Jump to content

Post-Mortem: A Discussion on the Afterlife


Recommended Posts

Freedom:

Technically I can't prove that free will even exists, but if we assume that it does, freedom comes from self-determination. The ability to choose based on personal priorities, not some quasi-mystical mumbo jumbo from an outdated textbook.

Was this directed at me?

Firstly, science will never be able to prove free will exists, just as science will never be able to prove that "God" exists. In fact, unless you're a scientologist (which I doubt strongly, knowing what I do about you), I'm pretty sure that you believe in the science of psychology. Well, newsflash, you cannot have a "science of the prediction and control of human thought and behavior" without a deterministic premise. Without some degree of determinism, there is no way to systematically predict and control behavior (people could always just "use their free will" and nothing would be predictable).

Secondly, go ahead, invoke you're free will. When was the last time you used your free will? What did it feel like? Are you absolutely certain that there was not some environmental or genetic factor that led to that behavior? It's interesting to me that we agree that homosexuality is not a choice; it's something that you're born with, and you cannot start liking girls sexually any more than I can stop liking girls and start liking boys. However, there are other behaviors that are mysteriously "chosen". Hmm... I smell Occam somewhere in the background here....

Thirdly, my assumption of philosophical determinism is anything but from an old textbook with "mystical" writings (hell, assertion of free will within psychology is mystical enough in my opinion). My assertions are based in part on experiments in behavioral psychology in which I have actively participated. In behavior analysis, all "voluntary" behavior occurs within a context of antecedent stimuli and resultant consequences, it is learning about how those consequences are more or less likely to occur in the presence of a given antecedent that gives rise to systematic behavior (and this includes all behavior, including "self-awareness," "problem-solving," "communication," "novelty/creativity," and "imitation"). Also, brush up on the findings of one Benjamin Libet, who discovered that the impulse to engage in a behavior and the initiation of the behavior itself  preceded awareness of the "choice" to engage in the behavior.

Fourthly, I know how important the illusion of free will is. I fought for it as a teenager in a university philosophy class, and only fairly recently (the past 6 years or so) have I really incorporated it into my personal theory regarding the human condition. It seems silly to me to condemn people for believing in a god while persisting in belief in this ephemeral "freedom".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should note that (unsurprisingly) I disagree wholeheartedly with Hwi's assessment of "freedom through Christ". Your life as a Christian is just as determined as your life pre-religion; it's just the target behaviors and the reinforcers that maintain them have changed.

Like I said, I understand if someone wants to believe in freedom of will. It's nice and it seems obvious. That said, though, the realization that conscious will is an illusion perpetrated by Western civilization, is liberating in so many ways; guilt, fear, and unhappiness from your actions are no longer so long-lasting. Also, you can dispose of dignity or pride, as these are meaningless as well. Why did I do so well throughout my college career? I was raised by parents that valued education, I was not distracted with work/sex/drugs, and I (maybe, probably) have a certain genetic proclivity for intellectual pursuits.

Also, Ath's response seems somewhat anti-Christian; at least the form that I grew up with. But really, do you think you would be Christian had it not been for other people in your life that were meaningful in some way, that taught you that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Light?

BTW, this discussion involving the existence of freedom is relevant to the discussion at hand because it leads to my personal account for why there cannot be the traditional Christian afterlife (i.e., what purpose does eternal pain or pleasure serve if there is no effect on the choices you make after death?).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh. No, 'Chigger, there was nothing substantial in any of that. Are we really surprised by now?

And no, Lord J, that wasn't directed at you. It was directed at folks with a somewhat more fragile grip on reality.

Philosophically, I can't prove that entirely free will exists. That is, the ability to make a different decision even if the circumstances surrounding it are precisely the same. And frankly, I don't wish to. In terms of causality, it doesn't make sense. Behaviour, like everything else, is deterministic. That's not just fine, it's great.

But practically speaking, just because we can't prove the existence of free will doesn't mean that we should automatically act as though it's fictional. Not because there might be an error in the reasoning, but because our societies function around an assumption that we are responsible for our actions. While I believe that our decision-making process is in fact a chain of cause and effect that is complicated enough to pass for free thinking, it's just easier to assume otherwise for the purposes of everyday living.

Now, to business. Perhaps "textbook" was a misleading word, but I was being derogatory about every religious text ever written. Not so much abusing psychology (if I wanted to do that I'd just say it's not a hard science. I used to have such fun winding up the psych department with that, even if I only half believe it). My position on free will has been laid out above, but I'll go into a bit more detail here because I think we're confusing two applications of the word "freedom."

On the one hand, free will: the ability to make the same choice twice and reach a different conclusion. On the other hand, self determination: control of one's own decisions. The two are very much related, and there is some crossover, but they aren't quite the same thing. It is my opinion that, regardless of the philosophical foundations of the former (which I think is what you thought I was talking about?), Hwi and useless and Eracist and all their little friends completely lack the latter. They may have the same illusion of free will as the rest of us, but unlike the rest of us they are unable to make practical application of that mirage. Too busy allowing a book to make their decisions for them, they sacrifice self-determination in exchange for woolheaded comfort.

