Jesus Camp (2006)

[The Lawspeaker]

Some seriously scary mofo's.

VIDEO 1 (http://www.123video.nl/playvideos.asp?MovieID=818364)

VIDEO 2 (http://www.123video.nl/playvideos.asp?MovieID=818419&Rel=1)

American evangelicals.

[Grumpy Cat]

This "church" is all about money, really.

With a dose of the tackiness Americans and known for.

[The Lawspeaker]

All in all.. Those involved at the bottom end are some seriously scared, lost dumb and therefore dangerous souls and those at the top are very smart and very dangerous. It's a power- and money game.

There is some very nasty psychology involved and a lot of it is blunt commercialism.

[Joe McCarthy]

God save us from John Hagee. We in America need more people like this:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/01/15/amsterdam15107_wideweb__430x286,0.jpg

[The Lawspeaker]

Pretty weak. So a fundamental regime is better ?
You would get them anyways: where do you think your TV vicar goes ?

[Óttar]

God save us from John Hagee. We in America need more people like this:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/01/15/amsterdam15107_wideweb__430x286,0.jpg
Hahahahaha! I actually thought you were serious! Seriously though, we do need a scene like that in America. Give me that over retarded redneck Evangelicals any day of the week.

[Joe McCarthy]

I think the key point here is that all of those baiting Evangelicals hear Amsterdam calling. I know I do, and American Evangelicals are pretty much all that prevents America from becoming the Netherlands.

If they did gain real power in the US - which they are far from doing - we could expect many things, some good, some bad, but it wouldn't lead to real repression of minority religious groups, with the possible exception of Muslims. It would certainly lead to a badly needed clean-up of American mores though.

[The Lawspeaker]

It shows how little you know. Amsterdam is not the Netherlands. The people don't speak Dutch there anymore and those that living there aren't Dutch anymore and outside Amsterdam starts a more conservative Netherlands. There are areas in my capital were either English of any sort or Dunglish is the main language of communication.

But .. yes you could use some Dutch liberalism since it is much less of a mental illness and far more natural. What was it again: 6 percent of all Dutch smoked once and 40 odd percent of all Americans ?

Yap it works.

[Grumpy Cat]

God save us from John Hagee. We in America need more people like this:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/01/15/amsterdam15107_wideweb__430x286,0.jpg

Red Light District? Seriously?

Have you Americans forgot about Vegas??? :coffee:

[Eldritch]

God save us from John Hagee. We in America need more people like this:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/01/15/amsterdam15107_wideweb__430x286,0.jpg

And yet you're in the habit of accusing me of trying to start flame wars. :rolleyes:

The funny thing is that while this post is blatant trolling, I actually agree with it: you need (more) legal prostitution in America.

EDIT:

And now that you've once again resorted to the Joe McCarthy Argument (attempting to divert the discussion into irrelevant (real, perceived or imagined) negative attributes of your interlocutor's home country), I think you're done with this thread, and there's no need for you to post in it again.

[Óttar]

The Christian Right is the single biggest threat to our freedoms, to the triumph of reason, and on the whole mars our credibility as a country. Notice how Western Europe has long since moved past the stranglehold of Christianity. And no, it doesn't take Christianity to stop the spread of radical Islam or to instate a sensible immigration policy, just a willingness to get some of the old imperial spirit back and put a jack-boot up their asses.

[Joe McCarthy]

And yet you're in the habit of accusing me of trying to start flame wars. :rolleyes:

The funny thing is that while this post is blatant trolling, I actually agree with it: you need (more) legal prostitution in America.

EDIT:

And now that you've once again resorted to the Joe McCarthy Argument (attempting to divert the discussion into irrelevant (real, perceived or imagined) negative attributes of your interlocutor's home country), I think you're done with this thread, and there's no need for you to post in it again.

You're in the habit of selectively throwing the rule book at Americans, especially me, in these transatlantic pissing contests. If you want 'trolling', look at the OP of the thread. It's begging for a response in kind, but I've never expected objectivity from you.

[The Lawspeaker]

Because our poltical system works differently and what you say is not entirely true btw: in for instance Staphorst and Urk it's illegal.

Swearing is illegal in Staphorst by municipal decree. A Dutchman knows that. Consequently.. it is the Christian area of the country that has the highest incidence of illegal drug use (Urk, Staphorst and Volendam are notorious for the use of cocaine) and you'd be surprised to know which areas have the fewest: the more liberal parts.

The same of course goes with prostitution. This reminds me of a Dutch song:

En 's zondags in de kerk
dan zit daar zo'n meneer,
stijf als een houten plank
met spijkers in zijn kop
te kijken in zijn bank
Een zwart lakens pak
om zijn zondige lijf,
bang voor de duivel
en bang voor zijn wijf
En zuinig een cent
in het zakje doen
Zo koopt hij zijn ziel weer terug
en zijn fatsoen


And at sunday's at church
There is such a gentleman
as stiff as a wooden plank
with the nails in his head
sitting in the bench
wearing a black suit
around his sinful body
afraid of the devil
and afraid of his wife
and sparingly he puts a coin
in the sack
that way he buys back his soul
and his decency.

It's called Malle Babbe.. and is a song about prostitution.

The stunt that Britney pulled with getting married and getting divorced again (Nevada) couldn't happen in this country. The intent to get married (ondertrouw) is already a procedural nightmare that can take a couple of months.. let alone divorce. If you are married within the church that you can double the trouble because it will need to come before a Catholic council (local bishop) - I know because my mum went through it.

For short: the more Conservative the worse it gets. Forbidden fruits will always be enjoyed.

Split, please. This is used for American evangelicals. Not the results of their poisonous ideas (and the poisonous ideas of Christianity in general) in my country.



Copying the post to the Prostitution Thread.

[Eldritch]

You're in the habit of selectively throwing the rule book at Americans, especially me, in these transatlantic pissing contests.

And once again, I'll ask you to prove that by posting examples here. If you cannot or will nor do that, then you've yet again been proven to be unable to actually back up your big words.


If you want 'trolling', look at the OP of the thread. It's begging for a response in kind, but I've never expected objectivity from you.

1. The OP contains links to videos.

2. If you think the OP is trolling, and you responded in kind, then you just admitted to trolling, yourself. I don't even need to identify your response as trolling. Which it was.

And from you, quite honestly, accusations of a lack of objectivity are beyond hilarious.

[Thorum]

Some seriously scary mofo's.

VIDEO 1 (http://www.123video.nl/playvideos.asp?MovieID=818364)

VIDEO 2 (http://www.123video.nl/playvideos.asp?MovieID=818419&Rel=1)

American evangelicals.

Want to REALLY be scared, crack open the Bible or Koran. Some really horrific mythology in there...

