Bible Thumpers

[Shaidalyn]

Okay this is gonna be weird coming from me.... but I HATE you catholic/christian bible-thumping ignorant pieces of garbage. Mind you, I am a lesbian, so I deal with enough of your crap.. but take into consideration I follow Christian faith.
God loves everyone, I don't think he'd love me less for choosing with the heart he gave me... anyhow....

Story/Rant:

I have a good friend (newish but I think she's awesome) who was recently exping and her sexuality came to topic (I dunno how, but it did) and someone told her it was wrong.... that she'd "never experience true love".......
Well of course I had to find the name and ask him why he felt this way.. As I find that to be... :banghead3: <-

So I talk to him and remain tactful, seeing as cursing and yelling doesn't go over well when talking to bible-thumpers.. they never get angry it's frustrating as hell. Over the course of the conversation I am told how it's "wrong" and a "sin" and all this... It's like, what if I was Athiest? Most homosexual's don't quite jump on the God train.. but he continues to push on about how "God" this and "God" that it's like....... hello... I don't care what God thinks... If you are a Christian.... "God" gave us free will, and made us how we are.
Ever notice when something good happens "Oh thank God!"
but when something bad happens,............... ?

I'm sorry, why is it God is only there in the minds of people who have fortune? Yet the ones suffering in the slums, starving to death as they pray to god, die miserably? Nah I don't thank or blame god, I find him as just "is".

If you don't believe in god.... Then his whole point was invalid and baseless.. I'm sorry but the fact people SHOVE religion down your throat reminds me of why society sucks.....

I know, random as hell.. its 5am... I'm tired..... and this pissed me off but I am trying not to go off on it.
hows this though?

-.- The blurrs are conversation with said friend and another .... there is like 10 pages worth but that last line...... :banghead3: :banghead3: :banghead3: :banghead3:

I dunno.... I try to defend my faith but times like this... I dunno why.

and sorry for the crappy smudge job, I suck with other people's hands, only good with mine <.<

 

[Bumblebetuna]

hmmmm....um.....Amen

i love God but damn i don't acl like that

 

[Dejavu]

hmm... eh woulda been blacklisted before the conversation ever got to that point. Although i may not want to have a same sex relationship myself i am not about to start preaching to another person... especially in a game. Hell i love lesbians, with out them there would be no three-ways. Atleast not the kind i want to be in.

Sorry someone made you put up with that kinda crap.

On a side note i am also non-religious so i prolly treat these "Bible Thumpers" a little worse than you do im sure. The last time i had a Jehova's witness come to my house he left crying after about an hr.

 

[Strid]

Organized religion is hypocrisy at its finest. Do your own thing and in the end you'll be with people like you. I'd rather rot in "Hell" with my buddies and people like me than live joyfully in "Heaven" with those kind of people. I don't believe in either, I mean who really knows where we go after death or what happens? Just needed an expression to further my point.

 

[Bigboy]

Your belief scructure is fine, but I wouldn't have started the conversation if I were you. You created the conflict and brought it upon yourself. Don't get mad at his beliefs after you aproached him with the subject.

Otherwise I could give a rat's ass, but I still think its wrong to throw a fit over an argument you started. You should have known it was gonna go down that way after your friend talked to them. Your intolerence rivals his.

 

[Cleofis]

Your belief scructure is fine, but I wouldn't have started the conversation if I were you. You created the conflict and brought it upon yourself. Don't get mad at his beliefs after you aproached him with the subject.

Otherwise I could give a rat's ass, but I still think its wrong to throw a fit over an argument you started. You should have known it was gonna go down that way after your friend talked to them. Your intolerence rivals his.

Seconded. He has his beliefs you have yours, end of story.

 

[Winklewil]

I have my own issues with organized religion, which I won't go into. If I did, I wouldn't be able to stop until I'd written novels upon novels worth of posts on the subject.

I will say this, however, and I think it really cuts to the heart of the illogical nature of it all.

