Not exactly.

It's "move TOO fast" not "move to fast".

condemning them for not being what he created them to be!

The point of the OP, there, is that this God does not make mistakes--they are what they are, it is what it is....but you're still trying to twist the point and assign an element of denigration to the natural circumstances of individuals. Not cool.

Do you hear that sharp cracking noise? You're on some very thin ice, pal.

There is not a single element of denigration toward the "natural circumstances of individuals" in anything that I have said. On the contrary, I criticize those who would attempt to interfere or stop those natural circumstances.

What I do detect from you, though, is a strong anti-religious bias in your insinuation.

Let's review it:

"perhaps" confuses you. I could substitute the term "maybe" to express the same idea. That idea is that we are all what we are, period. And that trying to deny what we are is dishonest, as is trying to make someone into something they are not is equally dishonest.

It's not working. You said what you said:

support gays staying "in the closet" and living as if they were not gay. I would have to say that your ice is pretty thin, too - enough to read braille through.

Read the OP.

Read your comment.

It's pretty clear who is in the "condemnation" business, and that ain't me.

I'm on thin ice. So why do you support those who would attempt to keep gays in the closet? They have as much right to live their lives in peace and happiness as much as you and I do.

postulated in the OP.

Not me.

Your words --which include that "condemn" one--speak for you.

A jury saw it for what it was and hid it. I hope MIRT sees it like that too. At a minimum, I would hope our hosts take action and block him from posting in here anymore.

There's no getting around that "condemn" word, though.

I never really expected him to come right out like that, but he said what he said. It's right there for all to see.



Which is kind of funny, considering how many other threads where he states one thing, then claims the opposite, as if his words are not right there. It's bizarre.

couched in a cutesy religious argument.

About as subtle as a Mack truck.

I didn't think he'd get TS'd for being homophobic. I figured possibly for a couple of other things, but that threw me off.

Even for you.

That user is PPR.

It is sunday. Is the rapture upon us?

I do not know whether they are a religious believer or not; but I do know that they have several times criticized attacks on religious people on this forum.

Deity, deities, no deities...forge your own path, or follow your favorite leader.

I part ways when beliefs include bigotry or any desire to restrict the rights of others, but beyond that, I say "Whatever gets ya through this life, go for it!"

Last edited Sun Feb 10, 2013, 06:27 PM - Edit history (1)

one's own bigoted opinions by saying something like "this may be what god thinks" is disgusting...

On edit..delighted to say it WAS disgusting

Blasphemy is a very dangerous error.

but your saying 'speaking for god' is the offensive part?

i rather think the homophobic part is more offensive.

If someone says "I hate homosexuals" that's bad enough; if someone says "God hates homosexuals" that's much worse. It's worse than blaspheming about God in other ways, because hate is one of the most base human emotions.

I actually listened to a couple of Fred Phelps speeches on YouTube once and I was struck by how, to more naive minds, or to people without well developed intelligence, he would be utterly hypnotic, his style was powerful and full of divine drama, but what made it so much worse was that, not only was he blaspheming in a very attractive manner, he was also blaspheming with hate and fear, both very hard-wired powerful responses. He was saying the absolutely worse possible things to the lowest common denominator minds.

BTW, I don't particularly like the word "God", because I think it gets abused too much, too anthropomorphized. I kind of prefer the Kaballahistic notion that anything that might be what a God would be would not be pronounceable/knowable in the first place. I think that idea is inherent in the first of the JUDEO-Christian 10 Commandments: if you think you know God, you are placing a false god, your own mind/knowing, before whatever a God would be, since such an entity would not be subject to/dependent upon our mind's knowing. To me a more appropriate attitude toward anything like that would be: **IF** there is such a thing, it is best addressed as Buddhists do in calm, empty, awareness. And that must be an **IF**, because if you pre-determine the answer to that question you make whatever there is, if there is anything, subject to that predetermined answer. I think the Buddhists say you should give up on even asking the question.

To me, a better word for what many people are mistakenly calling God would be truth, so the caution expressed in the 1st Commandment and in the Kaballah and elsewhere is that one does not own the truth absolutely. It is what it is, not what you exclusively think it is and to think that one does own it as an unchangeable absolute for all persons at all times makes whatever truth one thinks one owns untrue. Absolutism falsifies "truth", because everything is in process.

What we are referring to by means of the word "truth" is a product of perspective. Perspectives can be shared by one person relative to that which is perceived, or a few, or many, but its all relative to what constitutes the perspective and perspectives can be quite different. That's why I can't tell you what you know; you're the one who has to know it. Each of us might share what each of us knows and discover some degree of overlap, but each of us has to do our own knowing (a process) and accept that it isn't absolute. Like Buckminster Fuller said, "I seem to be a verb."