[Eldritch]

Want to REALLY be scared, crack open the Bible or Koran. Some really horrific mythology in there...

That in itself isn't terrible -- what is is that some people take it literally.

[Groenewolf]

If they did gain real power in the US - which they are far from doing - we could expect many things, some good, some bad, but it wouldn't lead to real repression of minority religious groups, with the possible exception of Muslims. It would certainly lead to a badly needed clean-up of American mores though.

In all essence I think that the attitude the American media have on American Evangelists is about is about the same as here about the SGP, it is mostly scare-mongering or joking about backward parts of the country. They probably have more influence then they have in Europe thanks to certain historical-cultural developments.

The problematic thing about them is their opinion of those parts of Western cultural heritage that is pre-Christian and an over-appreciating for figures and happenings in the Old Testament. In the lines of Benoist they care more about Mozes then Plato.

[Wyn]

Notice how Western Europe has long since moved past the stranglehold of Christianity.

The features of Western European life in general are nothing to hold in high regard. Unless you believe populations marked by their support for multiculturalism, high divorce rates*, low birth rates etc. are something to look up to, that is.

*With the exception of the Republic of Ireland, Italy, and Spain.

[la bombe]

Well, I've actually been involved with a (potentially) shady Evangelical church. The experience scarred me and put me off organized religion for life.

[Debaser11]

Uh, excuse me. But Joe did not start anything. He was the one who was baited, in all fairness.


This "church" is all about money, really.

With a dose of the tackiness Americans and known for.

And while I'm not fond of the Christian Right, the threat they pose is exaggerated beyond proportion.

[Debaser11]

The Christian Right is the single biggest threat to our freedoms,

You've got to be kidding! What about the rabble rousing self-styled "secular progressives" who march in the streets and scream for certain "rights" without any appreciation of where those rights come from or what they mean? You think a bunch of hick Christians are more of a threat than a motley crew who lives by an ideology that is both mainstream and just as dogmatic? The masses whether operating under some guise of real choice under the sacred cow, "democracy," or whether stamping their feet and hollaring like children are by far bigger threats than a few marginalized Christians who just about everyone and their dog pokes fun at. The real threat is far more mainstream than what this Jesus Camp (though disturbing) serves up.

The masses of indoctrinated leftists who run on slave morality are even now oblivious to just how dangerously left wing and socialist (and thus freedom-stifling) our current paradigm really is today. Our government wants us all to become more equal and thus tries to socially engineer us through integration programs and affirmative action. And concerning speech censorship, under this leftist paradigm we live under just try to comment on MSM stories and say something politically incorrect. Nine times out of ten your comment (read:your view) will be scrubbled from the record even if you simply want to make a dissenting point in a respectful manner. Do not blaspheme in the presence of a secular progressive. They will surely smite you quicker than any Christian for such a display of imprudence.

Some examples:

Though this occurred in the U.K. (and we're talking about the U.S.), it partly applies because you were lauding their sophistication all the while ignoring that they seem largely beholden to a new religious paradigm full of commandments and sins commonly referred to as political correctness. Just take a listen to this crowd shouting outside. David Irving is literally having to scream just to have his views heard. A modern day Galileo. The leftists out there will tell you they love free speech. But what they really mean is they like certain types of free speech--namely, the kind they agree with.

sGMv6FNXMQk

Just a few days ago American Renaissance had issues even holding their biannual conference in Charlotte. They regularly get death threats from people like the Anarchist Collective and other left wing rabble rousing groups who seem to grow more and more fashionable among stupid youth, unfortunately. This incident happened the time before when they tried to hold a conference.

Iz3BuqTQdMc


Here's a professor with unpopular views who has earned tenure just trying to teach a class. It's not the religious right here who is trying to obstruct any conversation or learning. It's a bunch of dumb, spoiled indoctrinated kids (who are probably left-leaning) who think they know everything. This professor is another modern-day Galileo.


ve_R7Sd8goM


to the triumph of reason, and on the whole mars our credibility as a country.Notice how Western Europe has long since moved past the stranglehold of Christianity.

So banning people from your country for their views inspires credibility given the values (freedom and the like) you were appealing to earlier? Entertaining Sharia Law (like London has done for some of its citizens) makes that part of the world more enlightened? No disrespect to Western Europeans, but are you freakin' serious?


And no, it doesn't take Christianity to stop the spread of radical Islam or to instate a sensible immigration policy, just a willingness to get some of the old imperial spirit back and put a jack-boot up their asses.

It may not take Christianity but it takes some form of belief system backed by a real conviction (that religion provides) to stop the spread of a competing ideology. All the evidence points to the loose "live and let live" attitude that Western Europe in particular has adopted as being insufficient to stop the spread. You can say that Europe is capable of stopping Islam while being loosey goosey and secular and relativist, but then you're resorting to an even more unfounded form of faith than any Christian given that there is no evidence to date to support such a claim.

[O Argonauta]

Can the secular humanists cure your brain tumor by putting your hand on the tv?

[Fortis in Arduis]

TBbaDU_MZdQ

[la bombe]

You've got to be kidding! What about the rabble rousing self-styled "secular progressives" who march in the streets and scream for certain "rights" without any appreciation of where those rights come from or what they mean? You think a bunch of hick Christians are more of a threat than a motley crew who lives by an ideology that is both mainstream and just as dogmatic? The masses whether operating under some guise of real choice under the sacred cow, "democracy," or whether stamping their feet and hollaring like children are by far bigger threats than a few marginalized Christians who just about everyone and their dog pokes fun at. The real threat is far more mainstream than what this Jesus Camp (though disturbing) serves up.

The masses of indoctrinated leftists who run on slave morality are even now oblivious to just how dangerously left wing and socialist (and thus freedom-stifling) our current paradigm really is today. Our government wants us all to become more equal and thus tries to socially engineer us through integration programs and affirmative action. And concerning speech censorship, under this leftist paradigm we live under just try to comment on MSM stories and say something politically incorrect. Nine times out of ten your comment (read:your view) will be scrubbled from the record even if you simply want to make a dissenting point in a respectful manner. Do not blaspheme in the presence of a secular progressive. They will surely smite you quicker than any Christian for such a display of imprudence.



A few marginalized Christians? Um, Evangelical Christians make up more than 30% of the US population. I guess you've never been to a "megachurch" if you think that all Evangelicals are just poor little hicks who have no power. The main message behind their ideology is spreading Christianity and "Christian ideals" all over the world and you can see parallels between this idea and neo-conservative foreign policy. Many Evangelical leaders aren't content with spreading their message here, they also use their monetary and spiritual influence to meddle in the affairs of developing African nations. Some prominent Evangelical leaders have played a huge role in stirring up anti-homosexuality sentiment and actual legislation in Uganda, for example.

