Never had gay people show up on sunday mornings to shove their cock in my mouth. So yeah, there's a difference.

babel wrote:Never had gay people show up on sunday mornings to shove their cock in my mouth. So yeah, there's a difference.

Good point, and funny

Jesus said that we must love
the sinner but hate the sin - now
leaving aside the small matter of sin
which atheists obviously do not believe in
what he said is nonetheless correct and true

So much so that it is actually enshrined here in the
Forum Users Agreement - Rat Skep and the Messiah as
one on a basic moral principle - who would have thought it
It is a universal that we all should adhere to however. For you
respect the individual but not the ideas or beliefs that they hold as
they are there to be taken apart - and there is absolutely nothing that is
immune from this - and especially religion for obvious reasons - if someone
is offended at you taking their beliefs apart they need to be reminded about this
Have no problem with anyone taking my beliefs apart or ripping them to shreds either
Neither should anyone else - really can not put it any simpler than that nor should I have to

Ignoring the context for a moment: I can often understand what motivates someone to do something wrong - you can see that circumstances lead them to it. But that doesn't mean I think they hold no responsibility for their actions.

When it comes to sexuality, there is no wrong in being naturally attracted to members of the same sex. If it were a mandated law of the universe, then people wouldn't feel this way. I don't think people are automatically wrong for feeling something. When it comes to homosexuality, there are 2 people who feel the same way, and share the same degree of attraction towards each other that heterosexual partners do - it's mutual consent, so there's no immorality involved at all.

This isn't analogous to religion, which is taught. This goes back to my first paragraph: I understand what motivates people to be religious, and if they're religious I feel no antipathy to them whatsoever. It's only when people use their religion as a stick to batter people with that I feel antipathy to them, as much as I would with them using any other platform to demean others. So i don't think the 2 cases are synonymous.

surreptitious57 wrote:Jesus said that we must love
the sinner but hate the sin - now
leaving aside the small matter of sin
which atheists obviously do not believe in
what he said is nonetheless correct and true

So much so that it is actually enshrined here in the
Forum Users Agreement - Rat Skep and the Messiah as
one on a basic moral principle - who would have thought it
It is a universal that we all should adhere to however. For you
respect the individual but not the ideas or beliefs that they hold as
they are there to be taken apart - and there is absolutely nothing that is
immune from this - and especially religion for obvious reasons - if someone
is offended at you taking their beliefs apart they need to be reminded about this
Have no problem with anyone taking my beliefs apart or ripping them to shreds either
Neither should anyone else - really can not put it any simpler than that nor should I have to

Showing a basic level of respect =/= loving the person

I'm not inclined to agree. Whether we are talking about what is considered to be a sin by religious or secular means, we can hate the person that is committing it. I think that there are some situation, like drug abuse, where the person may act in a manner that is unlike their usual self because of that particular "sin" and we may not hold them as accountable, but I think that is slightly different than other activities that don't have to do with a chemical reaction in the person's brain and severe addiction. Lying is a sin, and although I may hate the lie itself it was the person who is in the act of deception. Bigotry may be considered to be a sinful activity, and I find the person as contemptible as their actions.

I understand the meaning behind the saying, but I find it to be nothing more than a way for those who seek to demonize an activity to shift the focus of the discussion. Homophobes are no longer irrational bigots, no, they really love gay people! In fact they love them so much that they don't want to see them suffer any longer! Bullshit. They're just trying to put a happier face on bigotry while still trying to push their own brand of morality onto others. So, while people are debating if they are intolerant or not with this new message, the REAL issue of whether or not two consenting same-sex individuals engage in a sexual relationship is being ignored.

I can hate the sin, I can hate the sinner, and I can hate both equally.

no problem for me, i hate the religious as equally as their religion.

I see a huge difference. Religion is an opinion or an institution. Homosexuality is biology.

I hate American foreign policy but I got nothing against Americans.
I hate capital punishment but I like lots of people in favour of the death penalty.
I hate religion but I like many religious people (I even get along well with a few priests)

Saying "I'm not against homosexuals, just the act" is the same as saying "I'm not against a albinos, just hate that they stay out of the sun". If anyone thinks there is a difference because the sun could hurt or even kill an albino, Consider whether it would hurt to lose your sex life. Consider the suicides.

Some religious people may not see it that way. That's fine. We don't see eye to eye on many things.

babel wrote:Never had gay people show up on sunday mornings to shove their cock in my mouth. So yeah, there's a difference.

What? Where do you live? That needs to be corrected!

Godless Infidel wrote:
Saying "I'm not against homosexuals, just the act" is the same as saying "I'm not against a albinos, just hate that they stay out of the sun". If anyone thinks there is a difference because the sun could hurt or even kill an albino, Consider whether it would hurt to lose your sex life. Consider the suicides.

babel wrote:Never had gay people show up on sunday mornings to shove their cock in my mouth. So yeah, there's a difference.

Perhaps you should try dressing a little sluttier?

babel wrote:Never had gay people show up on sunday mornings to shove their cock in my mouth. So yeah, there's a difference.

You're obviously not a Catholic.

xtraordinaryevidence wrote:

Tbickle wrote:Lying is a sin, and although I may hate the lie itself it was the person who is in the act of deception.

Lying is a sin? Sometimes it obviously is, but surely the majority are small white lies used for social lubricant. I would hardly consider them a sin. You must hate a lot of people!

Sure, at least under the Christian principles it is, and I never claimed to hate people who lie. It's just foolish and would be hypocritical of me.

