile the Bible with modern life. I said that because the Bible sanctioned slavery at a time when there were not other job options, does not make the entire book invalid without telling the other side.
The fact that slavery, servitude and the divine right of kings existed at one time is a fact of history, is it not? A fact is not me trying to "allow" for religion as you say or disallow/disapprove of the practice, it is simply stating a fact.
**** I later read the comments - one alleged this link (which said it was Pew research) was bogus -so I went to to the actual Pew website which said Egyptians are about equally divided on the question "does religion play a large or small role in government" but then a very large number (I don't recall exactly, it was well over 80%) felt Islam's influence in politics was positive. So the answers to the first question don't seem to convey the Egyptians true feelings. I can also say that whenever Farahkan is mentioned in the Detroit newspapers, they always tiptoe around what he says and so I called the editorial desk. They told me if they printed what he actually said (the really controversial stuff) they would get thousands of telephone calls. So there you are - the media censoring out actual statements by their own admission.
# this link appears legit: http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/#prc-jump
85% of Nigerian Muslims and 58% of Egyptian Muslims favor the death penalty for those who leave the faith
54% of Egyptians favor gender segregation in the workplaceIf only the above is true, that doesn't sound bizarre to you? What in Christianity compares to this?
-
You can not slag off muslims and expect your religion to be exempt from the same scrutiny, otherwise you are being hypocritical.
You have blinders on that will not let you see that christianity isn't all flowers and puppies. That is why no one can talk to you about topics like this.
-
I think anyone reading this with a neutral eye can see that I have not exempted Christianity from scrutiny. I've invited you to compare very specific situations with pointed questions and you've ignored most of them. I'm well aware that Christianity isn't just flowers and puppies.
I've specifically said lay the blame where it should be. I acknowledged the US had their own terrorists before you mentioned it. I know capitalism has some terrible excesses, I cited the books I"ve read thinking that would be enough, but apparently not. So here's an example: I know that the USA meddles in the affairs of other countries and our corporations do some terrible things like sell poor countries seeds that don't reproduce so they have to buy again from these corporations. But none of that is religiously motivated, it is just plain human greed. I've even agreed with you about the diminishing role of religion and I get accused of anger where there is none.
It is clear that in Christian societies people have much more freedom, especially women. This alone cannot be highlighted enough. The governments do not act on behalf of a Church or specifically for religious leaders. That is probably why the founders of the USA tried to separate Church & state. Most people would prefer to live in a western style democracy. You asked me to say which is better for Gays, Christianity or Islam? Well, if I remember correctly, a Muslim theocracy executed two young men by hanging last year for homosexual relations. Name a primarily Christian country where the government did the same.
I doubt if we'll discuss anything in the future so I could be nasty here or pious and wish you peace and I can't really do either one. It is just kind of sad and unfortunate that I've typed so much for you to ignore or twist and then try to lay all the blame at my feet.
-
I think anyone reading this with a neutral eye can see that I have not exempted Christianity from scrutiny. I've invited you to compare very specific situations with pointed questions and you've ignored most of them. I'm well aware that Christianity isn't just flowers and puppies.
YES, you have exempted christianity from scrutiny. You say that all/vast majority of muslims do evil things only because of their religion, then say that christians do evil things even though they happen to be christians.
You want to control the discusion so it suits your wants/needs. That's why you got upset because I refused to maintain your dictated topics.
I've specifically said lay the blame where it should be. I acknowledged the US had their own terrorists before you mentioned it. I know capitalism has some terrible excesses, I cited the books I"ve read thinking that would be enough, but apparently not. So here's an example: I know that the USA meddles in the affairs of other countries and our corporations do some terrible things like sell poor countries seeds that don't reproduce so they have to buy again from these corporations. But none of that is religiously motivated, it is just plain human greed. I've even agreed with you about the diminishing role of religion and I get accused of anger where there is none.
YES, you refuse to admit that GWB, Gods Army, Christian Identity and countless others have done evil things because of their religion. How about the IRA in the UK?! I wouldn't doubt if there are still white preachers still teaching that the mark of cain is talking about black people.
