I eventually closed this thread after 54 comments, deciding that the circular inanity was becoming tiresome and its protagonist was never going to be reasoned with.
In retrospect, I kinda wish I hadn’t done that. Nobody was being that obnoxious, and the stupid really was funny. I’d vacillated on whether to get involved myself, but eventually there was just so much fantastic material provided by the one resident Christian nut, I couldn’t stay out of it completely.
Here are some of the highlights, with my commentary. If anyone wants to restart the discussion here, I promise not to cut it off this time unless things become unacceptably abusive.
People who have same sex attraction are not a problem, it’s their disordered actions that are. Homosexual sex is not natural because it doesn’t exist for any reason. Otherwise you could just have sex with a hole in the ground.
First off, it’s entirely natural. It just is.
Secondly, “it doesn’t exist for any reason” is apparently now enough to deem something morally impermissible. Given that “to create a new human being” is the only reason David seems interested in, this renders almost the entirety of human endeavour not only pointless, but downright evil.
Of course, if you don’t want to write off all art, music, and literature as forbidden activities, you could note that they serve the purpose of enriching the soul, broadening the mind, diverting the spirit, and bringing joy and delight and wonder and fulfilment to our interactions with our fellow humans.
But then, if you do that, gay relationships would seem to serve the purpose for some people too.
David’s approach is utterly illiberal and oppressive. He has no complaint against this activity except a whine of “Do you have to?” and thinks this justifies homophobic discrimination.
To hell with that. Yes, you could just have sex with a hole in the ground. You really could.
Let me say this emphatically to everyone reading right now: If you want to have sex with a hole in the ground, never let go of your dream.
For what it’s worth, most Christians do not say that something can’t be true because it’s not in the Bible, so that’s a straw man arguement.
No, it’s not.
Almost one in three Americans believe that the Bible is the “actual word of God, to be taken literally”. That’s a significant chunk of the population. It’s not what every Christian believes, but I never said that it was.
The poem, as apparently David didn’t figure out, was about the different circumstances under which atheists might encounter religious belief, and the different levels of antipathy with which to respond. There are different theists described, in different situations, some largely harmless and some meriting serious resistance. It never claimed to be an a depiction of every single person who calls themselves a Christian.
So, David needs to brush up on his logical fallacies. A straw man argument isn’t named that because most people aren’t made of straw. It’s because nobody is made even slightly of straw.
[E]ven a married couple using either the pill or barrier contraception is engaging in sinful activity… [G]ay people are called to be celibate. Some “straight” people are, too.
“Called” is a cosy way of saying God will burn you if you don’t repress the urges he gave you and deny yourself the chance of finding love because of his arbitrary rules.
And for the record, I believe evolution, but not Darwinism.
I am genuinely curious what version of evolution David thinks he believes in.
Does he think it’s credible and scientific that the Biblical account of creation is a myth, and life on Earth developed slowly over billions of years… but it had to be guided by the Christian god, and any attempt to deny this is dogmatic anti-religious fundamentalism?
He never actually explains. He repeatedly claims that creationism and evolution can be compatible, so he’s clearly not using words the way I’m used to them being used. He suggests the existence of “more correct evolution hypotheses”, but gives nothing to explain why these are now rejected in favour of the current theory by a virtually unanimous consensus of experts, or how he’s reached the conclusion that all these experts are wrong. Or what the entire scientific community would have to gain by pushing Darwinism as some sort of grand deceit.
Darwin had to change the rules of science in order to fashion his theory. He changed the rules of scientific proof.
No, he didn’t. I’m not even sure I know what this means, but the theory of evolution including processes of Darwinian natural selection is accepted by the same criteria of scientific evidence as any other solidly established model of reality.
It’s our duty when teaching others to give both sides of the argument. You folks want to exclude half of the subject.
Half?
Hahahahahahahahahahaha.
Here’s a list of creation myths. Please to be explaining why yours is the one religious opinion that should be considered on equal footing with the entire modern scientific study of biology, unlike all of the others.
Why does the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster not deserve equal time to be put forward in science classes?
Deists = people who believe in a God. I can show you more that the founding fathers were Christian in both upbringing and independent thought.
Actually, “theists” are people who believe in a god/God. Deism is more specific, and generally implies that, while some supreme being is believed to have been necessary for the creation of the cosmos, said being remains entirely uninvolved in human affairs, and has essentially abandoned the whole business immediately after setting things in motion.
This is most likely the belief held by most of the Founding Fathers of the United States. However they may have been brought up, there is no mention of Jesus, Christianity, God, or the Bible anywhere in the Constitution. They could easily have written numerous endorsements of Christianity into the text, if the people establishing the country had had any intention for it to be a “Christian nation” whatsoever.
In fact, they went out of their way to do the exact opposite. As you can tell from Thomas Jefferson’s precise words on this matter, or the many times he made his feelings about religion and its role in government abundantly clear.
I don’t know why I’m spending so much time on 18th century American politics, though. Moving on.
By the way, there is no evidence for gay people…
I’ll just leave this here.
Priests and clergy give up their sexuality to God in order to serve him better.
Yeah, how’s that working out for them?
But let’s look at homosexual sex from an evolutionary point of view. Sex is meant to further along a species. So, while homosexual sex may happen, it is species ending if it is the majority.
I know that if a species spends all it’s time practicing recreational sex which doesn’t produce offspring, the species will die.
First, saying that gay sex is evil because it’s not evolutionarily helpful is like saying that star jumps are an immoral affront to the law of gravity.
Second, I know spending all our time recreationally screwing each other’s brains out sounds like fun, but nobody has suggested we try that. You’re letting your imagination run away with you again, David, and the places it’s going are pretty gay.
David decries the catastrophic flaw that homosexuality is not “procreative”, but he can’t seem to decide what reason best justifies this. Sometimes it’s because God says so. Sometimes it’s because it could wipe out the species if everyone decided to do it all the time (which they’re not). Sometimes it’s… something to do with Nancy Pelosi? Wait, I think I’m flashing back to an earlier discussion.
Anyway, you know what’s just as unlikely to be procreative as gay sex? Abstinence.
I’ve never had any children, and yet my body has produced just as many sperm cells – potential humans all – as if I’d been getting picked up in gay bars every Saturday night for the past five years.
So what’s the problem with homosexuality? How does it take anything away from your own hetero concerns that you seem so keen to shove our faces in? Are the gays somehow using up all the sex, and you’re worried there won’t be enough left for when you want to get down to some hot, steamy baby-makin’?