The bible has perhaps two or three versus, ALL one-liners, which can perhaps be liberally interpreted to be anti-gay. There is all of one, in the Book of Leviticus, that seems to out-and-out, no question, say any such thing. Four verses above that commandment are dictations regarding how eating shellfish is equally sinful, and how a man should never approach a woman enduring her "monthly cycle," due to her "uncleanliness." What's more, these lines are located entirely within the older, arguably far stricter Old Testament. This is a time in which old-school God regularly called for burnt sacrifices of goats, the stoning-to-death of adulteresses, and offered advice on how to best barter the prices for various sorts of slaves.

Suffice it to say, even the most devout of biblical scholars will admit that such "commandments" and evidences of "divine will" are far out of date, and are so strange and nonsensical when one tries to overlay it onto our modern way of life that ... well, it could no longer possibly apply.

Incredibly religious people, however, cherry-pick the bits of their doctrine they want to pay particularly obsessive attention to, and the parts they wish to ignore outright.


By rights, anything regarding homosexuality is mentioned so little in the Bible that it should be forgotten and faded among the tens of thousands of other instructions.

Also, by rights, Christ's pleading for love, understanding, acceptance, and non-judgementalism appears hundreds of times, and thus should garner a great deal more attention.


You'll generally find exactly the opposite to be the case. They obsess over the one line, and ignore the thousands. Go figure. -_-





I'll save my arguments for why the Bible itself is a woefully unreliable source of information for another time. Let's just get past that fact, and assume you believe in it, heart and soul. Even under the assumption that one is absolutely loyal to the often-vague instructions within the Bible, which ordinances most so-called Christians choose to adhere to and which to deem as "archaic, outdated, and no longer applicable" seems to be largely random and arbitrary.

 

[ForteTeppo]

I believe people can love whoever they want. But personally I really dont care much for lesbians. I think both sides are wrong here. Yes I dont believe people should press their belifes on other people, but I dont think you were right In calling him a "Bible-Thumper".

Just because you dont have a strong belief in one's own faith, doesnt mean you can insult it.

 

[Vondoom]

eek. Holy can of worms. First thread in a long time I look foreward to keeping up with. Mind you, I'm drunk, so probabally won't make any sense.

Amusing story: I'm at my Grandpa's house and we're watchin some stupid Hollywood show. Access Hollywood or some shit. Anyway, I'm 31, he's late 70's, and they show Brittney(sp?)Spears kissin Madonna on whatever show that was they did that on, back when Spears was hot. I see it and go, "FUCK YES!!!" whereas my Grandfather becomes disgusted, turns away and says, "Jesus that's disgusting." Generation gap 4tw.

It's been a good 15 years since I read the Bible. I really should pick it back up with "new eyes" one of these days. I have difficulty accepting the printed gospels as the be-all end-all of spirituality. I should like to read the 26+ other Gospels the church decided not to mass-produce before deciding how much I will allow organized religion to structure my life. Specifically I'd like to dive into the gospels of Mary Magdaline(sp?) and Judas.

Strange as it may seem, a fuck-up like me has actually been married to the daughter of an Evangelist (those dudes on TV with the power of GAWD-AH in their hands) as well as dated the daughter of a Protestant Minister for 5 years. I dunno what my problem is.

I DO NOT respond well to religion being shoved down my throat, as eluded to in the OP. The realm of spirituality should be a private thing IMO<~~~~ How does this person who assaulted your sexual orientation know that you haven't prayed to your God and honestly feel in your heart that s/he has accepted your lifestyle selection? It seems to me very assumptive, and rude, to act on his beliefs and assault a person he hardly knows for what he believes is right based on his interpretation of scripture.

I'm personally a bit hazy on the whole structure you life around the Bible deal. I mean, God is supposed to have given us free-will, and love us, yes? Yet, it seems if we do something wrong, he won't love us anymore. I compare it to my mother. She always told me not to screw with her fancy cutlery knives, yet I still ruined one chopping the arm off a G.I. Joe guy (Leatherneck) Her rule was to leave her knives alone, I didn't, yet low and behold she still loves me. Is my mother bigger than God? Zomfg, is my mother God?