I'm not sure what you meant by behaviours that are "chosen," though. As in the difference between what we are and what we do? The difference between being inclined towards X and actually fulfilling X? An interesting question, but I'd like to confirm that's what we're tlaking about before I respond to it.

In conclusion, I don't "believe" in freedom so much as I believe that independence of thought (if it can be said to exist) is of greater value than servitude to a pathological father figure with control and insecurity issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point Dante;

Responsibility is a huge part of the political unrest here in the states. A repeated argument that I hear (primarily from the right, though I don't remember the left saying anything in response) is that this country was founded on the idea that people need to take responsibility for their own mistakes and problems. My question, of course, is what exactly is responsibility? Operationally define that for me, why don't you? And, of course, why should someone behave responsibly when they are taught by the current system to do anything but?

No, psychology is not a hard science, unfortunately, because people cling to these fictions of the mind, will, and feelings as somehow being separate from the functions of the brain. You end up with these elaborate flowcharts with dozens of unseen mental acrobatics, and the statistical fit of the model to actual behavior is dismal. Why is a correlation coefficient of .3 significant with a high enough number of observations? It's because we, in psychology, have learned to accept that there are things going on under the skin that we cannot quantify or predict. Meanwhile, behavior analysts are publishing papers with R2 in the range of .85-.99 by using meaningful, simplistic, mathematical models.

As to the idea of making a different choice when setting is similar; one way to address that is just to appeal to the somewhat random nature of initial behavior. If there are two buttons there, I will likely press both over the course of time, even if pressing the first one results in food/money/etc. In other words, we have an inborn proclivity for novelty. Secondly, it depends on the outcome of the choice the first time you made it; i.e., was the behavior punished in some way? Unless there is some clear way for you to have made two choices at the same time in the same circumstances (which I don't think is the question here) then it is always possible that the outcome of one choice is dependent upon the outcome of the previous choice.

As for self-determination, again, interesting point. I would argue that self-determination is, again, an illusion based upon a system of behavior that you learn. For example, say that, on Sunday night, I know that on Monday morning I want to get up and go to class. The long-term reward for going to class is high (i.e., graduating, getting an awesome job, social status) and the relative worth of an extra 30 mins of sleep is low. But when Monday rolls around, getting up is hella hard. The relative worth of sleeping in is much larger than the value of these delayed rewards. Therefore, what a lot of people do is set their alarm clocks far away so that they actually have to get out of bed to shut them off. Because I have to get up to shut off the alarm, it's that much easier to stumble into the shower. Some people are told to do this by family/friends, some discover its worth on their own, but either way, the process of choosing is much more easier when both of the outcomes (sleeping in, the "impulsive choice" and getting up, the "self-controlled" choice) are far away. Now granted, some people are more "disciplined" than others in terms of the fact that it requires fewer reminders to engage in the "appropriate" behavior, but again, I would argue that discipline is a learned class of behavior.

Now, granted, some of this is an over explanation, and I'm not certain that self-control or discipline is what you're talking about in terms of self-determination. I think partly it may be the fact that you're not following any specific set of precepts because they are set down in some religious text (which, neither am I) but you do what seems right, good, and just according to the situation. You're almost certainly not a criminal, Dante, so you at least are sensitive to the fact that we live in a social world based upon respect for the property and health of others. Well, this is, again, a class of concepts that is learned in some way, either because your parents taught you some level of propriety, or because you're an intelligent person who interacted with the world at large and learned by personal experience.

That's another interesting point, the difference between what we are and what we do. From a Watsonian point of view, they are not meaningfully different, but they feel quite different to us. I'm fairly certain I could kill people, be good at it, and a certain part of me thinks I would enjoy it. That said, I have never killed anyone, and considering that I am not likely to be considered for police or military employment, it is not likely that I ever will kill anyone. Now granted, this isn't quite the same as being gay, or being all of those other things that we "are", but I really think that the reason I believe I could be a killer is because I have seen/read/heard about enough violence and killers to see a correlation between the critical feelings/ideations associated with systematic killing and my own feelings and ideations. Not that I did this comparison in any logical, well-thought-out manner, its just something I rose to. See, this goes back to the idea of the "mind" as being merely a process whereby we compare events in terms of causality and correlation, but not necessarily as a place where independent behavior arises.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that you should learn, Eracist, is that one form of bigotry is much the same as any other. Sure I could call you a bigot, and that would technically be more accurate, but it lacks the verbal punch of calling to mind a form of bigotry that you actually dislike (as opposed to the kinds which you do). So, you get to be a racist, because you're no better than one.

I get it now. I'm not really a racist, you're just calling me one.

I find it rather presumptuous that you should decide why someone else is suicidal. I also find it interesting that you tacitly agreed with me, "As far as living goes, it is more important, the child's life-style." But that probably just indicates that you didn't understand what you were saying. And of course you ignored the points which actually showed your argument to be a load of tripe. Surprise surprise.

No, what I'm saying is that children are going to grow up they way they are going to grow up. I have tried and tried with my oldest son, but he is a womanizer -- and he is proud of it. So you can imagine how I feel.

(I note that we're back to talking about homosexuality again. Can't seem to let that go, can you?)

I can let it go. But I like to use it as a reference as a society that is almost upside down.