As for your belief, or lack of belief, why should God jump through hoops for you? He already suffered and died for you. If that’s not enough, I don’t know what is.
Hey, David. I got a deal for you. You eat this spider and I’ll give you a million bucks.
C’mon, think of what you could do with a million bucks! It might be an unbearably horrible sensation while you’re doing it, but think of the reward you’ll definitely get afterward!
What’s that? You want to see the money before you’ll do it? Geeze, how ungrateful is that? I’ve already gone to the trouble of making a huge cash withdrawal and packing a suitcase full of my own hard-earned money. It’s in my car, you can have it once you’ve eaten this spider. How many hoops do I have to jump through for you, man?
I should try a different tack as well, since sarcasm didn’t seem to work too well on him the first few times it was tried.
The reason God ought to “jump through hoops” for me, David, is that he’s demanding that I surrender every aspect of my life to him. At least, that’s what his supporters claim. It’s not unreasonable for some kind of evidence that the deal’s legit before I start shunning gays, stoning children to death, and give up my regular Friday night ass-coveting session.
God didn’t want robots, or zombies, who would do everything he wanted. God realized that love without free will is slavery. He freely gave man free will.
God didn’t want his creations to be happy. He wanted them to fall prey to every mistake they could possibly be led into by the primitive urges he’d given them. Because it’s just more fun that way.
And you say this guy isn’t a sadist?
And this last one’s a real doozy.
God now uses the evil in the world to help those who try to love him. Catastrophe tends to bring people together to work to dig out of said catastrophe. Look at what happened in America after 9/11. We actually worked together for a time. That’s not to say God willed 9/11. But He took the evil action and made it into a postive.
Yeah.
I know I said not to be abusive here, but… can I make an exception when it’s so patently merited?
What David’s saying is that God could have prevented the suffering that ensued after this devastating attack, but he didn’t. It happened anyway, in spite of the wishes of our omnipotent loving creator. But although he could have stopped it, it was mankind’s fault for choosing to exercise our free will in such a damaging way.
So God gets let off the hook for tearing thousands of families apart. But he also gets the credit for all the work done in the aftermath, by countless incalculably brave people, who formed communities and support groups and tried to pull things together following such a tragedy. We’re expected to be grateful to him, for the nuggets of solace and comfort we find in each other’s company, after he allows us to suffer unbearably.
This is rationalisation of a blind ideology at its most evil.
So that’s the state of play, folks. If it ends up kicking off again, be nice to each other. Your points may seem more credible if not prefaced by straight-forward insults. And while he wasn’t above responding in kind, it wasn’t David who launched the first volley of “You’re an idiot” last time. Be nice.
And have fun!
Oh my. I skimmed through the previous comment thread. The god that David believes in sounds like a sadistic, bigoted, tyrant. I stopped believing in a Christian god when I was 17 specifically because that’s how the Christian god was portrayed to me as a child. Basically, David’s version of Christianity lead me down the road to non-belief. David, I’d like to thank you and your peers for many decades of secular life. I couldn’t have done it without you.
As LGBT people continue to grow more widely accepted, Christianity is going to have to find a different way of imaging its deity, or it’s going to lose its foothold in future generations. Since religion is as driven by financial needs as any other institution, I’ll bet that we will see Christian belief widely “repackaged” in an LGBT friendly format within a generation. Churches have to remain solvent and in the long run, bigotry won’t fill the collection plates in an increasingly tolerant society.
I noticed that the notion of “homosexual sex = reproductive death of the species” came up in the other comment thread. I hope that people realize that we should actively discourage young people from becoming priests and nuns since a) lifelong vows of celibacy do not promote the ongoing biological evolution of the species and b) a significant number of humans taking vows of celibacy might cause the human populace to decline. Lest we provide an unwholesome influence on the impressionable young, perhaps we should do away with vows of celibacy all together? Someone should look into this.
By the way, lots of animals manifest homosexual behavior, and yet, they have managed to maintain their respective populaces at healthy levels. So, if it works for them, I’m not too worried about LGBT humans overturning the reproductive apple cart.
Oh, and the last time I checked, there were billions of humans inhabiting the planet Earth and those wacky, fecund humans seem to be killing off good bits of the planet with their filth. It seems like god’s plan for straight people to keep the planet populated is working a little too well. Perhaps human kind needs a few more people to forgo reproduction? God, if you’re listening, how about 30-40 percent of the populace being gay instead of 3-10 percent? Just for a little while?
Of course, all of this ignores the fact that LGBT people actually do reproduce, but that’s another discussion, eh? Oh, and what about bisexuals? They always seem to be left out of the discussion, gosh darn it. Being one of those people who’s hanging out somewhere in the “mushy middle” of sexual orientation, I feel kind of snubbed. Where’s the love, I ask you? Where?
Sorry I couldn’t make God fit your image. But then again, that’s backwards. We’re made in the image of God, not the other way around, and whether or not you believe it.
Regarding acceptance of GLBT people, we already do accept them. But just as stealing is wrong, and murder, we recognize that homosexuality is wrong, too. As for Christian churches accepting the practice, that worked very well for the Church of England, didn’t it? You don’t need a church to gather together and sing Kumbaya. So if that’s what you think a Church should be, go form your own.
Death of species is not why you should not engage in homosexual sex. Personal death is, whether you believe in everlasting life or not. As I’ve said before, some people are called to live cellibate lives, there’s no doubt.
Regarding “lots of species” exhibiting homosexual behavior, any species which deposits eggs, whether fertilized prior to laying or after, such as fish or birds, doesn’t qualify for exhibiting homosexual behavior.
Here’s the deal. If you’re a Christian, and you have sex that does not have both unitive and procreative aspects, you’re committing sin. If you produce a child by any method other than having sex between a man and a woman, that takes away the unitive action. If you use contraception, that takes away the procreative action. If you have homosexual sex, you are removing the procreative aspect. And if you have sex outside of committed marriage, that’s a sin, too. But just as a parent can hate the fact that his kid uses drugs or is a loser in any other way, I can love a person regardless of their sexual orientation.
I’m made in your god’s image? Oh, cool! I’m glad to hear that your god is a lesbian identified, bisexual trans woman.
Wait. What denomination of Christianity do you hail from? I might want to join!
Sorry. I just couldn’t resist. ;)
On a more serious note, I encourage you to keep on sharing your religion-based prejudice, David. The more homophobic prejudice you spread in your religion’s name, the more followers you will loose, particularly among younger people.
