On Games and Religion

As any reader of this website knows full well, videogames and religion tend to mix like oil and water.

Every few weeks, it seems, a story pops up about a religious group expressing dismay or anger over  a videogame. The latest such tale revolved around a Maine Christian group calling for a Modern Warfare 2 ban.

The constant collision of these topics caused a Bitmob contributor to pen a column asking whether or not games and religion are mortal enemies.

Mike Gingras writes from the viewpoint of a religious gamer, noting that players are constantly breaking the Ten Commandments in-game, but he takes a broadminded approach to it all:

My argument is that games, like any art, are a means of authorial expression and participant reaction. In a game, a person can safely dabble in behavior or thoughts that they may not necessarily agree with.

He continues:

As a gamer and a religious person, I believe that virtual worlds with unfixed consequences are a safe way to learn about your own beliefs and values. I remain unconvinced that playing a video game where you can wrestle with your own personal sense of right and wrong is a bad thing.

Gingras ends with the question, “So, which is it? Is gaming a hobby that people of all faiths can enjoy? Or is it something that the faithful should stay away from?”

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

215 comments

  1. gellymatos says:

    "Meh. You’ve done nothing in your last few responses but try to squirm around the "bigot" tag and play semantics with me. You’ve not disproven any of my comments, and you’ve not provided anything new to this argument. You’ve repeated your idiotic talking point about laws, which, frankly, I’ve already proven the holes in, and keep trying to squirm away from giving me a REAL reason why you don’t think Gays should marry, aside from "God says it’s wrong," which is absolutely retarded, especially when you stop to think that no everyone believes in God, therefore, not all of us should be subject to his whim."

    I’ve done plenty more than get into the bigotry argument. As for the "semantics" claim, you’re the one who misused such words as bigotry then falsly tried to label you opposition as such. I simply countered it in a basic way by showing the meaning of the words compared to your bad use of them. If you have a better way of countering such claims, tell me how. And what is the problem with laws then? If my explaination of law is flawed, then you explain it. Also, it isn’t as simple as "God says it’s wrong". On a side note, it’s kind of funny that you mock the belief of God, yet you so easily believe in love with out a second thought, all without evidence. Ironic, to say the least. Actually, I already explained the basic catholic argument earlier. In fact, I explained the basic belief of both sides of the argument If you choose to ignore what I said, then claim I haven’t said anything on it, then there is nothing I can do.

    "You clearly don’t have an open mind, and certainly never will, if you continue to let your religion do your thinking for you. As far as I’m concerned, you are a bigot. I’ve proven that above, as well. Your counterpoint to that was nothing but "Nuh-uh!! You admitted you were! Therefore you are CLEARLY the wrong one!" As for THAT rediculous argument, my admitting that I am bigoted against oppression doesn’t automatically disqualify my argument."

    Not open minded? This coming from the guy who has it against all religions, even the ones that might side with you? The funny thing is, you’re all for someone being open minded to your beliefs, not any other. As for my argument, that isn’t it. My argument on bigotry is two fold: 1. I am not a bigot, nor is my faith as an organization. You can’t attach the definition to me. 2. You admitted to being bigoted. That put you in an interesting position, as it is hardly right for someone who is bigoted to complain about bigotry.

    "MLK was obstinately and intolerantly devoted to his opinion that black people were equal to white people, and deserved the same treatment. He also fits the definition of Bigot. He was Bigoted against racial intolerence and oppression. I am Bigoted against Sexual intolerance and oppression. You see the comparison? There are differing levels of guilt, here. Where MLK was bigoted against oppression, just like I am, you are bigoted against a specific group of people for no other reason than your fake religion. Who is more guilty here? MLK and myself? Or You and your bigoted religion?"

    Actually, both MLK and catholic church were/are not bigoted.

    Intolerant 1: unable or unwilling to endure
    2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or . professional rights : bigoted
    3 : exhibiting physiological intolerance <lactose intolerant>
     
    obstinate:1 : perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion <obstinate resistance to change>
    2 : not easily subdued, remedied, or removed <obstinate fever>

     

    Note that the meaning of intolerance when involving bigotry is the second definition as shown. As for obstinate, it’s obvious that the first one is the one involving bigotry.

    (I should state that I copy and paste these meanings from Merriam-Webster, sorry I didn’t mention it earlier).

    MLK did not try to limit the rights of his opponents in any way. He didn’t commit a or b. As for the church, lets use the gay issue. The church doesn’t stop anyone’s freedom of expression. So that knocks down "a". As for unwilling to share social rights, I have already explained that the whole issue is on what marriage and love is, which in turn would define to what degree it is a right. Politically and professionally, the church isn’t trying to limit the rights of gays in that part for sure, as I have already explained. In fact, wasn’t it I who said that anyone has the right to TRY politically? That certainly includes those who support gay marriage.

    Then we get to obstinate. MLK was not perversly adhering to his opinion. He kept on to his opinion because it was the logically the right one. There was no logical reason, argument or form of persuasion that could trumph his, therefore make him obstinate to the logic that beat his. As for the catholic church, our issues are moral. There is no logical argument that can logically beat us, just as there aren’t any logical arguments we can win with most of the time either. So, we’re out of that to. So, yeah, neither we or MLK are bigoted. Keep note, I certainly can’t compare myself to MLK. He was a great man who neither I nor most (I say "most" because I can only assume so much, I don’t know every catholic on the planet) catholics can’t come close to in greatness. And I have a dare for you. I would like you to go out and tell people that MLK was bigoted. See what happens. You certainly wouldn’t say it in the shoutbox. I could do it myself, but that would be wrong and unneccesary. I don’t need to put you on the spot like that. It would be funny though.

    And while I would never compare myself to MLK, it seems as though you would. Real modest. Really though, to compare you to MLK is laughable to say the least.

    Oh, and as usual, you have no evidence to back up any claims. You just label and name call. At this point, I really am not expecting anything else anyway.

     

  2. Valdearg says:

    Meh. You’ve done nothing in your last few responses but try to squirm around the "bigot" tag and play semantics with me. You’ve not disproven any of my comments, and you’ve not provided anything new to this argument. You’ve repeated your idiotic talking point about laws, which, frankly, I’ve already proven the holes in, and keep trying to squirm away from giving me a REAL reason why you don’t think Gays should marry, aside from "God says it’s wrong," which is absolutely retarded, especially when you stop to think that no everyone believes in God, therefore, not all of us should be subject to his whim.

    You clearly don’t have an open mind, and certainly never will, if you continue to let your religion do your thinking for you. As far as I’m concerned, you are a bigot. I’ve proven that above, as well. Your counterpoint to that was nothing but "Nuh-uh!! You admitted you were! Therefore you are CLEARLY the wrong one!" As for THAT rediculous argument, my admitting that I am bigoted against oppression doesn’t automatically disqualify my argument.

    Oh, and you bring up MLK.

    Lets look at that definition, again.

    "1: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

    MLK was obstinately and intolerantly devoted to his opinion that black people were equal to white people, and deserved the same treatment. He also fits the definition of Bigot. He was Bigoted against racial intolerence and oppression. I am Bigoted against Sexual intolerance and oppression. You see the comparison? There are differing levels of guilt, here. Where MLK was bigoted against oppression, just like I am, you are bigoted against a specific group of people for no other reason than your fake religion. Who is more guilty here? MLK and myself? Or You and your bigoted religion?

  3. sharpshooterbabe says:

    You know you make some pretty good arguments.

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  4. gellymatos says:

    Thank you for reminding me of something and helping me correct my mistake. To say the law works "well" would be wrong. The problem is man itself. For laws to change or to be prevented from becoming unconstitutional, the people must become involved. Slavery and racial discrimination took a while to become rooted out because people were ignoring the Bill of Rights. If people don’t take notice of the law or get involved, then such laws can become active, so to speak.

    I would respond in better detail, but you would have to tell me which laws you are talking about for a more complete response.

  5. gellymatos says:

    First, I’d like to say sorry for taking so long. I was gone for a bit, but I’m back! With a vengance! Seriously, though, sorry if my shoutbox statement didn’t really imply how long it would be until I responded.

    "I’m just going to ignore your whole "TRY" argument, because that doesn’t respond at ALL to the point I was making. I get what you are saying, but it’s ultimately pointless, because I wasn’t saying they don’t have the right. I was stating that while they have the legal right, it is ABSOLUTELY WRONG from a human rights standpoint for ANYONE to try to oppress and persecute individuals for personal choices they make that have NO effect on anyone else. You see, I stand for human rights, and clearly, you dont."

    Hm, it looks as though your point and mine seem to have nothing to do with each other in this case. I’m talking about law, your talking about trying to take direct action against another group. We’re trying to make two different points to each other.

    "The church refuses to acknowledge that Gays have the same rights as straight people, and supports many different forms of discrimination against gays based on intolerant and ignorant ideas that stem from an illogical being. Sounds to me like they are intolerantly devoted to thier opinion and prejudices about gays, despite the fact that gays suffer under that discrimination daily."

    Ok, I have said this many times, but you seem to be ignoring it. Allow me to repeat: The catholic church has only two beliefs that you shouldn’t like. The first is that we don’t believe in homosexuality being right in general. However, it isn’t a policy or belief of ours to make laws that stop homosexual activity or make it illegal. So you really shouldn’t care about that anyway. The second, which is related to the first, is the gay marriage issue. This is, again, a moral issue that neither side can be proven right or wrong. This is the only legal issue that you can accuse of oppression. Anything else that you consider violating gay rights doesn’t involve us. Yes, there may be some dick who came from one of our churches who goes all crazy on us and I’m sorry if that happens, but let face facts. Crazies come from any ideology or idea. They come out, they yell crap, and give a bad name to whatever group they come from. So it comes down to gay marriage. Like I said, it’s a moral issue. There is nothing in the past that gives it universal precedent to make it a right, not that it can’t be changed to be so. The gay marriage issue isn’t about discrimination, it’s about what love is and what the official definition of marriage is. If you’re going to say we support many different forms of discrimination, back it up. Name instances, give me an article. As for our intolerant opinions and prejudices, name them and back it up.

    "I’ve already said, I certainly fit the definition of a bigot, just like you do, since what I said about the church, above, can almost certainly mirror your opinions, based on the conversation we’ve had. However, where YOU are bigoted against a completely innocent, harmless sector of the human population, who have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to deserve it, I am bigoted against people who would descriminate or punish gays for the "crime" of being gay. I am bigoted against people who would attempt to legislate thier oppressive, fake morality on those who have no effect on you. I am bigoted against your bigotry."

    You haven’t fit the description to me yet. You have probably read my counter to this point and have seen why by the time you have read to this point. And now you have just crossed a line. You are justifying bigotry, something you can’t justify. Ask anyone on this site, and they will say the same thing: Bigotry is wrong, no matter what. You are not bigoted against bigotry, your bigoted against anyone who disagrees with you. Oh, and how our conversations? You’re the one who can’t help but be bluntly offensive. You’re the only one trying to promote your beliefs. You’re the one who can’t seem to make friends with someone who doesn’t believe in what you do.

    "Where you stand for oppression, persecution, and suppression, I stand for FREEDOM and expression. I stand for keeping your oppressive ideas out of my life, and I stand for each and every person doing what they want, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else."

    "Freedom always trumps oppression, so you can’t possibly win this fight. On top of that, the ONLY reason I’m bigoted against people like you in the first place (People like you being Oppressive persecutors), is because you and your beliefs were bigoted against me in the first place. It’s very difficult to tolerate bigory from people like you without becoming bigoted against your bigotry."

    Wow. In almost all of that first paragraph I quoted and some of that second one, you just spoke a lot of nothing, similar to what you see in propoganda. You basically just yelled out that I was evil, you are good, and with no reasoning, especially that first sentance. It was a lot like the crap religious extremists say. Ironic. Ever considered writing propoganda? You do have the skill to write a lot of nothing. Try asking some extreme left or right to hire you. They’d pay good money to have their ideas shown with no reasoning to support it in a quick sentance to put on a poster. And today seems like the perfect day to remind you that MLK, a great man in the race issue that you so love to pull out, wasn’t a bigot against his opponents or anyone else. So one can oppose another group without bigotry.

     

     

     

     

  6. Andrew Eisen says:

    "The Bill of Rights, saying all people are born equal and without one being superior over another, would immediately shoot it down like flak to a large, yet still very fragile, paper plane. It would crash, burn, and no doubt we would both dance around the burning piece of crap, laughing all the while. So, yeah, law works well."

    If that was true, how have unconstitutional or discriminatory laws repeatedly ended up on the books?

     

    Andrew Eisen

  7. Valdearg says:

    I’m just going to ignore your whole "TRY" argument, because that doesn’t respond at ALL to the point I was making. I get what you are saying, but it’s ultimately pointless, because I wasn’t saying they don’t have the right. I was stating that while they have the legal right, it is ABSOLUTELY WRONG from a human rights standpoint for ANYONE to try to oppress and persecute individuals for personal choices they make that have NO effect on anyone else. You see, I stand for human rights, and clearly, you dont.

    As for your Bigotry arguments;

    1: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

    The church refuses to acknowledge that Gays have the same rights as straight people, and supports many different forms of discrimination against gays based on intolerant and ignorant ideas that stem from an illogical being. Sounds to me like they are intolerantly devoted to thier opinion and prejudices about gays, despite the fact that gays suffer under that discrimination daily.

    2: I’ve already said, I certainly fit the definition of a bigot, just like you do, since what I said about the church, above, can almost certainly mirror your opinions, based on the conversation we’ve had. However, where YOU are bigoted against a completely innocent, harmless sector of the human population, who have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to deserve it, I am bigoted against people who would descriminate or punish gays for the "crime" of being gay. I am bigoted against people who would attempt to legislate thier oppressive, fake morality on those who have no effect on you. I am bigoted against your bigotry.

    Where you stand for oppression, persecution, and suppression, I stand for FREEDOM and expression. I stand for keeping your oppressive ideas out of my life, and I stand for each and every person doing what they want, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.

    Freedom always trumps oppression, so you can’t possibly win this fight. On top of that, the ONLY reason I’m bigoted against people like you in the first place (People like you being Oppressive persecutors), is because you and your beliefs were bigoted against me in the first place. It’s very difficult to tolerate bigory from people like you without becoming bigoted against your bigotry.

     

  8. gellymatos says:

    "While I would still argue that there is NO difference between gay love and straight love, let’s take love out of it, then."

    And continue arguing that when someone challenges your belief. Hell, do me a favor and really stick it to the people we both belief are bigots. Thank you understanding the love thing.(I think). Remember, I am not trying to prove you wrong in your beliefs. I haven’t said you were wrong or in anyway show how you are wrong. My point of view in this argument is neutral, so to speak.

    "At it’s base, Marriage is recognized by the government as a Legal Contract between two consenting adults, giving each other the benefits of mutual bank accounts, tax breaks, mutual property ownership, and the other various benefits (and risks) that come with it. It’s basically two people telling the government that they plan on spending the rest of thier lives together, and that it’s ok for the government to recognize these people as a legal pair."

    Actually, our government has way too many views. Different states have different meaings for what it is and different wording. Which is why I say what said about law: Everyone can TRY to pass their beliefs unto law. The laws change due to the people. What law do you want to use? And before you say a federal law, I should tell you about the "Defense of Marriage Act". It basically says too things (thank you wiki for the simple version),

    1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
    2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

    Hmm, what a problem for you, eh? Hmm, there seems to be a law you don’t like. Oh, if only you could get laws to follow your moral conviction. Oh, wait, that’s how law works!

    "Now, given that definition of marriage, why shouldn’t gay people be allowed to marry? To tell one pair of consenting adults it’s cool for them to become a legal pair, while telling another pair of consenting adults that they can’t, for no good reason, is discrimination, and discrimination is wrong. Also, before you go in on that old "They have Unions!!" argument, Civil Unions are not equal under the law, and implying that there should be a difference between the two contracts, just because you want to keep "Marriage" for the straights is a discriminatory and bigoted point of view."

    Which definition? Marriage’s definition varies by state. It’s very definition is the whole debate. Your fighting to change that definition (or keep it, depends on the state). It isn’t discrimination. You see it as discrimination because it is against your belief. Your whole argument is that gay marriage is like any other marriage. Your opposition’s marriage is that it isn’t the same. You can’t just say it’s discrimination until you prove it is the same. And, as I have stated, no one can say either is right.

    "Hahaha.. I still love how pissed you are at the racist comment.. The point of the comment flew SO FAR above your head you’d have needed a telescope to see it. Suffice it to say, the fact that I’m explaining it to you is farther than I’d usually go, but you seem so absolutely LOST in the irony of my claim, I actually feel a little sorry for you."

    Glad to see your happy to have offended someone. Yeah, that’s shows a lot about you. Seriously, how does anyone on the pro-gay marriage side like you? People like you are probably the reason a lot of states haven’t legalized it yet. Offend someone, then accuse someone of being offensive. Same with the bigotry thing. Have you heard of "double standard"?

    "Your logic involving laws and morality was flawed, I used that flawed logic to make a rediculous claim about you, in order to show you how retarded your logic was. I don’t know if you are racist or not, and frankly, I don’t care. The larger point in the matter was to point out the flaws in your logic, mainly that you claimed to support ANYONE attempting to pass thier beliefs into law, because it’s thier moral right. Therefore, you’d support a racist attempting to reinstate slavery. Clearly, anyone who would support such an attempt is racist! Did you follow the logic, there, or do I need to hold your hand more? The fact is, I was turning your logic against you in an attempt for you to see how absolutely retarded it actually was. Unfortunately, you COMPLETELY missed the point."

    It isn’t flawed. It is how law works. And it’s your point that is flawed. I am not saying anyone can pass a law based upon moral belief. I’m saying that anyone can TRY. Your point didn’t go over my head.. It crashed and burned. That’s why I didn’t see it. No, it’s my point that went way over yours. I mean, how could you miss the word "TRY" with the many times I put it down. I am saying that everyone has the right to TRY and make laws the way they want. Let’s use that racism example, shall we? So, first a bunch of racist guys TRY to get people who believe in what they do into congress. They would fail on that first hurdle. The people (with their moral conviction against racism) won’t vote for the congressmen. But then let’s assume that they all hide their intentions and racist beliefs. They come together and TRY to write the law. Now, if you paid attention in your politics class, you’ll know that it will take most of congress to pass the bill. Racists would have to take up most of congress. That, with the chances that every state some how vote for the racist guys, makes that feat near impossible. Now lets assume that this impossible act of getting a bunch of racist guys into senate somehow works. Then they would get to the president, who could veto it. What if there was a racist president? Impossible. If there is one thing I know about elections, it’s that the opposition would dig into the racist guys past, and find out that he was racist. So, the president, who couldn’t be racist, would veto the bill. Oh, that congress (you know, the one that could never exist) could try to override it. But, then one last thing would without a doubt shoot it down. The Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, saying all people are born equal and without one being superior over another, would immediately shoot it down like flak to a large, yet still very fragile, paper plane. It would crash, burn, and no doubt we would both dance around the burning piece of crap, laughing all the while. So, yeah, law works well. That is why I am right about how law works. Both the people and the bill of rights, decide what laws come into place. Now the only way I can see you against this idea is if somehow you thought there is no way you could get your beliefs into law. Remember this, since this went over your head several times. Everyone has the right to TRY.