Certain groups can claim discrimination...but they are marching down Main St in 'Pride Parades'. The men dressed like women, the women dressed like men, 'sexual expression' occurring -- and no one is allowed to enforce any laws or anything. For one day, the Pride Parade must occur. For one day in your local urban city in the 'enlightened' West, a Pride Parade must occur.

Then these same people go to their half million dollar homes, that are filled with antiques; drive their hundred thousand dollar cars, blow hundreds on drinks and strippers late at night -- and claim discrimination. They actually have a civil rights movement!

Meanwhile, there are people who are actually descended from a slave system that just ended 150 years ago, and are still suffering because of race. Then their forefathers spent 1865-1965 basically living in fear, basically not being able to vote -- they have not had anything change for them in America at all. They are still being discriminated against, and nothing changes.

Useless, I do not want to love Eracist. The wonderful thing about my philosophy is that I can be as kindly or as vindictive as I choose to be. Sometimes I choose to be nice, sometimes I choose to be nasty, and in this particular case I want to be nasty. And happily, I can do exactly as I want.

That is the opposite of my philosophy. I have to want what's best for you at all times.

As for faith in god allowing one to overcome genetics, find me someone who can sprout wings through faith alone and then we'll have something to talk about.

It is going to take more evidence than the near ramblings of a Language Arts professor in British Columbia to prove that it is genetic.

Freedom:

You people who think that freedom comes from submission, you'd be right at home in Airstrip One, wouldn't you? Working for Minitrue, perhaps.

Bowing down to the correct individual is the most important action. The Son who is perfect is the ONLY one worth bowing down to. Obviously, bowing down to the Inner Party of Oceania would be incorrect. But to the Being who created you, that would be right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost! You are a racist, and I'm calling you one. Didn't you pay attention to anything Wolf said? Points for trying though.

No, what I'm saying is that children are going to grow up they way they are going to grow up. I have tried and tried with my oldest son, but he is a womanizer -- and he is proud of it. So you can imagine how I feel.

Like an abject failure?

That'd be nice.

I can let it go. But I like to use it as a reference as a society that is almost upside down.

So... you can't let it go. Always coming back to that barometer of societies: the gays. Again. This obsession of yours is probably quite unhealthy, you know?

That you deny the existence or seriousness of homophobia while simultaneously being homophobic is just... wow. You're completely unaware of anything you say, aren't you? It's like listening to someone saying "I'm not racist, but..."

Newsflash: you can't say that things are fine for homosexuals when a) many still commit suicide thanks to abusive behaviour from others, b) many countries still execute them, and c) people like you still exist. Among other things. Furthermore, you can't generalise the entire black population as being unfairly downtrodden (though I won't deny that many are) when you have, say, people like Hwi screwing up the poverty curve.

That is the opposite of my philosophy. I have to want what's best for you at all times.
Yet everything you say and do acts contrary to this. You see why Wolf calls you Liar? You can't have it both ways.
It is going to take more evidence than the near ramblings of a Language Arts professor in British Columbia to prove that it is genetic.

1) There has been more evidence. 2) Geez, we weren't even talking about that. You'll jump on any opportunity to deride your bugbear, won't you?

Bowing down to the correct individual is the most important action. The Son who is perfect is the ONLY one worth bowing down to. Obviously, bowing down to the Inner Party of Oceania would be incorrect. But to the Being who created you, that would be right.
Really. And what is it about a creator which automatically grants it the respect and love of the creation, hm?

Besides which, it doesn't matter who you're bowing to, you're arguing for a contradiction in terms. Freedom through oppression. How very blackwhite.

Lord J, I'll try to reply to you soon. Replies that take thought require so much more time than those that don't, y'know?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like an abject failure?

My son is the failure. That's the path that he has chosen.

So... you can't let it go. Always coming back to that barometer of societies: the gays. Again. This obsession of yours is probably quite unhealthy, you know?

No, I just wanted to show how insane it is to try to say that gays have it so rough in The West. Many have a huge amount of discretionary income, that they use to buy influence.

Newsflash: you can't say that things are fine for homosexuals when a) many still commit suicide thanks to abusive behaviour from others.

No one should be abused.

But the inherent nature of the gay lifestyle causes 'extreme' living; which can cause overdoses, depression, etc. And, if male homosexual people really 'believe' in their 'heart of hearts' that their gay lifestyle is correct, then nothing will cause that person to lose their happiness--let alone commit suicide.

But not one gay person I have ever met had ever 'believed' that. They simply believe that they cannot change whom they are, or don't want to think about it, or are having a 'good time' right now.

b) many countries still execute them

That's wrong if it occurs. Is it true?

c) people like you still exist.

Yeah, ol' ErasOmnius. Still helping gays and lesbians when they come in to the Center for help. When homosexuals have a 'problem' with VD, and they don't have any money, and none of their friends will help--I, and others, help out. A lot of the time, the guys need help with drug addiction. The other day, a transvestite came in, another male homosexual had beaten him/her very badly on the head and neck.

Among other things. Furthermore, you can't generalise the entire black population as being unfairly downtrodden (though I won't deny that many are) when you have, say, people like Hwi screwing up the poverty curve.

I like Hwi, and I'm glad she's doing well. But what is happening in Detroit to black kids is wrong, and sad.

