Saturday, August 1, 2015

[AvC] Re: Christian homosexuals go to great lengths to try to become heterosexual



On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 7:17:50 PM UTC+2, Dingbat wrote:
Pastor Wade Griffith Griffith increasingly questioned the church's stance, and re-examined his own views. Griffith said that after reflecting on why homosexuals are the way they are, he came to realize it was not a choice. Pastor of the 560-member Liberty Crossings United Methodist Church in Birmingham, he preached a sermon in 2013 called 'Is Homosexuality a Sin?' He concluded that it wasn't. "If it's not volitional, it's not a sin."

"In my pastoral experience, the homosexuals I've ministered with, they would go to any length to be heterosexual," he said. "They've been to re-education camps. Some people call it 'pray out the gay.' One of my parishioners said he was at a camp his parents sent him to. They had him hold up a mirror and say 'I hate you' - hate the gay person so you can be someone else."

http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2015/01/is_homosexuality_a_sin_pastors.html


I suppose if they finally wake up to the fact that it's not a choice then young men and women won't have to tragically put themselves through this pointless torture anymore. That would be good news.
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: The case against female self-esteem



On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 9:11:01 PM UTC+2, Dingbat wrote:

What proportion of atheists vs. what proportion of theists would make a case against female self-esteem

http://mattforney.com/case-female-self-esteem/

Feminists can claim that women don't need men, but their actions put the lie to that; they need us far more than we need them. Girls will all but die without masculine attention. Hell, I'm even starting to think that the feminist agita about "rape culture" is part of this as well. Pushing lies like the claim that one in three women will be raped during her lifetime and their constantly expanding the definition of rape are ways for feminists to indulge their desire for vulnerability in a way that doesn't conflict with their view of themselves as "strong" and "empowered."

At the end of the day, there are no Strong, Independent Women™. There are only shrews pleading for a taming. All the posturing, the pill-popping, the whining and demands for "equality"; they're a cry for help. Girls don't want the six-figure cubicle job, the shiny Brooklyn 2BR, the master's degree, the sexual liberation, none of it. They want to be collectively led back to the kitchen, told to make a nice big tuna sandwich with extra mayo and lettuce, then swatted on the ass as we walk out the door.

I say we give them what they want.



Why are you posting links to this sexist rubbish; what conceivable interest does it hold for anyone?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: A perfect example of how a debate should be moderated



On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 12:24:08 PM UTC-7, LL wrote:

But you don't apply that to the enforcement of Parliamentary rules. You call it an infringement of free speech. It is simply a case of a body agreeing to limit free speech to maintain order, but you don't like it.

I didn't say anything about "free speech". A body can agree to limit speech but that doesn't make that any less a means of censoring speech,  that is,  suppressing speech. & are  these rules necessarily consistently applied? & can it not be case that the rules applied can be for ulterior reasons? You've failed to demonstrate otherwise. 






 
In this case it applies only to Parliamentary proceedings. Anyone is free to make his opinion known outside Parliament's chambers. They simply can't use Parliament as their soapbox and someone has to enforce the rules of order or there would be chaos and nobody's opinion would be heard.

It's shocking that anybody would dare to express a political opinion within a legislative body. That's just going to get in the way of rubber-stamping things w/o any opposition. 



 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: A perfect example of how a debate should be moderated








On Aug 1, 2015, at 11:41 AM, ravn <69blacklab@gmail.com> wrote:



On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 4:44:51 AM UTC-7, LL wrote:







On Jul 31, 2015, at 10:52 PM, ravn <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:




I'm not making an argument against keeping order nor am I saying that censuring & censoring speech is necessarily a bad thing. I'm just calling a spade a spade, & you object. Why?

You obviously ARE against keeping order if you object to enforcing rules agreed upon by all parties, despite your denials. You are like a driver who receives a speeding ticket and goes into a rage over it and says, "I'm not making an argument against speeding tickets nor am I saying that having speeding laws enforced is a bad thing, I'm just calling a spade a spade, & you object. Why?" 

That is a self-contradictory statement. 