    "Not every law is "Moral" and not every person attempting to pass thier beliefs into law is doing a good thing. In fact, I’d argue that while everyone has the LEGAL right to do so, it’s absolutely wrong for them to do it, if thier goal is to oppress or persecute individuals for thier completely harmless sexual choices. There is NO argument against that point of view that isn’t based in ignorance or bigotry."

    Well actually, to some degree, every law has some kind of "moral conviction" behind it. However, most laws do follow logic and aren’t entirely based on moral conviction or opinion. So why can’t everyone try to influence where they live based on their beliefs? You’re doing it. And, as I have already stated, opposition to gay marriage isn’t oppression. It’s a moral argument. What is it oppressing. Let me guess, love? And I already gave the definition of persecution.

    And there’s a serious problem with your "bigot" argument that make it is seriously flawed. Actually, a couple of things.

    1. You haven’t matched catholic belief with bigotry. I already said how I wasn’t. You have to counter that. And you can’t just say "because you are" or something that is just as unfounded. Show the same definition of bigotry I showed you, then match me to the defintion. If you don’t do that, or something similar, you have nothing.

    2. And here’s your bigger problem. You admitted to being a bigot. You are now accusing me of being a bigot without any proof or evidence. Even if you were to prove I was (which you can’t because I am not), what then? If you are a bigot too, what makes you any better? You can try to justify it, but how? Can you justify bigotry? If you can, then anyone can. From the moment you admitted to being a bigot, then started accusing me of being it with nothing to back it up, you lost the bigot argument. And you will continue to have lost until deal with the issue of you being a bigot.

  9. Valdearg says:

    While I would still argue that there is NO difference between gay love and straight love, let’s take love out of it, then.

    While Marriage is, Symbolically, a bond of love, and the indication that you absolutely want to spend the rest of your life connected to the individual you are marrying, it’s not always that. And while I would argue that the vast majority of marriages are the result of a serious emotional attachment to the person you are marrying, so much so that you can’t imagine life without them, lets examine Marriage as recognized by the government, without love.

    At it’s base, Marriage is recognized by the government as a Legal Contract between two consenting adults, giving each other the benefits of mutual bank accounts, tax breaks, mutual property ownership, and the other various benefits (and risks) that come with it. It’s basically two people telling the government that they plan on spending the rest of thier lives together, and that it’s ok for the government to recognize these people as a legal pair.

    Now, given that definition of marriage, why shouldn’t gay people be allowed to marry? To tell one pair of consenting adults it’s cool for them to become a legal pair, while telling another pair of consenting adults that they can’t, for no good reason, is discrimination, and discrimination is wrong. Also, before you go in on that old "They have Unions!!" argument, Civil Unions are not equal under the law, and implying that there should be a difference between the two contracts, just because you want to keep "Marriage" for the straights is a discriminatory and bigoted point of view.

  10. Valdearg says:

    Hahaha.. I still love how pissed you are at the racist comment.. The point of the comment flew SO FAR above your head you’d have needed a telescope to see it. Suffice it to say, the fact that I’m explaining it to you is farther than I’d usually go, but you seem so absolutely LOST in the irony of my claim, I actually feel a little sorry for you.

    Your logic involving laws and morality was flawed, I used that flawed logic to make a rediculous claim about you, in order to show you how retarded your logic was. I don’t know if you are racist or not, and frankly, I don’t care. The larger point in the matter was to point out the flaws in your logic, mainly that you claimed to support ANYONE attempting to pass thier beliefs into law, because it’s thier moral right. Therefore, you’d support a racist attempting to reinstate slavery. Clearly, anyone who would support such an attempt is racist! Did you follow the logic, there, or do I need to hold your hand more? The fact is, I was turning your logic against you in an attempt for you to see how absolutely retarded it actually was. Unfortunately, you COMPLETELY missed the point.

    Not every law is "Moral" and not every person attempting to pass thier beliefs into law is doing a good thing. In fact, I’d argue that while everyone has the LEGAL right to do so, it’s absolutely wrong for them to do it, if thier goal is to oppress or persecute individuals for thier completely harmless sexual choices. There is NO argument against that point of view that isn’t based in ignorance or bigotry.

  11. gellymatos says:

    Yeah, well, try telling that to either side. They won’t hear it. As for the love thing, I am just trying to tell Vald that love, as much as we would want it to be, isn’t really a valid argument for anything. Everyone matches love with marriage. Love is the main issue. No one will want to win the argument without including love, especially the pro-marriage side, since the basis of the argument is that they can love like straight couples can. Love, the ultimate moral argument.

  12. Andrew Eisen says:

    "With gay marriage, it isn’t about "superiority" mixing with "inferiority". It’s about what love is, if it exists at all. The whole debate is about something that you can’t prove the existence of."

    But, as mentioned, love is not a requirement for marriage so that’s still not a compelling reason to restrict the ability of gays to marry.  Can straights marry even if they’re not in love?  Yes, they can.  So there’s no reason gays shouldn’t be able to marry even if their love is different (something there’s no evidence to support anyway).

    This is why I just don’t understand why anyone would be against gay marriage as there just doesn’t seem to be a compelling argument supporting that stance.

     

    Andrew Eisen

  13. gellymatos says:

    "Aside from the jobs part, the debate is simply the descrimination of a bunch of intolerant people. The beliefe that Gay love is somehow inferior to straight love is ABSOLUTELY an ignorant, intolerant, bigoted belief, and anyone who carries it is a bigot. There is absolutely NO argument you can make that supports your belief that Gay love is inferior, and you have NO reason to believe it, aside from your ignorance of gays."

    "So, like I said before, your point of views is that MY love between myself and my girlfriend is superior to the love between my friend and his boyfriend. Do you have any idea how offensive and bigoted a belief that is?"

    And like I’m sure I’ve said before, the gay marriage issue isn’t about inferiority of love. It is about what love is. And there is a considerable difference between the gay marriage issue and the interracial marriage issue (really haven’t heard much about intermarriage issues). The problem with the interracial marriage debate was that opponents of it didn’t want "superior" races to mix with so called "inferior" races. That was the main issue. With gay marriage, it isn’t about "superiority" mixing with "inferiority". It’s about what love is, if it exists at all. The whole debate is about something that you can’t prove the existence of. Seriously, try to prove love really exists at all. I would actually be happy if you could prove it. Oh, and don’t just say it’s because you can "feel" it. Many people say they can feel God. You remember God, right. You called him an "imaginary friend". Ironic, isn’t it.

    "especially the ignorant soft bigotry"

    Ok. I’ll bite. What in the hell is "soft bigotry". How can someone be more or less bigoted? You already alter or ignore the meanings of words for your own benefit. Are you making up phrases now to? And you still refuse to ignore the fact that you admitted to being bigoted. You are in no position to call anyone bigoted and for them to be wrong in doing so if you are bigoted yourself. I think the reason your ignoring this fact is because you know you are in a corner in that issue.

    Vald, you often don’t continue smaller arguments within our greater one. I have never had a problem with that before. There are times where you have stopped a continued point on something. I understand that you can’t counter every point I make. However, for you have gone too far by calling me racist without knowing really knowing me or who I consider a friend. Then, you just forget about it. You have nothing to say of my challenge to try to say how I am racist. After truly doing something so stupid as to make an attack on me based off of no knowledge of me, you say nothing, not an apology, not anothe attack. Nothing. Why? Because you know you were wrong.  You want to get me mad. Congrats, you’ve done it. I am pissed!! There are actions in debates that I really don’t like. Calling someone racist for no real reason except just to invalidate the argument without actually proving someone wrong is one of them. AND YOU DARED TO COMMIT SUCH AN ACT ON ME?!! YOU DON’T KNOW ME!!! You dared to call me racist on the basis of no knowledge of my own race or the race of my friends!!! So, have you figured it out yet?! My race, the race of my friends?! No?! DIDN’T THINK SO!!!! Here’s how it is! I am of brazilian cuban decent. Not exactly a pure race, am I?! And my friends? I have always had a multicultural group of friends. My oldest friends are black. My best friend is white. The rest of my friends are either hispanic, black, some variation of white (italian, german, irish, etc.), or some mix. You have made a lot of unfounded attacks on me before, but this one takes the cake!!!! Do you still have anything to say?! Or are you going to ignore you’re little mistake?!!!

     

  14. Valdearg says:

    "Something like that. Keep note, I am no expert on the debate, but I do understand it is not so simple as discrimination of a bunch of intolerant people who don’t want gays to get jobs."

    Aside from the jobs part, the debate is simply the descrimination of a bunch of intolerant people. The beliefe that Gay love is somehow inferior to straight love is ABSOLUTELY an ignorant, intolerant, bigoted belief, and anyone who carries it is a bigot. There is absolutely NO argument you can make that supports your belief that Gay love is inferior, and you have NO reason to believe it, aside from your ignorance of gays.

    Tell you what, you should go to a civil union/gay marriage (in the states where it’s legal) ceremony, sometime. The love between those two people being bonded is in NO WAY inferior to the love of straight people. In fact, considering that in many states where Gay Marriage is actually legal, the divorce rate has actually gone DOWN, indicating that the vast majority of Gays are actually truly in love before marrying, unlike many straight people.

    Once you realize that there is NO difference between straight love and gay love, and NO difference between straight people and gay people, you’ll understand why I get so angry at the intolerence and bigotry, especially the ignorant soft bigotry, like you hold, with your belief that somehow, gay love is inferior.

  15. Valdearg says:

    So, like I said before, your point of views is that MY love between myself and my girlfriend is superior to the love between my friend and his boyfriend. Do you have any idea how offensive and bigoted a belief that is?

    Like AE said, it’s like you saying two people of different skin colors can’t love, or that two people of different religions can’t love. It’s absolutely insane and has no basis in reality.

  16. gellymatos says:

    "Ah, interesting.  So, the argument isn’t gays can’t love but that the love between two people of the same gender just isn’t in the same league as those of opposite gender."

    Something like that. Keep note, I am no expert on the debate, but I do understand it is not so simple as discrimination of a bunch of intolerant people who don’t want gays to get jobs.

    "Maybe so but a lack of love is still not a compelling reason to deny anyone (gay or straight) the ability to marry."

    I wouldn’t say that to either side of the debate, especially the pro gay marriage side. They are trying to marry for "love".  The side against gay marriage wouldn’t like that insinuation much better.

  17. Andrew Eisen says:

    Ah, interesting.  So, the argument isn’t gays can’t love but that the love between two people of the same gender just isn’t in the same league as those of opposite gender.

    "Marriage without love (whatever it is) is not only not as common, but frowned upon."

    Maybe so but a lack of love is still not a compelling reason to deny anyone (gay or straight) the ability to marry.

     

    Andrew Eisen

  18. gellymatos says:

    The argument against gay marriage isn’t that gays can’t love in the sense that anybody can love, so much as the same type of love that a man and a woman supposedly share. No one is saying that gays are incapable of any type of love period.

    Remeber, while love isn’t a legal requirment, it is a social one. This is an important part of the issue. The primary reason that people marry is love after all. Marriage without love (whatever it is) is not only not as common, but frowned upon.

  19. Andrew Eisen says:

    Huh.  That’s just so darn odd to me.  It honestly boggles my mind that there’s anyone out there that thinks gays don’t have the capability to love.  To me, that’s like saying two people of the same hair color can’t love.  Now, if someone doesn’t believe in love, that’s one thing but saying everyone can love but gays, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, is beyond silly.

    And you’re probably right about the proving love bit; I certainly can’t think of any way to do it.  Fortunately, as stated earlier, love isn’t a requirement for marriage so that’s not a compelling argument for denying gays the ability to marry.

     

    Andrew Eisen

  20. gellymatos says:

    You are right. Technically, love isn’t really a requirement. However, that is the reasons gays want to marry. They are claiming to love. The same is said of those who are religous. Religous people marry for claiming to love. Even those who are atheist or don’t care, they marry for love. That is why I say it is a "love" debate. The whole debate is more or less on whether or not two people of the same sex can love.

  21. gellymatos says:

    AE, thank you for your respect. You are certainly a guy to be respected. Thank you for understanding. As for that argument, sorry, moral arguments of my faith are not my thing. I’m more of the defensive type. I always say: Never attack, Defend with a fury. Here’s a tip, find a priest if your looking for a talk specifically with catholics. With anyone else, I really don’t know. My knowledge on other denomination’s exact beliefs isn’t that great.

  22. Andrew Eisen says:

    "That is what this whole debate on gay marriage is. A love debate."

    Can you expand on that?  That doesn’t make sense to me unless someone’s actually trying to argue that gays shouldn’t be able to marry because they can’t love.  Also, love is not a required component of marriage so I fail to see what it has to do with the topic at hand.

     

    Andrew Eisen

  23. gellymatos says:

    "No. You have no good argument as to why gays can’t marry. AE’s asked for a legitimate argument, and so have I. You refuse to give us one, because there isn’t a SINGLE argument against gay marriage that is based in realistic, non-bigoted ideas. You can continue to hide behind your "I won’t debate Morals!" facade all you want, because we all know you really just don’t want to admit you have no reason to oppose it, other than your own bigoted morals."

    There are arguments against gay marriage and I choose not to describe them on my time. Do you know why? Let’s say I do. You’ll just attack that and insist on an argument, even though neither of us would win due to the reason I have repeated again and again. Admit it, you would attack the view, instigating a debate, one that wouldn’t end in a victory for either of us. I really don’t feel like wasting my time. In fact the only way we could possible end the debate well is if, by some chance, we just made peace and had a truce. And there is no way in hell you would accept a truce. Face it, one of us would just leave the debate, sick of the whole thing.  You want to find a good argument? Look for it yourself. I have no obligation to do so, especially if I don’t want to debate something. You will not muscle me into one either. And as for hiding behind a facade, I will not be brought out into a debate by the equivalent of, but still just as childish, "you’re a chicken" tactic. You telling me I’m afraid. That’s the tactics you use? That show your maturity level. Oh, and AE may be willing to have a legitmate debate, but you sure aren’t! You can’t have a legitmate debate without civility and respect for your opposition’s belief on the subject. You lack both. Actually, the idea of you in a legitimate debate is actually kind of funny.

    "You’ve yet to prove to me that you aren’t an ignorant bigot. In fact, all of your comments up to this point pretty much support my claim. Pathetic."

    I’m pretty sure I did quite a while back, but I’m willing to do it again.

    bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

    First, I don’t let my beliefs or opinions make me intolerant to that of another. I hold no prejudices to any group. And to cover the ending, I don’t have feelings of hate against anyone, nor intolerance. Certainly not to people who simply don’t share my belief.

    And don’t forget the little issue about you being bigoted out of your own admitance.

     

     

  24. gellymatos says:

    First, sorry for having this post done so far seperate in completion from my other, more recent response. I’ve been really busy, and then I couldn’t go on gamepolitics for a while.

    "Well, don’t make such retarded comments that make it so easy to read between the lines. You clearly stated that you think its morally right for ANYONE to pass laws that reflect thier morals. Therefore, if someone passes a law that sends black people back into slavery, by your obviously flawed logic, you would support it, because it was that person’s moral right to do so. It’s a pretty easy conclusion to come to. Clearly, you are a racist, bigoted, mororn."

    I think I will argue this with the exact statement I used to respond to your other claim of racism in your other post, though with a just a little bit added in. First, I think I should clarify in case I was wasn’t clear, even though I am more than sure I was. I didn’t say that it was alright for someone to make any law. I said it is alright for people to TRY. It is perfectly alright to TRY. Note the emphasis on TRY. Would it succede? No. Why? The people (including you and I) wouldn’t allow for it due to moral conviction and the logical fact that race doesn’t matter. Both have the same potential. That has already been proven. Also, let’s not forget the Bill of Rights, which should immediately shoot down such a TRY. Slavery existed because even with the Bill of Rights before because those who allowed slavery (whether they truly supported it or not) ignored the Bill of Rights. As for me being racist, that is quite the claim. Do you even know my own heritage? Of course not. I’m going to let you guess. Come on. It actually shouldn’t be that hard. I’m pretty sure I mentioned it sometime on another subject. Also, how well do you really know me? Do you know who my friends are? What races are my friends? Aw, you don’t know, do you? Think about the claim you just made, and see how unfounded it is.

    "And Gays aren’t "all men"? You are just digging yourself a bigger hole. If "All Men" are created equal, and straight men have the right to marry the consenting adult they want, then why can’t gays? Clearly it goes thagainst e "All men" are created equal clause. You are only continuing to expose your bigoted beliefs."

    Ah, but then one needs to realize what the marriage issue is. I’ll get back to that when I respond to your "love" statements in the end of your post.

    "The logic of those against gay marriage is that gays are inferior to straight people. That thier love is somehow inferior to straight love. And don’t give me that hackneyed "What is Love?" argument. I know that I love my girlfriend to the extreme, and I also know that my gay friend loves his boyfriend to the extreme. You and your bigoted church view my love as superior to his love, which is absolutely illogical and wrong."

    The church doesn’t believe that those who are gay aren’t automatically inferior to everyone else. Can’t say the same for others who oppose gay marriage. Many of those who do oppose gay marriage really do think gays as inferior. I never have. I have and gay friends who are without a doubt smarter than me in certain aspects. The church’s reasons for its view on gay marriage isn’t about superiority. For one, we would have to support those other laws you mentioned involving such things as firing gays for being gay.

    "Boy, it’s too bad the law is preventing Gays from doing the same thing. Gays can be descriminated against and fired from jobs they are perfectly qualified for, just for the crime of being gay. They are often bullied in school, and school administrations look the other way, because it’s ok to bully gays. Finally, they aren’t allowed to marry someone they love, just because they happened to be born with the same chromosomes. But that’s ok, they aren’t black, so clearly, they don’t deserve equal rights."

    Yeah, like I said. The laws that don’t allow gays a fair chance in the workplace aren’t the ones we support. We don’t support bullying. Ever. You still can’t even give a proof of our support of it either a support of bullying or of the job laws. Actually, I am not fully aware of the those laws. Heard of them, but never have checked. Could you give me an example of a currently passed one?