Really. And what is it about a creator which automatically grants it the respect and love of the creation, hm?

The Creator is the one who wrote the Operators Manual.

Besides which, it doesn't matter who you're bowing to, you're arguing for a contradiction in terms. Freedom through oppression. How very blackwhite.

As humans, we are going to be a slave to something. It had better be the Creator.

Jealous? ;D

What's so hard about being a womanizer in today's West? It's much harder to be purely monogamous. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

(sigh) This is probably going to be a waste of time. All of what I've said has been said before, just so y'all know.

Once again, a thread boils down to Liar's (a.k.a. ErasOmnius') insecure ramblings. Liar: you really have no idea, on the one hand, how ignorant you are, and how much of what you say is simply a false assumption on your part, and on the other, what a complete douchebag you are. I'll try to keep the rebukes short.

1. "My son is the failure. That's the path that he has chosen."

This is disgusting. This makes pretty much everyone here but Hwi "Confirmation Bias" Noree think you're an awful father, you know that? There are way better ways to attempt to change your son's behavior if you think what he does is harmful besides going behind his back and calling him a failure in a public forum. Frankly, I'd be furious with my parents if this is how I found out what they really thought of me.

2. "No, I just wanted to show how insane it is to try to say that gays have it so rough in The West."

Actually, gays in "the West" (no need to capitalize the "t") are even more likely than heterosexuals to live in poverty because of increased rates of adolescent homelessness. The difference is slight, but it nonetheless cuts in the opposite direction than you assumed. If your argument is that, hey, at least gays aren't being executed, then you've displayed--once again--your essentially criminal, and un-Christian nature. If you think entitling homosexuals to live is doing them some kind of favor, then you're probably too far gone ever to be saved. Hence my first sentence in this post.

3. You keep assuming that gays, generally, live a wilder, riskier and more irresponsible lifestyle than homosexuals. There is no basis for this assumption, whatsoever, and it arises purely out of your own, personal, bigoted stereotype of homosexuals. Stop. Now. What you're doing by continuing to spew this bile is criminal, and will one day get you into trouble.

4. This is related to (3) but just because you see some homosexuals with venereal diseases or drug addictions does not mean that all homosexuals have venereal diseases or drug addictions. I see many heterosexuals with venereal diseases (I'm guessing) and drug addictions, but I don't assume that heterosexuality is the cause. It's complete nonsense: there's no logical relationship. When will you wake up?

5. Bonus. You ignored my proof of your racism. Why did you ignore it? I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge your racist proclivities, admit that some of your comments were racist, apologize, and stop using your or your wife's race as a means of avoiding legitimate criticism of your views.

6. Bonus. Why Texas? I mean, clearly, you love making assumptions, but most of your assumptions arise from some sick, but easily understandable fault in your personality (e.g. homophobia, racism, etc.), on the other hand, I have no idea why you assumed I'm from Texas. I'm intensely curious.

7. Bonus. THIS IS A THREAD ABOUT THE GODDAMN AFTERLIFE. Why are you still talking about homosexuality? What the deuce is wrong with the moderation on this forum? It's bad enough that you spew the same sort of crap I'll see on forums like Stormfront, and you should have been banned long ago for that, but what the hell, man? Seriously, what's wrong with you? Why do you, personally, hate gays so much? The Bible isn't a justification--even assuming that God absolutely hated gays, Himself, you could always say, "hey, I don't care, but them's the rules." Why go this far? Is it ignorance? Self-hatred? I mean, Hwi's psychological profile is perverse, but the explanation for it is simple, and everyone knows what her deal is by now. You, on the other hand, are a complete whackjob with no obvious explanation besides idiocy. So, assuming for a moment that it isn't that, what's the deal? I'm trying to help you out here by understanding you better--and I can't understand you better if you (1) ignore everyone else's salient points and valid objections and (2) continue spewing the same, insanely discredited nonsense. Really, I mean, seriously try to have a dialogue. What you've been doing lately by quoting other peoples' posts and saying what amount to non-sequiters doesn't count. You really gotta think this time. Otherwise, I mean, I'm not going to waste my time on you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(sigh) This is probably going to be a waste of time. All of what I've said has been said before, just so y'all know.

Once again, a thread boils down to Liar's (a.k.a. ErasOmnius') insecure ramblings. Liar: you really have no idea, on the one hand, how ignorant you are, and how much of what you say is simply a false assumption on your part, and on the other, what a complete douchebag you are. I'll try to keep the rebukes short.

1. "My son is the failure. That's the path that he has chosen."

This is disgusting. This makes pretty much everyone here but Hwi "Confirmation Bias" Noree think you're an awful father, you know that? There are way better ways to attempt to change your son's behavior if you think what he does is harmful besides going behind his back and calling him a failure in a public forum. Frankly, I'd be furious with my parents if this is how I found out what they really thought of me.

I have kept nothing hidden from him. He has been 'doing what he has been doing' since he was 14. We talk all of the time. We debate Paul's intentions when he was the Preacher. We talk about Miles and his powers. We even talk about the Prequels -- and whether the character of Erasmus was necessary to 'humanize' the machines. But he's still drinks too much alcohol, and treats women like 'toys'.

