"Tell me about the last time you saw another man's sack." (1 Viewer)

[SWC]

i believe he does to in different ways and i sort of wish he would tell larry to zip it

 

[TobiasFunke]

You guys arguing with Larry on this one are ignoring the far more basic and hilarious point that he thinks the article "demonizes" a church. Even though the article doesn't name the church, or even its denomination, or include a single word describing the church that could possibly be described as remotely negative, let alone "demonizing."

When that is his starting point, how can you possibly engage him in serious discussion? You're not going to get anywhere. All you can do is laugh.

There are, apparently, millions of Americans who share Larry's essential views on this issue.

It's not about his "essential views." We've been debating that for pages. That's not going anywhere.

This particular conversation started with him saying that the CNN news item about Butler was "demonizing" a church. That's just absurd. I don't even know how to respond to it other than to laugh. I don't understand how anyone could see that preposterous starting point and decide that they might be able to have an interesting, productive discussion.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

I get it Lsrry. Seems like those Christians there in the congregation cared a lot more than you're telling us they do. Plus how many other sinners do they exclude? My guess is its inverse to the number they exclude for not condemning this one sin.

If churches kept out everyone who sinned, there'd be no churches.

That's the whole point. That this particular sin is the one that gets the most vehement and volumous rejection as a sin when the other supposedly equal sins are shrugged off

I can't speak for other churches, since I don't attend, but at the church I go to here in FL, everyone's welcome, no matter what. We're all broken people, but if we ask for it, we'll be forgiven for any wrongs we've done. We're not perfect, but the best we can do is love people, which is what we try to do.

That's how my church is, too. But we aren't talking about the church telling LeRoy Butler whether he is allowed to attend a service or not. We're talking about the church paying him $8,500 to be the speaker for a service they are holding. Totally different things.

You mean to preach, right? The congregation didn't want him because he supported a gay. The brass agreed with them enough to cancel it. That's the opposite if what you're saying Christians are like.

I realize that this isn't apparent to you because you aren't a Christian, but preaching is a BIG DEAL. The assumption is when my pastor stands behind that pulpit he is giving us a message inspired by God Himself. Same with any other preacher (including myself).

To let someone behind your pulpit when you KNOW they don't believe as you do is just something that church's don't do. So, yes, when Butler did something that shows that his belief's do not line up with the church's beliefs, they chose not to have him speak.

So you believe god speaks to people?

No doubt about it.

Do you think he speaks to intelligent life on other planets? Do you think there is/has been intelligent life on other planets?

 

[timschochet]

This thread is illuminating in that it demonstrates the dilemma that religious Christianity finds itself in these days. Christianity has, historically, been the basis for much of American morality. Yet here we are with a subject matter in which the majority of Americans increasingly have formed an opinion, based on morality, which is opposite of what Christianity teaches.

Most of us who are in favor of gay rights have reached that conclusion based on common sense and reason: we know gays are equal to everyone else and thus should have the same rights as everyone else, particularly the right to marry each other. Yet religious Christians are taught to ignore their common sense if it conflicts with what is explicitly written in Scripture. How they resolve this contradiction may ultimately have an impact on the influence of Christianity for the future.

tim no it is not that religious christians are taught to hate gays or ignore common sense morality in fact i have never heard my priests even mention the topic even if rome has some stance on it what i think happens more often than not is that there are small numbers of folks like larry apparently who go to websites that pull small sections out of the bible and twist them around then get real mouthy about it on line and everywhere else but in the end i think that most mainstream christians see that we have a pretty bad batting average when it comes to using the bible to tgry and condemn certain groups and do not believe that the good book should be used that way because the word is not hate the word is love but hey there are folks like westboro baptist church out there and guys like larry boy around here so what do i know anyways but i think they are a minority not a majority bam brohans

Larry is a guy that I'm pretty sure I disagree with a majority of the time, but it's pretty lousy to compare him (or anyone here for that matter) to the Westboro Baptist Church. That's out of bounds, IMO.

It also bothers me how often the WBC gets brought up in these discussions about Christianity. They're not representative of anyone but themselves.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Letting someone in the door is not the same as letting someone speak from your pulpit. surely you don't think those are the same thing.

Yes, I know, but the concept can still apply to speakers. How often do we hear of ministers being caught in all sorts of scandals, and those are just the ones we know of.

I agree it applies on some level. But they didn't tell Butler he couldn't attend or be at their church's functions. Only that they felt he wasn't a person they felt comfortable speaking from their pulpit at this time. The key thing is being repentant. But that doesn't directly apply to Butler as the issue isn't whether he has repented or not, but whether he believes that something the church sees as Biblical direction is true or not. They believe the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, from Butler's tweet they believe he does not think that. So they aren't comfortable with someone who has that different of an understanding of what the Bible says than they do speaking.

You mean that specific sin, not general Biblical principals. It's an unalterable fact, since we are born sinners, that the congregation is spoken to by repeat and unrepentant sinners and those sinners have friends that have supported them in public. But it's this sin that gets you kicked out.

I don't think you understand what "repentant" means. You cannot say with any factual basis that a church has, for sure, had "repeat and unrepentant" sinners in its pulpit, because you cannot possibly know that and the fact that we are born sinners or that people don't ever stop sinning fully is not related to whether they are repentant or not.

There is also a different between supporting a person in spite of their sin and supporting a person and congratulating them for their sin.

 

[mad sweeney]

I get it Lsrry. Seems like those Christians there in the congregation cared a lot more than you're telling us they do. Plus how many other sinners do they exclude? My guess is its inverse to the number they exclude for not condemning this one sin.

