Yeesh, some people really do live in the dark ages. This is abuse.

[stof]

dtewi said:

mrstickball said:

stof said:

Mr. Stickball, I think you're one of the reasons so many people posting in this thread are angry about what they're seeing in that video.

you're defending abusing a teenager over his sexual preference based on what some people wrote in a book thousands of years ago, and yes, that is abuse no matter what way you slice it, even if the poor guy signed up for it.

While extremism can be the result of may isms: race, ideological, national... only religion is provided with inherently inflexible documentation to justify that extremism. You say that they're (and your) condemnations of homosexuality are justified by a very old book. That seems like a pretty good argument to toss out that book to me.

Stof,

How did these people abuse this teenager? What exactly about the video constitutes abuse?

I am sorry that my religion offends you, but I take it very seriously. You can argue that it's archaic, irrelevant, and useless, but I do not feel that way. I cannot in good faith take certain parts of the book and say 'Hey! Taking care of the poor is something I need to do!' and then throw out the part that says 'Don't be sexually immoral'. That's my opinion on my religion, and I'm entitled to it. My opinion on my religion effects no one but myself. If I am deluded, then that's my fault and no one elses.

Yet at the same time, I would like to challenge you and everyone else: Prove my religion wrong. We spend far more time and money on helping the poor, and offering services to the needy. Prove us wrong by doing right

 

You're saying "My opinion" in efforts to stagnate the argument. Too bad we can't argue with your opinion.

How's this. Prove Harry Potter wrong.

I don't think he's saying "prove the events wrong" I think he's trying to say "prove the notion that Christianity is a positive moral force wrong" to which he refers to Christian charity.

There are many responses I could offer to this.

I could point out that true or not, general good does not excuse committing heinous acts on others.

I could suggest(rightly or wrongly, though it would make for a great discussion) that Christianity has generally been moral negative force by writing a long list of attrocities committed against non-christian groups in the name of Christianity (I didn't say because of, I said in the name of, it's a subtle but large difference)

I could suggest that much of the moral progression in the last century has been not by the hands of religion, but in opposition to it, as illustrated most recently by our generations' current great moral battle of acceptance of differing sexuality

And in the most complicated response, I could question his base statement that Christians do far more to help the poor than anyone else. This one the hardest one to talk about because it requires the dissection of not only the breadth of world charity and poverty relief, but also a complete dissection of beliefs and motivations of individuals.  I imagine this one would make for a very interesting discussion on it's own, but this thread might not be the place for that.