2. "No, I just wanted to show how insane it is to try to say that gays have it so rough in The West."

Actually, gays in "the West" (no need to capitalize the "t") are even more likely than heterosexuals to live in poverty because of increased rates of adolescent homelessness.

I agree with the concept of what you are saying about young homosexuals. They do live in poverty, because they are ostracized from their homes. After all, at the Center I volunteer at, they show up all of the time. I will say one thing. They are completely surprised that the Center gives them a safe bed for the night, and 2 warm meals. There minds have been so twisted by the Media that all Christians do is 'hate' people.

The difference is slight, but it nonetheless cuts in the opposite direction than you assumed. If your argument is that, hey, at least gays aren't being executed, then you've displayed--once again--your essentially criminal, and un-Christian nature. If you think entitling homosexuals to live is doing them some kind of favor, then you're probably too far gone ever to be saved. Hence my first sentence in this post.

What I'm saying is that true Christianity, and an open accepting homosexual culture cannot exist in the same society.

3. You keep assuming that gays, generally, live a wilder, riskier and more irresponsible lifestyle than homosexuals. There is no basis for this assumption, whatsoever, and it arises purely out of your own, personal, bigoted stereotype of homosexuals. Stop. Now. What you're doing by continuing to spew this bile is criminal, and will one day get you into trouble.

That is a joke, isn't it, Wolf? To say that male homosexuals don't have a riskier lifestyle.

'Trouble'? You mean government 'trouble', don't you? Should I stop telling the truth? Do I as a Christian have any less right to less 'trouble' than my Chinese Christian brethren who are sitting in jail? No, I don't. Trust me, don't worry, I know where America is going with the Kagan on the Court.

Back to your point about risky behavior. Have you ever seen TV clips of a 'Pride' Parade? Do you understand why there are naked muscular men in swimsuits on parade floats down Main Street? Why Wolf, why? Why do they have a separate part of the Parade showing men with dog collars and leashes on, with other men leading them around like animals?

Now you're going to get mad at me. For telling it the way it is, aren't you?

Compare the Parade to one of our Church Services. Compare the Parade to the Center. You really are off the mark on this one. Get real when you debate me.

4. This is related to (3) but just because you see some homosexuals with venereal diseases or drug addictions does not mean that all homosexuals have venereal diseases or drug addictions. I see many heterosexuals with venereal diseases (I'm guessing) and drug addictions, but I don't assume that heterosexuality is the cause. It's complete nonsense: there's no logical relationship. When will you wake up?

Again, wake up. Male homosexuals use their waste opening as a sexual organ. It's sad. I understand that God has lifter the Restrainer off of mankind here at the End of the Age of Gentile Grace. Now mankind is saying 'up is down', that 'waste organs are sex organs'. You name it. And people are hopping right on the band-wagon. It's sad to see it happen.

5. Bonus. You ignored my proof of your racism. Why did you ignore it? I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge your racist proclivities, admit that some of your comments were racist, apologize, and stop using your or your wife's race as a means of avoiding legitimate criticism of your views.

Can you give me a quote that I have ever said anything racist? I know that you and Dante are trying to 'tag me' as a racist, so I can be banned. But then what would you do with your long and dreary day?

7. Bonus. THIS IS A THREAD ABOUT THE GODDAMN AFTERLIFE. Why are you still talking about homosexuality? What the deuce is wrong with the moderation on this forum? It's bad enough that you spew the same sort of crap I'll see on forums like Stormfront, and you should have been banned long ago for that, but what the hell, man? Seriously, what's wrong with you? Why do you, personally, hate gays so much? The Bible isn't a justification--even assuming that God absolutely hated gays, Himself, you could always say, "hey, I don't care, but them's the rules." Why go this far? Is it ignorance? Self-hatred? I mean, Hwi's psychological profile is perverse, but the explanation for it is simple, and everyone knows what her deal is by now. You, on the other hand, are a complete whackjob with no obvious explanation besides idiocy. So, assuming for a moment that it isn't that, what's the deal? I'm trying to help you out here by understanding you better--and I can't understand you better if you (1) ignore everyone else's salient points and valid objections and (2) continue spewing the same, insanely discredited nonsense. Really, I mean, seriously try to have a dialogue. What you've been doing lately by quoting other peoples' posts and saying what amount to non-sequiters doesn't count. You really gotta think this time. Otherwise, I mean, I'm not going to waste my time on you.

You have been spouting off for some time about Christianity. What you really don't like is that there are no justifications about your views in any New Testament period writings.

I really don't care that much about homosexuality. It just happened to 'stick' on this Forum. On the Tolkien Forum, I post about abortion. On Caprica (from which I was banned), it was about the US Military. On BeliefNet, it's about the over-use of Icons and statues.

But, that time of focusing on that subject is tedious, and so; let all of the the name-calling end...

I am ready to post about the after-life...

Do you think that it's important that there is an after-life? Does there have to be an after-life, at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe how unbelievably worthless everything you say is.

1. I'm sorry: rephrasing the title of the topic in the form of a question at the very end of your post as an edited afterthought does not make your homophobic rants "on-topic."