If churches kept out everyone who sinned, there'd be no churches.

That's the whole point. That this particular sin is the one that gets the most vehement and volumous rejection as a sin when the other supposedly equal sins are shrugged off

I can't speak for other churches, since I don't attend, but at the church I go to here in FL, everyone's welcome, no matter what. We're all broken people, but if we ask for it, we'll be forgiven for any wrongs we've done. We're not perfect, but the best we can do is love people, which is what we try to do.

That's how my church is, too. But we aren't talking about the church telling LeRoy Butler whether he is allowed to attend a service or not. We're talking about the church paying him $8,500 to be the speaker for a service they are holding. Totally different things.

You mean to preach, right? The congregation didn't want him because he supported a gay. The brass agreed with them enough to cancel it. That's the opposite if what you're saying Christians are like.

I realize that this isn't apparent to you because you aren't a Christian, but preaching is a BIG DEAL. The assumption is when my pastor stands behind that pulpit he is giving us a message inspired by God Himself. Same with any other preacher (including myself). To let someone behind your pulpit when you KNOW they don't believe as you do is just something that church's don't do. So, yes, when Butler did something that shows that his belief's do not line up with the church's beliefs, they chose not to have him speak.

You keep saying that I don't understand things that I perfectly well understand.

 

[Kal El]

I get it Lsrry. Seems like those Christians there in the congregation cared a lot more than you're telling us they do. Plus how many other sinners do they exclude? My guess is its inverse to the number they exclude for not condemning this one sin.

If churches kept out everyone who sinned, there'd be no churches.

That's the whole point. That this particular sin is the one that gets the most vehement and volumous rejection as a sin when the other supposedly equal sins are shrugged off

I can't speak for other churches, since I don't attend, but at the church I go to here in FL, everyone's welcome, no matter what. We're all broken people, but if we ask for it, we'll be forgiven for any wrongs we've done. We're not perfect, but the best we can do is love people, which is what we try to do.

That's how my church is, too. But we aren't talking about the church telling LeRoy Butler whether he is allowed to attend a service or not. We're talking about the church paying him $8,500 to be the speaker for a service they are holding. Totally different things.

You mean to preach, right? The congregation didn't want him because he supported a gay. The brass agreed with them enough to cancel it. That's the opposite if what you're saying Christians are like.

I realize that this isn't apparent to you because you aren't a Christian, but preaching is a BIG DEAL. The assumption is when my pastor stands behind that pulpit he is giving us a message inspired by God Himself. Same with any other preacher (including myself).

To let someone behind your pulpit when you KNOW they don't believe as you do is just something that church's don't do. So, yes, when Butler did something that shows that his belief's do not line up with the church's beliefs, they chose not to have him speak.

So you believe god speaks to people?

No doubt about it.

Do you think he speaks to intelligent life on other planets? Do you think there is/has been intelligent life on other planets?

If intelligent life exists on other planets, there is always the chance He has spoken to them. Since we have no idea if intelligent life exists anywhere else in this universe (I've heard the odds are good, but we still don't have proof), we don't know.

 

[larry_boy_44]

This thread is illuminating in that it demonstrates the dilemma that religious Christianity finds itself in these days. Christianity has, historically, been the basis for much of American morality. Yet here we are with a subject matter in which the majority of Americans increasingly have formed an opinion, based on morality, which is opposite of what Christianity teaches.

Most of us who are in favor of gay rights have reached that conclusion based on common sense and reason: we know gays are equal to everyone else and thus should have the same rights as everyone else, particularly the right to marry each other. Yet religious Christians are taught to ignore their common sense if it conflicts with what is explicitly written in Scripture. How they resolve this contradiction may ultimately have an impact on the influence of Christianity for the future.

tim no it is not that religious christians are taught to hate gays or ignore common sense morality in fact i have never heard my priests even mention the topic even if rome has some stance on it what i think happens more often than not is that there are small numbers of folks like larry apparently who go to websites that pull small sections out of the bible and twist them around then get real mouthy about it on line and everywhere else but in the end i think that most mainstream christians see that we have a pretty bad batting average when it comes to using the bible to tgry and condemn certain groups and do not believe that the good book should be used that way because the word is not hate the word is love but hey there are folks like westboro baptist church out there and guys like larry boy around here so what do i know anyways but i think they are a minority not a majority bam brohans

BTW, I realize this is off topic, but you should read up on what Jesus said. If, in the end (and if you believe the Bible is true we are, no matter what, 2000 years closer to "the end" than we were 2000 years ago), you find yourself in the "majority", that means you're wrong.

Straight is the way and narrow is the path that leads to life and all that.

So be careful when following the majority, because the Bible tells us that the majority will reject Christ.

 

[SWC]

i am not comparing him to them but i think that the type that uses the bible to try and support bigotry and separation is a small minority of christians and i stand by that and if you do not want to be lumped in with the others that do that then you should not do that

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well.

Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though.

If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

 

[larry_boy_44]

You guys arguing with Larry on this one are ignoring the far more basic and hilarious point that he thinks the article "demonizes" a church. Even though the article doesn't name the church, or even its denomination, or include a single word describing the church that could possibly be described as remotely negative, let alone "demonizing."

When that is his starting point, how can you possibly engage him in serious discussion? You're not going to get anywhere. All you can do is laugh.

There are, apparently, millions of Americans who share Larry's essential views on this issue.

It's not about his "essential views." We've been debating that for pages. That's not going anywhere.