Even so, Christianity has thousands of denominations and sects, some of which are quite accepting of LGBT people. Furthermore, there are at least 40 religions on the planet. Your prejudiced views do not represent the sole perspective embraced by people who hold a belief in the supernatural/spiritual. If I were, for some unlikely reason, to embrace a belief in a deity, there are plenty of options out there that don’t preach hatred and prejudice against LGBT people.
It’s unfortunate that you’re peddling hatred along with your religious views, but that’s OK because your particular brand of faith isn’t the only storefront in town… and of course, there’s always the option of atheism and agnosticism.
If I’m homophobic, which I am not, you’re religiophobic. I’m not scared of homosexuality.
And actually, you will find that the more stringent and challenging it is to live a faith-filled life, the more it grows. Look at Christianity in the first three centuries. It was illegal, and people were willing to die for their faith. And they did, yet the faith grew to millions of followers. The Catholic Church has been persecuted since day 1, so this is nothing new. And you will find that more young people are flocking to the Catholic Church than ever.
While there are thousands of Christian denominations, there is only one that was there when Jesus taught. That’s Catholicism. We are very accepting of LBGT people. In fact there’s some in my parish. We know their sins better than they know ours, but the fact is, we’re all sinners, regardless of exactly what sin we’re doing. So I can pop that balloon for you. You just don’t want people telling you that what you’re doing is wrong, because it doesn’t feel good. I understand that, but it’s also a sin to not try to show you the better way.
I don’t hate anyone, lady. I may not like what you do in sin, but then I don’t like what I do in sin either. So I am pretty much equal opportunity. Granted some Christians aren’t like that, but you’re trying to portray me as something I’m not. I also know that God knows you exactly as you are, a child of Him. So while I may shake my head at your lifestyle, I’m not looking at you personally.
Actually, David, there are versions of Christianity that I quite like and there are other religions that I think are pretty darned cool. The United Church of Christ and Quakers are two denominations that come to mind. I think that pagans and Buddhists are pretty darned righteous, too. I’ve spent a fair amount of time sitting in the pews of a local UCC church, in fact. And quite honestly, it doesn’t matter to me if someone believes in the supernatural. So, I’m not as “relgiophobic” as you might think. Go read my blog, if you want more proof.
If Christianity began to lean in a generally less oppressive direction, I really wouldn’t have a problem with it. However, when people employ their religion as a means to justify their prejudices, which far too many of the loudest Christian voices currently do, I’m more than happy to see y’all loose followers, particularly the more conservative branches. I’d prefer reform, actually, but an overall loss of followers would suit me just fine, if that’s what’s necessary to reduce the amount of power you wield in the culture I live in (the US).
“Versions” of Christianity? There’s only one version, the one which came out of His mouth. UCC and the Quakers did not come from Christ, they came from some heresy of the true Christian faith.
Your idea that Christianity “leans” one way or another is incorrect. Maybe Christians do, but Christianity, which is what Jesus taught, cannot, and does not. You probably think Jesus was a peacemaker, don’t you? Don’t you?
I am not trying to say that those of us who believe God when he says adultery is wrong should run around shaking our fingers in people’s face and shouting them down. That’s a wrong approach, too. Jesus also did not tell us not to recognize a sin when we see one. But we shouldn’t be so in-your-face. It’s one thing to sit down with someone and talk civilly about things that they’re doing wrong (if you’re ever approached about it). It’s another to give your opinion loudly and when not wanted. That doesn’t change that the action is wrong, but it’s just as wrong not to act pastorally.
It doesn’t matter to me how many members there are in any religious sect. What matters is that those who claim to be whatever they claim are what they claim to be. Paul tells us that in order to follow Christ, we must be willing to die for Him. If you’re not willing to do that, you’re not very Christian, objectively speaking.
According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), the proportion of the US populace that is Catholic dropped by 1.1% between 1990 and 2008. The proportion of the US claiming no religion increased from 8% to 15%. The chart found in the linked article shows that those claiming no religious affiliation experienced the greatest increase as a proportion of the total US populace.
As for hateful attitudes:
When you create a comparison between who a person falls in love with and various criminal activities, you are making a hateful statement. In light of the fact that sexual relations between people of the same sex was legalized in the US only seven years ago, your statement carries even more import. You can try to cover your words with as much pretty rhetoric as you wish but the underlying spirit of the statement still shines through.
I’m sorry, but that’s bullshit.
This is taken from the Vatican’s website:
When the church dismisses who a person falls in love with as a moral evil, the church is dehumanizing that person, their relationship, and the person they love.
Accepting? Hardly.
I know individual Catholics who think the Vatican’s opinion on LGBT people is pure bunk: those people are accepting. However, the church, as a religion and a ruling body, is anything but accepting. The people who support the church and its position are also anything but accepting.
As above, it doesn’t matter about the popularity of the faith. Catholicism started out as counter-cultural.
It’s hateful to know that a sin is a sin and to say so? So if you’re walking down the street with your child and you come to an intersection and your child keeps walking, are you not going to do everything in your power to stop him from killing himself?
You don’t have a clue what love is, sir. Love is not an emotion, it’s a decision. What you’re talking about is eros, sexual love. Drawing a comparison between making a decision to have sex with someone when you’re not married to him or her, that’s not love. It’s adultery, which is as serious a sin as stealing or murder in God’s eyes.
You may believe it’s bull that we accept LGBT people, but it’s not. What we don’t accept is their sin. Or anyone elses. But we know that everyone is ia sinner, in some form or another. But the people are all accepted.
Regarding what people think of the Vatican’s ‘opinion’ (it’s not opinion, it’s God’s law), who cares? God’s not going to change for you. If he was to change his mind, he wouldn’t be God. It sounds like you think that the Catholic Church is a club that people can join, and come in and make changes so it can suit their fancy. Well, it’s not. The rules and laws are the rules and laws. If you don’t like it, don’t join. If you want to join, live with the rules. I know plenty of gay men and women who are Catholics and really try to live the way God called them to live. They don’t always succeed, but they always try, and that makes them good people.
One more thing. People often say, “I’m not afraid of gay people” as a kind of red herring when discussing prejudice against LGBT people.