Tbickle wrote:I understand the meaning behind the saying, but I find it to be nothing more than a way for those who seek to demonize an activity to shift the focus of the discussion. Homophobes are no longer irrational bigots, no, they really love gay people! In fact they love them so much that they don't want to see them suffer any longer! Bullshit. They're just trying to put a happier face on bigotry while still trying to push their own brand of morality onto others. So, while people are debating if they are intolerant or not with this new message, the REAL issue of whether or not two consenting same-sex individuals engage in a sexual relationship is being ignored.

I can hate the sin, I can hate the sinner, and I can hate both equally.

I agree it's a cover for their bigotry. The main thrust of my post is to try to find a reasonable argument to justify some atheists continuing to use the other version of the phrase. Obviously many, if not most aspects of religion are a tangible threat to society far greater than the mythical "homosexual agenda". Hmm, I guess I've answered my own question.

I'm still not satisfied that it's a useful thing to say considering again that from the religious person's point of view it will most likely be seen as an attack on their personality rather than just on something they happen to believe. Guess I'll have to think about it some more.

The difference for me is that homosexuality is not a belief system. Most other sins are not belief systems either, but religion is. When a person says that they do not hate the religious, they just hate their religion, it is because that mythology can seep into every good aspect of the person and corrupt it. This isn't always the case, but it's one of the few things that can make a good person do bad things, to paraphrase the saying. Beliefs inform our actions and that is why we say that we hate the religion, that is because it creates negative actions based on its demands for the believer to adhere to. Homosexuality doesn't invade a person's moral system and replace it with their own, but religion does and that is why there is a difference.

Let us deal with this oft quoted chestnut
about religion being responsible for making
the good do bad : now there is a lot of truth to
this but here one is attacking the symptom rather
than the cause. Pertaining to the subject in hand : it
would make no difference whether those who reference
Scripture to validate their views subsequently denied their
belief as they could retain their homophobia. It is not religion
per se that is the cause of the problem rather psychology instead

This Utopian atheist ideal of a world without irrational belief then is
just a myth because of this since human nature would still exist regardless
and there would still be those who would wish to control and subjugate. And if
you are in any doubt over this however would you be happy to live in Hitler s Fascist
Germany or Stalin s Communist Russia where the ideology was a political one rather than
a religious one ? There are other examples from history but those are the most obvious ones of
contemporary times - [ and apologies for steering off topic but trains of thought are not always linear ]

surreptitious57 wrote:Let us deal with this oft quoted chestnut
about religion being responsible for making
the good do bad : now there is a lot of truth to
this but here one is attacking the symptom rather
than the cause.

Sometimes this may be the case. There have been plenty, who once they were able to shed their initial religious indoctrination, were able to also be rid of various bigoted positions and reliance on irrational positions. Yes, for many it may be a symptom of a much deeper problem, but are you can't reasonably suggest that this is the case for the billions of theists in the world.

Pertaining to the subject in hand : it
would make no difference whether those who reference
Scripture to validate their views subsequently denied their
belief as they could retain their homophobia. It is not religion
per se that is the cause of the problem rather psychology instead

Okay, in some cases, but many have shed this bigotry after their loss of faith. The fact is that religion actively targets the youth to instill their mythology moral system into them. It is often this early-learned and accepted prejudice that is carried over into their adult life. It is possible that the child may deviate from these teachings or that they could stumble upon them on their own, but there is a greater likelihood that they will learn and hold onto them when it is learned early on and religion actively teaches these principles of bigotry at that age.

This Utopian atheist ideal of a world without irrational belief then is
just a myth because of this since human nature would still exist regardless
and there would still be those who would wish to control and subjugate.

Sure, just because someone is an atheist, it doesn't mean that the person is necessarily rational.

And if
you are in any doubt over this however would you be happy to live in Hitler s Fascist
Germany or Stalin s Communist Russia where the ideology was a political one rather than
a religious one ? There are other examples from history but those are the most obvious ones of
contemporary times - [ and apologies for steering off topic but trains of thought are not always linear ]

You had to reduce the argument to Hitler, really? Maybe if you spent a little more time and consideration to formulate a reasoned argument and less on filling out the lines for your fucking ridiculous post formatting, you wouldn't have to descend down to this level.

Nobody suggested that a totalitarian belief system should be imposed, no political or socio-economic policies were discussed, and nothing was ever said about killing people we didn't like so your last point is fucking moot.

Tbickle wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
you are in any doubt over this however would you be happy to live in Hitler s Fascist
Germany or Stalin s Communist Russia where the ideology was a political one rather than
a religious one ? There are other examples from history but those are the most obvious ones of
contemporary times - [ and apologies for steering off topic but trains of thought are not always linear ]

You had to reduce the argument to Hitler, really ? Maybe if you spent a little more time and consideration to formulate a reasoned argument and less on filling out the lines for your fucking ridiculous post formatting, you wouldn t have to descend down to this level

Nobody suggested that a totalitarian belief system should be imposed no political or socio economic policies were discussed and nothing was ever said about killing people we didn t like so your last point is fucking moot

I was merely referencing the fact that a world free
of irrational belief is not necessarily as perfect as one
would wish and atrocoties can be committed in the name of
political ideology just as disastrously. I totally agree with you that
there is zero suggestion of totalitarianism being imposed but that in it
self is no guarantee it would never happen how ever. Hence the references


Regarding policies - some suggeastions : a national health servive funded by taxation
a welfare system funded by taxation but everyone who is mentally or physically capable of
work to be engaged in compulsory programmes if currently unemployed, an armed service funded
by taxation, an independent judiciary, an elected parliament with fixed term elections, a free press, the
renouncement of all nuclear weapons, an ethical foreign policy, the abolition of the monarchy, a national minimum
wage, the abolition of marriage, the legalisalation of drugs, the legalisation of prostitution, a mandatory life sentence
for first degree murders, separation of religion from state, universal freedom of speech, and equal rights for all free citizens