Ain't no homo gonna make it to heaven

[Clearing the Eye]

Matt. 7:1 - Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Decide for yourself that another shan't go to Heaven and you will take their place, for judging them you ignore the words of your own god through Jesus and pretend to have authority above him.

 

[Webb5432]

Augh..... I am very certain that little kid does not understand what he's doing. I remember flipping off my dad at that age, and I didn't know what it meant. What sickens me is the adults. They are raising a child with the views of a bigot, and what if that child turns out to be gay? He will now be stuck in the closet for ever, never being able to express what he really is because, as he just said, "ain't no homo gonna make it to heaven". Just typing those words sickens me! I can feel my blood boiling all over again!

*deep breath*
*exhale*

Okay. Feeling better now.

These people are what is allowing racism and homophobia to continue. Someone stop them. Please. Just, stop them. If you know anyone in this video, talk to them. Get them to stop. I... I...

Grrrrrrr.....

 

[Sidiron]

The extent of people who traipse out the old "Religion isn't bad, it's humans that are the problem." Important point that needs to be made; Religion is a human construct, we created it to fill in our need for a parent figure even when we grow up.

Atheism isn't a religion, and it is intellectually dishonest to claim so, it could be said to be a belief structure but only so far in that it is a structure of beliefs, this has no relation to faith.

Also, Humans love to revile groups and will always find someone to hate and reject, but this doesn't mean that we should allow them nor facilitate their hate-filled rhetoric.

Remember, spoiling this life for your reward in the afterlife, is like burning your house down in anticipation that the next you get (if you get one) will be better. How do you like those odds?

 

[Krantos]

Whyyyyy the sudden influx of homophobes though? I swear it wasn't this bad a few years ago.

Because Homosexuality was less visible. The doctrine was always there, but it wasn't as big of an issue because Homosexuals were still (largely) forced to stay quiet about it. Now that's finally changing, it's a hot-button issue.

What I want to know is what the hell (irony intended) happened to the "judge and you shall be judged" doctrine.

 

[Something Amyss]

Remember, spoiling this life for your reward in the afterlife, is like burning your house down in anticipation that the next you get (if you get one) will be better. How do you like those odds?

Sadly, there are a ton of people who think you're a fool NOT to take those odds.

 

[Something Amyss]

Whyyyyy the sudden influx of homophobes though? I swear it wasn't this bad a few years ago.

Political rhetoric has become increasingly polarising and vitriolic?

 

[Deathmageddon]

Religion on its own, isn't a bad thing.

Stupid people who use religion as a shield is what sucks.

If there was no religion, morons would find some other following to get behind to voice their bigoted views.

^This, definitely this.

Yes, Leviticus says that homosexual behavior is wrong. It also says we can't get tattoos or eat pork, but we do anyway. Anyway, this video is a real shame. I wouldn't call it child abuse, though. Usually, there's nothing wrong with sharing your beliefs with your kids. I know that when my future offspring make their faith decision, I want it to be an informed one (that goes for politics, too). It's just that this kid's parents are ignorant, hateful, heretical asshats.

 

[WOPR]

Personally I like to look at it this way, let's presume they're right.

We down in hell get Bill Nye, Elton John, Einstein, Billy Joel, and all sorts of fun people. Not to mention the stripper demon girls I see in so many portraits of hell, plus we all get the magic ability to play guitar amazingly!

While the people in heaven never get to enjoy a Sunday, are gated in, and stuck with Rebecca Black.

Which is REALLY the worse place?

 

[Missing SHODAN]

If the Atheist truly did not believe, he would not bother to deny.

^_^ Prachtett's Golems ftw.

Bah, that's not true. I don't believe in Bigfoot, and I totally bother to deny the existence of Bigfoot when people say that it does exist. I don't see any reason why I should treat one fictitious irrational supernatural creature differently from any other, just because that particular fictitious irrational supernatural creature's "THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE" club happen to be better organized.

Hell, if you want to stick with gods, pretty much anyone who is a Christian will deny the existence of, say, the Hindu pantheon of gods, if asked if they believe in them. Something about their whole religion being based on the idea that there is only one god, but he's bundled with two other versions of himself which are also him but kind of different. Do you think it's because every Christian secretly believes in the Hindu pantheon?

I guess what I'm saying is that the holy spirit is the Comcast Voice of the holy trinity.

OT: I try to be more on the "meh, live and let live" side of atheism when it comes to arguments as to whether religious beliefs should be combated and challenged or just left alone, but videos like this do a fantastic job of arguing that a more proactive stance is warranted. Not that it's actually possible to change most minds about religion, what with the brain actively discarding rational thought when strongly held beliefs are challenged (at least with respect to politics, but I doubt the mechanism is any different), which is the main reason I tend to side with the "mehs".

I think if we can't manage to get social change through sooner, it'll definitely happen in 30 years. To quote the wikipedia article, "In one meta-analysis by Jeffrey Lax and Justin Phillips of Columbia University, a majority of 18-29 year old Americans in 38 states support same sex marriage while in only 6 states do less than 45% of 18-29 year olds support gay marriage. At the same time not a single state shows support for gay marriage greater than 35% amongst those 64 and older. The result is that even in the state with the greatest overall support for gay marriage, those 64 and older will be less supportive of gay marriage than 18-29 year olds in the state least receptive to gay marriage.[50] This suggests that, over time, same sex marriage will continue to gain support simply due to the increasing number of more supportive youth and the decrease of less supportive, seniors."

Or to tl;dr that quote, homophobes are largely old people, and eventually they'll all be dead and equal rights will get through - assuming of course that the current young don't become homophobic as they get older.