The definition of homophobia is not limited to “a fear of homosexuals or homosexuality.” Wikipedia provides an accurate definition:
Here are a few definitions of homophobia from other sources:
Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences:
MSN Encarta:
WordNet, Princeton University:
Whew! Then I’m so glad to know I’m not a homophobe! I don’t have negative feelings toward any homosexuals or transgender people, neither do I have antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion or irrational fear.
I don’t hate anybody because they’re homosexual, bisexual or transgender. I try to teach people who want to live the life of Christ how to do it. Having a sexual relationship outside of marriage is not the way to do it.
Oh and as for the article I linked to regarding homosexual behavior in animals: it covers birds, mammals, and reptiles. Hence, it doesn’t matter whether you wish to consider reptiles and birds as valid examples, David.
Ironically, among domestic sheep, a rather biblical animal, 8% of rams show a preference for male sexual partners. Homosexual behavior has been found in wild rams as well.
So, how does that old saying go? The Lord is my shepherd?
Do you really think we should approve of something because 8% of the population has that preference?
FWIW, animal behavior cannot be compared to human behavior. Animals have sex strictly for procreative purposes. It’s not for pleasure, and there’s no love. It’s business. Same is true when you pay attention to your dog, do you think he loves you more for it? He may look smiling and happy, but it’s not love. By the way, how did they know that the rams preferred the male as a sex partner? Did Larry King or Oprah interview the rams to ask?
Sheep are biblical because of the land where the Bible came from. The emphasis is on the shepherd being the one who makes sure all the sheeps needs are taken care of-safety, shelter, food and water.
By the way, here’s an article that I read in the LA Times regarding the backlash against religion among those who have come of age since 1990. Interesting stuff.
You know what? When 7% of your population doesn’t identify with any religion, the number’s likely to go up.
Religion is not a popularity contest.
Yeah I stopped reading those comments after a while. The round about logic was just driving me mad.
interesting point timberwraith made.
a while ago i met some very nice, non-evangelising Baha’i and i was quietly intrueged by the novel idea of using Baha’i as a middleman between theism and atheism, as it were.
you see, my (probably foolish and befuddled) thinking was, convert theists to Baha’i with the promise of loads of theistic crap, then use the basic Baha’i maxim of ‘love everyone no matter beliefs, creed, or background’ to convert al the theists from theism to atheism.
quite how this would work in reality is totally beyond me, but the thought was amusing in its way.
I think I could have argued each and every one of David’s points from an exegetical standpoint. The part that depresses me is that I’m going to be doing that….all the time….for the rest of my life. If ‘loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself is the whole of the Torah and the rest is just commentary’ is really the main event, then clearly this falls into ‘ur doin it wrong’, but I guess I’m just tired of people (including 1/3 of Americans) expecting myth and faith to operate like facts. The people perpetuating that perspective are flat out lying.
I could have, as well, but I think you have to meet them where they are, just as Jesus did. For the record, love is not an emotion in your simplistic quote.
Example: A man is dying after a car accident, and asks “What must I do to be saved?” A Christian can tell him to believe in God, be baptized, and voila, once baptized, he IS saved. If a person who’s not in such dire straits asks the same question, he has a lifetime to study and learn it.
Given the forum here, I’m not using much Bible quotation, but I could.
thank you Jessica, short, sweet, and simple.
now if we add cartoons and put the writing in Comic Sans, perhaps the IDiots will begin too understand.
i googled exegeis, and i think i see what you mean about the exegetical standpoint Jessica, but not enough.
please elaborate.
Wow James, nice rant. Sorry to have to debunk it.
Homosexual sex is not natural for humans. And it’s not normal either. And it is against the laws of God, but you choose to wallow in the sin, so you don’t want to acknowledge him. Sort of like plugging your ears and saying “La, la, la, can’t hear you.”. Doesn’t mean the message doesn’t exist.
Art, etc, all do have a purpose, though, for the general populace. Gay relationships serve only those in the relationship.
I personally do not care what you do in private. That’s your business. But don’t expect that you can shove it down my throat and get me to like it. And don’t ask for my approval, or consent.
Regarding the “literal” Bible, it depends on what you mean by literal. I believe the Bible is literally the word of God, absolutely. That doesn’t mean that it’s a science manual. There’s no science in the Bible. And yet, that does not mean that the accounts of creation in Genesis aren’t true, and consequently, creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. What is mutually exclusive of creation is Darwinism.
“Called” is a cosy way of telling you that God had and has a plan for you, but you can choose not to listen. “La, la, la, can’t hear you!”. But should you choose that path of yours, and you die that way, you will answer for it, absolutely.
Regarding evolution vs creation, my position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance. The Darwin position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone.
There is no virtually unanimous consensus that random forces alone caused the universe or life on earth.
Darwin was wrong because he eliminated any possibilty of God. And given the holes in his theory, well proven, this is just another hole.
James, your mistake, along with those who believe solely in creation, is that the account of creation is science. It’s not, and never was. Religion should (and mostly does) leave it to science to figure out the how. Religion is mostly about the why. Darwin shrugged his shoulders and said “Because”.
IT’s funny that you can disagree with something and then admit that you don’t know what it means. Darwin changed the scientific method to allow for his hypothesis in absence of any physical proof.
You gave a nice explanation of what a Deist is. But most of the FF’s were Theists, with a few Deists thrown in. The truth is that the Protestant Reformation removed from a decent sized section of Western Europe any authority to question God’s role in anything. And as someone above said, that has led to thousands of Christian sects with pieces of truth, but not the whole truth.
Regarding your idiot comment about priests, it’s working remarkably well. Some who felt called to priesthood, obviously weren’t.
Regarding the reasons why homosexuality is wrong, it is always because God says so.
Your being or not being homosexual has nothing to do with me. Go ahead, if you want to. As I said above, just don’t ask normal people to say it’s normal. It’s not.
As for your spider deal, I’m not interested in your money. As for God, he’s asking (not demanding-you have free will, his gift) you to surrender to him, because he can. Government commands taxes because it can, even if it doesn’t give much of it back to you. You have to pay. If God didn’t want us to be happy, why did he make sex pleasureable, and give us minds to create art, good food and wine, and music? Of course, take any of those things, and do the wrong thing, and you can count on retribution.
Let’s put it like this: You can use a baseball bat or a knife the way it’s intended, to hit a baseball or to cut a roast, and there’s no problem. But if you use a baseball bat to sock someone in the ribs, or use a knife to stab someone, it becomes a problem. Same token, sex used the right way is good, sex used the wrong way is wrong.
As for why God allowed 9/11, I’ll ask Him when I see him. You’ll know, too.