As someone who actually identifies as a leftist but who's also been involved with Evangelical organizations, I can say that I have no clue what you're talking about. Hardcore leftists are hardly common in the US, and we're often made to feel like pariahs for what we believe in. Nor has anything I've ever experienced being politically active been remotely close to the emotionally intense and disturbing experiences I had being a member of a (some say) cultish, Evangelical megachurch.

[Grey]

Hardcore leftists are hardly common in the US, and we're often made to feel like pariahs for what we believe in.

LOL. Leftists always have an underdog complex. True, the majority of people are not radical in any way, but the extreme left is much more numerous, powerful, and vocal than the extreme right.

[la bombe]

the extreme left is much more numerous than the extreme right.

Proof? I've never seen anything that indicates that. All the polls I've ever seen show that far more Americans identify as "conservative" than "liberal".

[Grey]

Proof? I've never seen anything that indicates that. All the polls I've ever seen show that far more Americans identify as "conservative" than "liberal".

As I said, I'm talking about extremity. Sure, there are a lot who identify as conservative, but how many of those truly espouse conservative ideals? Not that many, in my experience. Liberals, on the other hand, are much more often "extreme" in their liberalism, and extreme liberal ideals are given more positive media coverage.

[Debaser11]

A few marginalized Christians? Um, Evangelical Christians make up more than 30% of the US population.

I didn't realize being an "evagelical" by default was something bad. People who fit under the moniker of "evangelical" come in various shapes and sizes (Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Pentecostals) and most of them by definition are mainstream (if they're 30%). The vast majority of that segment are not like the Jesus Camp ones. This movie was pure sensationalism. The reason the producers even targeted that group is because they were so extreme relative to most people including most people within that 30%. If they made a movie about most evangelicals, it would be like watching paint dry on a wall even if they are loopy and have strong convictions that frighten secular types in some cases.

Just imagine if Christian fundamentalists regularly demonstrated the extreme pathologies that the Muslim communities do in Europe such as rape waves, violence against "the infidel," and bombings. And when Muslims do do such things, liberal-minded people say things like "now, those are the extremists" even if their numbers are high but would NEVER do the same apologetic calculus when thinking about a Christian group even though a Christian that is truly dangerous to the public is TRULY a rare thing.

And I'm not trying to strawman you La Bombe, but you know good-well that it's always "fuckin' Christians" or some blanket statement that comes from the mainstream of people around our age that indicts them all when ONE Christian does something stupid. It's open season on Christians. If it's so open season on them, what does that really say about their power?

And yes, Christians are generally marginalized. They keep unwittingly voting for the Republican party, but if you follow politics at all you'll see how little that party actually tries to do for them. That party (largely full of neo-cons) cynically courts the Christian Right and then does next to nothing for them.
So a tiny fringe of that 30% that guillibly votes for them even after 30 plus years of being hoodwinked does not scare me, no.



I guess you've never been to a "megachurch" if you think that all Evangelicals are just poor little hicks who have no power.

Sure, I have. I've been to some crazy nutty ass churches, believe me. I went to one Baptist church that had an 'abortion house' on Halloween. But even the mega-mighty Joel Olsteen (who I believe has the biggest mega church and has his church set up in my city) is relatively powerless next to the forces I previously cited. I know people who like Olsteen (mostly guillible women who think he's "positive") but they don't want to see the country fundamentally changed like the wackos in Jesus Camp. The minute he took that line, he'd lose his appeal as a Christian-styled motivational speaker. (That's most of those charlattans are.) The guy has a big church but he also wants to be mainstream enough to move product just like the other sillies on TBN.

I don't like megachurches. And I do find even the concept behind them disturbing (cultish, spiritually unsatisfying, aesthetically abominable) and fairly perverse to say nothing of the actual churches themselves. That doesn't mean I see them as some huge threat next to other forces in the grand scheme of things.


The main message behind their ideology is spreading Christianity and "Christian ideals" all over the world

How terrible. I should be scared of Christianity spreading? Say what you want about the wackos, but our country was better when more people had a Christian faith and took it seriously than it is today. The same applies to Europe (imo). When is the last time you were scared to go to the Christian part of town? (You do realize those left-wing mobs like the one in the Irving video regularly try to assault their targets of protest while under the cover of their large groups, don't you?)

Last I checked, such attempts to spread Christian ideology were far from being any kind of major success. Our country, where most of these people reside, is becoming more and more secularized by the day. Do you think as big as those mega churchs are in some cases, that they are any match for the overwhelming cultural influences of MTV, Desperate Housewives, and vulgar consumer culture? If you want a true cultural barometer of their cultural might, just think back to the Superbowl which "is as American as applepie" and mainstream. What commericals did you see? I'd argue it was a decidedly un-Christian affair.


and you can see parallels between this idea and neo-conservative foreign policy.

If you think it's fundamentalist Christians that are really running neo-conservative foreign policy, I'm sorry to say someone is pulling your leg. Yes, I know that Jerry Falwell and Ted Haggert and Pat Robertson (all goofs who make money off of broken/guillible people) used to meet with Bush for "spirituals" at the White House. And I do know that those hapless fools support brutal Israeli expansion because of their nutcase interpretations of scripture.

But if you think our hawkish foreign policy is more influenced by the likes of them over smart and calculating career politicians with an ethnic allegance to Israel within the neo-con ranks (Fithe, Perle, Wolfowitz, Krystal, Libby), you are sadly under a misapprehension. The very facelift the Republican party underwent when it switched from being "conservative" to "neo-conservative" in the late 70s/early 80s had everything to do with some powerful Jews (who traditionally prefer the left) jumping ship to the other side after becoming disenchanted with Palestini sympathizers within the Democratic Party (Jimmy Carter quickly comes to mind).


Many Evangelical leaders aren't content with spreading their message here, they also use their monetary and spiritual influence to meddle in the affairs of developing African nations.

Well, you view the matter so cynically by default, it seems. Why do you just assume that all those people trying to spread Christianity are undertaking some terrible cause? It's not like they're forcing their way of life on them the way Mexicans living in Texas are doing with me with their insistence that Spanish be more pervasive and that Mexican holidays and achievements be recognized. The schools I help pay for with tax dollars are full of Mexicans who demand that their children have two copies of every book (English & Spanish) so they cost the school twice as much. The school my mother works at has Spanish signs everywhere. My community is full of illegals that trash up my block and make my area less desirable. Certainly you'd agree that some Christians trying to spread their word are no less meddling than the daily riff raff of immigration some southern states like mine are forced to put up with?

And Christianity does make some people better. Not everyone. But I don't just assume people spreading it is dangerous.