Capitalism can't use religion, however the people that are part of the capitalist system can and do use religion to justify their actions.
Christians, including the mormons, are funding hate against people they don't like, especially gays.
It is clear that in Christian societies people have much more freedom, especially women. This alone cannot be highlighted enough. The governments do not act on behalf of a Church or specifically for religious leaders. That is probably why the founders of the USA tried to separate Church & state. Most people would prefer to live in a western style democracy. You asked me to say which is better for Gays, Christianity or Islam? Well, if I remember correctly, a Muslim theocracy executed two young men by hanging last year for homosexual relations. Name a primarily Christian country where the government did the same.
Ever hear of the Southern Baptists?! They believe women should be bare foot, pregnant and in the kitchen, while being totally subservient to the men in her family. Sound a lot like the muslims you are complaining about.
Let's talk about gays. People, not just gays, are still being murdered simply because some asshole thinks they might be gay. Then when they go to trial, they get to use the "gay panic" defense {aka "Guardsman" or "Portsmouth" defence in the UK} and the jury either totally lets them off, despite there being no evidence to justify the "gay panic" defense or they get a light slap on the wrist. About 4 years ago, there was a case in Michigan where a guy murdered a gay man and used the "gay panic" defense. After the trial, and double jeopardy was applied, a couple of the jurors came forward and admitted that they let the guy off even though they didn't believe him, simply because the victim was gay. They both said because of their christian beliefs, they could never convict a person that killed a homosexual because they were doing what god wanted.
If we talk about black centric nations that wear their religion on their sleeves, it's much, much worse for gays. You seriously need to investigate christian black centric countries to truly understand how bad they are for gays. They use the bible to justify their evil treatment of gays. Jamaica is well known as being the world's most homphobic nation. Last year, a man paid some thugs to beat his ASSUMED gay son to death while he went to the local church and prayed the god wouldn't hate him for producing a gay son. The police did nothing about the murder, in fact, they condoned what the father did.
As I previously said, both the bible and the koran demand that gays be executed. Oddly, most scholars {believers and non believers} say the current bible is full of mistranslation, the vast majority of christians refuse to accept this and demand that everyone still hate gays.
No matter where you live, you can not turn on a TV without hearing several preachers spewing hate against gays, telling everyone how god hates us and that we must be destroyed. According to your own church doctrine, you are going to burn in hell for eternity.
I doubt if we'll discuss anything in the future so I could be nasty here or pious and wish you peace and I can't really do either one. It is just kind of sad and unfortunate that I've typed so much for you to ignore or twist and then try to lay all the blame at my feet.
If I "ignored" something, it was because you wouldn't properly respond to what I said, so I was trying to keep you on track.
-
Let's not forget that it was the christians that committed genocide against the muslims in Bosnia.
-
one alleged this link (which said it was Pew research) was bogus -so I went to to the actual Pew website…...
Pew is actually a great think-tank, they do a lot of fascinating stuff there.
Fancydude you say that youre not biased towards Christianity and I believe that you believe that to be true. And while its pretty well known that people don't always 'speak their minds', it is suspected that people don't always 'know their minds'. Finding out about those possible divisions can be kinda fun and completely fascinating…. so I was wondering if you might be interested in taking this test, its called an implicit association test, from Project Implicit which is out at Harvard (so you can be sure it's not some silly online test).
hxxps://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
if your interested in seeing how it works, and taking the test online, go to that website and click on "demonstration." It will then present a long list, go ahead and choose the one marked "Religion IAT". It asks some questions to get a baseline and then consists of reacting to words that appear on the screen. Theres actually a lot of IATs that help to reveal biases in people, it can be pretty interesting, and understanding those divergences between what we think we know and what we really know is what these researchers out at Harvard are trying to do. The demonstration tests are just that- demonstrations, with no data collected, except for the "featured" tests, which change weekly I believe.
-
hXXp://minnesotaindependent.com/58393/gop-linked-punk-rock-ministry-says-executing-gays-is-moral
Here's a US christian ministry that says executing gays is moral. Of course they are just saying what the bible {as currently written} says.
