Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow

#1627 Dec 13 2011 at 12:50 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Yes, but why? Could you not tell who was gay before? Smiley: dubious


As it was stated before, everyone doesn't flaunt their sexuality. Butch lesbians do it more often because they are socially more accepted. Besides, it doesn't matter if it were known or not.

Nilatai wrote:
Well FSM is a satirical movement for a start. If it were a recognised religion in which the tenets require one to not cut their hair, I'm sure it would be different.


1. From an atheist point of view, the only difference between FSM and Christianity is popularity.

2. Protestant/Catholic Christianity, Muslim and the Jewish religion all focus around the same God. The primary difference is interpretation which is the primary difference among denominations within one primary religion. With that being said, it is not unrealistic to be a protestant Christian who has Muslim interpretations of the Bible.

3. Why would it matter that it's satirical? If you're all about equality, then you must accept religion x and cult y. You can't pick and choose based on what you think makes more sense or what the government supports.

Nilatai wrote:
Everyone is treated the same. They're allowed to serve in the military. It is removing an obstacle that would otherwise prevent that group of people from serving.


Now, you're being in denial. Everyone isn't being treated the same because some have different grooming standards. Removing that obstacle to allow a certain group to serve doesn't prevent you from altering that standard for everyone else. By keeping that standard for one group, but not another, you're discriminating.

Nilatai wrote:
So you think Sikhs shouldn't be able to join the army if they are practising? Okay.


I believe that everyone should have the same hair standards. If you decide to make the standards restrictive to the point where it prevents Sikhs from joining, then that isn't my call.

#1628 Dec 13 2011 at 12:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
1. From an atheist point of view, the only difference between FSM and Christianity is popularity.

The government, however, is not atheist. It's secular.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1629 Dec 13 2011 at 12:56 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
No, it wasn't a special rule. Nobody could say that they were gay, even the straight people. It makes perfect sense, amirite?


I guess if you had actually read the clause where it specifically points out certain actions, then you would realize that it isn't a special action as it did affect everyone.
#1630Almalieque, Posted: Dec 13 2011 at 1:02 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) OOoooooooh, tooo bad that your head is stuck on repeat..Someone could serve you dog balls and you would eat it. If that person told you that it was "dog balls" ahead of time, you (at least a number of people) wouldn't eat it.
#1631 Dec 13 2011 at 1:07 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Alma wrote:
OOoooooooh, tooo bad that your head is stuck on repeat.
Why waste my time explaining the correct assessment of the situation differently when you're making the same incorrect comments? The answer is always going to be the same, and you're always going to be stupid. Repetition is good enough for the likes of you. Smiley: smile

Edited, Dec 13th 2011 2:08pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1632 Dec 13 2011 at 1:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
'Cause otherwise Alma's gonna talk about putting dog balls in his mouth. Or something like that.

Does the DADT repeal apply to teabagging Labradors?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1633 Dec 13 2011 at 1:11 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Does the DADT repeal apply to teabagging Labradors?
Well, they did recently repeal Article 125 ...

Though it's still covered under Article 120.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1634 Dec 13 2011 at 1:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You guys needed two separate rules not to suck dog balls?

Edited, Dec 13th 2011 1:18pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1635 Dec 13 2011 at 1:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Jophiel wrote:
'Cause otherwise Alma's gonna talk about putting dog balls in his mouth. Or something like that.

Does the DADT repeal apply to teabagging Labradors?

Only if the Labrador won't shave due to worshiping the FSM.
#1636 Dec 13 2011 at 1:22 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You guys needed two separate rules not to suck dog balls?
We have to have a safety briefing about the possible dangers involved with taking Power Point classes. "You might fall asleep and hit your head on the desk, so the danger present is low."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1637 Dec 13 2011 at 1:26 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Just note, since Alma was so kind as to bring it up: The meat served in deployed area, by US standards, is "Grade D but Edible," which roughly translates to "if it wasn't used by next week it would have been used in dog and cat food." So if anyone is eating dog balls today ...
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1638 Dec 13 2011 at 3:15 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
You guys needed two separate rules not to suck dog balls?
We have to have a safety briefing about the possible dangers involved with taking Power Point classes. "You might fall asleep and hit your head on the desk, so the danger present is low."


Did you already go through your session about the dangers of breathing and not breathing, and the situations in which one of the two is appropriate?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#1639 Dec 13 2011 at 5:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
I'm totally free now that I know that I can do anything that I want as long as I don't get caught.

Smiley: laugh I love when you people pull this crap out of the bag.