And if you want to take the totally cynical line and view the thing as purely power politics, the fact that they are trying to spread it in backward places like Africa and South America should be a dead giveaway to just how desperate for followers they are given that MOST OF THE U.S. is far from adopting their beliefs. Why go to Africa when you have a ton of people here still to convert? The answer is that these ministers know (even if they don't openly admit it) that they are not going to get much past their numbers in the West (% wise) than where they're at now.


Some prominent Evangelical leaders have played a huge role in stirring up anti-homosexuality sentiment and actual legislation in Uganda, for example.

Right. But look at your word choice here. Liberals make a huge stink about this Uganda business. That Ugandans decided to get medieval about it is not the fault of Christians if personal responsibility has any meaning at all. Once again, liberals on shows like Current TV show their own form of soft racism (unwittingly) by not acknowledging that Africans have a brain and can accept or reject any idea pitched to them.

I mean, does it ever occur to them that Africans are just very anti-homosexual by nature (if our blacks are any indication)? It's certainly a possibility. I find that more likely than a bunch of evil white men going down there and magically brainwashing them or something. It's far more likely that they adopted Christianity because some of its attitudes toward homosexuality justifies their pre-existing sensibilities than it is that Chrisitianity being taught to them totally transformed them. It's not like Africa was some beacon of tolerance toward gays in the first place. But on the left, it's better to be rabidly anti-Christian than racist and imply something bad about the nature of Africans.



As someone who actually identifies as a leftist but who's also been involved with Evangelical organizations, I can say that I have no clue what you're talking about. Hardcore leftists are hardly common in the US,

Have you not been to a college campus? They're all in our institutions of learning and it reflects on the student body. Do you not think those examples I linked (and I can go on) reflect the sentiments of a vast portion of our "educated" population even if most of them wouldn't actually get that militant themselves? The intolerance to the views of people like Irving and MacDonald and Taylor is a mainstream affair.

But have you not seen the coalition of leftist groups (and I will enumerate the different organizations if you wish) who regularly "jump" when their toady leaders tell them to march or obstruct an event like a bunch of thugs? Everytime a G8 summit or WTO meeting is held (now, I don't like those organizations either), these leftists go bonkers and it takes a whole police force just to keep a semblance of order. Last I checked, Christian leaders were not trying to get peaceful assemblies like the American Renaissance one cancelled simply because they don't like the views being promulgated.


and we're often made to feel like pariahs for what we believe in.

Are you joking? Leftist beliefs are hip and promoted in the media (particularly Hollywood) all the time. It's conservatives like myself who are the pariahs. It's hip to wear a Che shirt. Johnny Depp had one on while on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine. Mainstream stuff. The movie based on Che's life, The Motorcycle Diaries, got good reviews and did relatively well. (Maybe you think Che is not "hardcore" enough?) Yelling out "Free Mumia" (the copkiller) is chic, especially if you're white.

But if I wore a shirt with Falwell's face on it (not that I'd want to), do you honestly think it would have the same overall acceptance as a Che or a Mumia shirt? Do you think right wing is as hip as a Chomsky or a Zinn book?


Nor has anything I've ever experienced being politically active been remotely close to the emotionally intense and disturbing experiences I had being a member of a (some say) cultish, Evangelical megachurch.

I don't doubt that they are cultish. That doesn't mean their power to influence the overall culture is nearly what you make it out to be.

[Murphy]

Notice how Western Europe has long since moved past the stranglehold of Christianity.

And has fallen for it.

[Grumpy Cat]

And has fallen for it.

:lol: And you think Evangelical "Christianity" is better?

These people are fucking crooks.

I remember back when I was shopping for my first car, I made the mistake of stumbling upon a dealership that was owned by a bunch of American Evangelicals. They were more interested in trying to convert me than selling me a car, the cars were just a ruse.

I think Canada should restrict immigration from these folks, along with Muslims and ultraconservative Jews.

[Murphy]

Of course I don't think Evangelicalism is any better. The only hope the western world has is a return to Holy Mother Church.

[Loki]

Of course I don't think Evangelicalism is any better. The only hope the western world has is a return to Holy Mother Church.

I'd suggest rather than returning to something we already tried, we evolve even further. The next step is most certainly realism, in this age of increased knowledge. Vastly increased knowledge, that is. It would be impossible for us to go back to the wishful-thinking scenario of organised religion. That was only helpful when we were ignorant about the world, and ignorant about ourselves - and were looking for answers.

[Jägerstaffel]

I'd suggest rather than returning to something we already tried, we evolve even further. The next step is most certainly realism, in this age of increased knowledge. Vastly increased knowledge, that is. It would be impossible for us to go back to the wishful-thinking scenario of organised religion. That was only helpful when we were ignorant about the world, and ignorant about ourselves - and were looking for answers.

Well said and I couldn't agree more.

[The Lawspeaker]

I think that Evangelical Christianity American-style should actually be seen here in the Netherlands as an aggressive sect and be banned by law - and further bans should be issued on the Jehovah's Witnesses, Brunstad "Christians", Miracle of Love, LDS "Church", "Children of God" and Scientology.

[Loki]

I think that Evangelical Christianity American-style should actually be seen here in the Netherlands as an aggressive sect and be banned by law - and further bans should be issued on the Jehovah's Witnesses, Brunstad "Christians", Miracle of Love, LDS "Church", "Children of God" and Scientology.

I don't think banning any religion is an option, that is oppressive. What is needed is a watchdog that forces these organisations to adhere to a code of conduct that will prevent or limit human rights abuses.

[Debaser11]

:lol: And you think Evangelical "Christianity" is better?

These people are fucking crooks.


Again, it makes no more sense to lump evangelicals as crooks than it does to lump atheists as immoral hedonists.


I'd suggest rather than returning to something we already tried, we evolve even further. The next step is most certainly realism, in this age of increased knowledge.

By increased knowledge, I assume you're referring to increased scientific knowledge. Stephen J. Gould, a man I'm not too fond of, nonetheless once said something that was very accurrate. To paraphrase, "science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria."

Why is this? Because science by its nature can only make claims on the material world while religion by its nature attempts to transcend the material world. How does science or the material knowledge we currently have address the nature of truth through a concept like hermeneutics? I wouldn't confuse the increased understanding of how the physical world works with us getting any closer to truth. We live in a philosophical dark age despite our processors, our satellites, and our jets. There's not a whole lot more about the nature of truth we could tell Plato than what he already figured thousands of years ago.


Vastly increased knowledge, that is. It would be impossible for us to go back to the wishful-thinking scenario of organised religion.

This shows me you have a very one-dimensional understanding of why people even have faith. It shows me you think faith at its core is based on a material self-interest when ideally, that's not supposed to be the motivation behind faith in the Christian tradition. In fairness to you, I used to filter Christianity through the same type of distorted lense.