As for calling someone an idiot, I should correct, because just the same way I can love a person and hate what they do, I can respect a person and leave his ideas as idiotic.
David, don’t ever apologise for the entertainment you provide while doing whatever you think “debunking” means.
So, you say homosexuality’s not “natural”. We’re having this discussion across computer terminals thousands of miles apart, converting our thoughts and opinions into a flow of electrons and decoding them again into words, through technological methods the workings of which neither of us has to understand. I’m doing this while wearing polyester and drinking numerous carbonated E-numbers. None of this is natural.
It’s not “normal” either. I’m not sure what you mean by that, but one interpretation is simply that most people aren’t gay and have no compulsion to engage in homosexual acts. This may be true, but would the morality of it change, then, if it became a majority position? Most people don’t like anchovies on their pizza, and very few people seemed to enjoy watching the film Norbit. Are these immoral acts too?
It’s “against the laws of God”. Or, later, it’s wrong “because God says so”. Obviously I dispute that this is true – but even if it was, this isn’t morality, this is an entirely distinct thing with a different name. It’s called “doing what you’re told”. If things are moral because God instructs them, and that’s all there is to it, then that’s an uninteresting definition of “moral”. Stoning children to death has been in line with the laws of God in the past, but I will call that immoral regardless of how powerful a despot ordered it. I don’t care to be a slave to your deity if he can’t justify his oppression.
You clearly do care what people do in private, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion. You’re telling people at length that what they do in private is immoral and against God’s law. Nobody’s shoving anything down your throat, and nobody needs or is asking for your approval or consent for anything that’s none of your damn business. You’re making judgments on other people’s personal feelings and private actions. You’re claiming things to be inherently immoral and against God’s law. If this isn’t sticking your nose into other people’s business, I cannot conceive what is.
The Bible might not read like a science textbook, but it makes factual claims about reality, and thus science has every right to comment on its accuracy. It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t call itself science; it’s saying things about the world, which can be supported or rejected based on evidence. If the Bible claims that the Universe was created over the course of one week around six thousand years ago, science can say: “Well, based on reams of data gathered from numerous different fields, there is literally nothing outside of this book which indicates that this is true.”
I don’t need to go “la la la” to act as if I can’t hear the call of God’s plan. There’s nothing to hear.
Your idea of “The Darwin position” makes it clear that you don’t understand what Darwin said or what the modern theory of evolution proposes. It doesn’t just all happen randomly, as has been explained to thousands of creationists all over the internet many, many times before by people who actually know what they’re talking about. Non-random selection processes are key to evolutionary theory, as Darwin well understood. You really have to be wilfully ignoring information to still not understand this.
I have no idea how you fathom that Darwin “eliminated any possibilty of God”. How would anyone even do that? The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins doesn’t even do that, or claim to. This is just weird.
You still haven’t explained what it means to say that Darwin “changed the scientific method”. He laid out the evidence that had led him to his conclusion; the evolutionary model explains past observations and predicts future ones more succinctly and reliably than any other theory. This is just what science is.
Who gets to decide who’s really called to the priesthood? Is it you, David? You should go and tell these people who mistakenly think they’ve been called, and let them know how wrong they are before they make a horrible mistake. You probably know what they’re feeling better than they do, after all. While you’re at it, you should probably have a word with all those people who’ve been “called” to celibacy but who don’t recognise it, and think they’re just experiencing same-sex attraction. It’s important they understand the difference.
So, you seem to be entirely on board with your god being an oppressive tyrant, punishing us puny humans for not doing what he wants simply because he’s the one with the power. I don’t even care if he exists any more. He’s not worth worshipping. He doesn’t deserve it.
If God does want us to be happy, why doesn’t he try not giving children cancer? Or helping out the millions of starving Africans whose situation is entirely unjust? How are tsunamis that destroy cities and leave millions homeless to be used “the right way”? And if God didn’t want anyone to indulge in homosexuality, why did he make that so pleasurable? Find any gay person who’s accepted who they are instead of trying to repress it, and ask them if they enjoy sex.
It’s disturbing how eager you are to just take God’s word for it that it all works out somehow, and ask him when you see him. Nothing about the current set-up of the world gives you any reason to doubt what you’ve been told about his divine plans. Any compassion for millions of suffering humans is quelled by the insistence that this is how it’s supposed to be. God is good, and he wants us all to be happy.
Rationalisation of a blind ideology at its most evil.
By not natural, I mean there’s no apparent purpose to it. So let me change that. Homosexuality is as natural as a man having sex with a hole in the ground.
The morality of any act is seen by using what’s there for what it’s there for. A baseball bat can be morally used to hit a baseball. Not to knock someone’s head off. An oven can be morally used to cook a chicken. Not to cook a human. Everything has moral uses and immoral uses.
So you dispute that God says homosexuality is wrong. Can you prove that from the works of God? Or is it the existence of God you dispute?
As for stoning laws of ancient Meditteranean lands, you can condemn them all you want, but who are you and what does it matter that you condemn them? Stoning was a common method of law enforcement of the time. It wasn’t seen by the people there as overly harsh, other than the fact that it probably deterred them from committing offenses. As for your ‘do as your told’ comment, I guess you don’t feel you have to follow the laws of your country either? There’s lots of laws there, do you just ignore them? Or are you writing from prison?
No, I don’t care what people do in private. What I am speaking about is the practice in general. Just as I speak out against abortion practices, and euthanasia. If I was to go knock on people’s doors like a SWAT team and try pulling two gay people apart, that would be getting into their private business. It does not stop me from condemning the practice in general.
Regarding the creation account vs what science says, you cannot claim that something is what that something doesn’t claim to be. I understand that some people take the creation accounts literally, as if the earth is 6000 years old. But most don’t. The Catholic Church has never claimed an age to the earth. And the Catholic Church has authority to claim it if she wanted to. The first 5 books of the bible are not science. It is some ancient peoples’ explanation in their own terms of how we came to be.
My only beef with Darwinism is that he takes God out of it. Other evolution theories don’t. I accept them.
Scientific method requires repeatable evidence to prove something. Darwin could not possibly repeat any one observation that he made.
Who gets to decide who is called to the priesthood? God. :)
Some people think they’re called but aren’t, some think they aren’t but are. Some are running away from something. God ultimately decides. He also allows people to say no. Yeah, even those who are called to celibacy but choose not to live it. But for those, God also has a place.