-
Spin - I don't think I ever said I was unbiased towards Christianity - being raised that way, and more or less still practicing (as in the love your neighbor stuff ; not the: I've committed mortal sin if I miss Mass here and there - or Gay sex!) - I don't know if that is even possible. I try to be objective about other religions. I've already said and demonstrated in the previous exchanges that Christianity isn't without its flaws. If I argued that as a practical matter, it is more forgiving and more compatible with democracy than often unyielding theocracies - for that I will not apologize. Where would you like to live- the USA (or most of Europe?) or Iraq? Esp. as a Gay male?
I did try to take the test and it got stuck and wouldn't move when I was identifying the "good" and "bad" words. Obviously I didn't get to the "interpretation" part since I didn't complete the modules, but I would have had a lot more faith in it if had asked my age & religion, location etc. AFTER it interpreted the raw test data! I may try it again after rebooting my computer. I would like to know, if there is a general way to answer this without prejudicing my taking the test: What does it prove to ask if I'm warm or cold about a specific religion? I know very little of actual practice of Buddhism nor do I know any Buddhists personally. I think this would be true in reverse for many of them. I live in a primarily Christian area of the USA although we are getting more Muslims all the time, though the language and cultural barriers prevent much interaction. I have tried to interact: I have offered all my Muslim neighbors home canned fruits and things, speak to their children, give them books (which they politely accept and say thankyou, + return the washed jars) but I have received nothing in return. Nor do the adults who can speak english initiate any conversations. However, I only just thought of this now, so as to the test itself I was trying to answer how I felt about the religion in general, not about specific individuals. My French teacher in high school mentioned that people in other countries think the streets are paved with gold in America, refugees romanticize about their country of origin since it was often a forceable relocation; "forgetting about the horrors" of what they left behind….I take all this into consideration when thinking about specific people. Also my Muslim neighbors are from Bangladesh and Pakistan as were the students in my ESL classes at the library. I found them extremely eager to learn and courteous. They would stand up everytime the teacher (me) entered the room! Thanks for the interesting information.
As to the Pew research - if you go back to where I first linked, (that Poll that was supposedly legit from Pew research posted at Investor's Business Daily) it seemed to be bogus. I wasn't suggesting for a minute that Pew research as an organization is bogus, just that particular poll. A commenter suggested that it was presented as Pew but actually wasn't. But then when I got into what I presume is actual data of what Muslims think about government, etc. on Pew Globals' site ; gender separation at work etc. I guess it might be legit after all. Am I expressing myself clearly?
-
somehow i think the religious talks get a bit out of hand nowadays.
-
but I would have had a lot more faith in it if had asked my age & religion, location etc. AFTER it interpreted the raw test data!
The reason why it asks you your opinions of different religions at the beginning (the hot & cold feeling questions) is to establish them before the test is taken, since the test itself could influence what opinions are offered (the observer-effect). Then it can compare and contrast the "you" as you see yourself with the "you" who responds to the word associations. ….After the test is finished i think it asks you what your religion is.
-
Spin - I don't think I ever said I was unbiased towards Christianity - being raised that way, and more or less still practicing (as in the love your neighbor stuff ; not the: I've committed mortal sin if I miss Mass here and there - or Gay sex!) - I don't know if that is even possible. I try to be objective about other religions. I've already said and demonstrated in the previous exchanges that Christianity isn't without its flaws. If I argued that as a practical matter, it is more forgiving and more compatible with democracy than often unyielding theocracies - for that I will not apologize.
Your religion is just as unyielding as any other. However, you admit you reject the parts of your religion you don't like, while defending your religion as being more yielding. You made your religion more yielding by the very fact that you cherry picked the bits you like, rather than staying faithful to your faith.
I can prove that any religion is the best on earth, once I reject the bits I don't like.
Face it, your holy text say that you must be executed and your church says you are going to burn in hell for eternity. You have made a mockery of the whole confession thing that as a catholic is part of the core of your religion by not being honest about your sins and still being actively gay.
-
Spin - it asks how you feel about this or that. Then demographics then the words. Which is why I made the comment I did about interpretation first then ask demographic questions!
-
Right on.