2. I already explained the racist thing you did and why it was racist. You ignored it. You ignored it again. Even if you didn't ignore it, though, I doubt you would be capable of understanding.

3. Virtually everything you say regarding homosexuals is an unfounded assumption. You do nothing to back up anything you say; yet you demand that people thoroughly cite to back up what they say in response. No. At least in the realm of civilized debate, this injustice is not allowed to occur: the burden of proof is on you to prove that homosexuals are the generally wealthy, irresponsible, abusive people you say they are.

4. Christianity is, at its core, fundamentally about tolerance and universal brotherhood. Your interpretation of scripture is inconsistent with this view. End of story: God doesn't want you to be an asshole.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ErasOmnius:

Don't call your son a failure. Only YHWH can judge him, and this is not to take place now but in the future. Just continue counseling him.

Since you mentioned those parades, I will add that religious parades with all those skulls and bones relics or images and other idols are similarly detestable to YHWH. And the gay parades you mentioned are 'fun' for us to watch (those people make themselves a joker) but the religious parades show the low cultural status of modern society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe how unbelievably worthless everything you say is.

For someone who NEVER produces any documentation on why they believe something, that really is 'something' coming from you.

1. I'm sorry: rephrasing the title of the topic in the form of a question at the very end of your post as an edited afterthought does not make your homophobic rants "on-topic."

*yawn*

2. I already explained the racist thing you did and why it was racist. You ignored it. You ignored it again. Even if you didn't ignore it, though, I doubt you would be capable of understanding.

I've searched every post since June 1st, and cannot find 'this post' that you are talking about. Sort of like your defense of sexual immorality using texts from ancient Christianity -- it doesn't exist.

3. Virtually everything you say regarding homosexuals is an unfounded assumption. You do nothing to back up anything you say; yet you demand that people thoroughly cite to back up what they say in response. No. At least in the realm of civilized debate, this injustice is not allowed to occur: the burden of proof is on you to prove that homosexuals are the generally wealthy, irresponsible, abusive people you say they are.

*yawn* But I will respond by saying that a great deal of what I posted was life experiences. Secondly, as far as the Parades go, don't you have youtube or a TV? Finding footage of Pride Parade is not that difficult. I'm not posting a link to such negative behavior.

You should be a lot more specific when you post. Your generalities are the same-ol', same-ol'. If you said, "here is something from so-and-so", why is he or she right or wrong -- it would be a lot better. Like 3 weeks ago, with the article from the NYT, that was better.

And here's my plug for a new charity that I have started to volunteer for -- Habitat for Humanity. Spent the afternoon yesterday, restoring a kitchen that had been water-damaged. I have been told there are local chapters throughout North America.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You lying sonofabich.

Remember when you made those absurd allegations about homosexual sex and HIV? And I posted no less than seven scholarly articles discussing the results of studies that indicated that homosexuals sex was not significantly more likely to cause infection of HIV than heterosexual sex? Remember when I posted all of those verses from the Old Testament that talked about things like capital punishment for poor agriculture and human slavery, and y'all ignored them? Or, regarding homosexuality in the classical era, we talked about the bisexuality of Achilles in the Iliad or Demosthenes' crime of his pederasty not being beneficial for his young charge. Time and time again I've countered your arrogant, ignorant bullshit with data, statistics, or real information and time and again you've ignored them. In just my last post I said that you are the kind of person who makes ridiculous allegations and never backs them up, and demands that everyone else back theirs up. That's precisely what you just did. Oh, and Liar? About the racist thing? You clearly didn't look hard enough, or, maybe you're just a goddamn idiot, because just in the last page of this topic I said:

But, on a final note: you really are a racist. Note that your only defense to charges of racism is the fact that you identify your and your wife's racial identities. Don't you get it? That's racist. Racism is allowing race to play any role in how you view the world, social policy, or relationships. If your race is your only defense to charges of racism, well, that itself is racist. The only way you could have responded to a charge of racism was with, "I treat all people equally, regardless of their racial identity." You didn't. You responded with: "I'm mixed race, and my wife is mixed race, how could either of us be racist?" Your ignorance is stunning, but the form your racism takes is pathetically common. For me, what makes you truly monstrous is your obsessive desire to subjugate male homosexuals to some "defective" status where they must "convert" or perish in some form or another.

I'm done with you. I've given you the benefit of more patience than you plainly deserve. You are a monstrous bigot who hides behind his occasional philanthropic work to avoid criticism of his horrendous beliefs. Yeah, Habitat for Humanity, huh? Did that for 8 years--you renovated a kitchen. I built entire damn houses with my bare hands. But I don't need to brag about that to make the point that I'm a "good person." Why do you? Every post you participate in is about two things: (1) your hatred of male homosexuality, and (2) the "good things" that you do. God, you're pathetic, and you'll never figure out why, so I'm not going to bother to talk to you anymore. Burn in hell, you monster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to bypass this:

But, on a final note: you really are a racist. Note that your only defense to charges of racism is the fact that you identify your and your wife's racial identities. Don't you get it? That's racist. Racism is allowing race to play any role in how you view the world, social policy, or relationships. If your race is your only defense to charges of racism, well, that itself is racist. The only way you could have responded to a charge of racism was with, "I treat all people equally, regardless of their racial identity." You didn't. You responded with: "I'm mixed race, and my wife is mixed race, how could either of us be racist?"

