The orginal topic of this thread
by Nanotech
07/10/2008, 2:28 PM # Favorites Reply

"Just for the record: Scripture says that homosexuality is a sin worthy of death. I believe Scripture to be GOD'S word and heed it's directions. Scripture also says to obey the law of the land as long as it doesn't conflict (actively) with GOD'S word. So I also observe that directive and don't go out and stone queers." So my question is.. if it wasn't illegal to kill homosexuals...you would?

Umm...minor problem here actually that needs clarification.

"Scripture also says to obey the law of the land as long as it doesn't conflict (actively) with GOD'S word. So I also observe that directive and don't go out and stone queers"

It would seem that indeed the law of the land then DOES actively conflict, so then what?

Uncle_Spike:

Umm...minor problem here actually that needs clarification.

"Scripture also says to obey the law of the land as long as it doesn't conflict (actively) with GOD'S word. So I also observe that directive and don't go out and stone queers"

It would seem that indeed the law of the land then DOES actively conflict, so then what?

No doubt Nano would like to argue the question of "actively conflict"....but I prefer my question...

If it was legal, would he kill homosexuals? His response seems to indicate that the "only thing holding him back" is the fact that under "secular law" he'd get thrown in the slammer.

Ergo...if there was no legal sanction against killing homosexuals...would he?

(BTW, like most of the time when he's caught in a trap...I don't expect a straight answer from him...LOL)

Nano learned from San's example; his probable tactics -- should he bother to respond to this thread -- should be either to try to change the subject or to try a definitional dodge, i.e. word quibble.

Seems like we not infrequently read about some fundamentalist Muslim family living in the west who, in spite of civil laws to the contrary, engage in "honor killings" as required by their interpretation of their faith. And yet, in spite of the bellicose rhetoric of the nanos and Dd's of western Christianity, we very rarely read of Christians risking prosecution to stone queers, or Sabbath-breakers, or disrespectful children.

Sounds to me like the Muslim fundies are more willing to stand up for their faith than are the Christian fundies.

I thought the whole point of the upstart new cults from the parent material was that the "Laws" were null and void with new cults? Especially with the xtain demi-deity. Xtians don't have to follow the old laws except for the ones the new demi-deity said were okay. I don't recall the xtain demi-deity pointing out specifically in the xtian mythological texts that the anti-homosexual laws still applied. Most likely because the creators of the mythos were flaming and didn't want to get hoisted by their own petard.

This is sort of like the subtleties between the Hebrew you shall not murder vs. the xtain thou shalt not kill.

I am not as familiar with Islam as a philosophical theology to make a comparison so I leave that answer to others who are more familiar.

So we'll get your answer first..which will be LOL's or look it up yourself and figure it out...then we'll go with question #2

I mean really. We all know what he would say if you could force him to answer. But we also all know what he would actually do. So why are you bothering?

Actually, Lumpy asking the question and NOT getting an answer is more of the point.

It once again proves that Nano doesn't really believe what he says he believes....or that he knows that it would be SO outrageous and un-popular that he might even lose what little credibility he has left.

Say "Yes, I'd stone homos if I could"...and he looks like one of those "Islamo-fascist" that he no doubt rails about on political forums.

Say "No, of course not"....and he admits that his belief in God's injunction to kill homosexuals is false (and contradict his previous post).

Say "LOL" or "Look it up for yourself" (as Uncle noted).....and he once again proves cowardice to actually stand by what he says. And shows that he realized the trap his off-handed remarks put him and how simplistic a portrait it paints.

So even in saying nothing...he says heaps.

I think Reptilicus likes to challenge the xians; for my part, it's enough of a thought exercise to explore the absurdities of their belief system.

What really is the point in even asking?

A while back I saw on the web an instruction, from a college level biology professor, on how to debate against Creationists. It consisted simply of the word "Don't"

He did go on to explain why you shouldn't and why it was a waste of time to even bother. So, what should we hope for here? A heart wrenching confession and acts of contrition from Nano?

I'd say Louisiana is a great example of why "don't" is absolutely the wrong answer. Science has held itself above the fray and as a result is simply loosing in the court of public opinion...because, to put it simply, there are too many morons who want an easy answer and science is too hard for them to understand.

A far better answer is to immediately challenge the idiocy every single time. Show the difference between 'theory means whatever idea I pull out of my ass' and a scientific theory. Idiocy unchallenged eventually becomes idiocy accepted by default.

Lumpy, it's not about him.

Again, it's an object lesson in the fundamentalist mind-set. Something that should be of interest to many.

They cling to two opposing mind-sets....1. Their adherence to strict "old time, fire & brimstone, every word in the Word is the Truth" religious dogma....but 2. they are atleast PARTIALLY still part of a (hopefully) liberal, democratic, secular American nation-state and an American sense of fair play and justice and reasonableness.

But they can't maintain both successfully. Nano, in his "Ya know, God told us to stone fags...but the Bible says obey the laws of the nation...so we don't" is trying to cut the fine line of both #1 and #2. He can't though (as noted above in my response to you).

Either #1 his religious dogma is his basis of belief...in which case, he'd HAVE to say "Yes, I'd kill homosexuals"...

or #2 he is holds SOME sense of what's right.....i.e. if given a chance to kill homosexuals...and he wouldn't...and that then shows he doesn't REALLY believe what he says.

or #3, and this is important too, he dodges the question...showing BOTH no full, strong support for his religious fundamentalism AND an acceptance of SOME tolerance towards homosexuality or he'd be too EMBARASSED to support something that would make him seem like a nutcase to 99% of the country, excluding Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist.

And he's not atypical. And that's important because it shows that rather than a "force to be reckoned with", the American Christian fundamentalist is at heart a cowardly AND intellectually dishonest bully who will back down when confronted...and is (again, hopefully) finally being confronted

So again, doesn't matter if Nano answers...if #1, he's as nutty as a Taliban and again, hope for the future as that kind of lunacy is exposed....

if #2 he's more American than "Christian" and still retains SOME sense of decency....

but (if likely) #3, he's a ball of fluff and those like him are likely as well and therefore in our public policy debates (and nobody can deny that religion and politics mix here in the USA) that element of it (fund./evangel. Christian Right) can be defeated.

Personally, I find that very optimistic...like everytime I read a predicto/Dawwgy post. LOL

If someone tells you "The sky is green." You can point out to them that your eyes and the reality of the situation speaks otherwise. If yhey persist in their statement, you can use a color swatch and then progress to a chromatograph to show that the sky is indeed blue. If they still persist, you reach a point where you understand that you are wasting your time. This is a good metaphor for main stream scientists and Creationists.

Scientists aren't paid to debate Creationism. They have better things to do. The wackaloons, however, often time have all sorts of free time and very little better to do.

If you choose to spend your time confronting idiocy at every turn, you will certainly have little time for much else.

3.5)

The balls of otherwise directionless fluff that, when, gathered in together, given 'direction' and handed pitchforks....... Is what bothers me.