God is not oppressive. He gives you choices. You can do whatever you damn well please. And when it comes right down to it, when you die and go to meet him, God loves you so much he will give you what you love the most. If it’s not Him, you can go out of his sight. That’s your choice. That’s real freedom.
Regarding happiness, God gives people talents to cure cancer, and he gives willing people to go help those starving in Africa. He is doing exactly that which you want. He’s doing it his way though. Why else should we be here on earth? Just to consume resources? So sorry, he’s not doing it the way YOU want. You’re probably unhappy with Parliament, too, so why don’t you go tell them how to run things?
And actually, I do have faith that God’s plan is working. What happens here on earth makes me know there’s a better life in eternity. Our life here is a trial. What you do with your life will determine how you spend that eternity. If you want to smoke marijuana, shoot heroin, and have sex with your same sex friend, all your happiness will happen right here on mother earth. If you live your life trying to help those in need, instead of indulging in your selfish desires, your reward will come later.
Good luck with that.
Also, regarding the part about gay sex orgies, the reason it’s perceived that way is because gay people identify themselves by their sexuality. Most people don’t. While I am heterosexual, I don’t go around with it on my sleeve. Gay people do, just by calling themselves gay.
Be a man, be a woman, and I don’t care what else you do.
We can start talking about LGBT people “wearing it on their sleeves” after the following greatly diminishes or stops all together:
1. Depictions of heterosexual relationships and sexual encounters in nearly every book and movie available in popular culture
2. Widespread commercial and cultural displays of heterosexual imagery appearing every Valentine’s day
3. Heterosexuals kissing, holding hands, and hugging in public
4. Heterosexuals bonding with friends via sexually laden jokes/comments about the opposite sex (this is particularly true of single-sex gatherings of friends)
5. Men showing open sexual attention toward or even sexually harassing women as they walk down the street, sit down in a bar, wait on customers in a retail establishment, or interact with male coworkers
6. Older family members excitedly asking young male family members if they “have a girlfriend yet” or asking young female family members if they “have a boyfriend yet”
7. Women’s magazines discussing for the one millionth time “how to please your man”
8. Discussions of which female coworker is dating which male coworker during office gossip sessions
9. Government and private businesses asking people about their marital status on forms/paperwork, with the assumption that only opposite sex relationships are valid
10. Dances and social events in public school settings centering on heterosexual relationships
Open heterosexuality and cultural depictions thereof are everywhere. Such activities and depictions are so widespread and so incorporated into daily life, that people don’t even categorize it as a noteworthy phenomenon. One can go days without out seeing depictions of homosexuality in everyday life. The same can not be said of heterosexuality.
So David, when straight people stuff their relationships and their sexuality into the proverbial closet for a good bit, as LGBT people have to do on a daily basis, I’ll consider the impertinence of LGBT people “wearing it on their sleeves.”
For more information on the ways in which the centering of heterosexuality and the marginalization of LGBT people are deeply incorporated into everyday culture, consider these two links:
1) Daily effects of straight privilege
2) Straight Christian privilege checklist
It’s one thing to be what you are and live it. It’s another thing to label yourself based on your sexuality. It’s nobody’s business what my sexual orientation is. It’s nobody’s business what your sexual orientation is. But calling yourself a homosexual or advocating for gay rights is putting your sexuality out there for the world to see and criticize.
And just as I can come on this board and openly oppose it, by doing so I open myself up for criticism. I knew it when I first posted here. The duty is to accept that people might not see things the way you do.
It’s like a politician. He or she goes out and gives opinions on the things the politician thinks matters the most to him. It might be popular, it might not be. But it is his opinion, he’s obviously thought long and hard about it, and he puts it out there for the people to choose whether he’s the man for the job or not. People can accept him or reject him. Same with those with a gay agenda. People can accept them or not. But just because I choose not to accept their premise on its face does not make me a homophobe. It makes me against the practice of homosexuality.
[...] latest comment response to the resident Christian fundie in another blogpost. His post in full is here. Wow James, nice rant. Sorry to have to debunk [...]
Which makes you a person with prejudices against homosexuality and thus, homophobic. I’m sorry, but I’m not going to let you wiggle out of that one. You’re homophobic, David. Get used to the label because you are going to hear more of it as time goes on… and not just from non-theists.
Look, human sexuality is a part of nearly everyone’s makeup (except for those rare few who are mostly asexual). It’s a part of a human being’s persona. It effects who they want to spend their most intimate moments with. It effects who they want to spend their lives with. You can’t divorce such a deep aspect of someone’s persona from who they are as a person. Hence, you can’t separate heterosexuality from a person, homosexuality from a person, or bisexuality from a person.
The difference is that heterosexuality is seen as the norm and thus viewed as an unchallengeable facet of being human. People with other variations on human sexuality, being the minority populace, have been shat upon by the majority for years on end. Just like various other minorities, LGBT people have been faced with the vicious groupthink and violence that accompanies in-group out-group conflict. Your religion, David, reflects that groupthink and conflict. The majority have pushed around LGBT people because the majority have had the numbers necessary to do so. Many of the world’s religions, governments, and cultural practices reflect that power imbalance. This isn’t exactly rocket science, as you can see a similar dynamic taking place with ethnic, racial, and religious minorities across the globe.
So, if you said that you were against being Jewish or Latino, you’d be anti-Semitic or racist. Similarly, guess what that means if you say you are against homosexuality or bisexuality?
Except, of course, sexual prejudices imported from the archaic mores of a 2000 year old culture have been interpreted by your religion as justifying current day prejudices and consequently, have left you blind to the reality of your own prejudices.
Oh, and I’m going to guess that you’ll say that comparing racism to homophobia isn’t fair because it compares an immutable trait with a behavior. Well, you know what? A person’s religion falls into the realm of human behavior. A person can change their religion far more readily than a person can change their sexual orientation.
So, let’s switch roles, David.
For the sake of argument, I’m completely against Catholicism. In fact, I think your religious proclivities represent a flaw in your character and the only course of action available to be a whole, healthy human being is to deny your Catholicism.
How does that feel, David, to be faced down with demands that you deny a part of yourself that seems so important to you? You wear your religion on your sleeve and consequently leave yourself open to criticism and condemnation. Consequently, I have no problem critiquing your errant religious beliefs. In fact, I don’t think your religion is all that important. I think you can and should deny that part of yourself.