    "Semantics. You stand against equality for gays. Therefore, you are a bigot. And I’m pretty sure I responded to your "persecution" argument before. Whats being done to gays almost EXACTLY fits the definition of persecution. Only your bigoted, ignorant mind can’t possibly concieve that these people are being treated poorly, strictly because they are gay."

    Semantics, nothing. There are definitions that words have. You can’t just twist meanings to suit you. In the case of bigot, you see anyone who doesn’t agree with you on this issue. There are those on the gay rights issue who oppose all laws that anyone could ever consider a gay right. There are those who do commit acts of bigotry in any ideology. However, both I and the church as an organization are not bigots. You can’t connect us to the meaning. It’s that simple. Now, even if I were a bigot, or if anyone you opposed was for that matter, what justifies your bigotry over that of another. You’ve been avoiding that question for awhile. Could you at least answer? I mean, you could at least try to recant what you said. You’re already wrong about the bigotry thing. You could at least not also be a hypocrite when it comes to the bigotry thing.

    "Yet you sit there and defend Marriage discrimination!! What insane universe do you live in where you can claim, with a straight face, that you "don’t approve of discrimination," yet fight FOR discrimination?!"

    No, I fight to defend a few things. First and foremost, I defend my belief from undeserved attacks. But I do more than that. I defend other beliefs from such attacks. I also defend the right of any belief, including ones we both agree are wrong, for a chance to try to have a chance in law. I won’t help them in passing the law. Hell, I’ll oppose it with all my strength. But I will allow them the chance to try. And I will tell you what makes the point of view of gay marriage not always neccesarily descrimination. I’ll explain in the end with love.

    "What you are really saying here is that you don’t believe that the love felt between gay people is "real" love. You think the only acceptable, real love is between a man and a woman. As far as what love is, I can’t define it, you are right about that. However, I know it when I feel it, and when I have a shitty day, and I go home to my smiling girlfriend, the shitty day almost completely melts away, and I forget about all of my problems. That’s how I know I’m in love. Like I said before, I have a friend who feels the exact same way about his boyfriend. When they are both in the room, it brightens up, and they both are absolutely happy and in love with each other. Who are YOU to say what love is real? Who are YOU to say that thier love isn’t as valid as ours? You are disgustingly ignorant of what the real situation is, and you keep making this ignorant, bigoted arguments that make me realize that you have NO IDEA what you are talking about, let alone how offensive and bigoted your arguments are."

    What I am saying is that the debate is about love. This whole debate is about love and what it is. Love. It may be the most popular belief that has no evidence in any way. It is a more widely held belief than any other religon. Even atheists such as yourself believe in it. Why? Because we feel it?  Do you know how many people, which you have called stupid, misguided and other things, because they claim to feel God or the holy spirit. I think it is you who are unaware of the situation. Yes, there are those who attack the gay community for what I as a catholic rather dislike greatly, to say the least. There will always be those who fight battles for the wrong reason. And I understand your disgust of such people. But this  argument is on something that really can’t be proven. If we argued on the subject of love, what would happen. I really couldn’t say. And then, what if someone were to join our argument and then say that we are both wrong? What if he were to say that love is nonexistent? And he could say that too. We have no evidence on love. Love truly is the ultimate, unending moral argument. It has no true logic to even prove it’s existence, with nothing more than the word of people who say they "feel it", and has much less reason to say what "true love is". That is what this whole debate on gay marriage is. A love debate.

    As for me being offensive, what have I said that is? I haven’t attacked your beliefs. I haven’t stated they’re wrong. All I’ve done is state the beliefs of catholics, defend it against unfounded accusations and attacks, and explain what the debate is about. Love. That is ultimately what your fighting for when it comes to specifically gay marriage, right? My arguements aren’t against you or anyone elses beliefs. My argument is that anyone can TRY to pass a law, that many of your belief of catholics are wrong, and , due to you bringing it up, that the gay marriage debate (not necesarilly all gay rights debates) are about love. I think that’s it.

    Wait, almost forgot something. What is your problem with law? Democracy is set to the people decide the law through moral conviction. Unless you think you can’t get the people on your side, you shouldn’t have an issue with it.

  25. Valdearg says:

    "No, it is not because my side doesn’t have what could be called a "good argument". Both of us no doubt have good arguments. For each side."

    No. You have no good argument as to why gays can’t marry. AE’s asked for a legitimate argument, and so have I. You refuse to give us one, because there isn’t a SINGLE argument against gay marriage that is based in realistic, non-bigoted ideas. You can continue to hide behind your "I won’t debate Morals!" facade all you want, because we all know you really just don’t want to admit you have no reason to oppose it, other than your own bigoted morals.

    You’ve yet to prove to me that you aren’t an ignorant bigot. In fact, all of your comments up to this point pretty much support my claim. Pathetic.

  26. Andrew Eisen says:

    Well, you and I don’t seem to be interested in discussing the same thing so I’m going to take my leave of this conversation (unless something interesting pops up) but at least you now know what Valdearg was referring to when he mentioned laws that literally punish gays.

    Play nice, folks.  I’d hate to have to bust back in here with my mighty blue pen of moderation.

     

    Andrew Eisen

    P.S. – I’m seriously interested in hearing a compelling argument for preventing gays from marrying (or adopting) so if you feel like providing some or linking to someone else that has, please do.

  27. gellymatos says:

    "So you see it as perfectly fine and moral if someone was trying to pass a law that put black people back into slavery. It’s thier right to pass a law that reflects their morals, after all. Like I said, you are clearly a racist, as well as a bigot. Needless to say, your logic on laws is a crock of shit. Laws can be passed that are morally wrong. You support laws that restrict gays from enjoying the same benefits that straight people do. Thats discrimination and bigotry, and It’s wrong, no matter how you spin it"

    Actually, yes. It is perfectly alright to TRY. Note the emphasis on TRY. Would it succede? No. Why? The people (including you and I) wouldn’t allow for it due to moral conviction and the logical fact that race doesn’t matter. Both have the same potential. That has already been proven. Also, let’s not forget the Bill of Rights, which should immediately shoot down such a TRY. Slavery existed because even with the Bill of Rights before because those who allowed slavery (whether they truly supported it or not) ignored the Bill of Rights. As for me being racist, that is quite the claim. Do you even know my own heritage? Of course not. I’m going to let you guess. Come on. It actually shouldn’t be that hard. I’m pretty sure I mentioned it sometime on another subject. Also, how well do you really know me? Do you know who my friends are? What races are my friends? Aw, you don’t know, do you? Think about the claim you just made, and see how unfounded it is.

    "No, you have NO GOOD ARGUMENT against it, other than the bigoted belief that you think it’s wrong, therefore it’s ok for you to support a restriction of gay rights. You are a bigot."

    Look, I have no problem with you not quoting everything I say. However, when you do I would prefer you include parts of my statement that you seem to chose to avoid. I mean, you seem to be ignoring the parts where I give my reasoning, such as in this situation. You certainly didn’t include it in your quote. The section you quoted continues like so:

    "Here’s why: Moral debates like this cannot be solve by universally accepted logic. The two points are based off of opinion. While the two points from a neutral standpoint may see that both have good points, neither can really beat the other. While there are exceptions, the major moral debates of today are not generally one of them."

    No, it is not because my side doesn’t have what could be called a "good argument". Both of us no doubt have good arguments. For each side. The problem is that because both are good and that neither could be beaten by logic that isn’t moral logic or opinion, neither of us would really be beaten. Do you know what would happen? It would never end. Check that, it would end, just not with either one of us conceding to the other. Neither of us would give up on our point. It would probably end with one of us being sick of the argument for whatever reason and maybe with us pissed at each other. 

     

  28. Valdearg says:

    "First, I will ask you again to STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!! DO NOT DO IT!!!! I AM NOT RACIST NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN RACIST!!!! I NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE SORT!!!!!"

    Well, don’t make such retarded comments that make it so easy to read between the lines. You clearly stated that you think its morally right for ANYONE to pass laws that reflect thier morals. Therefore, if someone passes a law that sends black people back into slavery, by your obviously flawed logic, you would support it, because it was that person’s moral right to do so. It’s a pretty easy conclusion to come to. Clearly, you are a racist, bigoted, mororn.

    "First, the support of slavery and laws that are racist went against the Bill of Rights due to the fact that both goes against the part about all men being equal."

    And Gays aren’t "all men"? You are just digging yourself a bigger hole. If "All Men" are created equal, and straight men have the right to marry the consenting adult they want, then why can’t gays? Clearly it goes against the "All men" are created equal clause. You are only continuing to expose your bigoted beliefs.

    "The logic of those who are racist is that another race is inferior to another."

    The logic of those against gay marriage is that gays are inferior to straight people. That thier love is somehow inferior to straight love. And don’t give me that hackneyed "What is Love?" argument. I know that I love my girlfriend to the extreme, and I also know that my gay friend loves his boyfriend to the extreme. You and your bigoted church view my love as superior to his love, which is absolutely illogical and wrong.

    "The fact that people of any race can get anywhere in life that someone of another race can (when all races are given a fair shot). This shows that all races are equal."

    Boy, it’s too bad the law is preventing Gays from doing the same thing. Gays can be descriminated against and fired from jobs they are perfectly qualified for, just for the crime of being gay. They are often bullied in school, and school administrations look the other way, because it’s ok to bully gays. Finally, they aren’t allowed to marry someone they love, just because they happened to be born with the same chromosomes. But that’s ok, they aren’t black, so clearly, they don’t deserve equal rights.

    "You can’t connect me to bigotry. Ditto with "persecution". You call any opposition against you "persecution". I gave you the definition. You can’t connect persecution. Also, you still haven’t justified your bigotry. Reason: You can’t."

    Semantics. You stand against equality for gays. Therefore, you are a bigot. And I’m pretty sure I responded to your "persecution" argument before. Whats being done to gays almost EXACTLY fits the definition of persecution. Only your bigoted, ignorant mind can’t possibly concieve that these people are being treated poorly, strictly because they are gay.

    "Like I said, we don’t approve of discrimination."

    Yet you sit there and defend Marriage discrimination!! What insane universe do you live in where you can claim, with a straight face, that you "don’t approve of discrimination," yet fight FOR discrimination?!

    "It is also an issue as to what love is. And as I have said, there is no universally accepted logic that trumps either opinion. Nothing proves love’s existence in any way, much less what meets its definition."

    What you are really saying here is that you don’t believe that the love felt between gay people is "real" love. You think the only acceptable, real love is between a man and a woman. As far as what love is, I can’t define it, you are right about that. However, I know it when I feel it, and when I have a shitty day, and I go home to my smiling girlfriend, the shitty day almost completely melts away, and I forget about all of my problems. That’s how I know I’m in love. Like I said before, I have a friend who feels the exact same way about his boyfriend. When they are both in the room, it brightens up, and they both are absolutely happy and in love with each other. Who are YOU to say what love is real? Who are YOU to say that thier love isn’t as valid as ours? You are disgustingly ignorant of what the real situation is, and you keep making this ignorant, bigoted arguments that make me realize that you have NO IDEA what you are talking about, let alone how offensive and bigoted your arguments are.

  29. Valdearg says:

    "What makes them wrong? What logic of yours ultimatly trumps theirs? What logic of theirs defeats yours? Neither really defeats the other by logic. Look, I am not trying to get into a moral debate between two opposing ideas. I am simply trying to argue that everyone has the right to try to put their belief into law, since law itself is largly just moral conviction. And what defines a right? Moral conviction."

    So you see it as perfectly fine and moral if someone was trying to pass a law that put black people back into slavery. It’s thier right to pass a law that reflects their morals, after all. Like I said, you are clearly a racist, as well as a bigot. Needless to say, your logic on laws is a crock of shit. Laws can be passed that are morally wrong. You support laws that restrict gays from enjoying the same benefits that straight people do. Thats discrimination and bigotry, and It’s wrong, no matter how you spin it

    "Now, I will tell you right now that I will not answer the question or any question similar and here is why. I have said repeatedly more than once (and once is enough) that I WILL NOT GET INTO A MORAL DEBATE."

    No, you have NO GOOD ARGUMENT against it, other than the bigoted belief that you think it’s wrong, therefore it’s ok for you to support a restriction of gay rights. You are a bigot.

  30. gellymatos says:

    "You don’t agree that marriage is a right?"

    My point isn’t whether or not it is a right. What I was trying to say was that everyone has their own beliefs as what a right is. And everyone has the right to make laws that do so, all while not trampling on the rights that are in the Bill of Rights. And whether or not marriage is a right isn’t really the main point. The real issue is what I said in respond to Vald’s comment.  The gay marriage issue is based on love and what real love is. There is no logical proof in love. You cannot prove or measure love. Love is that one thing that even a lot of atheists simply believe in. So one group has a position on love that is different from another. Who is right? How do you find the answer? There really isn’t one, other than the ones that a person has through a belief.

    "That "someone else" is wrong.  Here’s why: because homosexuality in no way infringes on the rights of others, it is not wrong.  Rights (such as marriage) should be extended to everyone regardless of their religion, ethnic background, hair color, and yes, sexual orientation."

    What makes them wrong? What logic of yours ultimatly trumps theirs? What logic of theirs defeats yours? Neither really defeats the other by logic. Look, I am not trying to get into a moral debate between two opposing ideas. I am simply trying to argue that everyone has the right to try to put their belief into law, since law itself is largly just moral conviction. And what defines a right? Moral conviction.

    "Hey, I’m trying but those who see differently from myself have given me nothing to work with.  Those who are against gay marriage have (far as I’ve seen) come up with zero to support their position other than inconsequential arguments like: God says it’s a sin, gay sex grosses me out, etc. (or flat-out lies such as they’ll force my church to marry gays or they’ll teach my kid to be gay in school).  Why should gay people not be extended the rights that you and I enjoy?  I’ve yet to see a compelling reason."

    No, I don’t think you are. That, or you’re meeting the wrong people on these issues. Remember Frumpy Mom. If you read the posts against her and her responses, you’ll notice she seemed to only pay attention to articles that were rude, illogical, and represented the worst. Allow me to comment on each opposing argument. The first, "God says it’s a sin", is not going far enough. As a christian myself, we don’t simply say because God says so. Even our God has some sort of reasoning. Look into it.  Then there’s "gay sex grosses me out". This isn’t even an argument. This is some person who just feels "gross" due to what I will hazard to guess as homophobia. As long as I’m mentioning it, I should note that just because someone is against gay marriage, doesn’t mean they are homophobic. And the last, the lies, happen all the time, not just with gay issues. These are made up of the less tolerant and/or more paranoid churches. They often don’t even represent the denomination. I say this with the knowledge that at least one catholic parish has taken this paranoid point of view. Mostly, it is made up of fundementalists, though I have already shown that it varies. If this is literally all you have heard, then no wonder you have neve heard a compelling reasons.

    "No, I wasn’t."

    "And you didn’t answer my question.  I’ll rephrase it:

    "Surely you can see that these laws prevent a certain group of people from enjoying everyone else’s ability to marry the concenting adult of their choice solely due to said group’s sexual orientation?""

    "Whether you personally define that as punishment or not, is immaterial.  Those are the type of laws that Valdearg and I are talking about."

    First off, my mistake. It was Vald who brought it up first. Now, I will tell you right now that I will not answer the question or any question similar and here is why. I have said repeatedly more than once (and once is enough) that I WILL NOT GET INTO A MORAL DEBATE. Here’s why: Moral debates like this cannot be solve by universally accepted logic. The two points are based off of opinion. While the two points from a neutral standpoint may see that both have good points, neither can really beat the other. While there are exceptions, the major moral debates of today are not generally one of them. Do you know what would happen if we got into a debate? I see you as a guy set in his beliefs, as I know I am. It would never end.

    What I will argue are two general things: First, that all people have the right to have civil discussions withing legal context and to try to make a belief into law, since law is largly moral belief anyway. Second, I defend my faith from attacks uncalled for and defend it against intolerance and bigotry. Hell, I’ll defend other beliefs, even athesim.

  31. gellymatos says:

    "Using your inane logic about laws, it was perfectly fine for black people to be slaves, to not be allowed to vote, and not be allowed to use the same facilities as white people, when those laws were in effect, too, right? I mean, they were law, and the law reflects the people’s will, therefore those laws weren’t wrong in any way, shape, or form. So, what, you are a racist as well as an anti-gay bigot? Boy, I sure am learning a lot about you."

    First, I will ask you again to STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!! DO NOT DO IT!!!! I AM NOT RACIST NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN RACIST!!!! I NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE SORT!!!!! Here are your tactics as I seem them: insult anyone who opposes you, screw the evidence since your logic is "supreme", and make pointless and unfounded name calling until your opponent is so pissed that he leaves. That is really all you have done. I mean, your calling me racist. As for my "inane" logic, it isn’t inane, it’s how law works. How would you explain law then?  In the race situation, it still makes sense. First, the support of slavery and laws that are racist went against the Bill of Rights due to the fact that both goes against the part about all men being equal. If the Bill of Rights isn’t followed, then of course bigotry and other similar things will occur. The laws were wrong. I would also like to repeat, for the sake of reinforcement because you are going way to far, is that I am not racist. Are you now going to say that the catholic church is racist too? Also remember that racism is one of those arguments that is defeated, because common logic could be used to beat it. The logic of those who are racist is that another race is inferior to another. That has been defeated by example (and still is) when those who weren’t white could get good jobs requireing intelligence. The fact that people of any race can get anywhere in life that someone of another race can (when all races are given a fair shot). This shows that all races are equal.

    "The fact is that they deprived people of thier rights solely because they happen to be different than what was percieved as "normal" back then. Too bad there’s no modern fight to compare that to. Wait! There is! The only thing that’s changed between then and now is who the victims were. First it was women’s rights, then it was Minority rights, and now it is Gay Rights. No matter the victim, restricting someone’s rights by law, just because they are different than you is WRONG, no matter who you are. If you don’t agree, you are a bigot, plain and simple."

    Women’s rights is the exact same thing. Women showed that they could do anything a man could do. And the gay rights issue is different, at least for catholics. That will be explained shortly.

    "He’s a bigot, AE. An eloquent one, no doubt, but definitely a bigot. That’s all there is to it. He refuses to acknowledge that there is a large sector of society being treated differently, just because of thier sexuality" 

    First, thanks for the complement. Second, you seem to have this problem where you use words with negative connotation and try to attach them to your opponent without actually backing it up. That always struck me as a dirty politics move, the most recent example being calling Obama Hitler, Stalin, or Lenin. I gave you the definition of bigotry. You can’t connect me to bigotry. Ditto with "persecution". You call any opposition against you "persecution". I gave you the definition. You can’t connect persecution. Also, you still haven’t justified your bigotry. Reason: You can’t.