You completely ignore the philosophical dimension that Christianity is wrapped up in. People like Martin Heidegger wrote four hundred pages just on thinking about thinking before even addressing slightly less nebulous ontological concepts. His faith was based on a sense of reason even if atheists don't want to attempt to understand what his complex reasoning was (because it takes an insanely disciplined person to do so). Aquinas formulated much of his Christian views through Aristotilean philosophy. You make it sound like it's the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. It is to you. But not to many serious thinkers.

Don't you get annoyed when some simple-minded Christians insist that atheists are atheists because they want to be able to do whatever they want? Well, it's equally annoying for many Christians when atheists insinuate that people who are Christians are "simple-minded" and are either scared of death or want to be happy. Some Christians are simple-minded, no doubt. But so are plenty of materialist atheists. And I've met far more sheeple of the secular variety than of the Christian variety.

[Loki]

I'll let you believe that Debaser. You'll sleep better tonight. For the record, I was a deeply committed Evangelical for more than a decade. For all the "right reasons". Got to the very rotten, dishonest core of it all eventually. 90% crookery.

[Debaser11]

I'll let you believe that Debaser. You'll sleep better tonight.

I'm not a Christian so this type of tawdry remark is really beside the point.


For the record, I was a deeply committed Evangelical for more than a decade. For all the "right reasons". Got to the very rotten, dishonest core of it all eventually. 90% crookery.

That's like me saying that 90% of secular people are the way you describe Evangelicals and that I know because I used to be an atheist who knew tons of other atheists who were unscrupulous people.

Furthermore, I used to be a Catholic. Looking back, there was so much I thought I understood that I had no idea about. I still have a lot to learn.

[Loki]

You used to be an atheist, but you're not a Christian. This is making less and less sense.

[Debaser11]

You used to be an atheist, but you're not a Christian. This is making less and less sense.

lol

So you think faith matters boil down to either Christian considerations or atheist ones?

Simply because I am not a Christian does not mean I can't admire and even take inspiration from Christian thought.

[Murphy]

I'd suggest rather than returning to something we already tried, we evolve even further.

We have not evolved at all. We have fallen. Our civilisation has collapsed.

Let us be honest. All the social ills the western world faces today are born from a rejection of Catholic values and teachings. You cannot remedy this without returning to the Church. Countless men have tried to correct our society using means which exclude the Church but these are predestined to fail as the society they wish to return to is fundamentally Catholic in nature.


The next step is most certainly realism, in this age of increased knowledge. Vastly increased knowledge, that is.

Our understanding of the material and temporal has certainly improved. But I would wager you a that a peasant in 12th century Caen was more knowledgeable on what truly matters, that is everything, than all our intelligentsia in our universities.


It would be impossible for us to go back to the wishful-thinking scenario of organised religion.

It is time for atheists to take an honest look at themselves. The affirmation of God's existence on the part of the believer is not wishful thinking on their behalf. Rather this more readily applies to the atheist. You do not want to believe in a time when you will face punishment for your sins so you deny such a time can come. It is not based on reason as you would declare to us, as man's reason is naturally ordained by God to God, and it is not based on reality. It is based on man's cowardly desire to not face justice.


That was only helpful when we were ignorant about the world, and ignorant about ourselves - and were looking for answers.

And you think we have found answers do you? Do you honestly believe a man has answers when the atheist declares that a man's worth is nothing? As a atheist you have no purpose Loki. There is no meaning in anything. These are the logical conclusions of the denial of God.

Why do you administer this forum? Your ethnic group has no purpose. It's continued survival means nothing as there is nothing to life or existence. Why do you bemoan multiculturalism? Why do you bemoan having your mobile phone stolen? It is only a bit of plastic. Would you miss being out of contact with friends? But they are just a group of cells equally as worthless as you. Why not just live inside your head. Why live it all?

Do you want to know why people are Christians Loki? It is because we will not be stripped of dignity by the atheist.

[Jägerstaffel]

It is time for atheists to take an honest look at themselves. The affirmation of God's existence on the part of the believer is not wishful thinking on their behalf. Rather this more readily applies to the atheist. You do not want to believe in a time when you will face punishment for your sins so you deny such a time can come. It is not based on reason as you would declare to us, as man's reason is naturally ordained by God to God, and it is not based on reality. It is based on man's cowardly desire to not face justice.



Yeah, that's the reason.

I don't understand this mindset. I don't go about trying to figure out why religionists have their views. I've got my ideas of course. But I certainly don't just make up reasons to fit my understanding of the world.

[Psychonaut]

Why is this? Because science by its nature can only make claims on the material world while religion by its nature attempts to transcend the material world.

I think you mean Christianity/Judaism/Islam attempt to transcend the material world. Divine immanence is the hallmark of nearly all non-Abrahamic religions.


There's not a whole lot more about the nature of truth we could tell Plato than what he already figured thousands of years ago.

:eek:

Seriously, dude? There are about twenty bazillion epistemological theories that have developed since Plato preached his anamnesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamnesis_%28philosophy%29) (which is in many ways the least convincing aspect of his thought).

[Murphy]

Yeah, that's the reason.

It is though. It makes you comfortable. You can behave however you like without fear of recrimination. You don't want to believe in God because it makes your life easier.

[Jägerstaffel]

It is though. It makes you comfortable. You can behave however you like without fear of recrimination. You don't want to believe in God because it makes your life easier.

I don't want to believe in God because I can't find any reason to.

[Osweo]

I don't want to believe in God because I can't find any reason to.

Aye, it's baffling, that approach JP takes there. I don't believe that Jesus is my saviour because I'm scared of Hell?! That nasty Hell they cooked up in their mythology is about the weirdest idea I can think of, and rather off putting for the religion in general, as much for the logical difficulty of combining it with their other claims as for its inherent sickness.

[Peasant]

It's alright, because the Jehovah's witness leaflets say if you don't believe in god you will not be concious or aware when you are in Hell.

[Jägerstaffel]

I still can't wrap my brain around the idea that my disbelief is false and that it's really just that I'm being petulant.

If I really thought that living a religious way would lead me to eternal bliss - why on Earth wouldn't I do so? Wouldn't eternal bliss beat a life lived full of sin and iniquity?

[Debaser11]

I think you mean Christianity/Judaism/Islam attempt to transcend the material world. Divine immanence is the hallmark of nearly all non-Abrahamic religions.

It's still something that science can't explain which was my point about religion's relevance and application. This distinction was not important to my overall point at all.




:eek:

Seriously, dude? There are about twenty bazillion epistemological theories that have developed since Plato preached his anamnesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamnesis_%28philosophy%29) (which is in many ways the least convincing aspect of his thought).