I understand that the LGBT probably isn't totally thrilled with being told "Hey this problem will solve itself eventually" but short of finding some way to get 18-29 year olds to actually get their asses into voting booths, I think it's the best we're going to manage.

Quoted article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Generational_differences

 

[Kashrlyyk]

....

If I write a book telling people to commit murder, it's just a book.

If people take that book to heart and then start murdering people, well that's the people killing people.

Not the book.

Religion on its own is just that, a book telling people what to do.

It's up to the people who read it whether they do everything it tells them or not.

And the laws are just words on paper! So why do people follow laws? BECAUSE THEY ARE EXPECTED TO DO THAT! So laws are more than just words on paper.

Thousands of years ago religion was the law and religious books where more than just books. You were expected to take the content to heart! Religion says, compared to god you are nothing! How can a nothing like you disagree with the creator of the world? That is the heart of all monotheism.

Not about your shitty example in your post: If you didn't write the book those people COULD not take it to heart. You writing that book makes it possible that people can take it to heart in the first place. That is why you become responsible for the murders.

Another example: If noone invented biological weapons, noone could use it to kill people. The person who invented it made it possible to kill people with it. Therefore he is responsible for those deaths. Without him they would still be alive.

Another example: A manufacturing error in a car, which causes trouble only when you drive at high speeds. Just because the error doesn't cause an accident just by itself, doesn't mean it is not responsible for it.

Just because having thing A is not enough to cause trouble, it also needs stuff B for that, doesn't abrogate all responsibility from A. A can still be the reason for something to happen. The fact that you seem to be incapable of understanding that is very worrying.

Here is a video about how the trouble with Islam is Islam and not the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfKLV6rmLxE

The argument goes like this: Assume we have two extremists/fundamentalists. One follows religion A, the other religion B. The first one is harmless, the second one is dangerous. Both of them are extremists! So why are they so different? The difference comes from the different religions! So it is not extremism or fundamentalism that is the problem. It is the religion that is the problem.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

....

If I write a book telling people to commit murder, it's just a book.

If people take that book to heart and then start murdering people, well that's the people killing people.

Not the book.

Religion on its own is just that, a book telling people what to do.

It's up to the people who read it whether they do everything it tells them or not.

And the laws are just words on paper! So why do people follow laws? BECAUSE THEY ARE EXPECTED TO DO THAT! So laws are more than just words on paper.

Thousands of years ago religion was the law and religious books where more than just books. You were expected to take the content to heart! Religion says, compared to god you are nothing! How can a nothing like you disagree with the creator of the world? That is the heart of all monotheism.

Not about your shitty example in your post: If you didn't write the book those people COULD not take it to heart. You writing that book makes it possible that people can take it to heart in the first place. That is why you become responsible for the murders.

Another example: If noone invented biological weapons, noone could use it to kill people. The person who invented it made it possible to kill people with it. Therefore he is responsible for those deaths. Without him they would still be alive.

Another example: A manufacturing error in a car, which causes trouble only when you drive at high speeds. Just because the error doesn't cause an accident just by itself, doesn't mean it is not responsible for it.

Just because having thing A is not enough to cause trouble, it also needs stuff B for that, doesn't abrogate all responsibility from A. A can still be the reason for something to happen. The fact that you seem to be incapable of understanding that is very worrying.

Here is a video about how the trouble with Islam is Islam and not the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfKLV6rmLxE

The argument goes like this: Assume we have two extremists/fundamentalists. One follows religion A, the other religion B. The first one is harmless, the second one is dangerous. Both of them are extremists! So why are they so different? The difference comes from the different religions! So it is not extremism or fundamentalism that is the problem. It is the religion that is the problem.

Some nice passive aggressiveness you've got going on there, why don't you tone it the fuck down?

And the laws are just words on paper! So why do people follow laws? BECAUSE THEY ARE EXPECTED TO DO THAT! So laws are more than just words on paper.

Laws exist because they prevent something from happening. Something that can be seen and connected to doing, or not doing something, so it's only logical that these laws exist in order for society to flourish. These laws are always being changed, always being updated, which is something I can't say for religion.

The majority of religious people understand this and alter their beliefs to match the times. Christians don't stone people anymore because they came to the consensus that it was an outdated system.

Not about your shitty example in your post: If you didn't write the book those people COULD not take it to heart. You writing that book makes it possible that people can take it to heart in the first place. That is why you become responsible for the murders.

Another example: If noone invented biological weapons, noone could use it to kill people. The person who invented it made it possible to kill people with it. Therefore he is responsible for those deaths. Without him they would still be alive.

So what you're saying is that people shouldn't invent anything in the likely hood that somebody could kill somebody with it?

Because that's what you're basically saying.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people, that's a fact, and whether guns exists or not, people will find ways to kill each other.

People are not responsible for the actions of others. If I give a man a stick, and he beats his wife to death with it, is it my fault?

Of course it isn't.

The argument goes like this: Assume we have two extremists/fundamentalists. One follows religion A, the other religion B. The first one is harmless, the second one is dangerous. Both of them are extremists! So why are they so different? The difference comes from the different religions! So it is not extremism or fundamentalism that is the problem. It is the religion that is the problem.

> Uses an example of extremism.

> Believes religion is at fault for people being extremist.

Extremists are gonna be extremist. Sure, religion may the thing they grab hold of in order to project their ideas, but again.

If I give a man a stick...


I'm glad we're done here, or am I going to be getting another reply in several weeks drawing me back in?

Try not to be so aggressive next time, 'kay?