This was in response to the claim that humans invented G-D to help them cope with life and death even though the Abrahamic G-D happens to be the ONLY case in human history of an omnipotent and omniscient single god of everything that claims to have no definable earthly for except for a Word informing people that they are DOING AT ALL WRONG!! and that there is NO ONE that can live up to It's standards..
THE ONLY ONE.
All other "gods" and religions are based off of human and animal forms; human and animal emotions; and tell people that everything's going to be OK as long as they just try hard enough.. pandering and self-serving.. and clearly designed to get people to join the club and drink the kool-aid..
So in a way I agree with what rdm said.. and YES; I think that my "religion" is unique in that regard; you don't usually get converts by telling them that their lives are a big lie..
Unfortunately a lot of Christian organizations have forgotten that fact nowadays and are more worried about filling their pulpits and their coffers than spreading the Truth.
Before I actually did some research I thought that I invented Monotheism independent of "all the others". My big slap in the face was realizing the the Abrahamic G-D was the only One.
and don't mention Zoroastrianism.. that god is NOT omnipotent.

And Joph; I'm really not trying to hi-jack this thread.. but it's just too tempting...
You should join the fun! How's the Polish-Catholic world been treating you?

Edited, Dec 12th 2011 10:24pm by Kelvyquayo


Kelvy, are you implying that since Christianity is the only religion where someone imagined a single, omnipotent god, it must be the right one...?
#1640 Dec 13 2011 at 5:47 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Christianity didn't the old Jews did, Christianity was derived from Judaism, and was split in the mid times into catholic and protestant. The Muslims are also split from old jews, although their split took some time after Christ was around, hence their having one more prophet. This is why they only observe christ as a vessel of the word of god, or a prophet if you will.

All three worship the same god. Each fragment is preceded by a prophet. Christ for the Christians, and Muhammad for the Muslims who for all we know could have been the second coming of christ and anyone not muslim missed the cut and are doomed to a life of servitude to satan.*

Then again... it could just be a @#%^ing sweet 3 part novel by a bunch of old dudes trippin on opium sipping lead laced wine.

edit
*
Maybe thats why thay call Christians infedels. Perhaps because Christians did not progress with Christ they view them as inferior to bear the name of Christ. Perhaps Christianity stopped being about the faith and about something else. Christ returned and tended his flock, wouldn't that be ironic.

Edited, Dec 13th 2011 6:55pm by rdmcandie

Edited, Dec 13th 2011 6:56pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#1641 Dec 13 2011 at 8:53 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,140 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Why would it matter that it's satirical? If you're all about equality, then you must accept religion x and cult y. You can't pick and choose based on what you think makes more sense or what the government supports.


Satire...It doesn't mean what I think you think it means.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#1642 Dec 13 2011 at 11:20 PM Rating: Good
***
3,272 posts
Did I miss another Kelvy religious hypothetical?

I bet it ended with him typing out some long winded post about how we're all dumb.
#1643Kelvyquayo, Posted: Dec 13 2011 at 11:35 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) OOOh, a fan
#1644Kelvyquayo, Posted: Dec 13 2011 at 11:50 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Dude.. you seriously need to leave your church immediately if they are teaching you that Mary is part of the Trinity.
#1645 Dec 13 2011 at 11:52 PM Rating: Default
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
And here's something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your prayers aren't answered. What do you say?


You present a very valid argument. I recently in another forum spoke to that in someone bashing Matthew 21:22 which states: "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

My response is this word for word:
The key there is the word "believe". If you are a believer than you also believe that G-D is not a Djinn in a bottle and Jesus is not Peter Pan. The believer accepts that when they pray that they are praying that G-D's Will be done and not their own.

- I pray world peace--- I have faith that G-d will provide this is his own time
- IF I pray for world peace NOW; than my faith is faltering because the I began expect my will to be done for my own purposes rather than G-Ds.. for that time when my faith is faltering then I am not praying as a believer but as a selfish sinner..
- If I pray for my family to be safe-- I have faith that whatever happens to my family, even if they are murdered by cannibals that G-D's purpose is happening for the good and that no matter what may occur that G-D shall be fair and merciful.. even if I do not see or understand it.
- IF I pray specifically that may family is never eaten by cannibals then even THEN I am still being a self-serving sinner and not trusting in G-D's will to be for my good..

You may ask: Why even pray to begin with then if G-D is going to do whatever G-D is going to do?? Because that is what is means to have a relationship with Him; and if we are spiritually affected by His grace and His mercy; then our prayers will be in tune with both His will and our faith..

A person that would expect G-D to unflinchingly answer every single prayer is obviously NOT in the faith and thus their belief is fogged.. and so your critique of Matthew 21:22 is invalid.

____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#1646 Dec 13 2011 at 11:55 PM Rating: Default
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Belkira wrote:
Kelvy, are you implying that since Christianity is the only religion where someone imagined a single, omnipotent god, it must be the right one...?