I think you misinterpreted what I meant. My point is that for all the great works that have been written and great ideas that have been postulated (since Plato), we are not any closer to definitely knowing truth. This is where faith comes in at some level whether you ascribe to some strict religious doctrine or not. We're not even any closer to knowing whether we can even begin to know the true nature of truth.

And that's probably how it will stay despite how great of a shot some telescope will give us or what kind of dna evidence the scientific world unearths.

[Joe McCarthy]

People are free to trash conservative Christians as much as they please, but the demographic reality among whites is that the conservative and religious are the ones that tend to have children. What that means is that liberal hedonists among whites are maladaptive and that natural selection will tend to wipe them out. Nature has no tolerance for weakness, vice, or frivolity. The future belongs to those who believe in God and observe his commands.

[Debaser11]

People are free to trash conservative Christians as much as they please, but the demographic reality among whites is that the conservative and religious are the ones that tend to have children. What that means is that liberal hedonists among whites are maladaptive and that natural selection will tend to wipe them out. Nature has no tolerance for weakness, vice, or frivolity. The future belongs to those who believe in God and observe his commands.

Thank you, Joe. Took the words out of my mouth. And it's largely why that demographic is villified by the liberal media. Just a conversation I happened to be listening to. Though Michael Savage is uppity, I do like him, for the most part.

hh4L441EWYE
CCIse5vhOYA

If this doesn't ring true (especially the part about women and dogs), I dare say you're disingenuous.

[Thorum]

Once again I am embarrassed by my fellow Americans. (These types are common here unfortunately.) You can see now why America, the mid-East and other third world countries still are religious. Moreover, all you need are the likes of Debaser and Joe to "prove" the relevance of ancient mid-Eastern myth to Western civilization and culture...Help I am stuck in Saudi America!!

[Joe McCarthy]

Joseph de Maistre, in addressing the French Enlightenment, said it well over two centuries ago - once you have abolished God, what will you replace him with? Well, as we have seen, God has been replaced by faggot weddings, red light districts, open obscenity, and a dying race - a process, given the theme of the thread, that might best be dubbed 'Amsterdamization'. I say this as a secular Darwinist, albeit a rather conservative one, but facts are facts.

[Debaser11]

Once again I am embarrassed by my fellow Americans.

I guess the feeling is mutual if you equate enlightment with atheism. Particularly when you don't even bother to address any of the objections people arguing against your side have made.


(These types are common here unfortunately.) You can see now why America, the mid-East and other third world countries still are religious.

The way you conflate these three regions together is laughable. My, aren't you the distinguishing type! Hey, how about you put your money where your big mouth is and go to the Mid-East and or somewhere else in the third world and report back the similiarities you find as they relate to American Christian communities? You won't be missed, either!


Moreover, all you need are the likes of Debaser and Joe to "prove" the relevance of ancient mid-Eastern myth to Western civilization and culture...Help I am stuck in Saudi America!!

Oh aren't you, though?! Really... Because everyone knows a guy on a forum making a philosophical point that defends Chrisitianity= a Muslim. Go to Saudi Arabia and cry me a river, you bum!

[Thorum]

@ Debaser: Well, my little bumbag, Christianity is a middle Eastern religion.

[Adalwolf]

@ Debaser: Well, my little bumbag, Christianity is a middle Eastern religion.

Yeah... That is why it has sustained itself in Europe for thousands of years, and kept our societies relatively harmonious and instilled respectable moral values.

Atheists can disrespect all they want now, but you will all bow down before Jesus Christ in the end and atone for it.

[Amapola]

Yeah... That is why it has sustained itself in Europe for thousands of years, and kept our societies relatively harmonious and instilled respectable moral values.

Atheists can disrespect all they want now, but you will all bow down before Jesus Christ in the end and atone for it.

Europe, to the middle of the XV century called itself Christianity, dealing with two essential concepts: one, universitas cristiana , in other words, a community subjected to moral value which is above personal activity; two, res publica cristiana, in other words, the common good which is the one that every political power must follow.

Upon on these bases a culture was erected, which was the synthesis of three components: the trascendence inherited from Israel, the ius which is Roman heritage and the value of the human person which Helenism had defended.

As a result, periodically, a revival was being purposed, ie, a reactivation of the inherited heritage. Starting from the tenth century, Europe was able to overcome the damage which came along the Roman empire collapse, rising to the first rank of the world cultures. That's why, later on, every culture has had to take it as an example, accepting its achievements.

:coffee:

If all that is being "Middle Eastern", let it be :mmmm::laugh:

[Joe McCarthy]

I'm inclined to believe in judgment day, but instead of white thrones and angels I think we'll see Islamic harems and Chinese bayonets.

[Loki]

As a atheist you have no purpose Loki. There is no meaning in anything.

On the contrary, an atheist can find a lot more meaning in life than a dogmatic Christian - who is bound by the laws and regulations of his sect. An atheist is free to enjoy life to the full.

[Debaser11]

@ Debaser: Well, my little bumbag, Christianity is a middle Eastern religion.

So? What's you point? That Christianity and Islam and Judaism are similar? Because they're not. Christians and Muslims and Jews will all for the most part be happy to tell you the same.


I mean, Hinduism and Buddhism are very different despite their common origins on the Indian sub-continent. Are false parallels like your thing?

[Brynhild]

Some of the above remarks have served to remind me why I walked from mainstream religion in the first place. They can't resist the urge to shove it down the throats of those who just simply don't want to know, or, to put it more bluntly, don't give a fuck! Mind your own business and let us live the lives that make us happiest thanks very much!

And now for a dedication:

U3gxrv3gWCo

[Joe McCarthy]

Some of the above remarks have served to remind me why I walked from mainstream religion in the first place. They can't resist the urge to shove it down the throats of those who just simply don't want to know, or, to put it more bluntly, don't give a fuck! Mind your own business and let us live the lives that make us happiest thanks very much!

And now for a dedication:

U3gxrv3gWCo Secular hedonists are no less apt to impose their views than conservative religionists, they just do so under the fraud of freedom - a 'freedom' that itself enslaves. And there is no middle ground between the two sides. That's why it's known as the culture war.

[Fortis in Arduis]

I'm not an atheist, and I'm not anti-Christian either, but what's with the Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, brainwashing, circumcision (lol), evangelical, mind-warp thing that America is famous for?

I pop in to Church when it's empty, because, invariably, these places are doctors' waiting rooms, the evangelical type places being the worst for me.

Yes, without an appreciation for God, fuck and sense indulgence can take precedence, but it's not Jesus or bust!

Atheism is not always the dry reactionary crapola that leftists tend to dribble either.