    "At least I admit that I hate people like you for the beliefs you hold against people like me. You, on the other hand, believe it’s perfectly fine for the church to single out and prevent gays from living the same life as anyone else in this country. That’s bigotry, if I’ve ever seen it."


    Hate: 1 a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing <had a great hate of hard work>
    2 : an object of hatred <a generation whose finest hate had been big business — F. L. Paxson>

     

    Well, looks like you’ve admitted to hate now too. What’s next? My money’s on intolerance. Or do you mean hate as an exaggerated dislike? If you mean true hate, then it will be interesting to see how you justify that. And I have already told you the catholic church does not believe in hate. We disapprove of hate more than anything else.  I don’t approve of hate either. I don’t hate anyone, not even you. Not even Kim Jong IL. And I really don’t like the North Korean government.  And, since I have a friend who is homosexual and have been well aquainted to gays in the past, it would be a bit hard to hate one and be a friend of one. The same goes for bigotry.

    "I can’t believe I’m even HAVING this argument, considering ANYONE with half a brain and a good heart would recognize the suffering of the GBLT community at the hands of religious persecution. Not being allowed to marry, not being allowed to fight for thier country, not being allowed to adopt kids and have a family.. On top of that, like I said before, it’s still legal to FIRE someone just for the "crime" of being gay, in some states. Those laws have the support of the Catholic Church, as well as other moderate and conservative denominations."

    Last I checked, your having this argument offend christians and anyone else who doesn’t believe in what you do. Half a brain. Insults. Oh no, what will I do? Your insulting me. That defeats my argument. I am truly beaten by your experience in offending people. Wow. And misuse of the word persecution. Ah, classic Vald. And I already gave my opinion on "don’t ask, don’t tell". Did you even read it? As for the job laws, the church does not support discrimination of gays and neither do I. The church currently does not support descrimination laws such as the job one. And while I believe you, it wouldn’t hurt to bring out some evidence in this case. An article or  just nameing a specific instance perhaps? And I never have condsidered the catholic church really on the left or right. On one hand, we are pro-life and oppose gay marriage. On the other hand, we don’t approve of the death penalty or torture. No party really likes us as a whole.

    "The fact is that gays live a lifestyle filled with doubt and trepidation about thier sexuality. "Can I meet my boyfriend during my lunch break to eat together? What if someone sees me and I get fired?!" "Can I hold my boyfriend’s hand when we take a walk? I might be seen!" These kinds of thoughts go through countless gay individuals heads, because they are seen as lesser people. They are seen as abominations, who aren’t normal. They are treated, in the law, like they aren’t equal to any straight couple. It’s sickening that there’s ANYONE in this world who doesn’t see that. What, were you against interracial marriage, too? You have some pathetically misguided views on the world, and those bigoted beliefs your church shares with you have shaped you into someone who has no problem with the persecution and suffering of a group of people, just because they turned out differently than you. Bigot."

    Like I said, we don’t approve of discrimination. Catholics are not supposed to see a sinner as an abomination, especially since, to us, everyone sins. If you see any catholic that does, remind them that for me. Here’s the thing about gay marriage. The problem with gay marriage isn’t that one group thinks gays deserve a right that anyone else does. It is all about one’s view on what marriage is. It is also an issue as to what love is. And as I have said, there is no universally accepted logic that trumps either opinion. Nothing proves love’s existence in any way, much less what meets its definition.

    Look, allow me to explain the catholic moral opinion. Here’s what we oppose that you don’t like: gay marriage and gays adopting. Every other thing you could possibly complain about is not true, in those cases we either agree with you or we don’t have an official stance for whatever reason. Those stances aren’t made easier by the other, less tolerant christians out there. In any case, you certainly can’t prove that catholics as a united belief (not one crazy who doesn’t represent the whole or a parish that strays) are in anyway intolerant, hateful, or bigoted.

    By the way, assuming someone were to admit they were bigoted to you. Then what? You yourself are bigoted.

    As for your shoutbox posts, if gay marriage does become legal, I will be a good sport and give my congrats (though saying that "it is creeping across the states" is, well, creepy and gives it a negative tone; try something else) . I will still fight for what I believe in, but I will still fight fairly and without hate or intolerance.

    I would like to make something clear. I make my argument on a neutral standpoint. I am not here to argue my belief with yours. I really don’t care who is right on these beliefs in this case. I have not promoted my faith in any way. I have not tried to promote the belief that gay marriage or gays having children is wrong. I have only mentioned my beliefs as examples in arguments or when stating exactly what it is we believe. The purpose of my debate is two fold. First, I am debating the fact that all beliefs have the right to influence the laws of their society through fair tactics. Second, I’m defending my faith against the unjustified attacks.

  32. Andrew Eisen says:

    "You think that the law strips a right, that marriage can be between those of the same sex and that homosexuality is right (not a right, just right)."

    You don’t agree that marriage is a right?

    "Someone else thinks the law is right, that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is wrong. Who is right? Why?"

    That "someone else" is wrong.  Here’s why: because homosexuality in no way infringes on the rights of others, it is not wrong.  Rights (such as marriage) should be extended to everyone regardless of their religion, ethnic background, hair color, and yes, sexual orientation.

    "If so, then you need to see the point of view of your opposition and understand it."

    Hey, I’m trying but those who see differently from myself have given me nothing to work with.  Those who are against gay marriage have (far as I’ve seen) come up with zero to support their position other than inconsequential arguments like: God says it’s a sin, gay sex grosses me out, etc. (or flat-out lies such as they’ll force my church to marry gays or they’ll teach my kid to be gay in school).  Why should gay people not be extended the rights that you and I enjoy?  I’ve yet to see a compelling reason.

    "As for semantics, you are the one who brought punishment up. I just saw the error in use of the term."

    No, I wasn’t.

    And you didn’t answer my question.  I’ll rephrase it:

    "Surely you can see that these laws prevent a certain group of people from enjoying everyone else’s ability to marry the concenting adult of their choice solely due to said group’s sexual orientation?"

    Whether you personally define that as punishment or not, is immaterial.  Those are the type of laws that Valdearg and I are talking about.

     

    Andrew Eisen

  33. Valdearg says:

    Using your inane logic about laws, it was perfectly fine for black people to be slaves, to not be allowed to vote, and not be allowed to use the same facilities as white people, when those laws were in effect, too, right? I mean, they were law, and the law reflects the people’s will, therefore those laws weren’t wrong in any way, shape, or form. So, what, you are a racist as well as an anti-gay bigot? Boy, I sure am learning a lot about you.

    The fact is that they deprived people of thier rights solely because they happen to be different than what was percieved as "normal" back then. Too bad there’s no modern fight to compare that to. Wait! There is! The only thing that’s changed between then and now is who the victims were. First it was women’s rights, then it was Minority rights, and now it is Gay Rights. No matter the victim, restricting someone’s rights by law, just because they are different than you is WRONG, no matter who you are. If you don’t agree, you are a bigot, plain and simple.

  34. Valdearg says:

    He’s a bigot, AE. An eloquent one, no doubt, but definitely a bigot. That’s all there is to it. He refuses to acknowledge that there is a large sector of society being treated differently, just because of thier sexuality.

  35. Valdearg says:

    At least I admit that I hate people like you for the beliefs you hold against people like me. You, on the other hand, believe it’s perfectly fine for the church to single out and prevent gays from living the same life as anyone else in this country. That’s bigotry, if I’ve ever seen it.

    I can’t believe I’m even HAVING this argument, considering ANYONE with half a brain and a good heart would recognize the suffering of the GBLT community at the hands of religious persecution. Not being allowed to marry, not being allowed to fight for thier country, not being allowed to adopt kids and have a family.. On top of that, like I said before, it’s still legal to FIRE someone just for the "crime" of being gay, in some states. Those laws have the support of the Catholic Church, as well as other moderate and conservative denominations.

    The fact is that gays live a lifestyle filled with doubt and trepidation about thier sexuality. "Can I meet my boyfriend during my lunch break to eat together? What if someone sees me and I get fired?!" "Can I hold my boyfriend’s hand when we take a walk? I might be seen!" These kinds of thoughts go through countless gay individuals heads, because they are seen as lesser people. They are seen as abominations, who aren’t normal. They are treated, in the law, like they aren’t equal to any straight couple. It’s sickening that there’s ANYONE in this world who doesn’t see that. What, were you against interracial marriage, too? You have some pathetically misguided views on the world, and those bigoted beliefs your church shares with you have shaped you into someone who has no problem with the persecution and suffering of a group of people, just because they turned out differently than you. Bigot.

  36. sharpshooterbabe says:

    That’s why I don’t watch TV very much. I say less than 2 hours every 2 days.

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  37. gellymatos says:

    I don’t think you read my last post or you don’t understand it. You think that the law strips a right, that marriage can be between those of the same sex and that homosexuality is right (not a right, just right). Someone else thinks the law is right, that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is wrong. Who is right? Why? That is what is called a moral belief. You say you "fail to see how anyone, regardless of their faith, could see that as anything but wrong." If so, then you need to see the point of view of your opposition and understand it. As for semantics, you are the one who brought punishment up. I just saw the error in use of the term.

    Look, already told Vald this, allow me to tell you the same thing. I do not get into moral arguments, at least not here. Moral arguments never end. They have no logic that either validates or nullifies the logic of either. Both sides may have good points, but neither are proven one way or the other. I do not post on religous articles to advocate my faith, only to defend it. In fact, I’ll defend any ideology from an unfair attack if I see one.

    Everyone has an ideology. Everyone wants their ideology made into law. To have opposition who succede in making their belief into law while you don’t isn’t punishment. It’s law. Don’t like it. Try to get the law taken down while getting your belief up.

  38. Andrew Eisen says:

    I’m not interested in arguing the semantics of the word "punishment" but surely you can agree that these laws strip the rights that you and I enjoy from our peers solely due to their sexual orientation?  I fail to see how anyone, regardless of their faith, could see that as anything but wrong.

     

    Andrew Eisen

  39. gellymatos says:

    "’Persecute: 1 : to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief’

    Bold mine. How fucking stupid are you? Not being allowed to marry the person you love, like the rest of the "normal", straight people is absolutely a punishment.

    "You are a fucking bigot."

    "Suffice it to say, "to cause to suffer because of belief" applies here. You and your bigoted beliefs are causing Gays to Suffer because they can’t live as full a life as everyone else, because they don’t have the same rights. And you have NO problem with it. You are ABSOLUTELY a fucking bigot."

    That area you bolded is meant to simplfy the ending; another way to read it therefore is "to harass or punish in a manner to cause to suffer because of belief", with the belief being that of the victim. The victim is harassed or punished because of what the victim believes in. That is persecution. And no, Jack, I’m not stupid. You think you would have learned from a certain attorney that blunt insults don’t make for good arguments.

    And remember what I keep saying about love? It is simply another thing we believe in. Allow me to put it in a way that I find ironic. Why do you believe in love? There is no proof it exists. To believe in love is to believe in it through, in a non-religous sense, faith. You believe in it with no evidence to support it. And i answered the punishment question already. Check above.

    Also, I have a proposition. Give me the definition of a bigot, then match me to the definition. After that, then try to justify the fact that you are a bigot, a fact you admitted yourself. Is your bigotry allowed?

  40. gellymatos says:

    Ah, that’s the question, isn’t it? What makes it a right? The people do. Remember the quote from The Bear and the Dragon? It may have been in another post, so here it is:

    "What we call law is nothing more or less than the public’s collective belief, their conviction of what right and wrong is. Whether it is about murder, kidnapping, or running a red light, society decides what the rules are. In a democratic republic, we do that through legislature by electing people who share our views. That’s how laws happen. We also set up a constitution, the supreme law of the land, which is very carefully considered because it decides what the other laws may or may not do, and therefore it protects us against transitory passions." chp. 12

    The people decide what right and wrong is. And yet there are many people with many different views and moral feelings. So, some people believe in gay marriage. What of those people who think differently? To you, the laws are punishment. They are no such thing. They are simply law. If you don’t like it, guess whose responsiblity it is to try to change it. Gay marriage, what makes it right? Making abortional illegal, what makes that right? Truly, no actual logic can either verify or nullify them. That is what I mean by moral arguments.

    Of course, there are moral beliefs that are shared and absolute (more or less) that make up our society agrees on that we all must help defend against. Our society is mostly in agreement in the fight against hate and intolerence. We have no doubt that most cases of murder have no excuse.

    For the record, I am on these post not to promote my faith, but to defend it. I really have no intention to promote them on these posts. I may describe beliefs for one reason or another, but that’s it.

    Oh, and intent is very important. It defines the very meaning of an action.

  41. Andrew Eisen says:

    Actually, yes. Those laws aren’t meant to punish. They are the moral beliefs of people being put into law. See my explainations of law a little lower (or see one of the many other posts I have made with other articles.

     

    Continuing the conversation:

    Doesn’t matter if that’s the intent or not, that’s the result.  Thanks to these laws, there are many people who do not get to enjoy the rights and privilages of their peers because of their sexual orientation.

    However you want to classify it (punishment, moral beliefs put into law, whatever), squelching the rights of a particular group of people is wrong.

     

    Andrew Eisen

  42. ezbiker555 says:

    Edit: Whoops wrong reply.

    My thoughts on this. I say you can be both. While I’m not religious, I’ve learned that you can’t label something because of a negatve minorty. I think you can be a simple mix of both (gamer and religous) if you don’t let one or the other be a majority. I see often that people who have major problems with games are those who tend to go a bit overboard with thier religion. The same goes for a gamer though, if you hold onto the beliefs that what one small group might say or do means that everyone eles is the same.

    Does anyone eles understand my point?

     

  43. gellymatos says:

    The problem isn’t religous people changing their minds, it’s about the many different religous types that have different opinions, even within the same religon.

  44. strathmeyer says:

    "Mike Gingras writes from the viewpoint of a religious gamer, noting that players are constantly breaking the Ten Commandments in-game, but he takes a broadminded approach to it all"

    Wow, who knew the Ten Commandments applied to fictional characters? Doesn’t this mean that you’re breaking the Ten Commandments when you read the Holy Bible? If religious people want to be taken seriously they need to decided exactly what they make believe in and stop changing their minds.

  45. Baruch_S says:

    Exactly. My hometown (which isn’t huge but isn’t small either) has more churches than I can to count. I’m good friends with the family of one of the pastors in town (he’s the pastor of a fairly conservatice church–organ music, psalter hymnal, that sort of thing) and I just spent the better part of the night playing video games with him and his 5th grade son. We also have one (and it’s the only one out of something like two dozen total) ultra-conservative church in town that hates pretty much anything non-churchy and even disowns any "Christian" music that isn’t found in their hymnal. There are some crazies out there, but (at least around here in the midwest) they aren’t that prominent.

    The stereotypes are ridiculous. Most Christians aren’t fundamentalist nuts. They play the same video games, read the same books, and watch the same movies as everyone else. The problem is that these peoplare are not as vocal or confrontational about their beliefs, so others aren’t likely to recognize them as Christians without getting to know them well. People carrying around "God hates you" signs are much more obviously identifying themselves as "Christian," so I think the stereotype is based off the most conspicious element of the group even if it isn’t representative. And, no matter how many level-headed Christians some people meet, they still hold to the old stereotype of the Bible-thumping fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist.

  46. gellymatos says:

    Attention all, Valdearg has admitted to his bigotry. Check around for his post. It’s way above where we are now, but he said it.  It’s the one shortly after the "whining" pic. Thank you, and good night.

  47. Im_not_Herbert says:

    "Probably not; it sounds like he simply doesn’t belong to a fundamentalist group. Quite a few religious groups are fairly open-minded and have no problem with their members playing video games or watching movies. The real problem here is that the stereotype of religious people is based on the foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalists, so when someone says he’s religious, people automatically assume he’s one of the nutters."

     

    Pretty much yep.  I was raised Christian in a very small town.  I played D&D when I was a kid.  The pastor of the church I went to was a pretty level headed guy, as was most of the congregation from what I remember.  My stepmom kept an eye on what I was doing and everything was OK.  A friend of mine, however, went to a church a few miles away, and his pastor was one who thought D&D was directly from hell.  This friend of mine would get visibly shaken when I and the other players would break out the game stuff.  He had been told that we would sit and do actual spells and incantations, and that the game figures would become animated and move around on their own.  It took a lot of convincing from the rest of that his pastor was nuts.

    Having spent a good deal of my life on the wrong end of so much hatred and misunderstanding has taught me to take a breath and be very careful about generalizing and *always* seeking the truth before running off at the mouth.  Unfortunately, it is a lesson most people seem never to learn.

     

     

    Your Yak is Weak!

  48. Baruch_S says:

    Probably not; it sounds like he simply doesn’t belong to a fundamentalist group. Quite a few religious groups are fairly open-minded and have no problem with their members playing video games or watching movies. The real problem here is that the stereotype of religious people is based on the foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalists, so when someone says he’s religious, people automatically assume he’s one of the nutters.

  49. Baruch_S says:

    Why does every topic remotely related to religion have to turn into some sort of stupid pissing match? 95% of the people in these debates don’t know crap about religion anyway (on either side of the debate, mind you), and they just end up going over the same old incorrect BS every time. Seriously people, get over it and keep your uninformed opinions to yourselves. We don’t need to turn every topic into an excuse to show off e-peen by trying to shove your beliefs down others’ throats through your uninformed, biased "arguments."

  50. gellymatos says:

    No, he’s said nothing wrong, at least not on the Bishop. I can’t say anything about the others.

  51. Talouin says:

    What religion are you a part of?  You, and these individuals, may be mis-labeling your belief system.

  52. lordlundar says:

    As any reader of this website knows full well, videogames and religion tend to mix like oil and water.

    Put quite simply, no. Videogames and religious fundamentalists mix like oil and water, but not the religion.

    A number of pastors, reverends, and even a bishop that I have met play videogames of a variety of sorts. They even play ones that the fundies of their religion say are inherintly evil and laugh about them. Why? because they do not preach that videogames are evil, but instead preach that videogames are a work of fiction for entertainment or sometimes educational purposes. Heck, one pastor I knew played Xenogears, which is up there in ones that people question religion on, and he liked it because it made him realize how to best approach people who question their faith.

  53. Talouin says:

     The problem is actually with people’s classification of their personal beliefs.  Most people of religious belief are mainline protestant yet will identify themselves as a different religion.  You are correct about the "old guard" of religion being unable to adapt their various religions, via dogma, to the current social environment.  

    If the leaders of the various religions were willing to do this, there may be a lot less conflict about many subjects… however to them it would come at a price, their faith… which we have no right to destroy.

  54. TBoneTony says:

    Also if a game is enjoyable, but goes against your religion, then how about every time when you play such as game that you just throw your brain into the bin for a while and just enjoy the game for what it is. Just a game.