I would argue that there was a political motive behind the enforcement of the rules in the particular Parliament  case that you deemed was so instructive.  (So for anybody to say that this was simply an enforcement of the rules is, frankly, deliberately ignoring the larger context in which the rules are being enforced). But in your scenario about a speeding ticket there's a difference between being upset about a speeding ticket (which the issue of may or may not have been justified, & that's why it may be challenged in court), & acknowledging  the need for traffic laws regardless if they can be ill conceived,  misapplied or just inconvenient. There's contradictions in everything.  

But you don't apply that to the enforcement of Parliamentary rules. You call it an infringement of free speech. It is simply a case of a body agreeing to limit free speech to maintain order, but you don't like it. In this case it applies only to Parliamentary proceedings. Anyone is free to make his opinion known outside Parliament's chambers. They simply can't use Parliament as their soapbox and someone has to enforce the rules of order or there would be chaos and nobody's opinion would be heard. Is that what you would want? The members of Parliament don't. 

It has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with taking over a venue. Nobody has the right to take over Parliament to express his opinion. Nobody. That's the very reason all members of Parliament have agreed to the rules and their enforcement. You are a renegade trying to force your own  ideas of what free speech means  in a place where rules were agreed to to by the participants. No one in Parliament on either side of the issue agrees with you. Nobody is calling for an end to the rules of order but you, a rank outsider. You demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of how rules of order work and that they are necessary for any kind of debate to proceed. 

LL

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] The case against female self-esteem

What proportion of atheists vs. what proportion of theists would make a case against female self-esteem

http://mattforney.com/case-female-self-esteem/

Feminists can claim that women don't need men, but their actions put the lie to that; they need us far more than we need them. Girls will all but die without masculine attention. Hell, I'm even starting to think that the feminist agita about "rape culture" is part of this as well. Pushing lies like the claim that one in three women will be raped during her lifetime and their constantly expanding the definition of rape are ways for feminists to indulge their desire for vulnerability in a way that doesn't conflict with their view of themselves as "strong" and "empowered."

At the end of the day, there are no Strong, Independent Women™. There are only shrews pleading for a taming. All the posturing, the pill-popping, the whining and demands for "equality"; they're a cry for help. Girls don't want the six-figure cubicle job, the shiny Brooklyn 2BR, the master's degree, the sexual liberation, none of it. They want to be collectively led back to the kitchen, told to make a nice big tuna sandwich with extra mayo and lettuce, then swatted on the ass as we walk out the door.

I say we give them what they want.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: A perfect example of how a debate should be moderated



On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 4:44:51 AM UTC-7, LL wrote:







On Jul 31, 2015, at 10:52 PM, ravn <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:




I'm not making an argument against keeping order nor am I saying that censuring & censoring speech is necessarily a bad thing. I'm just calling a spade a spade, & you object. Why?

You obviously ARE against keeping order if you object to enforcing rules agreed upon by all parties, despite your denials. You are like a driver who receives a speeding ticket and goes into a rage over it and says, "I'm not making an argument against speeding tickets nor am I saying that having speeding laws enforced is a bad thing, I'm just calling a spade a spade, & you object. Why?" 

That is a self-contradictory statement. 


I would argue that there was a political motive behind the enforcement of the rules in the particular Parliament  case that you deemed was so instructive.  (So for anybody to say that this was simply an enforcement of the rules is, frankly, deliberately ignoring the larger context in which the rules are being enforced). But in your scenario about a speeding ticket there's a difference between being upset about a speeding ticket (which the issue of may or may not have been justified, & that's why it may be challenged in court), & acknowledging  the need for traffic laws regardless if they can be ill conceived,  misapplied or just inconvenient. There's contradictions in everything. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Huckabee: As president, I'd consider deploying troops, FBI to stop abortions








On Aug 1, 2015, at 10:39 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com> wrote:

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/07/mike_huckabee_as_president_id.html

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said if elected president he would not rule out deploying federal forces and the FBI to prevent abortions.

What a guy! He has no understanding of the Constitution. He is supremely unqualified to be president--or to hold any other political position. He is an absolute moron. 

LL

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.