This particular conversation started with him saying that the CNN news item about Butler was "demonizing" a church. That's just absurd. I don't even know how to respond to it other than to laugh. I don't understand how anyone could see that preposterous starting point and decide that they might be able to have an interesting, productive discussion.

So you think it was too strong of a word to say demonizing?

Or you don't think the article was saying the church was wrong and bad?

Because I don't see how you couldn't see that the article was shaming the church and saying bad things about them, they just don't know what church it was.

 

[TobiasFunke]

So in the last page we have (1) people accepting Larry's statement that a factual article that doesn't name a church is "demonizing," and now (2) people parsing the words of SWC posts (by the way, I that guy) for serious discussion.

This thread is just a practical joke you guys are playing on me, right?

 

[larry_boy_44]

I get it Lsrry. Seems like those Christians there in the congregation cared a lot more than you're telling us they do. Plus how many other sinners do they exclude? My guess is its inverse to the number they exclude for not condemning this one sin.

If churches kept out everyone who sinned, there'd be no churches.

That's the whole point. That this particular sin is the one that gets the most vehement and volumous rejection as a sin when the other supposedly equal sins are shrugged off

I can't speak for other churches, since I don't attend, but at the church I go to here in FL, everyone's welcome, no matter what. We're all broken people, but if we ask for it, we'll be forgiven for any wrongs we've done. We're not perfect, but the best we can do is love people, which is what we try to do.

That's how my church is, too. But we aren't talking about the church telling LeRoy Butler whether he is allowed to attend a service or not. We're talking about the church paying him $8,500 to be the speaker for a service they are holding. Totally different things.

You mean to preach, right? The congregation didn't want him because he supported a gay. The brass agreed with them enough to cancel it. That's the opposite if what you're saying Christians are like.

I realize that this isn't apparent to you because you aren't a Christian, but preaching is a BIG DEAL. The assumption is when my pastor stands behind that pulpit he is giving us a message inspired by God Himself. Same with any other preacher (including myself).

To let someone behind your pulpit when you KNOW they don't believe as you do is just something that church's don't do. So, yes, when Butler did something that shows that his belief's do not line up with the church's beliefs, they chose not to have him speak.

So you believe god speaks to people?

No doubt about it.

Do you think he speaks to intelligent life on other planets? Do you think there is/has been intelligent life on other planets?

If it exists yes.

More than likely, but that doesn't mean it resembles us in any way or that we'll ever actually find/communicate with them.

I mean, we know there is some sort of other life (angels, cherubims, etc.), but we have no idea where they come from (and seemingly they are all around us even though we can't see them). But this is definitely a different thread.

 

[timschochet]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well.

Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though.

If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

Honestly I am not convinced of this, though as a secularist I'd like to believe it. People like Richard Dawkins (and yourself) seem so positive that this will be the outcome, but I'm just not sure.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You guys arguing with Larry on this one are ignoring the far more basic and hilarious point that he thinks the article "demonizes" a church. Even though the article doesn't name the church, or even its denomination, or include a single word describing the church that could possibly be described as remotely negative, let alone "demonizing."

When that is his starting point, how can you possibly engage him in serious discussion? You're not going to get anywhere. All you can do is laugh.

There are, apparently, millions of Americans who share Larry's essential views on this issue.

It's not about his "essential views." We've been debating that for pages. That's not going anywhere.

This particular conversation started with him saying that the CNN news item about Butler was "demonizing" a church. That's just absurd. I don't even know how to respond to it other than to laugh. I don't understand how anyone could see that preposterous starting point and decide that they might be able to have an interesting, productive discussion.

So you think it was too strong of a word to say demonizing?

Or you don't think the article was saying the church was wrong and bad?

Because I don't see how you couldn't see that the article was shaming the church and saying bad things about them, they just don't know what church it was.

OK, you have to be kidding.

Tell you what, Larry. Let's give you some more material to work with, because this is just too funny.

Why don't you pull the language in the article that you think demonizes a church? And while you're at it, can you tell me which church is being demonized? I mean, it's awful hard to demonize something without giving any indication as to what exactly it is.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well.

Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though.

If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

Honestly I am not convinced of this, though as a secularist I'd like to believe it. People like Richard Dawkins (and yourself) seem so positive that this will be the outcome, but I'm just not sure.

I don't see how anyone could look at human history and not see example after example of people finding whatever reason they could to destroy everything around them... So, yeah, I disagree that the world would be this peaceful utopia without religion.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well.

Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though.

If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

Honestly I am not convinced of this, though as a secularist I'd like to believe it. People like Richard Dawkins (and yourself) seem so positive that this will be the outcome, but I'm just not sure.

What is the argument against it?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I get it Lsrry. Seems like those Christians there in the congregation cared a lot more than you're telling us they do. Plus how many other sinners do they exclude? My guess is its inverse to the number they exclude for not condemning this one sin.

If churches kept out everyone who sinned, there'd be no churches.

That's the whole point. That this particular sin is the one that gets the most vehement and volumous rejection as a sin when the other supposedly equal sins are shrugged off

I can't speak for other churches, since I don't attend, but at the church I go to here in FL, everyone's welcome, no matter what. We're all broken people, but if we ask for it, we'll be forgiven for any wrongs we've done. We're not perfect, but the best we can do is love people, which is what we try to do.

That's how my church is, too. But we aren't talking about the church telling LeRoy Butler whether he is allowed to attend a service or not. We're talking about the church paying him $8,500 to be the speaker for a service they are holding. Totally different things.

You mean to preach, right? The congregation didn't want him because he supported a gay. The brass agreed with them enough to cancel it. That's the opposite if what you're saying Christians are like.