OP, live as you will. NOBODY can tell you what your doing is right nor wrong. They can attack with quotes and versus until they themselves end up on a cross and feel vilified, but the fact of the matter is, they can't see your heart.

Since your a Lesbian, I gotta keep my guy card intact witha crude comment: Got any videos of yourself and partner(s) If so, may I se them?

 

[Winklewil]

Your belief scructure is fine, but I wouldn't have started the conversation if I were you. You created the conflict and brought it upon yourself. Don't get mad at his beliefs after you aproached him with the subject.

Otherwise I could give a rat's ass, but I still think its wrong to throw a fit over an argument you started. You should have known it was gonna go down that way after your friend talked to them. Your intolerence rivals his.

Well, there's a number of things wrong with this line of reasoning.


1) He expressed vocal disapproval of the very nature of her friend's being. He literally said it was wrong for her to be what she was. Shaidalyn jumped to her defense, and rightly so. He started it, not her. He created the conflict, not her. I've never understood why some people think they can say something so inflammatory and hurtful, and then act surprised when someone calls them on it.

Shaidalyn didn't create the conflict, she merely engaged him (on her friend's behalf) when HE started it.

I think this mentality is there just because we're dealing with something touching homosexuality; one of the last socially acceptable prejudices within our culture. If this fellow had told someone that was Jewish that he thought it was "wrong" and a "sin" to be what they were, this argument wouldn't come up at all, and all attempts to reason with him would be applauded.


2) You tried to equate this fellow's intolerant bigotry with Shaidalyn trying to pull him down to Earth. It can NOT be said to be equivalent.

Shaidalyn took issue with this fellow's IDEAS, which he expressed verbally. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and the right to express that opinion. Once you exercise that right, however, you're not granted any sort of protection against someone responding to what you said. Once you use free speech, you've got to endure someone else's right to free speech by way of simple reaction. This is not intolerance. She had a right to respond.

Once again, HE started it. Not her.

Finally, this person was intolerant and bigotted over what Shaidalyn's friend was, something that cannot be helped. I know many of you don't feel any sort of outrage about this sort of thing, but that's very bad. Even if Shaidalyn had started the conflict, which she did NOT, her assault on this person's ideas couldn't even begin to be equal with his assault on what her friend was.

Someone can call me an idiot for my refusal to worship supply-side economics. Fine. If someone takes issue with me for being black (which I'm not, but by way of example), that's something else entirely. The difference between the two is significant.


It is not a wash. As far as I'm concerned, there's a clear "worse" in this situation; no equality about it.

 

[Bigboy]

There are NeoNazi's in the world. If I hunt one down and start talking to him about how I think his beliefs is wrong, then I am the one engaging him in conversation. His beliefs existed within himself long before I started talking to him, much as this guys beliefs did. She started the argument before he did, much as I would be in approaching the neonazi.

The person who innitiates the conversation started it, he didn't directly provoke her, and I would say he didn't indirectly provoke her either. She started it.

 

[Winklewil]

There are NeoNazi's in the world. If I hunt one down and start talking to him about how I think his beliefs is wrong, then I am the one engaging him in conversation. His beliefs existed within himself long before I started talking to him, much as this guys beliefs did. She started the argument before he did, much as I would be in approaching the neonazi.

The person who innitiates the conversation started it, he didn't directly provoke her, and I would say he didn't indirectly provoke her either. She started it.

There are neonazis in the world, and it would be excessively zealous to "hunt" them down, you're correct.

If one of them came up to my personal friend, however, someone I was actually having a conversation with at that moment, and said something derogatory DIRECTLY TO THEM (the most important thing to consider here), I'd consider the matter to be personal enough ... close enough to me ... to engage him personally. I wouldn't have to hunt him down, because he's right there. At this point, even if he wasn't aware of me while he was talking to my friend, I'm going to take up the battle on my friend's behalf. It's now the fight he started; not me.