But since you repeated it*, I must say that IMO it is ridiculous.

*

"τὸ δὶς ἐξαμαρτεῖν οὐκ ἀνδρὸς σοφοῦ".

"To commit the same sin twice [is] not [a sign] of a wise man."

Link to post
Share on other sites

You lying sonofabich.

I will assume you are talking to me. sonofabich - Is that one word?

Remember when you made those absurd allegations about homosexual sex and HIV?

I got my figures from the United Nations.

And I posted no less than seven scholarly articles discussing the results of studies that indicated that homosexuals sex was not significantly more likely to cause infection of HIV than heterosexual sex?

You posted one of those 'AOL' articles.

Remember when I posted all of those verses from the Old Testament that talked about things like capital punishment for poor agriculture and human slavery, and y'all ignored them?

New Testament era, New-Testament era. Not the Old Testament era, when Israel HAD to keep itself pure, so it had to perform capital punishment on certain behaviors. The New Testament Church has no business declaring anyone worthy of capital punishment, nor should it get involved in politics.

Or, regarding homosexuality in the classical era, we talked about the bisexuality of Achilles in the Iliad or Demosthenes' crime of his pederasty not being beneficial for his young charge.

I completely agreed with you. Part of the Hellenization, or paganization, of a culture, is to accept homosexuality. You have me confused with ath on this one. There is no question that urban Greeks engaged in bisexuality from at least 1100 BC to 250 BC, or later.

Time and time again I've countered your arrogant, ignorant bullshit with data, statistics, or real information and time and again you've ignored them.

This is another time where you don't provide anything from the New Testament, the PsudoEpigapha, the Early Church Fathers/Leaders, or the Gnostic writings of early Christianity; to back yourself up, isn't it? Remember you are saying that Christianity should blend with what until 60 years ago was considered sexually immoral behavior.

In just my last post I said that you are the kind of person who makes ridiculous allegations and never backs them up, and demands that everyone else back theirs up. That's precisely what you just did.

Does this mean you aren't going to give an opinion on Gay Pride Parades?

Oh, and Liar? About the racist thing? You clearly didn't look hard enough, or, maybe you're just a goddamn idiot, because just in the last page of this topic I said:

I am sorry that you are getting so angry.

I'm done with you. I've given you the benefit of more patience than you plainly deserve.

"Gholas. He's welcome to them." -- as in, we are done, this is the end of Chapterhouse.

You are a monstrous bigot who hides behind his occasional philanthropic work to avoid criticism of his horrendous beliefs.

Sorry I don't agree that males should near-worship other males' bodies down Main Street; in a Parade, in open public. I feel that all men would be happier, married, producing children; sharing their lives with their offspring, with the next generation, so that their genetic material can move forward in time, and contribute to humanity, and its' future.

Yeah, Habitat for Humanity, huh? Did that for 8 years--you renovated a kitchen. I built entire damn houses with my bare hands. But I don't need to brag about that to make the point that I'm a "good person." Why do you?

I'm glad. I really am. I'm glad that we may be able to share Habitat stories.

Every post you participate in is about two things: (1) your hatred of male homosexuality, and (2) the "good things" that you do. God, you're pathetic, and you'll never figure out why, so I'm not going to bother to talk to you anymore. Burn in hell, you monster.

Actually, Wolf, we will meet in a thousand and oh, about twelve years (1012+ years) on That Day. One of us will be right, one of us will be wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless I'm right, in which case we won't meet at all. And thank goodness for that.

Wow, so Eracist is a terrible parent. Is anyone surprised? I know I'm not. And as entertaining as this most recent exchange has been, I've been meaning to correct a few things for the last day or two, only just now able to get round to it. I note, however, that even when material is directly quoted at him, Eracist still ignores it. That's quite the set of blinkers he's got there.

No, I just wanted to show how insane it is to try to say that gays have it so rough in The West. Many have a huge amount of discretionary income, that they use to buy influence.
Sure, the influence to watch their long-term partners suffer from preventable illnesses because your asinine healthcare system functions on insurance and insurance can only be shared between people who are married. Not to mention the whole occionally being murdered thing, which does tend to spill a bit.
That's wrong if it occurs. Is it true?
Do some research, idiot.
...The other day, a transvestite came in, another male homosexual had beaten him/her very badly on the head and neck.
My god you're stupid.

1) Transvestite is not the same thing as transsexual.

2) The polite thing to do is to refer to transsexuals with their chosen pronoun.

3) You don't help homosexuals. You might try to help people, and some of those people might be gay, but that's not quite the same thing. You're probably too stupid to follow that, though.

As humans, we are going to be a slave to something. It had better be the Creator.
Not true, on either count. You're rather cementing my opinion of you as incapable of independent thought, y'know.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to debate you on all of these things, because you only want to debate what you want to debate. You won't talk about Pride Parades, and what goes on in them. You won't talk about the vast majority of male homosexuality, which is non-monogamous. You want to focus on the small minority of two males who want the sacred title of 'marriage'.

So, my limited contact with male and female homosexuals en-masse really come down Pride Parades. What do I see?