I realize that this isn't apparent to you because you aren't a Christian, but preaching is a BIG DEAL. The assumption is when my pastor stands behind that pulpit he is giving us a message inspired by God Himself. Same with any other preacher (including myself).

To let someone behind your pulpit when you KNOW they don't believe as you do is just something that church's don't do. So, yes, when Butler did something that shows that his belief's do not line up with the church's beliefs, they chose not to have him speak.

So you believe god speaks to people?

No doubt about it.

Have you personally heard from god?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Wait. So we KNOW that angels exist all around us now? When was this published?

 

[Tom Skerritt]

Letting someone in the door is not the same as letting someone speak from your pulpit. surely you don't think those are the same thing.

Yes, I know, but the concept can still apply to speakers. How often do we hear of ministers being caught in all sorts of scandals, and those are just the ones we know of.

I agree it applies on some level. But they didn't tell Butler he couldn't attend or be at their church's functions. Only that they felt he wasn't a person they felt comfortable speaking from their pulpit at this time. The key thing is being repentant. But that doesn't directly apply to Butler as the issue isn't whether he has repented or not, but whether he believes that something the church sees as Biblical direction is true or not. They believe the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, from Butler's tweet they believe he does not think that. So they aren't comfortable with someone who has that different of an understanding of what the Bible says than they do speaking.

You mean that specific sin, not general Biblical principals. It's an unalterable fact, since we are born sinners, that the congregation is spoken to by repeat and unrepentant sinners and those sinners have friends that have supported them in public. But it's this sin that gets you kicked out.

I don't think you understand what "repentant" means. You cannot say with any factual basis that a church has, for sure, had "repeat and unrepentant" sinners in its pulpit, because you cannot possibly know that and the fact that we are born sinners or that people don't ever stop sinning fully is not related to whether they are repentant or not.

There is also a different between supporting a person in spite of their sin and supporting a person and congratulating them for their sin.

Which is why it awesome that they basically gave Butler the option to "take it back", and he told them to go to hell.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Wait. So we KNOW that angels exist all around us now? When was this published?

first book published. We know it as "The Bible". It is pretty much literally in every book store you can find (likely multiple times in multiple versions).

 

[larry_boy_44]

I get it Lsrry. Seems like those Christians there in the congregation cared a lot more than you're telling us they do. Plus how many other sinners do they exclude? My guess is its inverse to the number they exclude for not condemning this one sin.

If churches kept out everyone who sinned, there'd be no churches.

That's the whole point. That this particular sin is the one that gets the most vehement and volumous rejection as a sin when the other supposedly equal sins are shrugged off

I can't speak for other churches, since I don't attend, but at the church I go to here in FL, everyone's welcome, no matter what. We're all broken people, but if we ask for it, we'll be forgiven for any wrongs we've done. We're not perfect, but the best we can do is love people, which is what we try to do.

That's how my church is, too. But we aren't talking about the church telling LeRoy Butler whether he is allowed to attend a service or not. We're talking about the church paying him $8,500 to be the speaker for a service they are holding. Totally different things.

You mean to preach, right? The congregation didn't want him because he supported a gay. The brass agreed with them enough to cancel it. That's the opposite if what you're saying Christians are like.

I realize that this isn't apparent to you because you aren't a Christian, but preaching is a BIG DEAL. The assumption is when my pastor stands behind that pulpit he is giving us a message inspired by God Himself. Same with any other preacher (including myself).

To let someone behind your pulpit when you KNOW they don't believe as you do is just something that church's don't do. So, yes, when Butler did something that shows that his belief's do not line up with the church's beliefs, they chose not to have him speak.

So you believe god speaks to people?

No doubt about it.

Have you personally heard from god?

Yes.

 

[Kal El]

Have you personally heard from god?

I have. He's a nice guy. You should try talking to Him, too. You might be surprised at what happens.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well.

Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though.

If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

Honestly I am not convinced of this, though as a secularist I'd like to believe it. People like Richard Dawkins (and yourself) seem so positive that this will be the outcome, but I'm just not sure.

I don't see how anyone could look at human history and not see example after example of people finding whatever reason they could to destroy everything around them... So, yeah, I disagree that the world would be this peaceful utopia without religion.

You do realize that the majority of these examples of destruction revolve around differing belief systems right?

 

[larry_boy_44]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well.

Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though.

If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

Honestly I am not convinced of this, though as a secularist I'd like to believe it. People like Richard Dawkins (and yourself) seem so positive that this will be the outcome, but I'm just not sure.

I don't see how anyone could look at human history and not see example after example of people finding whatever reason they could to destroy everything around them... So, yeah, I disagree that the world would be this peaceful utopia without religion.

You do realize that the majority of these examples of destruction revolve around differing belief systems right?

They involve people using differing belief systems to justify it, yes.

But most of the time it comes down to money and power, not religion. Religion is just the tool used to convince the masses to do what the leader wants.

 

[Eephus]

I can't speak for other churches, since I don't attend, but at the church I go to here in FL, everyone's welcome, no matter what. We're all broken people, but if we ask for it, we'll be forgiven for any wrongs we've done. We're not perfect, but the best we can do is love people, which is what we try to do.

That's how my church is, too.

But we aren't talking about the church telling LeRoy Butler whether he is allowed to attend a service or not. We're talking about the church paying him $8,500 to be the speaker for a service they are holding. Totally different things.