So was the score you got surprising? or was it just what you expected…
I took the weight IAT the other day and it told me I was moderately biased against large people....and i thought i had a good tolerance for the weight-challenged... heheh oh well ??? -
Spin - it locked up (is my DSL connection too slow maybe?) In my previous (long) post, I only asked you two questions - which each only require a one word response - any particular reason for no answer?
-
I apologize for overlooking your questions. Allow me to answer each one now:
Spin Where would you like to live- the USA (or most of Europe?) or Iraq? Esp. as a Gay male?
I would like to live in Varennes, a city outside of Paris.
I would like to know, if there is a general way to answer this without prejudicing my taking the test: What does it prove to ask if I'm warm or cold about a specific religion?
First, the difference between two types of attitudes: explicit and implicit.
Explicit attitudes and beliefs are ones that are directly expressed or publicly stated. For example, the question asking for your liking for particular religious groups before you take the IAT is an example of your explicit or consciously accessible attitude. The standard procedure for obtaining such direct expressions is to ask you to report or describe them.
An implicit attitude is not so straightforward. One example is a stereotype, which is a belief that members of a group generally possess some characteristic (for example, the belief that women are typically nurturing). An implicit stereotype is a stereotype that is powerful enough to operate without conscious control.Implicit and Explicit attitudes dont necessarily have to agree, in fact it is more often the case that they dont. There are two reasons why direct (explicit) and indirect (implicit) attitudes may not be the same. The simpler explanation is that a person may be unwilling to accurately report some attitude. For example, if a professor asks a student "Do you like soap operas?" a student who is fully aware of spending two hours each day watching soap operas may nevertheless say "no" because of being embarrassed (unwilling) to reveal this fondness.
The second explanation for explicit-implicit disagreement is that a person may be unable to accurately report an attitude. For example, if asked "Do you like Arabs?" many Americans will respond "yes" because they regard themselves as unprejudiced. However, an IAT may reveal that these same Americans have automatic negative associations toward Arabs. Americans who show such a response are unaware of their implicit negativity and are therefore unable to report it explicitly. The unwilling-unable distinction is like the difference between hiding something from others versus something being hidden from you. In order to see if the two "agree" You must compare the two.
The IAT does this by asking you to pair two concepts (e.g., christian and good, or islam and good). The more closely associated the two concepts are, the easier it is to respond to them as a single unit. So, if christian and good are strongly associated, it should be easier to respond faster when you are asked to give the same response (i.e. the 'E' or 'I' key) to these two. If Islam and good are not so strongly associated, it should be harder to respond fast when they are paired. This gives a measure of how strongly associated the two types of concepts are. The more associated, the more rapidly you should be able to respond.
Am I expressing myself clearly?
Your skills as an interlocutor could use some polishing. It is very possible that you, as I suspect, possess an automatic preference for Christian based mythology as opposed to Islam based mythology. I also suspect that you have absolutely no clue that you have that preference. Everyone has ways of being that are in some way not as "correct or fair" as we would like to think they are.That test is one practical way to remain alert to the existence of that preference, recognizing that it may intrude in conversations here in this forum. Identifying them is the key!! In that way you could decide to embark on consciously planned conversations here in the forums that would compensate for known unconscious preferences and beliefs. This would involve posting in ways that you would not naturally post– for example, pointing out morally repugnant items in the bible and condemning them first, instead of pointing out possible excuses first. Identifying effective mechanisms for managing and changing unwanted automatic preferences is a goal that I believe everyone either has, or should have, shouldn't they? The good news is that automatic preferences, automatic as they are, are also malleable.
:cool2:
-
Where would you like to live- the USA (or most of Europe?) or Iraq? Esp. as a Gay male?
Let's be fair about this and ask the question in a proper way.
As a gay man where would you rather live, Uganda (majority catholic) or Iraq (majority muslim)?
OR
As a gay man where would you rather live, Jamaica (mainly christian) or Turkey (mainly muslim)?
If you look, Turkey is very similar to the US in it's treatment of gays in virtually all aspects of life.
-
took the test, but i'm not quite sure about its accuracy because it becomes kind of a memory game. just my thoughts. no offense intended
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login