This isn't like she read his opinion in an editorial, and stalked him for four months. The real cause of the conflict, what he said, had happened mere minutes (if not seconds before). It's personal. It's close to home. This isn't as if she hunted down Jerry Falwell after seeing him spout his ilk on television, to the public en masse. He was RIGHT THERE, and he said something DIRECTLY to someone she knew. It was a personal attack on his part, not a generic one. She had a right. The conflict was initiated by HIM.

Your metaphorical scenario is not the same as this situation.

 

[Bigboy]

She wasn't within the vacinity to hear the words from his mouth directly, it is the same. She heard from a friend that these were his beliefs then engaged him in tells. If she had been in the PT with the 2 of them when the conversation started between the 2 in PT chat, then you would be right, but as it didn't happen like that, it follows the scenario I described above.

 

[Bigboy]

Shaidalyn didn't create the conflict, she merely engaged him (on her friend's behalf) when HE started it.

I should point out it was after the previous conversation was over and done with. It was not a conversation comming to a person's befence, but rather to the defence of her cause and beliefs. [Which is just, but perhaps a bit overzealous in this instance.]

2) You tried to equate this fellow's intolerant bigotry with Shaidalyn trying to pull him down to Earth. It can NOT be said to be equivalent.

Well in his eyes it would hardly be pulling him down to earth. I have spoken to some of these guys and they think we're just as dillusional as we think they are.

 

[Shaidalyn]

Well, there's a number of things wrong with this line of reasoning.


1) He expressed vocal disapproval of the very nature of her friend's being. He literally said it was wrong for her to be what she was. Shaidalyn jumped to her defense, and rightly so. He started it, not her. He created the conflict, not her. I've never understood why some people think they can say something so inflammatory and hurtful, and then act surprised when someone calls them on it.

Shaidalyn didn't create the conflict, she merely engaged him (on her friend's behalf) when HE started it.

I think this mentality is there just because we're dealing with something touching homosexuality; one of the last socially acceptable prejudices within our culture. If this fellow had told someone that was Jewish that he thought it was "wrong" and a "sin" to be what they were, this argument wouldn't come up at all, and all attempts to reason with him would be applauded.


2) You tried to equate this fellow's intolerant bigotry with Shaidalyn trying to pull him down to Earth. It can NOT be said to be equivalent.

Shaidalyn took issue with this fellow's IDEAS, which he expressed verbally. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and the right to express that opinion. Once you exercise that right, however, you're not granted any sort of protection against someone responding to what you said. Once you use free speech, you've got to endure someone else's right to free speech by way of simple reaction. This is not intolerance. She had a right to respond.

Once again, HE started it. Not her.

Finally, this person was intolerant and bigotted over what Shaidalyn's friend was, something that cannot be helped. I know many of you don't feel any sort of outrage about this sort of thing, but that's very bad. Even if Shaidalyn had started the conflict, which she did NOT, her assault on this person's ideas couldn't even begin to be equal with his assault on what her friend was.

Someone can call me an idiot for my refusal to worship supply-side economics. Fine. If someone takes issue with me for being black (which I'm not, but by way of example), that's something else entirely. The difference between the two is significant.


It is not a wash. As far as I'm concerned, there's a clear "worse" in this situation; no equality about it.

Perfectly said.. his comments were distressing my friend even after she told him to stop.
"Oh Blist them"
That solves nothing... Should we just ignore people who blow up ski resorts cause it moves in on affecting animals? She is too much of a sweetheart to speak up so I did. The person never lost his tact, so never received a blist..... It just frustrates me there are SOOOOOOOOOO many people that think like he does...

I rarely Blist.... I didn't even Blist my ex and that says a LOT! I don't take people critisizing the way my friends live their lives lightly. Especially the soft spoken gentle ones who don't have much a way to argue back..

I didn't attack this guy "YOU'RE DUMB NAZI DIE" or something.... I stayed clear and (again the word) tactful. If you're going to talk to someone, keep it serious and without emotion or the meaning gets lost.