And I'm going to ask you this. Put this other stuff to the side with the others in here. Do you think that when LeRoy Butler is booted form a speaking engagement, what does that say about the church? They can exercise their right but then they go further and humiliate him with the whole pray for forgiveness. You thought enough of him to pay him almost $10k to come in speak. I think that church is going to miss out on a great night where they might have learned something and now they look like fools. Is that the message that Christians want to send out there to a society that is already kind of skeptical of anything from Christian faith based organizations?

Thanks LB

Here's the thing, we don't know what the church actually said. Did they actually send Butler that? How exactly did the church say it?

Butler didn't even name the church (neither did any of the news media) and the church hasn't come forward. All we know is Butler's angry tweets, that's it.

If they actually said that, I would say that they were wrong in saying that and should have done it in a better way.

But I understand why they wouldn't want him to speak. Like I said, I doubt my church would let him speak in the first place (at least at a church service) because of his beliefs and they likely differ from ours. I even understand how this issue could change things.

But if Butler's portrayal of the events is accurate, I would say the church should have told him differently and responded to him differently.

the article said Butler was going to speak about bullying and promote his new book. It's not clear whether he was preaching in the church itself or at some other parish function. If they were paying him $8500, my guess is the latter. If it was a compensated speaking gig at a church fundraiser, would that make a difference?

 

[larry_boy_44]

I can't speak for other churches, since I don't attend, but at the church I go to here in FL, everyone's welcome, no matter what. We're all broken people, but if we ask for it, we'll be forgiven for any wrongs we've done. We're not perfect, but the best we can do is love people, which is what we try to do.

That's how my church is, too.

But we aren't talking about the church telling LeRoy Butler whether he is allowed to attend a service or not. We're talking about the church paying him $8,500 to be the speaker for a service they are holding. Totally different things.

And I'm going to ask you this. Put this other stuff to the side with the others in here. Do you think that when LeRoy Butler is booted form a speaking engagement, what does that say about the church? They can exercise their right but then they go further and humiliate him with the whole pray for forgiveness. You thought enough of him to pay him almost $10k to come in speak. I think that church is going to miss out on a great night where they might have learned something and now they look like fools. Is that the message that Christians want to send out there to a society that is already kind of skeptical of anything from Christian faith based organizations?

Thanks LB

Here's the thing, we don't know what the church actually said. Did they actually send Butler that? How exactly did the church say it?

Butler didn't even name the church (neither did any of the news media) and the church hasn't come forward. All we know is Butler's angry tweets, that's it.

If they actually said that, I would say that they were wrong in saying that and should have done it in a better way.

But I understand why they wouldn't want him to speak. Like I said, I doubt my church would let him speak in the first place (at least at a church service) because of his beliefs and they likely differ from ours. I even understand how this issue could change things.

But if Butler's portrayal of the events is accurate, I would say the church should have told him differently and responded to him differently.

the article said Butler was going to speak about bullying and promote his new book. It's not clear whether he was preaching in the church itself or at some other parish function. If they were paying him $8500, my guess is the latter. If it was a compensated speaking gig at a church fundraiser, would that make a difference?

Possibly. Depends on the church and what the function was exactly. But we won't know because it wasn't publicized (as far as I know) and Butler won't say what church it was.

His book seems religious to a point, inspirational for sure with God thrown in, so I would guess that the church saw it, on some level, as a preaching engagement, not just a public speaker.

 

[mad sweeney]

Letting someone in the door is not the same as letting someone speak from your pulpit. surely you don't think those are the same thing.

Yes, I know, but the concept can still apply to speakers. How often do we hear of ministers being caught in all sorts of scandals, and those are just the ones we know of.

I agree it applies on some level. But they didn't tell Butler he couldn't attend or be at their church's functions. Only that they felt he wasn't a person they felt comfortable speaking from their pulpit at this time. The key thing is being repentant. But that doesn't directly apply to Butler as the issue isn't whether he has repented or not, but whether he believes that something the church sees as Biblical direction is true or not. They believe the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, from Butler's tweet they believe he does not think that. So they aren't comfortable with someone who has that different of an understanding of what the Bible says than they do speaking.

You mean that specific sin, not general Biblical principals. It's an unalterable fact, since we are born sinners, that the congregation is spoken to by repeat and unrepentant sinners and those sinners have friends that have supported them in public. But it's this sin that gets you kicked out.

I don't think you understand what "repentant" means. You cannot say with any factual basis that a church has, for sure, had "repeat and unrepentant" sinners in its pulpit, because you cannot possibly know that and the fact that we are born sinners or that people don't ever stop sinning fully is not related to whether they are repentant or not. There is also a different between supporting a person in spite of their sin and supporting a person and congratulating them for their sin.

Once again you fail to understand that other people can understand your terms. Everyone sins. Constantly. That's how your dear and fluffy lord set us up to be. Unless they all go to confession and do their penance right as the service begins then there are repeat and unrepented sinners in the pews, behind the altar et al. Lust and other unpure thoughts are impossible to contain. So yes, I can say with factual satisfaction that there are impure people there, speaking and receiving the word. That's how the system is set up. If we were ever able to be free from sin, we wouldn't need god or church.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Letting someone in the door is not the same as letting someone speak from your pulpit. surely you don't think those are the same thing.

Yes, I know, but the concept can still apply to speakers. How often do we hear of ministers being caught in all sorts of scandals, and those are just the ones we know of.

I agree it applies on some level. But they didn't tell Butler he couldn't attend or be at their church's functions. Only that they felt he wasn't a person they felt comfortable speaking from their pulpit at this time. The key thing is being repentant. But that doesn't directly apply to Butler as the issue isn't whether he has repented or not, but whether he believes that something the church sees as Biblical direction is true or not. They believe the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, from Butler's tweet they believe he does not think that. So they aren't comfortable with someone who has that different of an understanding of what the Bible says than they do speaking.