No, and you are loading the question with the word "imagined". I think the idea of a single omnipotent G-D can be deduced by logic alone.. just read some Plato's Republic or Cicero's The Nature of the Gods. It is not a far stretch.. But of course these views agree that the true nature of such an entity would be unknowable; which I totally agree with as well. What threw me for a loop is that in all of history no culture or group every really created a religion out of this G-D unless you count concepts like the Druidic Annwyn or the Dao; but those concepts are based on abstract mysticism and mystery; which are concepts that I once had great agreement with.. but these are all very clearly people reaching for something obtainable and they knew it... and any other culture that claimed that there was one "king" god always inevitably has the notion being tainted with human flaws.. lacking what those logical mind like Plator and Cicero knew had to be an all or nothing total omnipotence and omniscience.
Now you have the YHWH god appearing on the scene claiming to be just that. I understand that it is tempting to believe that some Hebrew just made this whole thing up; but if you really look at it free from presupposition you would see how ridiculous it would be to think that the things that the Old Testament is saying is actually something that a bunch of Hebrews made up.. The OT time and time again speaks against man, against his ways, against religion, and declares the same thing that Plato deduced; that a True God is truly unknowable. This seems like a logical fallacy; "Well, I guess someone as smart as Plato must have made it up" you may say; but why would someone that is trying to get recruits for any kind of religion profess doctrine that is the exact opposite of what people do when they are trying to get converts for a cult??? Circumcision? really? No statues to bow to?? really? Restriction after restriction to something that you cannot even see?? At least Hindus and Buddhists get some bodily good and a lot of good dances and parades out of what they do; and at least confusions and Taoists get to take some of the credit for the ways that they behave and can at least be proud of themselves.. but no; not in the religion of YWWH God.. He takes ALL of the credit... and to top THAT off; the entire BIBLE is just FULL of records of how much people hate following the laws of YHWH God and how much that even YWHH's Chosen People cannot even follow all of His crazy rules and statues... WHAT KIND OF RELIGION IS THIS??
TO wrap this up.. I then entire point of the OT was the following: To preserve the Word of YHWH and thus preserve the culture of the people from which the Messiah would come.. and from that to go out into the nations and try to give them a chance to be able to face toward this unknowable God and actually fulfill the entire purpose of our creation.. There is no other way. God is not going to appear to everybody like He did to Abraham; He is not going to blind us with a flashing light as He did to Paul; those people were part of the plan and have a special place in it.. We; all of us unworthy flawed creatures are the goal. To actually have the faith to even WANT to believe really is enough; if we reach out with our hearts and admit that we are created by Him and that without Him we are dust.. that is enough to get the process of eternal salvation started..

So no, that is not why I am implying that God and the Anointed One must be the right one.. I am implying this because nothing else makes any sense and that only through an indwelling of the Spirit from God's Anointed One can anyone every ever ever believe any of this seeming total nonsense. It can never ever be proven to someone who does not seek faith and who only has faith in the finite things of this world out of fear, greed, and arrogance.
I pray for you all that you would give your souls that chance for salvation.. for as many have told me on this forum.. there is no god.. once we die that's it.. there is only nothingness.. To quote CS Lewis:
Quote:
There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#1647 Dec 13 2011 at 11:55 PM Rating: Default
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
rdm wrote:
Perhaps because Christians did not progress with Christ


You somewhat jumbled statement does make sense; It's called the the the Bahá'à Faith. It postulates that G-D simply changes with the times for all people.. and that all religions are from the same God and that God simply changes with the times and that every time period of human history has it's own prophets and messages from God.
This view is totally illogical.. I'm sorry for those who think I am being rude in saying this.. I really do not want to bash anyone for believing anything in particular because I know how confusing things can be..
But to think that an all-knowing and all-powerful God would have to "change with the times" to accommodate for the ways that society changes completely flies in the face of what an all-knowing and all-powerful God means.. not to mention that most religions contradict one another in various ways..
God does not have to change for anyone and God can never learn anything new about anything.. He's God; not some tinkering scientist trying to figure out how to get it right..

Edited, Dec 14th 2011 12:56am by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#1648 Dec 14 2011 at 12:16 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,512 posts
MotherFUCKER stop using semicolons and learn basic punctuation
#1649 Dec 14 2011 at 12:21 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Too busy trying to convince us he's not a fake Christian like varus to slow down for proper grammar.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1650 Dec 14 2011 at 12:23 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,512 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Too busy trying to convince us he's not a fake Christian like varus to slow down for proper grammar.
Nah, semicolons are just God's way of saying "trying too hard"
#1651 Dec 14 2011 at 12:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Kelvy, are you implying that since Christianity is the only religion where someone imagined a single, omnipotent god, it must be the right one...?


No, [...]


Ok, good. Because that would be silly.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 90 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (90)