    When when you turn the game off, pick up your brain and continue to live a normal life peacefully without trying to change other people.

     

  55. TBoneTony says:

    To me, christians, catholics, muslims, jewish, hindu, buddah and every other religion will always have most of their people who enjoy something, while a few older generation people will always struggle to adapt to change and maybe try their best to stop change if they don’t like what they see.

    It is not religion’s fault to be honest, only certain people who enforce their own views against others who are just having a good time.

    I believe that religious people can enjoy videogames, even if the game involves something that might challenge their beliefs, as long as they look at it as nothing more than a game, and know that it is only what they do to other people in real life that god judges them on… then I feel everyone should be able to live playing videogames in peace.

    I used to feel that christians were nothing but power hungry people who wanted to burn all the Pokemon stuff that I really loved, so I got turned off by religion because of it.

    That was 10 years ago, nowdays since I am allot more older and happier to know that Christian Gamers on this site are not the people who hate things like Pokemon all because it has got fantasy elements of evolution, most can clearly see that it is only a game and fantasy, I feel allot more confident that they can easily enjoy videogames and maybe like to play a few games where they can even follow in their own faith towards god as long as the games and fun and enjoyable to play above all else.

     

    My view is, you need games to be fun in order for people to play them. And in games like Grand Theft Auto in a Christian’s view, how about trying to play GTA without doing anything sinful, it might be a good way to enjoy it.

     

    I believe that religion and games can get along with each other, the main thing is to have respect for others and I feel that not many older generation of religious people who preach about their views to others but don’t want to be preached to unless if it is from their own opinion will ever understand how to accept videogames if they have such a hate towards them.

     

  56. gellymatos says:

    Sane people don’t make for good news stories. Insane ones do. There are four things that you don’t trust the news media on due to bias or lack of any knowledge on the subject: Religon, Videogames, Politics, and the military.

  57. Baruch_S says:

    Hey look, a sane Christian taking a sane approach on an issue. We don’t often get news about normal Christians being normal. They exist!

  58. thefremen says:

    I love the accompanying picture with the HRAP 2, for it is truely an instrument of the Lord God. 

  59. Shadow D. Darkman says:

    Help! Help! I’m being compressed!

    —————————–

    "A Chrono Trigger is anything that unleashes its will or desire to change history!" -Gaspar

  60. gellymatos says:

    This isn’t my real reply. I’m continuing this with a new thread. These posts are getting too small. See you there.

  61. gellymatos says:

    Even if I were neutral, my point would remain the same. It isn’t done with the intent of punishment. I may be catholic, but I make it a policy not to try to promote my beliefs. I simply defend my faith from uncalled for attacks, or at least offensive ones.

    P.S. can we continue on the bottom. The posts getting skinnier are starting to annoy me. Start your next post on the bottom if you want to do so. If not, just keep as it is.

  62. Valdearg says:

    Since the responses are getting too small, I placed my response in the box.

    Suffice it to say, "to cause to suffer because of belief" applies here. You and your bigoted beliefs are causing Gays to Suffer because they can’t live as full a life as everyone else, because they don’t have the same rights. And you have NO problem with it. You are ABSOLUTELY a fucking bigot.

  63. Valdearg says:

    "Persecute: 1 : to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief"

    Bold mine. How fucking stupid are you? Not being allowed to marry the person you love, like the rest of the "normal", straight people is absolutely a punishment.

    You are a fucking bigot.

  64. Valdearg says:

    I rest my case. You are a bigot. If you don’t believe that not being allowed to marry is NOT punishment for being gay, you are, hands down, unequivocably, no questions asked, 100% a bigot.

    That view is SO ignorant and SO moronic that it just can’t be put into words. How is not being given the same rights as everyone else NOT a punishment?

    What a close-minded, ignorant view.

    Bigot.

  65. gellymatos says:

    Actually, yes. Those laws aren’t meant to punish. They are the moral beliefs of people being put into law. See my explainations of law a little lower (or see one of the many other posts I have made with other articles.

  66. gellymatos says:

    That isn’t persecution. That’s politics. Don’t like a law? Get involved in politics. I know I’ve already explained this. While you believe in gay marriage, others do not. Some seem marriage as between a man and a woman. Others see it as between both those of the opposite sex and same sex. You can’t just label your opposition. Here’s a quote from Tom Clancy’s The Bear and the Dragon that puts it the best way, "What we call law is nothing more or less than the public’s collective belief, their conviction of what right and wrong is. Whether it is about murder, kidnapping, or running a red light, society decides what the rules are. In a democratic republic, we do that through legislature by electing people who share our views. That’s how laws happen. We also set up a constitution, the supreme law of the land, which is very carefully considered because it decides what the other laws may or may not do, and therefore it protects us against transitory passions." Society isn’t just made up of your position. It is made up of many. Just because someone disagrees with you and challenges you in a law doesn’t mean that they are trying to oppress you. They are trying to get their morals unto law.

    "ANYONE who is against gay marriage is pro gay persectution. NOT allowing Gays to marry who they love, just because they are Gay is persecution."

    Do you like to twist the meanings of words to suit you, or do you just really suck at vocab?

    Persecute: 1 : to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
    2 : to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities)
     
    Do you even listen to what I say about love? Love is a moral opinion. It is not a proven phenomenom. We both believe in it, but our moral opinions on it differ.
     

    "By stating that you think your church is in the right by advocating against Gay marriage, effectively trying to punish gays for being gay, you are advocating persecution. You are an anti-gay, ignorant bigot."

    It’s not punishment. It’s moral opinion that has made it to law. And anti-gay is a bit vague, isn’t it? I mean, I said I was against the hate of gays, among other things. As for the bigot thing, you still can’t connect me and the definition and you yourself admitted to bigotry. What justifies yours over that of others?

     
     
     
  67. Andrew Eisen says:

    Those laws do literally punish people for being gay.  Are you looking for a law that puts gays to death or something?

     

    Andrew Eisen

  68. gellymatos says:

    I mean literally punish gays for being gay. Yes, I know about those laws. Read what I’ve said about laws and moral and controversial issues.

  69. Valdearg says:

    "When did I ever say anything advocating persecution?!"

    You’ve, on multiple occassions, stated that you see no problem with the church attempting to get it’s morals passed into law. The Catholic church stands against Gay Marriage. It wants to make sure that any laws allowing Gay Marriage get defeated. ANYONE who is against gay marriage is pro gay persectution. NOT allowing Gays to marry who they love, just because they are Gay is persecution.

    By stating that you think your church is in the right by advocating against Gay marriage, effectively trying to punish gays for being gay, you are advocating persecution. You are an anti-gay, ignorant bigot.

  70. Andrew Eisen says:

    "Can you name a law that punishes gays that the catholic church supports?"

    Don’t know about church support but there are plenty such laws around the country.  Several that prevent gays from marrying and one in Florida that prevents gays from adopting.

     

    Andrew Eisen

  71. gellymatos says:

    "Huge difference, here, GRU. He’s trying to sell me on the perspective that it’s OK to persecute Gays, because he doesn’t agree with thier lifestyle. No argument he makes will make me think it’s fine to make laws that punish people for living a different, yet harmless lifestyle, and no argument anyone else makes will make me think that he is anything other than an ignorant bigot."

    No, I AM NOT!!!! DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!! What have I said that suggested anything like that! When did I ever say anything advocating persecution?! I haven’t even made any comments against gay marriage!! Your the only one stating a moral opinion! Also, when did ever say anything about punishing gays and I haven’t even heard of a law in recent years that punishes gays for being gay, much less one that the catholic church supports. Check that, there is a law; it’s "don’t ask, don’t tell"; but that law doesn’t seem to even be an issue to the catholic church. It’s one of those things that the church really has no official position.Can you name a law that punishes gays that the catholic church supports? My argument has been several things such as what’s wrong with being offensive with all christians, what law has to do with morality, the definition of a bigot (which you still can’t attach to me, who’s being intolerant, and other such subjects. Vald, you said you were done. What are you going to do? Keep arguing, actually be done, or just be done but still stick around to try to label me? Oh, and even I was a bigot, how can you justify the bigotry you have admitted to having?

  72. gellymatos says:

    Always have discussions with people like Jack. You let their point of view go unchallenged if you don’t.

  73. Valdearg says:

    Huge difference, here, GRU. He’s trying to sell me on the perspective that it’s OK to persecute Gays, because he doesn’t agree with thier lifestyle. No argument he makes will make me think it’s fine to make laws that punish people for living a different, yet harmless lifestyle, and no argument anyone else makes will make me think that he is anything other than an ignorant bigot.

    As for your Smoking stuff, I did do a bit more research on that, as well. As it turns out, I still don’t agree with your opinion that second hand smoke isn’t bad for you at all, but it doesn’t seem to be AS BAD as I originally thought. Either way, I’d still prefer not to be subject to the stuff.

  74. GoodRobotUs says:

    I’ve had a similar experience with him on the smoking article, which is a pity, he seems pretty intelligent guy, I tried to have a conversation with him from my own perspective, provided evidence, and got a reply that started with ‘What are you, a fucking moron?’

    From that point on, sadly, I felt there was no point having a discussion with someone who’s posts resembled Jack Thompsons.

  75. gellymatos says:

    Keep going up until you find the post I made with the demotivational picture involving whining and and european soccer. It starts on the post above that one. Can’t miss it.

  76. gellymatos says:

    "It doesn’t matter if they happen to be of a slightly different denomination as you. Sure, your beliefs might not be as extreme, but you and your bullshit faith are still opposed to gay rights. That makes you a bigoted, ignorant fool."

    First, thank you for conceding to tshe fact that other denominations can be more extreme. But, you are wrong. Denominations are very important factors. In certain ways, different denominations like totally seperate religons. Whole wars have been based off of denomination. While you try to label and generalize all christians, the truth is that we have really only one set of beliefs that we all share. And that is that there is a God in heaven, a devil in hell, and that Jesus was born and died to save the world. Pretty much every other aspect of chrisitanity is different with each denomination. Let’s use the gay rights issue as an example. Some denominations believe in gay rights entirely. Others, like the catholic church, don’t believe that homosexuality is right, but do believe in gays being treated equally and certainly not in hating Gays. For instance, I don’t believe in "don’t ask, don’t tell". Then there are the ones who oppose gay rights intirely. They are basically shown in your last example. They make up the whole "God hates Gays" group. Denominations are important. Like I said before, some do agree with you. And yet you would offend them too?

    "As far as MY bigotry is concerned, if the oppressed didn’t stand up to those persecuting them, the fight for human rights wouldn’t even exist. The civil rights battle wouldn’t have happened, and the Revolutionary War wouldn’t have started. As far as I’m concerned, you have clearly identified yourself as an Anti-Gay Bigot, and it won’t be tolerated. I’m not going to sit there and let people like YOU and other Christians, push me around anymore. If YOU won’t be tolerant and accepting of my lifestyle, I see no reason why I should be of yours."

    You don’t have to act like a bigot to stand up for what you believe in. Let’s use one of your examples. The civil right battle (I’m assuming on racism) did not succeed because they were bigots, they fought against it. If you become a bigot of someone who is a bigot, how are you any better than said bigot? Is it just because of who you show your bigotry? MLK was a great man who fought against racism without showing bigotry to the opposition (and he was christian himself). Did he generalize all whites as against him, even though there were many that supported him? No, he didn’t. As for me being an anti-gay bigot, I already gave you the definition of a bigot. Earlier, Taoulin gave a partial description as well, though for a different reason. Tell me how I fit it. Also, to be a bigot, wouldn’t I have to be similar to you? And when was I ever intolerant to your way of life? I don’t even know what your way of life is.

    You said in one of your posts that your bigotry is justified. How can anyone justify bigotry? And once you do, what stops everyone else from doing so. Remember, an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. And pissed off. We’re stuck with a bunch of blind, pissed off guys. Bigotry for bigotry doesn’t work.

  77. Valdearg says:

    It doesn’t matter if they happen to be of a slightly different denomination as you. Sure, your beliefs might not be as extreme, but you and your bullshit faith are still opposed to gay rights. That makes you a bigoted, ignorant fool.

    As far as MY bigotry is concerned, if the oppressed didn’t stand up to those persecuting them, the fight for human rights wouldn’t even exist. The civil rights battle wouldn’t have happened, and the Revolutionary War wouldn’t have started. As far as I’m concerned, you have clearly identified yourself as an Anti-Gay Bigot, and it won’t be tolerated. I’m not going to sit there and let people like YOU and other Christians, push me around anymore. If YOU won’t be tolerant and accepting of my lifestyle, I see no reason why I should be of yours.

  78. gellymatos says:

    First, thanks for giving me something tangible I can try to counter. Second, I thought you were "done". Well, for one, the group in the articles appears to be evanglelist. I’m not evanglelist. I’m catholic. I have acknowledged that there are messed up christians out there, including the fellowship or whatever they’re called. However, they do not represent all christians or religions. They condone killing people for being gay. My faith and I don’t. By the way, their are christians who believe in gay marriage and all else you believe in (besides that part about God not existing). Do you know how many of them you have probably insulted through your ranting? And remember something else.

    "PS: I will freely admit it. The treatment of the Gay Community by the Christian Faith as a whole has turned me into a spiteful, angry person. As far as I’m concerned though, they deserve it. YOU deserve it. You may not agree, but frankly, If someone’s going to be bigoted against MY lifestyle, I won’t hold back anymore when it comes to bashing thiers. Your Bigotry begets my bigotry, and I’m living proof of that, and as far as I’m concerned, It’s perfectly fucking justified."

    Hmm. So bigotry can be justified? Or just when you are the bigot? Think about what you just said. Or don’t. Whatever.

  79. Valdearg says:

    "I am not a bigot. Merriam-Webster defines a bigot as " a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."

    Bolded by me for your enjoyment.

    You ARE a bigot. ANYONE who doesn’t acknowledge the oppression and persecution of the Gay community by the church is a bigot. Your unwillingness to admit that the majority of Christian Sects are dead set against providing gays rights, and are actively lobbying for our CONTINUED OPPRESSION is definite proof that you are nothing but a bigoted idealogue, blinded by your delusional faith in some invisible man up in the clouds. You are just perfectly fine with closing your eyes, covering your ears, and screaming to drown out the truth.

    You want proof of the Church’s Medling in the rights of Gay people? Look up Uganda, and the number of American Religious Leaders who helped spur on a Bigoted Anti-Gay agenda that’s culminated in the Ugandan government CONTEMPLATING THE DEATH PENALTY FOR BEING GAY!!

    http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/11/the_familys_ties_to_ugandas_an.php

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/group-behind-uganda-kill_b_385705.html

    You want proof, there’s your freakin proof! The INSPIRATION for that bill came from heavily religious CHRISTIAN leaders in AMERICA. If they had thier way, they’d make that happen here, TOO!

    From now on, I’m not going to be holding back when it comes to ANYONE opposed to my personal freedoms. If anyone, ESPECIALLY the Christian Bullshit Faith wants to oppress me, they had better expect hell, because there will be no pulling my punches from now on. I’m done tolerating your special brand of covert hate.

    PS: I will freely admit it. The treatment of the Gay Community by the Christian Faith as a whole has turned me into a spiteful, angry person. As far as I’m concerned though, they deserve it. YOU deserve it. You may not agree, but frankly, If someone’s going to be bigoted against MY lifestyle, I won’t hold back anymore when it comes to bashing thiers. Your Bigotry begets my bigotry, and I’m living proof of that, and as far as I’m concerned, It’s perfectly fucking justified.

  80. gellymatos says:

    Yeah, I’m thorough.

    No, you see, when I meant give evidence, I meant as you give me a claim. Doesn’t even need to be an internet site, just a story to look up like last time. And no, I don’t have to look for the evidence, you do. You make the accusations, you back it up. Innocent until proven guilty. And the example you gave is just another example of a stupid christian who doesn’t represent all christians. He’s your  Oh, and the I do believe that some occasions I have misunderstood you, though on others, I stand by my assessment. I would go into detail, but hey, your done.

    To continue, just yelling out "oppression" really doesn’t mean anything. BACK. IT. UP. And your views on what personal freedoms are based on your moral opinions. While there are generally accepted freedoms, the ones you seem to rant about are not affirmed facts of society, and are purely opinion. As for my question on your reasons for defending gay marriage, it was meant to show a sort of similarity for us both participating in issues that don’t affect us.

    "You are a dense bigot who has absolutely no desire to see the damage people like you do to people like me on a daily basis. You don’t have some moral obligation to force me to live the way you do, and you aren’t better than me because you live up to some moral standards set forth by your bullshit religion. Yet, you still seem to think it’s PERFECTLY FINE for the church to support laws that encourage discrimination, bullying, and the emotional abuse of gays.

    I’m done with this. Your ignorance and unwillingness to see what the church is doing to the GBLT community is sickening."

    I am not a bigot. Merriam-Webster defines a bigot as " a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. Last I checked, I don’t fall into that description. You however…

    Anyway, you then go unto a some sort of rant. Big suprise.

    You know what? In the end, I’m happy your done. I often wonder why I debate with you. You’re the atheist equivalent to a religous holier-than-thou. All I get for my trouble are insults. I remain civil. You act like as long as your "right", screw civility. In the end, I won’t think of all atheists as offensive or intolerant. Why lower to your level?

  81. Valdearg says:

    Holy crap… I think you’ve set a record, Gelly..

    I’ll probably respond to a few points, but you’ve effectively flooded my servers, as far as point by point debate goes..

    As far as this goes: ":"This includes telling me what I do is wrong, implying what I do is wrong, and treating me differently because you believe what I do is wrong"." Maybe I should have been a bit clearer. What I meant was "How I act" and "Things that I do" when I said "What I do." I don’t care how you believe, like I’ve said before. I care when the church begins to oppress me by telling me I can’t do something they believe is immoral.

    "You have stated and implied that it is immoral. You have constantly said that we’re wrong. Remember that immoral and wrong, when it comes to, well, moral opinions and similar, are the same thing."

    I’ve voiced my opinion that I think your belief is incorrect. I never said it was immoral to practise it. Again, you are misunderstanding my comments. I don’t care what you believe. Religion crosses the line when they try to force ME to follow thier moral code. I don’t think I can be much clearer on this.

    "You never give an example. I think you make have given me one directly cited example in all of our arguements, the one about the church in D.C."

    Do your own reasearch. All you need to do is google  and you’ll find a list of stories. I don’t have the time or energy to track them all down. There have been MULTIPLE situations in which laws were going to be made stricter against bullying gays in school and protecting gays via stronger hate crime laws, and they have been regularly opposed by the VAST majority of the Christian faith.

    Here’s a good one to get you started:

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/hate-crimes-laws-will-destroy-church

    I’m not sure what church he belongs to, but this guy thinks that hate crime laws will "result in the criminalization of Christianity." He is fighting to keep his right to bully, demean, and harm gays. All you need to do to find more of these kinds of things is just open your eyes.