You mean that specific sin, not general Biblical principals. It's an unalterable fact, since we are born sinners, that the congregation is spoken to by repeat and unrepentant sinners and those sinners have friends that have supported them in public. But it's this sin that gets you kicked out.

I don't think you understand what "repentant" means. You cannot say with any factual basis that a church has, for sure, had "repeat and unrepentant" sinners in its pulpit, because you cannot possibly know that and the fact that we are born sinners or that people don't ever stop sinning fully is not related to whether they are repentant or not. There is also a different between supporting a person in spite of their sin and supporting a person and congratulating them for their sin.

Once again you fail to understand that other people can understand your terms. Everyone sins. Constantly. That's how your dear and fluffy lord set us up to be. Unless they all go to confession and do their penance right as the service begins then there are repeat and unrepented sinners in the pews, behind the altar et al. Lust and other unpure thoughts are impossible to contain. So yes, I can say with factual satisfaction that there are impure people there, speaking and receiving the word. That's how the system is set up. If we were ever able to be free from sin, we wouldn't need god or church.

No, you don't know what repentance means.

Repentance isn't never sinning again, its seeking to never sin again and seeking to do God's will always. You aren't suddenly unrepentant the moment you stub your toe and say a bad word. That's not how it works, God isn't standing there waiting to strike us the moment we mess up.

Repentance is NOT saying "I'm sorry" for every bad thing you've ever done. Its a mindset.

 

[Doug B]

Was wondering how this thread got to 16 pages. But I see no one is talking about Jason Collins anymore. Understood.

 

[eurotrashman]

Let us pray for an end to racism, homophobia, and cruelty. Then let's all stop being racist, homophobic and cruel. Watch the miracle happen

 

[Disco Stu]

Was wondering how this thread got to 16 pages. But I see no one is talking about Jason Collins anymore. Understood.

Who?

 

[timschochet]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well.

Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though.

If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

Honestly I am not convinced of this, though as a secularist I'd like to believe it. People like Richard Dawkins (and yourself) seem so positive that this will be the outcome, but I'm just not sure.

What is the argument against it?

So far as I know, there are basically two arguments against it. The first is historical. It's true that we don't have a lot of examples throughout history of societies that have divested themselves from religious belief, but the ones we do have- Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Vietnam, Cambodia- all committed horrible atrocities in the last century that are well beyond those committed in the name of any religious institution. (Even Nazi Germany, though full of Christians, was led by people who were at the very least anti-religious).

The other argument is philosophical. Ministry of Pain was a little bit simplistic and crude, and I don't think the public is as ignorant as he makes them out to be- but it's clear that they are uninterested in philosophy as a general rule. You or I or anyone who wants to think about it can come up with our own morality based on reason and common sense- but for the vast majority who don't want to spend time thinking about it, isn't it better that they are provided, from childhood onward, an authoritative set of rights and wrongs for them to use as guidance? You and I live at the sufferance of these people, based on their good will and their respect for the law. Would society really be better off if, instead of that authoritative set of values, we called upon the public to choose their own values based on their own sense of rationality?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Was wondering how this thread got to 16 pages. But I see no one is talking about Jason Collins anymore. Understood.

Honestly we could talk about the Jason Collins story only and still get to 16 pages. Despite the protests of some here, it really is a pretty big story. We've got 19 pages on the "Jodi Arias case," which I didn't even know was a thing until I was stuck watching Headline News at a Doubletree at 11 in the morning recently.

 

[mad sweeney]

Well Larry, despite your repeated claims that Christians don't care and cover other sins more often , it seems this group does care. Enough that a guy who isn't even gay not banned. Are you going to tell me they've never had a drinker, adulterer, divorcee, gambler (or more appropriate to the analogy, someone who is friends with or publicly supports one who dies those things) speak at their church? Not a chance homie.

see my last post, i already answered this. And although I don't know for sure, I would say that they have not had someone who was unrepentant living in those sins speak in their church knowingly. Doesn't mean someone didn't hide their sin and lie to them, but I'd be surprised if they have had someone who is unrepentant of their sin (which, btw, is the key since we are all sinners) speak in their church.

What was Butler's sin?

Love Your Neighbor is apparently a sin at this church.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well.

Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though.

If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

You are just as head in the clouds as the folks you attack. Go to the poor sections of America especially near the bigger urban areas and remove religion from everything. Show those folks there is no heaven...you would have anarchy and that's the downside of atheism and one of the things that is difficult to discuss. What if everyone were forced to accept that philosophy, would not be good.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Was wondering how this thread got to 16 pages. But I see no one is talking about Jason Collins anymore. Understood.

Of course not but in fairness he didn't exactly leave behind a major body of work to discuss about his NBA career.

 

[mad sweeney]

You guys arguing with Larry on this one are ignoring the far more basic and hilarious point that he thinks the article "demonizes" a church. Even though the article doesn't name the church, or even its denomination, or include a single word describing the church that could possibly be described as remotely negative, let alone "demonizing." When that is his starting point, how can you possibly engage him in serious discussion? You're not going to get anywhere. All you can do is laugh.

There are, apparently, millions of Americans who share Larry's essential views on this issue.

It's not about his "essential views." We've been debating that for pages. That's not going anywhere. This particular conversation started with him saying that the CNN news item about Butler was "demonizing" a church. That's just absurd. I don't even know how to respond to it other than to laugh. I don't understand how anyone could see that preposterous starting point and decide that they might be able to have an interesting, productive discussion.