[Debaser11]

Some of the above remarks have served to remind me why I walked from mainstream religion in the first place. They can't resist the urge to shove it down the throats of those who just simply don't want to know, or, to put it more bluntly, don't give a fuck! Mind your own business and let us live the lives that make us happiest thanks very much!

lol This is a discussion board. No one is making anyone do anything. But the whole "mind your own business" schtick is a total cop out. Unwarranted indignation impresses no one who wishes to have a reasonable discussion on such an immense topic. No one lives their life in a vacuum. What the totality of the people in my society believe, what philosophically/spiritually motivates them, severely affects the nature of world I have to live in every day. Telling anyone to "mind your own business" in the context of this discussion is really a borderline oxymoron. You treat something of such gravity as if people are telling you you have to like blue the best when green is your favorite color. There's a little more to it than that. Deep beliefs are important.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Joseph de Maistre, in addressing the French Enlightenment, said it well over two centuries ago - once you have abolished God, what will you replace him with? Well, as we have seen, God has been replaced by faggot weddings, red light districts, open obscenity, and a dying race - a process, given the theme of the thread, that might best be dubbed 'Amsterdamization'. I say this as a secular Darwinist, albeit a rather conservative one, but facts are facts.

This has been caused by materialism, not by a lack of Christian adherence.

[Debaser11]

This has been caused by materialism, not by a lack of Christian adherence.

Why do you think people in this day in age are so susceptible to materialism? It's because they lack a belief in something outside of themselves. A belief system such as Christianity allowed for such beliefs to manifest on a large communal level. Now that that world is all but gone, the world is going to hell in a handbasket. People hyper-rationalize what they think is right and wrong. Some people say that X is not wrong if it makes one happy. Well, you can see how that leads to certain problems, societal dischord, and overall moral degradation.

[Fortis in Arduis]

One does not need a third party to relate to others. It's a form of social control, and live love and friendliness exist independently of Jesus Camp.

We do not need personality cults, celebrities, or anything else actually.

[Debaser11]

One does not need a third party to relate to others. It's a form of social control, and live love and friendliness exist independently of Jesus Camp.

We do not need personality cults, celebrities, or anything else actually.


You say this as though it's bad by default. I think control (a.k.a order) in the right context is one of the highest virtues man can strive toward. Goodness is the trajectory of a virtuous order.

[Peasant]

eYCnL_qVl-E

:)

[Fortis in Arduis]

You say this as though it's bad by default. I think control (a.k.a order) in the right context is one of the highest virtues man can strive toward. Goodness is the trajectory of a virtuous order.

Discipline brings freedom.

Actually in your country the Christians are different to ours, because ours are more skeptical, although more beholden to the State.

Nevertheless, I believe that civic society can operate outwith the Christian framework, and as Loddffner was saying, this will come when the backlash comes to bite PC back.

I am the backlash. A net-slipper, a bogey-picker and a naughty pants, and Jesus Camp is not necessary for me.

[Debaser11]

Discipline brings freedom.

What? Discipline is more/less a symptom of responsibility in some form or another which often entails obligation, not freedom.


Actually in your country the Christians are different to ours, because ours are more skeptical, although more beholden to the State.

Nevertheless, I believe that civic society can operate outwith the Christian framework, and as Loddffner was saying, this will come when the backlash comes to bite PC back.

So you do have a form of faith. There's certainly no evidence for this claim of yours that society can operate without some greater belief system outside of secular ideals. You have a faith in society while Christians have faith in something a little more grand.


I am the backlash. A net-slipper, a bogey-picker and a naughty pants, and Jesus Camp is not necessary for me.

Well, I'd argue that Jesus Camp is not necessary for anyone. Such an admission is not a ringing endorsement for secularism, though.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Happy trolling, old bean.

[Brynhild]

Secular hedonists are no less apt to impose their views than conservative religionists, they just do so under the fraud of freedom - a 'freedom' that itself enslaves. And there is no middle ground between the two sides. That's why it's known as the culture war.

So in other words, you're trying to tar me with a particular brush. Good luck with that suggestion, as I'm not so easy to cubbyhole.


.....

Can't help yourself can you? The deliberate deletion should be more than enough to tell you exactly what I think of your authoritarian self-righteous indignation.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Hmm yeah!? What is debaser11 reacting against anyway?

I like Christians. I am religious myself.

I dislike the secularists he describes, but I like the secular state.

Stick, the, end, of, wrong, the, got.

[Debaser11]

Can't help yourself can you? The deliberate deletion should be more than enough to tell you exactly what I think of your authoritarian self-righteous indignation.

I didn't realize pointing out the nature of discussion forum (something you seem antogonistic toward) in light of your self-righteous rant made me some authoritarian figure?

I challenge you to find one imperative sentence in that whole response you deleted. However, anyone can browse through a typical post made by you and find no less than two or three imperative sentences commanding other users to think or act a certain way.

It's actually quite embarassing how oblivious you are to the fact that the stones you angrily hurl at others are completely applicable to yourself probably more than any other person.


Hmm yeah!? What is debaser11 reacting against anyway?

I like Christians. I am religious myself.

I dislike the secularists he describes, but I like the secular state.

Stick, the, end, of, wrong, the, got.

I quoted your words back to you. I don't know what more I can do. If you have no belief in secular ideals, then I guess I attacked something made of straw. But that wasn't how I was interpreting your viewpoint.

And yes, I remember that you are one of the faithful on this board. I never assumed during the course of our exchange that you were some mindless secular type.

[Amapola]

That nasty Hell they cooked up in their mythology is about the weirdest idea I can think of, and rather off putting for the religion in general, as much for the logical difficulty of combining it with their other claims as for its inherent sickness.

Christians?

[Cato]

Christians?

Evidently.

[Cato]

What a joke.

Jesus Camp, makes Christianity look like a ship of fools.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Fundies = shallow, here today, gone tomorrow

[Jamt]

Jesus Camp´s problem is enthusiasm . It tends to pass. It´s not only an American thing, there are plenty of the same in European protestantism.

[Cato]

The Jesus camp fools need to learn what the essence of real Christianity is: Quid ut Deus?

http://www.theworkofgod.org/images/SMichael.jpg

[Thorum]

Some seriously scary mofo's...American evangelicals.

Think that is scary? How about Christian "straight" camps?

People Can Change (http://www.peoplecanchange.com/)

More help for you ungodly fags:

Masculine Healing (General)


Dare to Soar (http://www.idaretosoar.com/pppm/) / The Crucible Project (http://www.thecrucibleproject.org/) (Christian)
Call of the Shofar (http://www.calloftheshofar.org) (Jewish)
EdgeVenture (http://www.edgeventure.org) (Christian)
Marked Men For Christ (http://www.markedmenforchrist.org) (Christian)
Men at the Cross (http://www.menatthecross.com) (Christian)
:thumbs up

[Adalwolf]

Why is this so absurd for you. The notion that people are born gay out of the womb is absurd and has been disproven by science. It is early childhood experiences and outside environmental influences that can change a persons sexuality - not genetics. I for one believe that these people can change. The question is: how many actually want to?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/724179/posts

[Thorum]

Why is this so absurd for you. The notion that people are born gay out of the womb is absurd and has been disproven by science. It is early childhood experiences and outside environmental influences that can change a persons sexuality - not genetics. I for one believe that these people can change. The question is: how many actually want to?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/724179/posts

Science has disproved what?