    "The belief of homosexuality isn’t something that all of humanity has some sort of agreement on. You are complaining that we don’t believe in what you do."

    I can respect that you don’t APPROVE of what gays do, but I cannot, and will not respect you if you or your church attempt to OPPRESS me. Unfortunately, members of the Christian faith are doing just that.

    " Now, what about gay marriage. From the fact that you mentioned you have a girlfriend once states that you aren’t gay. How do gay marriage laws affect you? They don’t, but your own morality says that it is right and you will defend it. Assume that you are pro-choice and abortion is legal. You’re a guy. It wouldn’t affect you. But you will go and defend it. "

    You’ve missed my point, YET AGAIN. I will defend it gay marriage and abortion because they are PERSONAL FREEDOMS. You are taking the roll as an OPPRESSOR. Your church is seeking to LIMIT the rights and freedoms of others, rather than leave it be. THAT’S THE PROBLEM! Not a single one of the examples you cited above pertain to the way your church behaves. EACH one you cited, in fact, supports MY argument. Each one were people who were encouraging PERSONAL FREEDOM, not OPPRESSION, which is what your church does.

    "You have been telling me that we are wrong and immoral this whole time."

    NO I HAVEN’T! I’ve told you that I couldn’t give two shits what you believe, as long as you don’t try to oppress me. What’s immoral is the oppression, not the belief.

    You are a dense bigot who has absolutely no desire to see the damage people like you do to people like me on a daily basis. You don’t have some moral obligation to force me to live the way you do, and you aren’t better than me because you live up to some moral standards set forth by your bullshit religion. Yet, you still seem to think it’s PERFECTLY FINE for the church to support laws that encourage discrimination, bullying, and the emotional abuse of gays.

    I’m done with this. Your ignorance and unwillingness to see what the church is doing to the GBLT community is sickening.

  82. gellymatos says:

    "I have to admit. This post made me laugh, because you spent all that time writing a virtual essay and finding a cute little picture to go with it." I do get carried away. It takes a lot to counter every point. You’re hardly one to talk about large posts, considering your last post is about as long. And you have written longer ones, as have I. As for the picture, I found it after typing the post by accident. I thought it was appropriate for the situation and funny. It was the brazilian soccer fan in me that found it.

    And I think it is you who didn’t understand my point. You saw how you responded to my question of what it means to force. Every thing you described, you do to me and other religous people on this post. Remember this:"This includes telling me what I do is wrong, implying what I do is wrong, and treating me differently because you believe what I do is wrong". You proclaim we’re wrong, you ALWAYS imply that we are wrong, and have treated us differently because you think we’re wrong.  you have an opinion on the way I handle myself, or what I do in my life, based on your own special morality, keep it to yourself." You have never, ever kept you opinion to yourself on religous morality . So what is your point? That no one but you can act in that way? That is why I said you walked right into that. Because I expected an answer like that.  

    "I make offensive remarks about your religion, I know. But I don’t tell you not to worship it, I don’t tell you how to worship it, and I don’t tell you who you can love. The remarks aren’t even CLOSE to similar. The difference, here, is that while I am expressing my belief that your religion is fake, I’m not saying it’s immoral to practise it, and I’m not saying that they should make it illegal. In addition, I’m not passing moral judgement on you, and I’m not telling you how to live your life based on my own unique morals, because I understand and respect that we aren’t going to have the same morals." 

    You have never shown respect. To associate you with respect is rather funny. You have stated and implied that it is immoral. You have constantly said that we’re wrong. Remember that immoral and wrong, when it comes to, well, moral opinions and similar, are the same thing. Even if they were different, you yourself that saying that your beliefs are wrong, while saying that all religous ones are wrong. So no matter how you look at it, you are complaining about something you yourself do. You once complained about the religous people in your town being, if you will allow me to loosely paraphrase, that they were intolerant and forceful (according to the definition of forceful that you gave me). Is your whole town full of many beliefs, yet all people in town share that oh so special trait of pressing their beliefs onto others? If there is anything that I want you to respond to in your next post, it’s everything I have typed until now.

    "This is just a stupid question. You know damn well that one of the biggest reasons I absolutely hate the church is the way they handle Gay Rights. There are laws out there, now, that restrict who gays can marry, protect bigots, and encourage abuse of homosexuals in almost every state. THOSE laws, are the very laws that the church encourages, and I oppose. THOSE laws are the ones that tell America that being gay is wrong, and if you are gay, you will suffer because of it. On top of that, Gay Sex WAS illegal in the past. It wasn’t until as recently as the 60’s and 70’s that that has changed, and the Church, the entire time, was opposed to it."

    The question I asked isn’t stupid. You never give an example. I think you make have given me one directly cited example in all of our arguements, the one about the church in D.C. and I countered that one. You still aren’t giving any. We don’t protect bigots, and you have no example. We don’t encourage the abuse of homosexuals and you have no example. As for gay marriage laws, I already mentioned how politics work. The belief of homosexuality isn’t something that all of humanity has some sort of agreement on. You are complaining that we don’t believe in what you do. Even with your claim about our attempts to make homosexuality illegal have nothing to back it up. I want to counter an example, but you won’t give me one!!! Even if we did, that is something that we stopped doing. You youself said we changed. Last I checked, one’s past doesn’t matter if they are different in the present. I suppose I should have been more specific when I said I haven’t found a law that restricts homosexuality that catholics approve, I meant in the present. " Perhaps, before making those kinds of statements, you should take the time to inform yourself, to avoid making yourself look stupid." Intirely uncalled for. You really don’t know how to debate.

    And I seem to have skipped a paragraph:

    "Laws go against people’s morality, I understand that. However, those laws you stated that you disagree with don’t affect you in the least. Abortion only affects the woman making the choice, and nobody else (don’t get me started down THAT road, please. Lets just agree to disagree). By being anti-choice, you are essentially forcing your religion and morals on someone who has different ones. On top of that, none of the laws you stated you disagree with affect you personally. Thats why you don’t "bitch and moan" like you said. If you felt like you were being oppressed by someone who’s morality you believe to be false, you’d be just as vocal and bitter as I am. That being said, if you were fighting to PREVENT the government from enforcing thier morals on YOU, fighting to preserve your own personal rights, as long as you don’t harm others, I’d have no problem. The chuch, however, doesn’t have a SINGLE law they are fighting for that encourages personal freedoms. They are seeking to OPPRESS at every turn, not liberate. Therein lies the difference."

    First, what are you worried about? You’re the one who brings you’re morality in as logic for an argument. I keep my morality out of my logic used in these types of arguments. To continue, You’re right they don’t affect me. However, does that mean that if it doesn’t affect you, you should’t say anything. In the case of the laws I mentioned, I think I should illustrate some things. First, the death penalty. If no one who is affected by the death penalty, who will say it is wrong? The criminals on death row and their loved ones. Not only would any comments they make be crushed by ad hominem attacks, though not neccesarily fallicous ones, the fact that they are criminals on DEATH, there for being murders, would also hurt any argument they had. In the case of abortion, whether your pro-life or pro-choice, we can all agree that a fetus at even the most advanced stage can’t just yell out from the uterus and say yes, abort me or no, don’t.  Now, what about gay marriage. From the fact that you mentioned you have a girlfriend once states that you aren’t gay. How do gay marriage laws affect you? They don’t, but your own morality says that it is right and you will defend it. Assume that you are pro-choice and abortion is legal. You’re a guy. It wouldn’t affect you. But you will go and defend it. Let’s look at examples that we have a solid agreement on. The holocaust is the perfect example. That is where the whole "First they took away the X, and I didn’t say anything because I wasn’t X" thing (forgot exactly what it was called). The civil rights movements way back when against racism are another example. The movement wouldn’t have had a lot of the support it did if many white people didn’t stand up and say anything. It went against their morals, and they acted on it. Is it wrong for someone to act on their morality?

    "I’ve already stated that you missed the point by miles. I’m not telling you how to live, I’m not telling you that you are morally wrong for living how you do, and I’m not trying to pass laws to stop you from living the way you want to. I’ve merely expressed MY belief that there is no God. I may not have put it in the nicest way possible, but I’ve made it clear that I don’t give two shits if you want to practice your fake religion, just keep it out of my face. But, hey, if you want to play the old "OMG, I’m being persecuted" route, just because I said something that you disagreed with, while ignoring the fact that the church is actually the persecutor, fine. It’s not like we all haven’t seen that, before."

    No, you missed my point, which I explained earlier in the post. The parts that I really want you to respond to. I have no problem if you comment on everything else, but those other ones are where my point is. Oh, and do not label me as something I’m not. I am not saying "OMG, I’m being persecuted". To say you are persecuting me would be giving you to much credit. That would have to mean that petty, but still annoying and largly offensive insults equal persecution. It’s really more like "OMG, this guy won’t stop saying all of this offensive crap about faith which he can’t back up". You’re hardly in the position to label anyone like that when you play the whole "oppression" gambit. We’re persectuting? Back it up. And you aren’t telling me how to live, your just blatantly telling me in the most offensive way that how I live is wrong. The only difference is that you aren’t giving me an alternative that you prefer. You have been saying that my beliefs are wrong during posts across this whole article.

    "I’ve not once told you how to live your life. I’ve been very clear on that. Like I’ve said, I’ve got no problem if you practise your religion. I’ve got no problem if you say you believe in God. What I do have a problem with, is when you take that extra step, and start telling ME that I’m immoral, and that I should follow your misguided morality. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, Practise your own morality, if you want. Nobody’s stopping you. Just don’t expect me to do the same, and don’t try to push your morals on me. Disapprove, if you want, but don’t tell me what morals to follow, and don’t support laws that do the same."

    You do seem to have a problem with us and God, and I’ve already said why. Just because you repeat yourself doesn’t mean I have to every time as well. Alright, I guess  I still have to. You have been telling me that we are wrong and immoral this whole time. Again, I already said why and in more detail earlier. As for the law, well, I already mentioned that as well. So now we can disapprove you? You seem to flip back and forth. First we can’t have an opinion, now we can. Make up your mind.

    "If you have to ask why both myself and many, many other athiests offensive and angry towards people like you, you have to realize that WE are the ones being oppressed by your morals. Until you experience a time where someone with morals you disagree with is preventing you from living a full and happy life, you won’t understand. If you really want to boil it down to a single sentence: I’m angry because I favor Personal Freedoms and, clearly, you and the church favor oppressing those who don’t agree with you."

    Didn’t know there was ever an excuse to be bluntly offensive. You could at least put some wit into it. Remember that happy full life is relative and isn’t some sort of valid argument. It sounds like a tactic to get off topic. Personl Freedoms are also moral opinions. You have yours and I have mine. We may have ones that are the same and that all of society may share, but there are those of which don’t have a total concise agreement don’t make for logic. Oh, and to top it all off, no examples as usual.

    Look up the definitions of hate and bigotry. You have both for religon. Yet, under the defintions, you haven’t proven the same for religon.

  83. axiomatic says:

    Athiest here too and I kind of agree with saregos.

    While I find overtly religious people irritating, I also find militant athiests like Richard Dawkins irritating as well. Admittedly Dawkins has chilled out as of late but while he was promoting "The God Delusion" I felt he acheived a fevered pitch that kind of deflated his position.

    I think the summary is; Fanatics of any kind suck.

  84. Valdearg says:

    I have to admit. This post made me laugh, because you spent all that time writing a virtual essay and finding a cute little picture to go with it, and the point sailed so far over your head, it might as well have been a friggin satellite.

    "And thank you for walking right into that!!! You are in no position to tell people to shut up on offensive opinions when you yourself make them."

    I make offensive remarks about your religion, I know. But I don’t tell you not to worship it, I don’t tell you how to worship it, and I don’t tell you who you can love. The remarks aren’t even CLOSE to similar. The difference, here, is that while I am expressing my belief that your religion is fake, I’m not saying it’s immoral to practise it, and I’m not saying that they should make it illegal. In addition, I’m not passing moral judgement on you, and I’m not telling you how to live your life based on my own unique morals, because I understand and respect that we aren’t going to have the same morals.

    "Do you know how many go against mine? Many, such as abortion or the death penalty, are current laws approved by our country that I oppose."

    Laws go against people’s morality, I understand that. However, those laws you stated that you disagree with don’t affect you in the least. Abortion only affects the woman making the choice, and nobody else (don’t get me started down THAT road, please. Lets just agree to disagree). By being anti-choice, you are essentially forcing your religion and morals on someone who has different ones. On top of that, none of the laws you stated you disagree with affect you personally. Thats why you don’t "bitch and moan" like you said. If you felt like you were being oppressed by someone who’s morality you believe to be false, you’d be just as vocal and bitter as I am. That being said, if you were fighting to PREVENT the government from enforcing thier morals on YOU, fighting to preserve your own personal rights, as long as you don’t harm others, I’d have no problem. The chuch, however, doesn’t have a SINGLE law they are fighting for that encourages personal freedoms. They are seeking to OPPRESS at every turn, not liberate. Therein lies the difference.

    " Everyone has an opinion on how to live a life with you included and you haven’t really named a law that does. Could you actually give an example? As for those you hang out with, I haven’t heard of any religous groups making an organized effort to tell people who not to hang out with (aside from criminals). As for "who you can fuck", I haven’t heard of any sort of attempt to make gay sex itself illegal."

    This is just a stupid question. You know damn well that one of the biggest reasons I absolutely hate the church is the way they handle Gay Rights. There are laws out there, now, that restrict who gays can marry, protect bigots, and encourage abuse of homosexuals in almost every state. THOSE laws, are the very laws that the church encourages, and I oppose. THOSE laws are the ones that tell America that being gay is wrong, and if you are gay, you will suffer because of it. On top of that, Gay Sex WAS illegal in the past. It wasn’t until as recently as the 60’s and 70’s that that has changed, and the Church, the entire time, was opposed to it. Perhaps, before making those kinds of statements, you should take the time to inform yourself, to avoid making yourself look stupid.

    "Well, my faith is supposedly not your business, and you continue to insult it. In fact, through your response to my question of what it means to "force" a belief, you have defined yourself as one who forces your belief on other people."

    I’ve already stated that you missed the point by miles. I’m not telling you how to live, I’m not telling you that you are morally wrong for living how you do, and I’m not trying to pass laws to stop you from living the way you want to. I’ve merely expressed MY belief that there is no God. I may not have put it in the nicest way possible, but I’ve made it clear that I don’t give two shits if you want to practice your fake religion, just keep it out of my face. But, hey, if you want to play the old "OMG, I’m being persecuted" route, just because I said something that you disagreed with, while ignoring the fact that the church is actually the persecutor, fine. It’s not like we all haven’t seen that, before.

    "Well, you seem to have plenty to say about how I and other religous people live our lives, while the majority of us don’t intrude on yours. No, you don’t subscribe to our morals, but you sure are hurting us. You never seem to stop being offensive."

    I’ve not once told you how to live your life. I’ve been very clear on that. Like I’ve said, I’ve got no problem if you practise your religion. I’ve got no problem if you say you believe in God. What I do have a problem with, is when you take that extra step, and start telling ME that I’m immoral, and that I should follow your misguided morality. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, Practise your own morality, if you want. Nobody’s stopping you. Just don’t expect me to do the same, and don’t try to push your morals on me. Disapprove, if you want, but don’t tell me what morals to follow, and don’t support laws that do the same.

    If you have to ask why both myself and many, many other athiests offensive and angry towards people like you, you have to realize that WE are the ones being oppressed by your morals. Until you experience a time where someone with morals you disagree with is preventing you from living a full and happy life, you won’t understand.

    If you really want to boil it down to a single sentence: I’m angry because I favor Personal Freedoms and, clearly, you and the church favor oppressing those who don’t agree with you.

  85. gellymatos says:

    And thank you for walking right into that!!! You are in no position to tell people to shut up on offensive opinions when you yourself make them. You say that chris You have been doing the exact same thing during these posts. You have had opinions on how I and others who are religous are. You have called our morality fake, you’ve called our God fake or a imaginary friend, said we have wasted our lives (just as the worst of religous people do to you), and have described prayer as "muttering" to God whenever we want something. I could go on. My point is your uninformed "muttering" is as bad as the stupid uninformed christian "muttering" that gives my faith a bad name.

    Shall I quote you: "This includes telling me what I do is wrong, implying what I do is wrong, and treating me differently because you believe what I do is wrong". This whole quote makes me hysterical! You have been doing the exact same thing this whole time to religon on these posts.  You have said that what we do is wrong, implied it, and have treated me and other religous people differently (and offensively) because you think what we do is wrong.

    As for no one passing laws against your morality, I have this to say. Do you know how many laws go against whole groups of peoples morality. I would have to say most. Everyone’s morality has at least one law that doesn’t appeal to them. To ask for laws that don’t do so is impossible. Do you know how many go against mine? Many, such as abortion or the death penalty, are current laws approved by our country that I oppose. But do I bitch, moan, or insult those who don’t agree with me? No, I show respect for those who have a different opinion than mine and show respect to mine. I try to see the point of view of my opposition to understand their logic. It promotes understanding and helps me make better arguments. I will oppose the law through legal means. You change laws the same way they get started: lobbying and legislation. It’s how you get what you want into law. You want a law changed or want to make a new one? Get organized and let the government know.

    Then you go on a rant: "I don’t tell you how, when, or where to worship, and you don’t tell me how to live my life and who I can hang out with, who I can fuck, and who I can love." Everyone has an opinion on how to live a life with you included and you haven’t really named a law that does. Could you actually give an example? As for those you hang out with, I haven’t heard of any religous groups making an organized effort to tell people who not to hang out with (aside from criminals). As for "who you can fuck", I haven’t heard of any sort of attempt to make gay sex itself illegal. As for love, it is as I have said in the past. Love, though many believe in it, is not a proven phenomenom and is to debated as an affection. I mean, what is love? I have never liked love in an argument as it proves nothing, it is only a tactic to appeal to emotions.

    You said: "It’s none of your fucking business, none of your fucking CHURCH’S business, and you have NO MORAL RIGHT to FORCE me to follow YOUR MORALS." To start, last I checked, saying fuck multiple times doesn’t validate an argument. Well, my faith is supposedly not your business, and you continue to insult it. In fact, through your response to my question of what it means to "force" a belief, you have defined yourself as one who forces your belief on other people.

    I really love this one: "And yes, if I sound angry about this, I am. Who is ANYONE to tell me how to live my LIFE. If I don’t subscribe to your morals, and am not hurting myself or others, STAY THE HELL OUT OF IT..".

    Well, you seem to have plenty to say about how I and other religous people live our lives, while the majority of us don’t intrude on yours. No, you don’t subscribe to our morals, but you sure are hurting us. You never seem to stop being offensive.