It goes with whole Christians Are the Most Persecuted mentality that when a story that contains no judgment tells about a church showing how little they actually ascribe to Love Thy Neighbor, the natural reaction is to assume its derogatory. Probably the medias fault. But don't worry, one day after centuries if waiting, Christians will one day catch a break.

 

[shader]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well.

Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though.

If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

You are just as head in the clouds as the folks you attack. Go to the poor sections of America especially near the bigger urban areas and remove religion from everything. Show those folks there is no heaven...you would have anarchy and that's the downside of atheism and one of the things that is difficult to discuss. What if everyone were forced to accept that philosophy, would not be good.

It's a silly scenario anyway, because you are never going to get the entire world to become atheists. Humans as a majority seem to worship. It may not make sense to atheists, but there are many people who believe that there is a higher power and a greater meaning behind the world we live in, other than a bunch of random crap bumped into some more random crap, based off of some mysterious explosion which happened for no reason and eventually formed into the galaxy, solar system, universe, sprouted little cells and grew to humans.

So I don't think we have to worry about the majority of humankind becoming atheists, because obviously that hasn't happened and won't happen.

 

[matuski]

Assante Samuel's "I teach my kids God" .... No you aren't, you are teaching your kids "Assante".

If you can't hold your opinions up to scrutiny on their own merits, perhaps some introspection is called for. Calling upon your version of "God" as a strategy to dodge this is just plain cowardly.

 

[timschochet]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well.

Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though.

If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

You are just as head in the clouds as the folks you attack. Go to the poor sections of America especially near the bigger urban areas and remove religion from everything. Show those folks there is no heaven...you would have anarchy and that's the downside of atheism and one of the things that is difficult to discuss. What if everyone were forced to accept that philosophy, would not be good.

It's a silly scenario anyway, because you are never going to get the entire world to become atheists. Humans as a majority seem to worship. It may not make sense to atheists, but there are many people who believe that there is a higher power and a greater meaning behind the world we live in, other than a bunch of random crap bumped into some more random crap, based off of some mysterious explosion which happened for no reason and eventually formed into the galaxy, solar system, universe, sprouted little cells and grew to humans.

So I don't think we have to worry about the majority of humankind becoming atheists, because obviously that hasn't happened and won't happen.

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well.

Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though.

If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

You are just as head in the clouds as the folks you attack. Go to the poor sections of America especially near the bigger urban areas and remove religion from everything. Show those folks there is no heaven...you would have anarchy and that's the downside of atheism and one of the things that is difficult to discuss. What if everyone were forced to accept that philosophy, would not be good.

It's a silly scenario anyway, because you are never going to get the entire world to become atheists. Humans as a majority seem to worship. It may not make sense to atheists, but there are many people who believe that there is a higher power and a greater meaning behind the world we live in, other than a bunch of random crap bumped into some more random crap, based off of some mysterious explosion which happened for no reason and eventually formed into the galaxy, solar system, universe, sprouted little cells and grew to humans.

So I don't think we have to worry about the majority of humankind becoming atheists, because obviously that hasn't happened and won't happen.

Sure, but that's not really the question. The question is whether or not religious morality is beneficial for society, or a net detriment.

Unlike many secularists, it remains my belief that it is probably beneficial (though I don't know for sure.) However, when we discuss homosexuality, we have here a specific situation where religious morality is NOT beneficial for society, because it prevents us from doing what we know to be morally right.

 

[joffer]

other than a bunch of random crap bumped into some more random crap, based off of some mysterious explosion which happened for no reason and eventually formed into the galaxy, solar system, universe, sprouted little cells and grew to humans.

 

[larry_boy_44]

You guys arguing with Larry on this one are ignoring the far more basic and hilarious point that he thinks the article "demonizes" a church. Even though the article doesn't name the church, or even its denomination, or include a single word describing the church that could possibly be described as remotely negative, let alone "demonizing." When that is his starting point, how can you possibly engage him in serious discussion? You're not going to get anywhere. All you can do is laugh.

There are, apparently, millions of Americans who share Larry's essential views on this issue.

It's not about his "essential views." We've been debating that for pages. That's not going anywhere. This particular conversation started with him saying that the CNN news item about Butler was "demonizing" a church. That's just absurd. I don't even know how to respond to it other than to laugh. I don't understand how anyone could see that preposterous starting point and decide that they might be able to have an interesting, productive discussion.

It goes with whole Christians Are the Most Persecuted mentality that when a story that contains no judgment tells about a church showing how little they actually ascribe to Love Thy Neighbor, the natural reaction is to assume its derogatory. Probably the medias fault. But don't worry, one day after centuries if waiting, Christians will one day catch a break.

bolded the part that is why your whole line of thought is nonsense. The article was written with no response, no name, and no exact quotes from the church, only angry tweets from a man who just lost $8,500.

I'm not saying LeRoy is lying, but if it were a local Elks club or some other non-religious group that cancelled him and he claimed it were for this reason (without naming the group at all), I seriously doubt you'd be so quick to judge them. You'd at least want to hear from the group and find out what actually happened first.

But since its a church and you hate churches, you jump all over it. And that article was written for people like you. The whole purpose of it was to grab people like you and give you something to point at, even if it isn't even attempting to tell you what happened between the church and Butler, but rather is just reporting what Butler tweeted.