1. Near naked young men standing on parade floats flexing, while other other same-age and older homosexual men fawn over them -- near-worshipping them.

2. Men dressed up as women. Sorry, Dante, don't know the difference between transsexuals and transvestites. What has the West come to, when we have to be knowledgable on such things?

3. A lesbian group entitled 'Dykes on Bykes'. Masculine women on chopper-style motorcycles.

Pride Parades. So when the 'homosexual movement' has Main Street all to themselves, do they display moderateness and normalcy. No. Don't you agree that it wold be best to show restraint on the part of male homosexuals, instead of a 3-mile long gay stripper parade?

Real debate on this issue, Dante, would be for you to comment on these specific Pride Parade things. They occur all over The West, all of the time.

Not the one murder of a gay man in California. Lord knows, someone from the Media was there with a camera for what might be a 'hate crime'. Gay capital punishment in Iran, their leader is misguided and wrong. Additionally, if you are speaking to something in Islam, say so. Christianity is a kind religion. If someone comes to me for change, then I will help them change, if they follow the Son. There is no forced coercion, or death involved. (Don't just harp on this one sentence, without addressing Parades -- because Parades are times for the gay rights movement to present itself, and they present themselves as out of control lusting individuals).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh puh-lease. If I ever publish a dictionary there will be a picture of you next to "hypocrisy."

I'm not going to debate you on all of these things, because you only want to debate what you want to debate.

Seriously? You don't see the astounding contradiction there? I need a new word for how stupid you are, 'idiot' just isn't cutting it anymore.

So I'm supposed to just talk about what you want to talk about despite the fact that you've been ignoring salient points for months? You're just a pathetic little nobody, aren't you? Whimpering through argument after argument, too fearful to actually respond to most of the points we raise because you know you're going to be crushed, so you just raise new ones in the mistaken belief that nobody will notice your failure to actually argue like an adult.

But I've been stooping to your level for so long now, I might as well continue. So Pride Parades, eh? Lets keep going completely off topic and indulge in yet another facet of your obsession with homosexuality. Because there might be a few deaf, blind folks sitting at the back who haven't yet grasped what a massive closet case you are.

1) I deny that the "vast majority" of homosexuals are polygamous. I put it to you that it's far easier to notice a small minority when they are significantly louder than the majority. Also that you can't really judge homosexuals by pride parades in the same way that you can't judge firefighters by calendars or women by Die Hexe von Buchenwald.

2) Vestite: vocative masculine singular of vestītus. Vestītus: Perfect passive participle of vestiō (

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh puh-lease. If I ever publish a dictionary there will be a picture of you next to "hypocrisy."Seriously? You don't see the astounding contradiction there? I need a new word for how stupid you are, 'idiot' just isn't cutting it anymore.

Yeah, right.

So I'm supposed to just talk about what you want to talk about despite the fact that you've been ignoring salient points for months? You're just a pathetic little nobody, aren't you?

Do you really believe what you write? Do you?

Whimpering through argument after argument, too fearful to actually respond to most of the points we raise because you know you're going to be crushed, so you just raise new ones in the mistaken belief that nobody will notice your failure to actually argue like an adult.

Don't worry about me. I am using my body for what it was created for. I don't want to attack you--because I persist in dialoging with you because I think and know you should change, for your own good.

But I've been stooping to your level for so long now, I might as well continue. So Pride Parades, eh? Lets keep going completely off topic and indulge in yet another facet of your obsession with homosexuality.

Not obsession with homosexuality. But to try to awaken you. That if you think carefully, knowing human history, knowing what kinds of VDs exist, knowing what really awaits you in the future. Wouldn't you rather change?

Because there might be a few deaf, blind folks sitting at the back who haven't yet grasped what a massive closet case you are.

We have come to the end of Chapterhouse: Dune, our ending moment. The 3-month Saga is over in dialog between you and I, specifically. I have no interest in males at all, and sad that you feel that way. But just the interest that if someone wanted to change, they could try.

1) I deny that the "vast majority" of homosexuals are polygamous.

Polyamorous, actually. I think that the way males' brains' work is that if we don't have a one woman to 'ground us' in reality -- children, home, etc -- then it just won't work. I think that the debate is always lowered when you want to focus on the one or two homosexual murders, for example;, and not the rampancy of gay porno, for example.

I put it to you that it's far easier to notice a small minority when they are significantly louder than the majority. Also that you can't really judge homosexuals by pride parades in the same way that you can't judge firefighters by calendars or women by Die Hexe von Buchenwald.

Once again, I think that I could give your more credibility if you said, "Gays don't have to apologize for anything. In the West, we can do whatever we want -- and many, many gay men choose bars, one night stands, etc. We put muscular men on pedestals, etc."

2) Vestite: vocative masculine singular of vestītus. Vestītus: Perfect passive participle of vestiō (

Link to post
Share on other sites

Me.

Between you and me. Objective case.

(And that's the only line of the whole post I read. :) )

Edit:

Sorry, Dante, don't know the difference between transsexuals and transvestites. What has the West come to, when we have to be knowledgable on such things?

Sorry, found this other giggler in an earlier post: This also has everything to do with you being ignorant of language.

Mmmm...I'm thinking of a five-letter word, of Greek origin. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...