Now, I don’t hate a person because they have a proclivity toward Catholicism, but I do have a problem with someone who actively practices Catholicism. Surely, that doesn’t make me anti-papist? I couldn’t possibly be expressing a prejudice or hatred based upon religion, could I?
So David, I’ll give up the “sin” of bisexuality when you give up the “sin” of Catholicism. Please send me proof that you’ve been excommunicated from the Catholic church. At which point, I’ll renounce my bisexuality, and I dunno… enroll in a dating service as a straight person, I guess.
I’m waiting…
Oh, so you’re defining terms now? A phobia is a morbid fear. I’m not afraid of homosexuals, so I’m not homophobic. At best, you can lable me anti-homosexuality.
I agree with you that sexuality is ingrained in humanity. I disagree that we choose who we want to spend our lives with based on sexuality. I chose my wife because she’s caring and nurturing, not because she was good in bed. This is the right way to choose who you want to spend your life with, because your ability to have sex can change and often does.
But I’m not trying to separate a person’s sexuality from the person. Not at all. I grant you that some people have different sexual desires. Based on what you’re saying, though, if someone likes to have sex with animals, it’s ok. That’s their sexuality, and shouldn’t be deprived from them. What I am saying is that all people-homo, hetero, bi, and so on, should control their sexuality. If you don’t, it will get you in trouble, not just when you die and meet your maker, but here on earth. If you have unbridled hetero or homo sex with anyone who will have you, eventually you will catch an incurable disease, and possibly die. Our disagreement (yours and mine) is religious, though. And for my part, I do not have anything against someone who is a homosexual-practicing or non-practicing. I don’t have anything against a murderer, either. I have big problems with the acts they perform.
Also, I don’t deny that some people treat people with these ‘variations’ in an undignified manner. And those that do are wrong themselves, and as the saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right.
You’re right, being against a person because of their skin color or heritage is wrong, just as being against a person who is a homosexual is wrong. But I’m not against that person, and most people I know are not. Against their acts, absolutely, and yes, we can separate the two.
Now on to your role switching. By the way, I think you might be anti-Catholic. But I wouldn’t call you a Catholicphobe.
You say you want to deny my Catholicism, but then your role-switch doesn’t work, because I’m not denying anyone what they want to do. But I’ll play along, because it’s been done, in Communist Russia and China, and you know what? There were STILL Catholics in Russia, and there are STILL Catholics in China. Anyway, I’m not trying to deny anyone their self. I have no problem with someone having same-sex attraction, just as I’m against tatoos but don’t have anything against someone who has one or is getting one. I AM saying that God says that it’s wrong and that they should deny themselves for Him. Whether they do is up to them.
I don’t really care whether you give up your sin or not. But it is my sin not to tell you that what you’re doing is a sin, and I’m not going to go to hell for you.
What I do care about is that LBGT-ism, which you have agreed is not normal behavior, is demanded to be seen as normal behavior. I will never do that, and most people wouldn’t either.
I can love the sinner, though, because I am one, just like you are, and you are a creation of God.
Oops. Looks like I missed this response.
David, this is tiring. Hence, I will be blunt: you are full of it. I did not define the word. However, I supplied definitions of the term from several sources. This is the way the word is used in common parlance. If you want to ignore common usage of the English language, that’s your problem. In the end, it leaves you looking like an uninformed fool.
Once again, you are comparing who a person falls in love with—which is guided by the human sex they are oriented toward—with murder. You steadfastly refuse to see how problematic this is. Your words betray your underlying hateful feelings even though you wont admit to these feelings.
Once again, let’s give you a taste of your own medicine.
Remember all those LGBT youth that committed suicide and made it into the news lately? Given conservative religion’s propensity to make LGBT youth feel like they are worthless and depraved, would you mind if I compared the entire Catholic faith—including all of its followers—with murder and murderers? Would you mind if I compared your sense of spirituality with the same emotions that propel someone to kill another human being? How does that make you feel, David?
Better yet, how’s this: Catholicism and it’s followers distort young people’s sense of them selves and destroy young people’s lives. Are you OK with that David? Does that seem fair?
By the way, do see the comment I made yesterday. I’m waiting for your response to that one, too.
Well, by the standard definition, I’m not homophobic. You can say I am all you want to, I’m just not. I don’t care about how other mis-define terms. Phobic means afraid of. Plain and simple, and I am not afraid of homosexuals.
I also didn’t compare homosexuals to murderers. You choose to totally miss the point. I know that everyone, including myself, is a sinner. If I were to start hating the people who do the sin, I’d have to hate everyone, and I don’t. I might hate what they do, but that is separate from the person. You, on the other hand, choose to link the person to what he or she does, which is your choice, to be wrong. But don’t assume that everyone sees things the way you do, or the way the majority does.
Regarding your example, I dare you to show where Catholics, Catholics who live their faith fully, did this. I don’t care about fundamentalists, they are in a class by themselves. But you cannot lump people together like that, and I don’t either. But in your example, let’s put murder where it belongs-it’s a sin, and every sin listed in the 10 Commandments is equally as bad as the others. So you can equate everyone in the Catholic faith today in one class-we’re all sinners. So I guess I don’t mind.
What actually “distorts young people’s sense of themselves and destroys young peoples’ lives” is the way the world chooses to live. Telling people that it’s ok to just go with their urges, no matter what they are. The “I’m OK, you’re OK.” phylosophy is wrong. None of us is OK. At least Catholics, and most other Christians, and many of other religions, keep on trying to live good, faithful lives.
Oh, and Catholicism encourages over-procreation because of it’s ban on contraceptives. This creates and undue burden upon the environment and consequently, it is an unhealthy lifestyle. If we encouraged everyone to reproduce this much, the environment would collapse and the human race would probably die off in a few generations.
And by the way, I’m against Catholicism in the same way that people are against theft and murder.
Let’s see. Did I cover all the bases?
Just remember, I don’t hate anybody because they’re Catholic. I try to teach people who want to live a healthy life how to do it. Having a religion that embraces oppressive, antiquated cultural beliefs is not the way to do it.
Actually, that’s wrong too.
Catholicism encourages responsible use of the gifts God gives us. If you don’t want children, don’t have sex with your spouse during her fertile period. Control yourself.
By the way, did you know that, because of the permissive contraception and abortion laws in Europe, countries are actually paying people to go ahead and have their babies, because they’re afraid that the native population of Europe will die out? The birth ratios in England, France, Spain, Russia, and others is so low that Europe as we know it is dying out.