Fact is he told my friend and myself it was flat out wrong, sinful, and that last line in the SS, is the clincher.

I don't go off about how much men suck and how worthless they are.. I'd expect the same "respect" to "keep your opinions to yourself". This is an MMORPG.... not Religion 101 and the evils of homosexuality.
Follow the simple rule, "if you can't say anything nice, shut up". ^^

 

[Strid]

She wasn't within the vacinity to hear the words from his mouth directly, it is the same. She heard from a friend that these were his beliefs then engaged him in tells. If she had been in the PT with the 2 of them when the conversation started between the 2 in PT chat, then you would be right, but as it didn't happen like that, it follows the scenario I described above.

I'd hate to be a friend of yours IRL. I mean, if someone started talking trash to a buddy or yours or your girlfriend would you really let them continue to hurt them? I'd like to think you'd stand up for them but we aren't all capable of taking care of business. Hell, isn't that what friends are for? Have a good time together and watch each others backs? I couldn't fathom the though of sitting around whatching or letting someone I cared for take any form of abuse whether its physical or verbal.

 

[ichibankitsu]

I know how you feel with being annoyed with people like that. I personally hate most organized religions. Religion on its own, I have no problems with. People can have their beliefs, and even share them, but in large groups those beliefs usually become corrupted. What's worse is people who believe that because they've had it preached to them all their lives, what they believe is -the- truth, and nothing else is right. I'm an athiest, but I don't mind talking to people with strong religious beliefs, as long as they know what they're talking about and have an open mind. "Bible-thumpers". Hate 'em. 'Course, my idea of a "bible-thumper" is a person who will preach their beliefs as if it is complete truth, without even accepting the possibility that they could be even slightly wrong.

I had a similar, although a bit better, experience (real life, not on FFXI ). I'm gay, going to college (living on campus) and have a boyfriend who I spend nearly all my time with. Since we're around a lot of different people, we end up meeting people with way different beliefs and such. Well one day, we met this guy with a pretty strong christian background and beliefs and such. Seeing as how that's way different than we are, we ended up having a conversation with him. Well, my boyfriend did while I just listened (I'm not much of a talker anyways). They both seemed to make good points about their beliefs and such (although I was only half paying attention) but the new guy said something similar to that we'd "never experience true love", although put a bit "nicer" by saying that what we have is "incomplete love" and he went on about how he believes that the only "true, complete love" is between a male soul and female soul, or something like that. It seemed, by the way he was wording things, like he was trying to convince us that we were wrong in how we were, but not outright saying "being gay is wrong".

He semeed to be one of those types that are a bit better than the direct ones ("HOMO is wrong"), since he actually tried to explain why he felt that way, instead of something stupid like "God says so". Honestly, I think anyone that uses that as an excuse is pretty stupid, since I doubt God (if one actually exists) would speak to them just to tell them that they're right in hating a large group of people for no reason other than because they're different. Of course, that could branch off into the whole organized religion is corrupt, and a lot of conflicts in history were probably caused by people that used that excuse and got away with it.

I don't really know much about "God" or religion or anything like that, being an athiest and not too interested in major religions, but I have to ask, why would a God that's supposedly incredibly loving and everything, condemn people just for being who they are? It makes no sense to me that not being heterosexual automatically means going to "Hell" for eternity after death. Why would love between the opposite sex be 'right', but love between the same sex be 'wrong'?

People that take the Bible so seriously that they believe every word of it must be true and useful in society in today need to realize the fact that Bibles sold today have been rewritten. A lot. And they need to realize that their religion, just like -every- other social group, has changed over time, due to influences from the people inside the group. The most they should really be able to say is "(suchandsuch) is wrong because our group says so". I don't see how they think they can get away with "because God says so" anymore. The book they get that info from is hundreds of years old, and can be interpreted in many different ways, so when rewritten to a more modern language, it's very likely that the writer took their own view of what the older text said, and wrote it that way, so it makes more sense to them, possibly leaving biased translations. So until someone gets proof of them being spoken to directly by "God" (or whichever deity that religious group believes in), their excuses for anything they claim their religion says is "wrong", mean nothing. Would be like me digging up an old book from about 100 years ago that describes society, and use that as a guide to how society -should- be.