    Oh, and I almost forgot about this: "Did I make that fucking clear enough for your dense ass?"

    Yes, you have made a lot of things clear, mostly about you. In fact this whole comment of yours has been very insightful. And by the way, calling someone a dense ass doesn’t exactly show you as a tolerant, understanding guy, nor makes some sort of point. Just a tip.

  86. Valdearg says:

    Lets put it this way: If you have an opinion on the way I handle myself, or what I do in my life, based on your own special morality, keep it to yourself. This includes telling me what I do is wrong, implying what I do is wrong, and treating me differently because you believe what I do is wrong. 

    On top of that, and this is is probably the most important, DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SUPPORT ANY ATTEMPTS TO PASS LAWS THAT ENFORCE YOUR MORALITY ON ME. It’s clear we have different moralities, and that should be celebrated, not punished. I don’t tell you how, when, or where to worship, and you don’t tell me how to live my life and who I can hang out with, who I can fuck, and who I can love. It’s none of your fucking business, none of your fucking CHURCH’S business, and you have NO MORAL RIGHT to FORCE me to follow YOUR MORALS.

    Did I make that fucking clear enough for your dense ass?

    And yes, if I sound angry about this, I am. Who is ANYONE to tell me how to live my LIFE. If I don’t subscribe to your morals, and am not hurting myself or others, STAY THE HELL OUT OF IT..

  87. gellymatos says:

    Allow me to ask this question: What does one mean when they say the religon is forced on a person. Be specific. No one give an insult. You know what, I want Vald to answer this one. What is it to force a belief on another?

  88. Shadow D. Darkman says:

    "…they can believe what they want, as long as they don’t force it on me."

    This! Is! The fucking ULTIMATE truth!

    "This is the truth, because I believe it to be so, at least for now." -A book somewhere in Chrono Trigger

    There are many others, not just me, that would agree with your statement, Valdearg.

    —————————–

    "A Chrono Trigger is anything that unleashes its will or desire to change history!" -Gaspar

  89. Valdearg says:

    I see him as an "Imaginary Friend." Yeah, it’s not the most respectful way to put it, but I see no reason to soften the edges of that idea. The concept of God as an Imaginary Friend is an applicable way to show you exactly how I see that particular belief.

  90. gellymatos says:

    I’m not saying that saying God doesn’t exist is offending, I’m saying that doing it while calling our god an "imaginary friend" and insulting us all through your claim is offending.

  91. Valdearg says:

    I only expressed that it’s my belief that they are wasting thier lives. If they believe differently, the more power to them. Just as they are allowed to express that they disapprove of homosexuality, I am allowed to express that opinon. The moment they try to force a gay person to stop being gay, and the moment I force them to stop going to church, we’ve both crossed lines.

    Until then, neither of us were in the wrong.

    The important thing to see, here, though, is that while we freely express our opinions, here, the Christian institution is busy organizing and trying to pass laws that prevent individuals from acting in a way they think is Immoral. Who is in the wrong, here? My expression of my opinion, or the fact that Christians across the country are organizing to pass laws against homosexuality, and to force Gay people to obey the Christian version of morality?

  92. Valdearg says:

    You’ve clearly not read my older posts, in different threads. If all you are judging me by is this singular thread, on one of my bad days, then you clearly have a skewed opinon on what kind of person I am.

    You said you were an athiest, right? Then you must be familiar with many of the debates we all have had at one point or another. The debates, facts, and opinons expressed here are no different.

    Frankly, I don’t feel like looking for some of my more logical arguments, today. If you wish to dig around in dated threads, feel free, but I’ve got better things to do.

  93. saregos says:

    What reason?

    You’re arguing from hearsay, personal opinion, generalization and dickishness.  Reason and logic both rely upon a well-founded starting point, which, to my knowledge, you’ve completely and utterly failed to provide.  Therefore, all arguments you make are, logically, null.

    — Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

  94. Valdearg says:

    Ahh, but I’m using the age old method of argue by reason AND insult. I’ve got no problem jabbing folks, as long as I’m saying something substanative, as well. It makes me a pain in the ass to debate with, and I’ve used it to my advantage in arguments in real life, as well. Gotta keep your opponents on thier heels.

  95. saregos says:

    And yet everything you’ve said here today certainly flies in the face of that claim, as well.

    After all, don’t we learn as children that only those who can’t argue by reason argue by insult?

    — Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

  96. Beacon80 says:

    Saying you didn’t say something doesn’t make it true, either.

    You explicitly said that anyone who believed in God is wasting their lives, that he’s fake, etc..  This has the implicit statement that they shouldn’t do that, especially when you so often throw it in the teeth of people you know believe in God.

    Let’s assume somebody has an ice cream cone.  For whatever reason, rather than starting with the ice cream, they’re eating the cone first.  I see them and say "If you eat it like that, you’re going to spill the ice cream."  While I never said "don’t eat it like that," I certainly told him he shouldn’t.

  97. saregos says:

    Ok, speaking as a fellow atheist, you’re being incredibly rude and insulting.  For every bloody-minded Christian moron who objects to games and speaks out against them, there’s probably 10 bloody-minded atheist gamers who think they’re somehow better than those who are religious.  These 10 choose to use the attitude of the single Christian in order to attack the religious community as a whole, and in doing so you’re creating many enemies out of allies.

    Let me ask this:  Should a Christian who is uncertain about their attitude towards games come across this website, seeking the opinion of both sides, is this truly the way you wish to present both your faith as an Atheist and your stance as a gamer?

    Because if so, I’d like to state for the record that this person above does not speak as a representative of either the Atheist community or the gamer community as a whole.  While it is true that the firebrands of all communities tend to be their public faces, I’d hope that we who claim to be more intelligent and accepting might actually demonstrate those values.

    — Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

  98. Valdearg says:

    If you are offended that I said God doesn’t exist, then I am well within my rights to tell you that I am utterly offended when you say he does. Unfortunately, if I tell you that I’m offended that you called my beliefs wrong, you’d just blow me off, anyways.

    (Note: I’m NOT offended that you believe in God, but I am well within my rights to state my opinon that it doesn’t exist.)

  99. Valdearg says:

    I do believe I’ve stated that they can believe what they want, as long as they don’t force it on me.

    Saying I said something doesn’t make it true.

  100. Beacon80 says:

    You don’t need to say the word "stupid" to call someone stupid.  Just as claiming you’re not telling anybody how to live their lives doesn’t change the fact that you’re telling them they’re not living their lives properly.

  101. gellymatos says:

    So, what is your logic? If you can be victimized by the few stupid christians, you can offend all of them?

  102. Valdearg says:

    I don’t believe I actually used the word "Stupid." But that’s ok, you can lie all you want.

    Frankly, I’m a bit bitter. I’ve felt victimized by religion constantly. The constant Prostlytizing and Bible-Thumping and Moralizing is starting to get to me. I’ve got no problem expressing my beliefs about your religion, much like many people have no problem expressing thiers about my lack thereof.

    Frankly, despite the fact that I called your relgion "fake", much like people like you are so willing to tell me my beliefs are wrong, and told you all to back off and keep your morality to yourself, I haven’t really attacked anyone personally. (At least in this thread.)

    We can change that, if you want?

  103. gellymatos says:

    I’m catholic. Let me explain the priority thing. We all have things we believe are wrong. But does the church have some mission to make everyone straight by force? Do we see homosexuality as an especially terrible that makes you completely evil? Of course not. That would be stupid. And it’s not like we can’t be friends with guys who are gay. We all have friends who may have a different moral belief system. Catholics are no different. Seriously, I get driven mad by the catholic stereotype that we’re really strict or something. Honestly, there are plenty of protestant denominations that are worse than us. Those are the guys Vald should be pissed at.

  104. gellymatos says:

    Ok, I’ll bite. What loopholes? While I don’t like Vald’s false accusations, I don’t like us being attached to the phrase "loophole" either. What are you getting at?

  105. sharpshooterbabe says:

    Ummm in my bible it says something about How God will spit thee out of His mouth for practicing sexual pleasure w/the same sex. It goes something like that, Im not entirely quoting the text.

    Hell, Jesus wouldn’t have any apostles if he said "no sinners allowed". You like the bible? Read it. 

    I know about this & how Jesus did sit w/sinners & the priests asked Him why He (Jesus) was sitting w/the sinners or when Jesus sat w/the tax collectors that everyone hated. I know. I do read my bible. It is good you are defending you church. I am defending my religion & what I believe.

    Heck, homosexuality isn’t even a priority for the catholic church compared to other things.

    I can understand this, it is not a priority, but it is on the list. 🙂 What religion are you?

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  106. sharpshooterbabe says:

    True. But there is still an unanswered question that he makes against the Catholic church. He doesn’t like for many reasons. Hell, I don’t like Catholicism b/c of so many loopholes that they have. Half the crap they (Catholics) believe I don’t agree with. I believe in my religion. But right now he has his head shoved so far up his a** he can’t seem to think straight about anything, except for being a negative & pessimistic person.

     

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  107. gellymatos says:

    He can’t. From how he’s told it, everyone of any ideology where he lives, including catholics, seem to be ideologically intolerant. I believe him. Even his own family members seem to be like him, except christian.

  108. gellymatos says:

    "But there is a reason why Christians don’t like gays, b/c it says in my bible the King James version that God made two people to be together a man & a woman NOT the same religion."

    There’s nothing my faith says about disliking gays. From our christian point of view, a homosexual act is a sin. So what? Everyone sins. If christians were to limit friends and associates to people who don’t sin, we wouldn’t have friends. Everyone sins. Hell, Jesus wouldn’t have any apostles if he said "no sinners allowed". You like the bible? Read it.

    "But you both are no better than the religious churches out there trying to change each other’s opinion like the church’s trying to change the homo’s. Same goes for me too."

    Hold up. I am not trying to change his belief from atheist to catholic. I am defending my church rom an unjustified attack.  And the church isn’t on some mission to "change homos". I mean, we may try to convert if the opportunity arises or if someone is interested, but we aren’t hunting down gays and trying to force them to be straight. Heck, homosexuality isn’t even a priority for the catholic church compared to other things.

  109. sharpshooterbabe says:

    He’s doing a good job of standing his ground. (Gellymatos). But your animosity is towards the Catholic church. There you go again w/the Catholic church. Do something about it! Talk to the Catholic church about it.

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  110. sharpshooterbabe says:

    I don’t like being preached to, and I don’t like the way the majority of Christianity has treated homosexuals. Therefore, I have some animosity, and I see no reason to hold it back, when some preachy moron can’t resist trying to convert me to his bullshit religion.

    When you said this, my first thought to ask you is, have you ever been hit on by a gay man? & do you like it? Do you not like it? Not trying to be funny now. But I have had women & still do hit on me & it disgusts me. I will be friends w/them, but if they flirt w/me or touch me in an inappropriate manner, that friendship ends or acquaintance ends. & I have had a boss that was flaming gay & brought his bf w/him to work more than once & told me that he goes to a christian church. Whether they know he’s gay, Idk. But there is a reason why Christians don’t like gays, b/c it says in my bible the King James version that God made two people to be together a man & a woman NOT the same religion. So they are going by their beliefs to not like them. Although I do think that they should go to church & if they change they change, BUT it is their decision. Don’t prod & poke them on why they changed. That would be harassing then. lol. But I will not try to change you b/c it not my job to. But I can tell you that it’s between you & a higher power. That’s what I believe. Get mad at me for saying it, but that’s how I feel about it. Now did it sound like I was changing you in that sentence? No, just telling you my beliefs, letting you know what I think. Not preaching to you about you needing to change. But I will say one thing about you that is good. Throughout the articles on here about religion. You seem to be standing your ground & I admire you for that. I will say the same thing about Gellymatos too. He is doing a good job of standing his ground which I admire as well.

         But you both are no better than the religious churches out there trying to change each other’s opinion like the church’s trying to change the homo’s. Same goes for me too.

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  111. Valdearg says:

    No, SSB, he’s not defending it well. He’s just proving to me everything that I already knew about the Catholic Church and it’s hate and bigotry.

  112. Valdearg says:

    "But when you said you would end a friendship over getting preachy, that sounds like you are limiting your friends & their beliefs & be choosy to find friends. To me that is inmature crap."

    I said before, I’m loyal to my friends until it’s no longer enjoyable for me to be around them. If they start spouting off thier bullshit beliefs, you had better bet they won’t be hanging with me anymore. Same goes for my family, as well. I have some very religious cousins who once asked me why I don’t pray before meals. I told them, flat out, that I don’t believe there is a God, so I don’t pray to him. They started to try to evangelize to me and I told them that if they didn’t want to cause issues, they should drop it, and never bring it up to me again. I have my beliefs, they have thiers, lets keep it that way.

    "But when you said the people will recieve a big middle finger & shut the fuck up & get away from me. It sounds like you have animosity toward them. For some reason."

    I don’t like being preached to, and I don’t like the way the majority of Christianity has treated homosexuals. Therefore, I have some animosity, and I see no reason to hold it back, when some preachy moron can’t resist trying to convert me to his bullshit religion.

  113. sharpshooterbabe says:

    @ Gellymatos

    Same as what you have been telling Vald. But that part of my belief what I said was meant to mean that you are telling Vald about religion & your beliefs & he doesn’t like it. Therefore, I was stating what I said that in my bible, it is taught to me that we are supposed to teach people about religion. But if that person doesn’t want to be taught about religion or doesn’t want nothing to do w/it, then just leave them alone. I can’t change them but I did put that seed in their head. Then I move on. I don’t know if you are religious, but you sure are defending it pretty well. 🙂

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  114. sharpshooterbabe says:

    I am from the Church of Christ & I do get Preachers & Chaplains & religious leaders that come up to me & talk about the bible. It doesn’t bother me.

         But when you said you would end a friendship over getting preachy, that sounds like you are limiting your friends & their beliefs & be choosy to find friends. To me that is inmature crap. I respect someones beliefs & non-beliefs. I talk to my cousin about God & prayers that I pray & she doesn’t say anything, but yet, it’s weird b/c when I talk about hating bugs b/c their grosse. She says their Gods creatures, but yet she doesn’t go to church. So I am stumped on that.

         But no one should follow you or stalk you about religion. That is wrong, I agree about that. But when you said the people will recieve a big middle finger & shut the fuck up & get away from me. It sounds like you have animosity toward them. For some reason. You sound like you have a lot of anger in that statement. But you should consider being nice about it & say no thank you please leave me alone. I’m sure they will oblige to you asking them to stop talking to you. 🙂 & how do evangelicals threaten you? I have never been religiously harrassed, what do they say or do other than knocking your phone out of your hand?

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  115. gellymatos says:

    Actually, they are the same. Expressing your belief (or preaching, or whatever you want to call it) is all about time and place. If an atheist preaches to me at random in the street, I’ll get upset. If it happens in some place where it is expected or normal, I’ll have no issue and enjoy a good conversation (assuming the guy isn’t just their to scoff at religon as stupid and his belief as smarter, a.k.a. smarter-than-thou)

  116. Valdearg says:

    "That hardly seems fair. Everyone "preaches" their own belief. As for the stranger, if one comes up and tries to talk to anyone about whatever belief it is (religous or otherwise) at random, of course you have the right to be upset."

    There’s a difference between Preaching and expressing a belief. If I make it clear I don’t want to be Preached to, and you continue to try to "teach me about jesus" there’s going to be trouble. I told my friends that they shouldn’t try to prostlytize and evangelize to me, and they ignored that. Therefore, I had no need of them as friends anymore. I’m fiercely loyal to my friends, up until it’s no longer enjoyable for me to be around them. When one of them becomes an idiot evangelist, it’s time for them to go.

  117. gellymatos says:

    "That’s exactly what’s wrong with your religion. That mentality that you HAVE to teach others about your faith, because your faith is SO much better than any other faith, or lack thereof."

    That’s not just religion, that is all ideology. Hell, that’s any idea, scientific theory, etc. There are always those within one of those that try to get people to see there way. If you don’t like religon for trying to spread whatever word that is trying to be spread, then you have to dislike all ideas, theorys, etc., including atheism. 

    "If you start to "teach" me about God or Jesus in real life, you should be ready for a particularly harsh reaction to it. I’ve ended friendships with people because they got too preachy around me, and that was letting them down easy. If a stranger walks up to me and starts talking his religious bullshit to me, he will recieve a big middle finger and a "Shut the Fuck up and get away from me."

    That hardly seems fair. Everyone "preaches" their own belief. As for the stranger, if one comes up and tries to talk to anyone about whatever belief it is (religous or otherwise) at random, of course you have the right to be upset.

    "I have, in the past, been followed, stalked, if you will by agressive evangelicals. If they continue to harass me after I’ve expressed the fact that they are unwelcome, they’ll recieve warnings up until the point where I feel threatened. At that point, they will be hurt.

    I’ve actually had an incendent like that happen, when, after repeated attempts to "teach" me resulted in Religious Harassment. I began to feel threatened, and when I started to call the cops, he tried to grab my phone from me. It was at that point I knocked him on his ass, and he lost a few teeth. The best part of this story was that after all was said and done, and all accounts taken by the police, they sided with me."

    I have to say, I’m sided with you on this issue. You were justified.

     

     

  118. Valdearg says:

    "..but we as humans are all put on earth to influence/teach people that don’t know God or Jesus to know about them."

    That’s exactly what’s wrong with your religion. That mentality that you HAVE to teach others about your faith, because your faith is SO much better than any other faith, or lack thereof. 

    If you start to "teach" me about God or Jesus in real life, you should be ready for a particularly harsh reaction to it. I’ve ended friendships with people because they got too preachy around me, and that was letting them down easy. If a stranger walks up to me and starts talking his religious bullshit to me, he will recieve a big middle finger and a "Shut the Fuck up and get away from me."

    I have, in the past, been followed, stalked, if you will by agressive evangelicals. If they continue to harass me after I’ve expressed the fact that they are unwelcome, they’ll recieve warnings up until the point where I feel threatened. At that point, they will be hurt.

    I’ve actually had an incendent like that happen, when, after repeated attempts to "teach" me resulted in Religious Harassment. I began to feel threatened, and when I started to call the cops, he tried to grab my phone from me. It was at that point I knocked him on his ass, and he lost a few teeth. The best part of this story was that after all was said and done, and all accounts taken by the police, they sided with me.

  119. Valdearg says:

    What the FUCK is the difference between Homophobia and Racism?! Restricting ONE Minority’s rights because of who they are is somehow acceptable, when restricting another minority’s rights is not? What the hell is wrong with you?

  120. gellymatos says:

    Even in that case, their pity was due to a belief that black people were lesser. This belief was defeated, therefore the pity was not deserved. Remember that racism is one of the few ideologies that actually can be defeated by logic. That pity only involved superiority because the belief behind it did.