[Psychonaut]

http://www.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/240203_o.gif

[Thorum]

Almost forgot, for those whose are not familiar with The Free Republic:

The Free Republic (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Free_Republic)

[la bombe]

Why is this so absurd for you. The notion that people are born gay out of the womb is absurd and has been disproven by science. It is early childhood experiences and outside environmental influences that can change a persons sexuality - not genetics. I for one believe that these people can change. The question is: how many actually want to?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/724179/posts

lolwut. Please link to the scientific studies that have proven there's no genetic basis to homosexuality.

[Adalwolf]

Read the link that I posted.



The “Born Gay” urban legend is actually being exposed as false by homosexual researchers themselves. Homosexual researcher Dean Hamer, for example, notes that homosexuality is not “purely genetic…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay.” Homosexual researcher Simon LeVay, who attempted to find a genetic basis for homosexuality by examining the differences in the hypothalamus between “homosexual” and “heterosexual” males, has written: “I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”

Therapists who treat men and women struggling with same-sex attractions say that there are several consistent factors that contribute to the emergence of homosexuality: gender confusion in childhood, a failure to internalize maleness, and sexual abuse by a same-sex predator. Dr. Gregory Dickson, whose doctoral thesis is on the relationship between a mother and son in the development of homosexuality, found that 49% of the homosexuals he surveyed said they had been molested, compared to less than 2% of heterosexuals. Other research confirms what therapists have known for decades: Homosexuals are made, not born. And they are frequently “made” by older men who molest them as youngsters.

[la bombe]

Read the link that I posted.

I did. It's certainly not a scientific study but anyway

Homosexual researcher Dean Hamer, for example, notes that homosexuality is not “purely genetic…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay.”

That doesn't mean that there is no genetic basis for homosexuality, it just means that there isn't some magical "gay gene". It's pretty well accepted that homosexuality results from both genetic and environmental factors. And that really doesn't prove that we can magically ungayify people.

[Peasant]

I thought it was to do with the levels of hormones fetuses are exposed to in the womb?

[Adalwolf]

Well, I am not denying that genetics can play a role which for instance a guy might be born slightly effeminate; but that doesn't mean he has same-sex attractions from birth either. It could be the environmental factors in their upbringing, like lack of masculinity and insecurities which draws them closer to the same-sex.

[Eldritch]

And why is it anyway that these "gay cure" people get caught pants down with a manwhore again and again?

[Adalwolf]

A bit of a strawman argument there, Eld?

[Eldritch]

A bit of a strawman argument there, Eld?

I don't think so, it was just a point. I'm not claiming it proves anything one way or the other, but one can't help wondering.

[Thorum]

Read the link that I posted.

Interesting you quote a gay scientist, Dr. Hamer. He makes a point of distancing himself, and is a bit offended by the use of his studies by right-wing, Christian nut-jobs like you:

TEG-EBUU7n8

[Adalwolf]

Of course he is offended because he loves his perversion. It is also interesting that he does a complete 360 in his research findings, once he realizes that the right wing is quoting him. In the video he admits himself that there is no concrete genetic proof of inborn homosexuality; just a lot of speculation that this is likely the case.

[Peasant]

Of course he is offended because he loves his perversion. It is also interesting that he does a complete 360 in his research findings, once he realizes that the right wing is quoting him. In the video he admits himself that there is no concrete genetic proof of inborn homosexuality; just a lot of speculation that this is likely the case.

Or they found some new evidence maybe? There is no concrete evidence you are right.

[Adalwolf]

If there was new evidence, don't you think he would have mentioned it? Lol.

[Thorum]

If there was new evidence, don't you think he would have mentioned it? Lol.

You are the one claiming evidence. Show us...

[Adalwolf]

"Science Confirms What I've Seen in My Own Life as Well as in the Lives of Thousands of Others Who Have Left the Homosexual Lifestyle," Cantu Says

WASHINGTON, April 22 /PRNewswire/ -- " Scientists are finally telling us what we've always known. There is absolutely no scientific proof of a 'gay gene,'" said Family Research Council Policy Analyst Yvette Cantu Thursday.

A study conducted in 1993 by openly "gay" activist and researcher Dr. Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute examined the X chromosomes of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers. The study, which appeared in the March 1993 issue of the journal Science, found that 33 of the pairs of brothers had genetic markers for male homosexuality.

A new study attempting to replicate Hamer's was released today by the same Science magazine, discrediting the 1993 study. The study conducted by scientists from the Department of Clinical Neurological Sciences at the University of Western Ontario and the Department of Genetics at Stanford Medical School concluded that "data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation."

The Boston Globe reported in February that the media-ballyhooed "gay gene" theory was already in trouble. The Globe article featured the findings of Dr. Richard Pillard, a professor of psychiatry at Boston University's School of Medicine, whose twin studies showed "that sexuality is greatly influenced by environment, and that the role of genetics is, in the end, limited."

"These findings confirm what I've seen in my own life as well as in the lives of thousands and thousands of people who have left the lifestyle," said Cantu. "I am living proof that homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic. Hamer himself has said that lesbianism is 'culturally transmitted, not inherited ... It's more environmental than genetic, more nurture than nature.' Will these recent studies force Hamer to concede that male homosexuality is also not a matter of genetics but of environment?

"This new study reveals that Hamer's activism got in the way of his ability to remain unbiased about his research," said Cantu. " 'Gay' activists have used Hamer's research to promote everything from 'gay' marriage to 'hate crimes' legislation. However, Science's study further undermines any attempt to change public policy in his name."

http://fathersforlife.org/gay_issues/gay_gene.htm

[Curtis24]

It is sad for a gay man or woman to be so repressed that they think they might be able to cure themselves. I cannot conceive of feeling that much self-hate and pain :(

[Debaser11]

No reason to hate anyone for being gay. But such a statement does not necessarily excuse homosexual acts. It's not so much the acts that bother me; it's the promotion of them within our culture along with homosexuals having a special victimhood status in our current culture much the way blacks do.

Should someone hate themselves because of a predisposition to drug and alcohol addiction? Should someone hate themselves for having a predisposition to cheat on their husbands or wives (due to a high, lustful sex drive)? No. In the same way, people should not hate themselves for having a predisposition for liking members of their own sex. But it does not follow from such reasoning that we should "celebrate" homosexuality like it's some gift for civilization.