 

[matuski]

other than a bunch of random crap bumped into some more random crap, based off of some mysterious explosion which happened for no reason and eventually formed into the galaxy, solar system, universe, sprouted little cells and grew to humans.

jesus christ

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Once again you fail to understand that other people can understand your terms. Everyone sins. Constantly. That's how your dear and fluffy lord set us up to be. Unless they all go to confession and do their penance right as the service begins then there are repeat and unrepented sinners in the pews, behind the altar et al. Lust and other unpure thoughts are impossible to contain. So yes, I can say with factual satisfaction that there are impure people there, speaking and receiving the word. That's how the system is set up. If we were ever able to be free from sin, we wouldn't need god or church.

No, you don't know what repentance means.

Repentance isn't never sinning again, its seeking to never sin again and seeking to do God's will always. You aren't suddenly unrepentant the moment you stub your toe and say a bad word. That's not how it works, God isn't standing there waiting to strike us the moment we mess up.

Repentance is NOT saying "I'm sorry" for every bad thing you've ever done. Its a mindset.

LB, you are wasting your time here. His opening sentence is YOU FAIL...you can't have any debate or sharing of ideas with someone so closed minded. And he's not alone, it's 75% of this board in the FFA anymore. Others are encouraging you, me as well even though I disagree with a lot of your thoughts...stop wasting your time on this, it's not worth it. You can't reach the unreachable and can't teach the unteachable. He thinks he has all the answers and knows it all, good for him.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well.

Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though.

If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

You are just as head in the clouds as the folks you attack. Go to the poor sections of America especially near the bigger urban areas and remove religion from everything. Show those folks there is no heaven...you would have anarchy and that's the downside of atheism and one of the things that is difficult to discuss. What if everyone were forced to accept that philosophy, would not be good.

It's a silly scenario anyway, because you are never going to get the entire world to become atheists. Humans as a majority seem to worship. It may not make sense to atheists, but there are many people who believe that there is a higher power and a greater meaning behind the world we live in, other than a bunch of random crap bumped into some more random crap, based off of some mysterious explosion which happened for no reason and eventually formed into the galaxy, solar system, universe, sprouted little cells and grew to humans.

So I don't think we have to worry about the majority of humankind becoming atheists, because obviously that hasn't happened and won't happen.

Sure, but that's not really the question. The question is whether or not religious morality is beneficial for society, or a net detriment.

Unlike many secularists, it remains my belief that it is probably beneficial (though I don't know for sure.) However, when we discuss homosexuality, we have here a specific situation where religious morality is NOT beneficial for society, because it prevents us from doing what we know to be morally right.

But what if we're wrong?

I mean, we've been wrong before, right?

All I'm saying is it makes more sense to me when I make an absolute statement and say "The Creator of everything says...." and then finish the sentence than when I hear someone else say "I feel....." and then make a statement and act like its an absolute and without any question.

I understand that you feel the way you do (and you are free to feel that way), I just question how you get to the point that you feel like you or any human (or group of humans) alive right now are an authority on morality... Especially if there is no "higher purpose" so morality is just whatever makes us happiest on earth. (which brings up the question of why I should care if anyone else is happy if I'm happy, among other questions)

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well. Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though. If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

You are just as head in the clouds as the folks you attack. Go to the poor sections of America especially near the bigger urban areas and remove religion from everything. Show those folks there is no heaven...you would have anarchy and that's the downside of atheism and one of the things that is difficult to discuss. What if everyone were forced to accept that philosophy, would not be good.

It's a silly scenario anyway, because you are never going to get the entire world to become atheists. Humans as a majority seem to worship. It may not make sense to atheists, but there are many people who believe that there is a higher power and a greater meaning behind the world we live in, other than a bunch of random crap bumped into some more random crap, based off of some mysterious explosion which happened for no reason and eventually formed into the galaxy, solar system, universe, sprouted little cells and grew to humans. So I don't think we have to worry about the majority of humankind becoming atheists, because obviously that hasn't happened and won't happen.

Some good points but I would also say that being atheist was as bad or worse than being gay at different points in the evolution of man. A lady at my work found out I do not really believe Jesus is the Son of God...not exactly sure how it happened but she is a devout born again, looks like she is trying to make up for a corrupted younger life and she actually had the nerve to ask me in front of people why I don't believe in God. Believe me, it's not the easiest thing in the world to project out as an atheist and never be met with grief from other folks. It gets worse when you can actually defend being atheist. My easiest defense with a random person who just wants to get into a religious debate...I'll say something like you wouldn't go see a doctor who taught out of a medical book that was 500 years old, why go live life by a strict code that was written by man close to 2,000 years ago when people largely were uneducated and could not read or write? That usually gets the ball rolling and they go right for the "Inspired Word of God" and you can quickly see that they don't run into a lot of folks that are wiling to punch back. Mayhem usually ensues and you become the antichrist in these peoples lives. So let's not act like the world is a perfect place for all atheists everywhere. There are parts of this country where it is just not a good idea to go around saying you are atheist, that's the truth.

 

[timschochet]

Larry, how would you define the purpose of morality?

 

[larry_boy_44]

Larry, how would you define the purpose of morality?

I'm good with wikipedia's opening: Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong).

Close enough to me.

If there is no "ultimate decider" then good and bad (and right and wrong) don't exist.

If this is all random, good doesn't exist. Evil doesn't exist. Its just what we decide in a moment is best, but it has no "lasting" or absolute meaning. Good and evil can only exist in a world with a purpose. Otherwise everyone is just doing what they think is best and each person decides for themselves what they think is good or evil and there is no right answer.

 

[Hang 10]

Was wondering how this thread got to 16 pages. But I see no one is talking about Jason Collins anymore. Understood.

You talking about the cheating, bench warming hero?