Yes, I am aware of this, actually. Declining and dying out are two very different things. A decline in birth rate does not equal extinction. Given the disproportionate contribution of green house gasses and disproportionate consumption of natural resources by the west, a population decline in western nations isn’t a bad thing. It is, arguably, a positive contribution to the overall health of the planet.
As for the “control yourself” approach to sex and contraception, when we’re looking at things on the scale of a world population, your approach isn’t practical. We’re currently faced with global warming, declining oil production, declining availability of fresh water,and various other forms of environmental degradation and you actually want to encourage people to engage in a lifestyle that would ultimately increase population growth? I’m sorry, but that’s completely nonsensical. You can moralize all you want about how your god doesn’t approve of condoms and pharmaceuticals. If the earth can’t support our growing numbers, we truly will die off, regardless of your moral ideals.
Btw, I’ve seen the size of the traditional Catholic families that several of my friends came from. Large is an understatement. I must say, it’s quite a testament to self control. Ultimately though, it really doesn’t matter here in the US because even Catholics largely ignore the Vatican’s opinion on the matter.
But the fact of the matter is, your response is nothing more than a diversion from the discussion. I presented you with a version of your own prejudices and I did so by taking your prejudices regarding sexual orientation and retooling them to focus on your religion instead. I don’t actually harbor the prejudice I crafted above. I’m illustrating how utterly problematic your thinking is.
So, tell me David, how do you like having your own prejudices turned against your faith? Does it seem fair? Do you think it would be right to codify this prejudice into law? Would it be fair to integrate anti-Catholicism into nearly all of the institutions in society?
What if a particularly nasty strain of atheism took control of society and it was your head on the chopping block? How would it make you feel to know that you could loose your job, your home, or your life because of your religion? How would it feel when the government declares that Catholic marriages are no longer recognized as valid? Would you be comfortable with your religious beliefs being declared as sick and disordered? Would you be OK with your children being taught that their religion was depraved and worthy of contempt? If your children grew up thinking that they were somehow defective because they come from a Catholic family, how would that make you feel? What if one of your children were to commit suicide because of the ostracism they experienced from their peers? What then? Would that upset you, David?
Oh, global warming. Pardon me while I roll on the floor and laugh. OK, done with that. Actually, the idea that humans are responsible for global warming, that’s what I’m laughing at.
It’s a known fact that you could fit the entire population of the world comfortably in the state of Texas, and use the rest of the world to feed the population. So overpopulation, and human-caused global warming are myths. But given that you don’t believe in an all-powerful creator, it doesn’t surprise me.
My approach to birth control and family size works 100% of the time when applied properly. At best, condoms and other artificial means have between 5% and 20% failure rates, in perfect use conditions. My suggestion is that, if you expect people to control themselves and obey speed limit laws, laws against rape and murder, and personal control on things like food consumption and alcohol and drug consumption, you can ask them to exert self control when it comes to having children in their marriage. The simple fact is that if you don’t have sex, you don’t conceive children. So, know when the female is fertile, avoid having sex during that time, and you can avoid having children.
Regarding how other perceive my faith, I don’t really care. That’s their problem, not mine. Christ presented the faith, I live it. Christ died for it. Where does that leave me?
You asked “Would it be fair to integrate anti-Catholicism…”?
I say fair doesn’t matter, because since the birth of Catholicism, anti-Catholicism is integrated into every institution of society. It is, already. Right here, right now.
But you know what? Christ promised us that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church. And despite all attempts to stop Catholicism, we are 1/6 of the world population. Even in places where it’s been outlawed-Ancient Rome, modern China, the former USSR, and many other places, it still exists. If my head was on the block, I trust my God. He has a plan for me. I would willingly lose my job, my home, my life. If I can’t worship my God, none of that matters. In fact, I’ve considered leaving the US because of just such a thing. If the government declares my marriage invalid, so what? God married us, the government can’t take that away. Your scenario about children being taught that my religion is sick-already happening. You’re asking all these questions as if they aren’t already happening, and you may not think so, but they already are. In the supposedly free United States of America, along with much of the world. My children already know their faith, and they know, first of all, that they shouldn’t criticize other people for their faults, because they have enough of their own to deal with. They also know their faith well enough to stand up strong to any criticizm, so that scenario doesn’t exist.
I know my religion is right because despite 6000 years of persecution, the belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Moses still flourishes, the God of Jesus, Paul and Peter still lives, and will continue to live. So regardless of any deterrent, I’m Catholic.
Right. I should have known that you’re one of the those people who deny the larger issues regarding human kind’s impact on global warming.
You’ve also resorted to the stock conservative Christian response of, “Christians are just so maligned and mistreated. The whole world is against us.” Christians form 76% of the US populous. Let’s just say that your sense of persecution makes me question your sobriety.
I usually find new atheist’s dismissal of Christians as reality challenged individuals of questionable intellect to be a crass over-generalization. Talking to you has been enlightening, for I now have a better understanding of why they believe so strongly in that stereotype. Thank goodness I actually know a number of level headed Christians in real life.
Considering that I’ve lost all confidence in the assumption that I’m interacting with a reasonable, sane individual, I’ll bid you farewell.
Btw, here’s some reading material for you David:
NASA & World Book Encyclopedia’s webpage on global warming
MIT News: Report: Human activity fuels global warming
Stanford University News: Scientific expertise lacking among ‘doubters’ of climate change, according to analysis by Stanford researchers
PNAS Abstract: Expert credibility in climate change (This is an abstract for the report referenced in the Stanford U article)
Website & research of one of the authors behind the PNAS abstract
Yeah, as soon as I click on one of your links, I lose what I so laborously wrote.
You doubt Christian persecution? We’re persecuted more than your beloved LGBTs. Even in the religiously ‘permissive’ US, Christians are persecuted, whether it’s by criticizing their thought, their faith, or by taking away their rights. But Christians in the US have it easy. Just two weeks ago, Christians in Iraq were killed and injured while they attended Church. In this century and the last, more Christians have been killed for their faith than in any other century, as a percentage of the Christian population. You can be put to death for carrying a Bible in Saudi Arabia. You can be put to death for practicing your faith in China. The first thing the Communist regime did in Russia was to try to squash faith in God. Stalin massacred Christians. So did Mao, Pol Pot, and others.
Regarding Global Warming, you cannot prove scientifically that humans are causing global warming. You can show that we have fluctuated less than 1*C since 1800 or thereabouts. You cannot prove what caused the fluctuation.