 

[Elemmire]

Funny, my bible says nothing about homosexuality being a sin :\ (or masturbation or many things that the crazy religious types say are). Oh well... George Carlin still wins with this

"There's an invisible man... living in the sky who watches everything you do every minute of every day, and the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do, and if you do any of these ten things he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever till the end of time.......................... But he loves you"

 

[Winklewil]

She wasn't within the vacinity to hear the words from his mouth directly, it is the same. She heard from a friend that these were his beliefs then engaged him in tells. If she had been in the PT with the 2 of them when the conversation started between the 2 in PT chat, then you would be right, but as it didn't happen like that, it follows the scenario I described above.

I really think that this is kind of a strange, semantic requirement for the "right" to engage someone, if you ask me.

Personally, all I'd have to do is HEAR of someone saying something so incredible like that to one of my friends, and if I knew how to get in contact with the person, it would happen. It was a direct assault on her friend; it wasn't a jab targetted at nobody particular, expressed as simple opinion on television.

Again, if this guy had said something like how sinful it was to even be a Jew, any and all attempts by her friends to talk to him about it would have been applauded. I really have difficulty believing that this isn't the case.

Of course, you aren't me, so maybe in that kind of imaginary situation, you really wouldn't say anything. If you can honestly tell me that if I, your Jewish friend, had something anti-semitic said to me within a party after someone found out what I was, you would do nothing about it ... well, I guess your argument holds water.


I'd really like this thread to go in the broader direction of intolerance in general, however. That's the discussion I'd look forward to, and it would be something good coming out of the whole thing. I certainly don't want to obsess on an insignificant detail about whether or not Shaidalyn should have said anything in the first place. She did, it's done, whether you think she was right in doing so or not.

The kind of mentality this fellow had, however, is very flame-worthy. To have a short fuse with bigotry is not intolerance, at least it can in no way be equated with the kind of intolerance (against the very nature of what someone is) that he was expressing.

For that, at least, I think there can be no argument. He didn't like what she WAS. She didn't like what he SAID. I think that merits some thought, before you are so quick to place the two on the same ground.




"Bible-thumper" is an entirely accurate term, if a derogatory one, as it describes a common set of ideas and values. "Sinner" (to use a more mild slur), on the other hand, attacks one's actions ... or, in this case, actually existing at all. It's just not the same, not equal, not on the same ground, not a wash. Do you see what I mean?

 

[Bigboy]

I'd hate to be a friend of yours IRL. I mean, if someone started talking trash to a buddy or yours or your girlfriend would you really let them continue to hurt them? I'd like to think you'd stand up for them but we aren't all capable of taking care of business. Hell, isn't that what friends are for? Have a good time together and watch each others backs? I couldn't fathom the though of sitting around whatching or letting someone I cared for take any form of abuse whether its physical or verbal.

It sucks to be my friend. I know just how they feel. Someone starts shit with my friend, and they come to me for help and amazingly I tell them how to help themselves! Sorry if I don't like fighting people's battles for them, but to bring this back to the topic at hand, I wont interject of my friend's behalf just because my friend gets into it with someone else over something like religeon or personal beliefs.

No one should expect others to stand up for their personal beliefs because as the term dictates, they're personal. If 2 people are going at it, I wont interfere. They both believe they are right, and I am not gonna interject with yet a 3rd set of beliefs to further muddy the waters.

The rest of your statement is absurd, and me just sitting back and watching would be illegal and make me an accomplice to the crime. Don't confuse an argument or clashing of egos with abuse. People too meek to stand for themselves need to be taught how to defend themselves, or they will only become more reliant on their defenders.

I am a proponent of the human race and its ability to prosper with individual and group strength. If a person can't take care of their problems, you don't fix it for them, you give them the tools to fix it themselves so they aren't scared and alone when no one is around to defend them.