  121. Valdearg says:

    Thats the same excuse someone would use if they said they pitied black people. If you correctly read between the lines, its an inherently offensive, ignorant, and incredibly racist statement to make. It’s the same way when you say the church Pities Gay people. It’s incredibly offensive.

  122. gellymatos says:

    Pity isn’t an act of superiority. Do you have some sort of problem with definitions or something?

    Pity: 1 a : sympathetic sorrow for one suffering, distressed, or unhappy b : capacity to feel pity
    2 : something to be regretted <it’s a pity you can’t go>.

    As you can see, neither have anything to do with superiority. As to the church and pity, I think

    Taoulin was refering to the second definition.

  123. Valdearg says:

    To me, to Pity IS an act of superiority. If I feel Pity for someone, it’s because I feel like I am in a better place than they are, and that they are worse off than I am. That is inherently an act of superiority. I don’t want to be pitied by ANYONE, especially when I am living a lifestyle that should, by any account, make me thier equals. By pitying me for my lifestyle, they are inherently saying: "I feel sorry for him, because my lifestyle is better and more moral, therefore I am superior to him."

    It’s an arrogant, and rude gesture, in my opinon.

  124. gellymatos says:

    I never said gay people can’t be good. Neither does my faith. We just think it is wrong. However, doing something wrong (assuming it is wrong) doesn’t make you "bad" or "evil".  And thinking someone is evil doesn’t mean that you are bigoted. And "truth" is one of those words that annoys me. To one person, something is truth. For another, it is not. What makes something true, just the fact you think it is so? Just because it is your belief?

  125. gellymatos says:

    Thanks Talouin. Vald, to pity is not an act of superiority. Your personal experience with those of our faith who stray do not represent all of us.

  126. Talouin says:

    The problem lies not within the Catholic faith itself in this case but with those within the Catholic church that are bigots.  In truth, as they do not follow the position of the Catholic church, Catholic may not be the best definition for their faith yet they are allowed to identify themselves as it.  This makes it difficult to form a stance against "Catholics" as the term, in common usage, does not represent the actual tenants of the Catholic faith.

    As per bigotry, there is an inherent problem where both yourself and the extremist end "Catholics" could be seen as bigots.  The definition of bigot is "A person obstinately and intolerantly devoted to his/her own opinions and prejudices."

    I should also clarify my statement on what they pity.  Catholicism is an apologist religion.  They feel sad for the acts of homosexuality not for the people that perform them.  They pray for the people in order to attempt to reconcile these perceived sins.  It’s the same way that you or I may not condone theft.  While I personally feel awkward about this standpoint, I just felt that I should clarify.

  127. Valdearg says:

    You may not agree, but I see that as bigotry, as well. It’s tough to put into clear terms, but to be "Pityed" to me, implies that they think I’m not as good as they are, just because I don’t believe what they do, and don’t practise the same morals. They are treating me in a negative way, just because I am different than them. Sounds like bigotry to me.

    That being said, that might be the Catholic Church’s "official" stance, but it certainly isn’t practised by many of it’s leaders, nor the majority of it’s members. Considering the amount of Gay-hate that was spread by the Catholics I grew up with, and seeing the anger and hatred in the people of the church, I’d almost prefer they just secretely felt sorry for us, despite the fact that that’s plenty bad as it is.

     

  128. Talouin says:

    You are both falling into a logical fallacy here… you’re both making an argument from ignorance aka the negative proof fallacy.  One can only state that there is currently no valid evidence supporting the existence of a god and that we cannot currently collect evidence to support a positive lack of existence.

  129. Talouin says:

     Catholicism actually does not comment upon the morality / quantity of good (horrid relative term) within a subject.  If anything, a person of Catholic faith is required to pity a homosexual individual and pray for their god to forgive the person’s sins, whatever they may be.

  130. Valdearg says:

    Until your faith accepts that Gay people are just as good and moral as anyone else, your faith is bigoted. I’m sorry I annoy you by speaking the truth.

  131. gellymatos says:

    I actually did respond to it. Check a bit above this current post. It’s rather large with a pic, you can’t miss it. There are a couple reasons why I asked to define "forcing beliefs". You did answer, and I got the answer I expected. Oh, and would you please stop using the word bigoted. It’s annoying when someone calls my faith bigoted when we are not and then shows nothing but intolerance to others in the first place. Anyway, like I said, check the above post. Also, let’s continue this there.

  132. Valdearg says:

    You keep asking me to define "Forcing religion on others."

    The fact that you STILL think it’s perfectly fine to legislate your own personal morality on OTHERS who don’t share it is the definition.

    You think its A-OK for your church, or similar churches, to turn thier bigoted morality into law, and to punish those of us who don’t follow it.

    The fact that you are perfectly fine with that just means you’ll never understand what "Forcing your religion" on others is.

  133. gellymatos says:

    Oh, please. Not that again. I do remember the arguement. You kept bringing your own moral opinion on the subject as logic, which, as I said, doesn’t make for logic. I didn’t bring my faith (short of treating others as I would like to be treated) into it. Why the heck couldn’t you? Love, even though we both probably believe in some form of it, isn’t an argument. And I shall repeat the part about law, specifically the U.S. Constitution. That document covers a lot of bases. Also, it is not a neutral document. It does cover moral issues. Actually, the whole thing covers what is right and what is wrong according to the law. But what about what isn’t covered, or what might still be wrong. That is where law comes in. Everyone has the right to try to make their beliefs into law, so long as it doesn’t contradict the Bill of Rights. That is what legal debates are about. Deciding what morality ends up into law. Even amendments (that aren’t in the Bill of Rights) are changed. That is politics. That is also why gaming isn’t banned. A law doing so contradicts the Bill of Rights. What annoyed me is you can’t seem to grasp the concept. What also buged me is that you can’t give the catholic church some credit. I mean, we don’t hate gays or those who differ from us. That is an established rule of our faith. No hate.

  134. Valdearg says:

    "Morality arguments are often pointless because there is no universal logic to support either. Both may have logical points, but there is often no point that smites the other entirely."

    I agree here, there is no reconciling our two moralities together. The thing that you fail to realize is that you can let me live by my morality, and you can live by your morality. You don’t have to attempt to push your morality on me. (You meaning not "You" specifically, but theoretically.)

    Remember our previous conversation? Where you refused to "Debate the morality" of homosexuality, when I was just trying to get you to admit that trying to get laws passed to enforce your morality on others was wrong?

  135. gellymatos says:

    Didn’t know boredom was an excuse to act with intolerence. Please name said facts and logic. You have none, at least in the posts for this article. All you seem to do is insult religion. That’s it. And I I have already told you his in past debates with you: Morality arguments are often pointless because there is no universal logic to support either. Both may have logical points, but there is often no point that smites the other entirely.

  136. Valdearg says:

    I will admit, this comment made me laugh. I don’t think I’ve ever been read so accurately, before.

    You were very, very close. I am interested in a resonable and productive conversation, for the most part, but I like to have my fun, as well. In fact, I enjoy not only the battle of facts, reason, and logic, but also the battle of wits. I enjoy slinging stinging jabs almost as much as I enjoy recieving them.

    Therefore, in order to prevent a reasoned, logical debate from becoming TOO boring, and too much like school or work, the very thing I am here to avoid, I will often inject a bit of "spice" to my logical arguments. I will admit that today, I may have been a little harsher than I normally am, I’ve been a little edgy today, annoyed at some phantom issue that I can’t quite put my finger on.

    I usually try to keep things more civil than this, while preventing the flame of empassioned debate from dying completely. I may very well have added too much fuel to the fire today.

     

  137. saregos says:

    Then allow me to proffer this example:

    A member of this site, with no prior experience in speaking with you, comes here in the hope of finding a reasoned, rational debate.  Instead, said member finds a perfect and rather long example of argument by insult, founded upon a "reasoned" basis which, as you yourself admitted, cannot be proven.

    Given this, one might be tempted to classify you as an unintelligent boor.  After all, you’re exhibiting many of the traits one comes to expect from such a species:  Insulting behavior, continued argument from opinion, and the belief that reiteration is the key to argument (which, in truly logical creatures, is actually the case.  Nonetheless, humans are anything but truly logical, and re-iteration in a human is typically taken as the definition of insanity).

    Now:  Given what I’ve read of your comments so far, I’m tempted to believe you’re actually an intelligent person.  Certainly intelligent enough to be capable of recognizing the importance of respect to a reasonable and productive conversation.

    Therefore, I’m forced to conclude that you are, in point of fact, not interested in a reasonable and productive conversation.  Since this is the case, what, pray tell, makes you different from the Christians you’re merrily insulting?

    Alternately, if there’s a fallacy in my logic, please enlighten me.

    — Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

  138. Valdearg says:

    Hahah.. Good one. I’ve already said that my opinons are my opinions, and will freely admit that my harsh opinons of certain people may very well be a character flaw of mine. I will not, however, be told to shut up, just because my words might sting more than yours.

  139. Valdearg says:

    I’ve already stated that it can’t be proven. It’s kind of hard to gather physical evidence on something that doesn’t exist.  

    Given my experiences, in my life, the thought exercises I’ve performed, and the linkage of fallicies inside each and every religion to thier belief that thier deities are infalliable, I’ve come to the conclusion that no such power exists. If something were to come along that would force me to alter that hypothesis, I would gladly alter it, and explore the avenues opened with the new information, like anyone with an logical, inquisitive mind would do.

  140. saregos says:

    Oh, ok.  It’s fine because you’re really a nice person when you’re not actually talking, and because you’re not the only one who is insulting.

    Go back to being nice, then.  The grownups would like to maintain an intelligent and meaningful debate.

    — Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

  141. saregos says:

    And where, in the process of thinking critically, have you found evidence that God doesn’t exist?

    I’m not talking about the specific god of the Christians, the Muslims, the Flying Spaghetti Monster church, or any other specific god.  Those are easy to disprove.

    Where, specifically, with evidence, can you point to as proving that there doesn’t exist a superior being who created the universe?

    — Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

  142. Valdearg says:

    It could be the fact that I’ve been an active member of this site for quite a while, and I’m not the only one, on EITHER side of this argument who makes these kinds of comments. It could also be the fact that most people, even Gellymatos, know that I’m an alright person, when I’m not debating something I’m passionate about. It could also be that I’m not one to hold a grudge, and, assuming that these people don’t hate my guts (yet), I’d be perfectly willing to chill with them after an argument like this?

    My words are harsh, but short lived. I’ve already stated this in some other thread, somewhere, lost to history.

  143. Valdearg says:

    What facts, evidence, and logic have any of you put forward, short of calling me an asshole? Let me add, by the way, that I freely admit this is true.

    Nobody’s said anything about my arguments, aside from the equivalent of "Hey, Val! Stop being such a dick!"

    Granted, I have been relatively insulting, today.. Perhaps its something in the water at work, but I’ve been relatively annoyed at how religious folks have handled themselves, lately, and I will admit I’ve been a bit harsher than normal today, because of it.

    I know none of YOU, personally, have done anything to wrong me, and the vast majority of what I say is directed at the greater institution of Religion, in general. None of you are bad people. In fact, I enjoy the fact that you guys help me pass time while I’m at work. 

    However, sometimes, my opinions are my opinions, and I’ve already stated that I think it’s stupid to believe in God, and I think that anyone who does is not thinking critically, but rather being willfully ignorant. If that makes me a dick, it makes me a dick. I’ll will make it clear, however, that not ALL religious people are bad people, and Religion, itself, is not necessarily a catalyst in making a bad person.

     

  144. saregos says:

    So tell me precisely why we should respect you and anything you represent, instead of deleting every boorish comment you make and blocking you from the site?

    Because really, if you’re being insulting just for the sake of being insulting, which appears to be your objective here, you’re no better than any forum troll in existence.  Or Jack Thompson, for that matter.

    — Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

  145. Monte says:

    talking to you has been like talking to a brick wall, no matter how many facts and evidence and logic we put forward, you militant athetist people just put your blinders on and respond with the equivalent of "Nuh UH! I’m right, no matter what!"

     

    the irony behind the militant atheist is hilarious…

  146. Valdearg says:

    Frankly, I’d be more respectful, more often, but I’m bored, and respectful conversation is boring. On top of that, no matter how many facts and evidence and logic I put forward, you religious people just put your blinders on and respond with the equivalent of "Nuh UH! I’m right, no matter what!"

  147. Valdearg says:

    Ahh, but I never tell them they can’t practise it, and I never try to force my morality on them. Besides, you think that I should feel bad that I am being insulting. I’ve always been an unapologetic dick, and if someone is offended by my opinons, too bad.

  148. Monte says:

    By classifying relgion as "wasting your life" you are pretty much saying "your beliefs are wrong and you are stupid for having them; my beliefs are the ones that are right and are what make me intelligent"… you are telling them what is wrong and what is right… so ya, when you insult others and show such intolerance for their beliefs you are in a way forcing your beliefs upon others…

  149. gellymatos says:

    This is the exact type of irony that everyone is talking about!!! How can you complain about offensive christians when you yourself act offensive. You can’t even say the christian belief is wrong with some sort of respect or without insulting us. It’s not that you don’t believe in what I do, it is that you have to be offensive when you do it. I would like to continue, but before I do, what do you define as "forcing"? Oh, and I never said YOU  were trying to force me, just that many have tried.

  150. sharpshooterbabe says:

    But then those people would be hypocrites. I don’t like people that hate non-believers b/c that makes me & the good believers look bad. I am definitely not crazy or hateful, but talking about crazy believers. I had a friends’ brother that went into prison & learned God while he was in there. Then when he got out he continued to shoot up w/cocaine & acid & still believed in God?!?! Yeah I don’t like people like that either. That is what I will not understand about people. But I do know some believers that have talked behind others’ backs b/c of non-believers or other reasons that are ludicrus.

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  151. gellymatos says:

    Actually, what makes it an ideology is one simple belief. That there is no God. If you don’t like the word ideology, then fine. I’ll use something else. It is simply another idea, vision, or belief. It can be twisted. There really is no argument in that.

  152. Monte says:

    Actually i put a line  between "secular state" and "atheist state"… secular i interpret to mean that the state just does not have any recognized belief and runs based on laws and nothing more. It’s more like the state is agnostic or doesn’t have an opinion on the matter. an Atheist State on the other hand strictly sticks to Atheism and runs itself based on all religions being wrong. When you are secular you are being truly neutral where as an Atheist state IS taking a stand on the issue of religion.

    America is SUPPOSED to be a secular state what with the separation of church and state, but at the same time there’s not much stopping people from trying to push laws that have religious backing; in a way you can say a true secular state is not possible in a democracy where one major religious group makes up the vast majority. Cause in a democracy, the majority rules.

    And i do think that if enough people turned to atheism that they were on even or higher ground than christians, that we would then start hearing of desires for gov’t to shut down religion. Atheism has it’s nutcases just like any religion; only reason you don’t hear them now is because they are far to few in number; increase the numbers of atheist and you increase the number of nutcases and that leads to them organizing themselves and getting a better chance to making their voices heard. And when the nutcases view religion as not only that it’s wrong but a source of problems, the logical extreme of that is that religion should be done away completely…

  153. Talouin says:

    You’re missing my point.  I also made a point about the atheism =/= ideology above that lends clarity to my argument in this thread of conversation… but I digress.

    In these instances, specifically China, I would be next to positive that atheism was not the uniting factor in the decision to "crush religion."  These countries were, most likely, trying to simply maintain their absolute control by unifying the people under one flag.  When you bring in many groups all with different belief systems there is always a threat to an absolutist leader/government.  Religion in these cases represented something that could be utilized to unify against the current regime.  I would wager that the government at the time probably did not even consider the existence or lack of existence of a god.  This is all simply musing however as no one can know exactly what they were thinking at the time.

  154. gellymatos says:

    My point is just that china makes for a state has, at least in its past, tried to crush religon in some way. The whole point of whoever named the countries in his post was to show that atheism can go to the bad extremes of religon. The moral of the story is: all ideologies can be twisted suppress others, and to do other such things, including people who act like total pricks.

  155. Talouin says:

    Every nation in history has at some point persecuted some of its citizens.  Atheist is not the classification that is correct in these terms however.  Taking China’s specific example as I am more familiar with it, the Communist (more Totalitarian) government was afraid of the threat that organized religion could pose to its regime.  Many people do not properly label where the persecution comes from.  They like to lump all non-religious people into a category called "Atheist"  It is the same misconception that many non-religious people make when they state that all religious people are Christian.

    Also the Tibet issue is much more complicated than western media would have you believe.  The way China is handling it is probably not the best way however the opposite extreme (see Canada’s handling of our First Nations treaties and how these treaties are being abused by both sides) is also not a good one.

  156. gellymatos says:

    Your are right, it has gotten better. But one must remember a few things. One, the question includes major nations that have done it, not  just neccesarily currently are doing it. After all, there isn’t even a Soviet Union anymore, but we still mentioned it. And second, China still gives hard times to religions and other cultures that they don’t define as "chinese". Buddism and Taoism are religons that they tolerate, but they still believe in completely loyalty to the state. And even today, they still have problems with other cultures. *cough**cough* TIBET.

  157. Talouin says:

    You would be correct from the 1950s until the 1980s.

    After the 1980s more religious freedoms were granted, and traditional beliefs (specifically Taoism and Buddhism) are supported as an integral part of Chinese culture.  Buddhism is actually the largest and fastest growing religion in China.

    Citation:  http://www.mysinchew.com/node/26882 

  158. gellymatos says:

    Confucianism isn’t a religon, it’s a philosophy. Many others who follow one religon also follow confucianism. And China, as a "communist" state, has defined itself as atheistic and has a history of suppresing religon because of it.

  159. Valdearg says:

    You’re right. I failed to account for other countries in history.

    Let me make it known that I don’t feel that what those countries did is right, and while I think this country would be better off completely secularized, I don’t agree with the idea of forcing MY morals down anyone else’s throats, much like I don’t like Christian Morals being forced down MY throat. If there ever comes such a time where Athiests are no longer fighting for thier own personal freedoms, and begin to oppress people’s right to practise other religions, I will fight against them. For now, though, the attention must be focused to defeat the Christian Church’s attempts to Oppress myself and others.

  160. Talouin says:

     I know your comment’s playful… but I thought I’d offer up the fact that China’s state religion is Confucianism. 

  161. Talouin says:

    The problem with your statement is "atheism is just another ideology" when in fact it is simply a classification.  There is no uniting moral or rule system.  Atheism is simply a classification for people that do not believe in theism.  It’s like calling someone that does not believe pixies exist an apixie or someone that does not believe in unicorns an aunicorn.

  162. Monte says:

    There has been plenty of persecution of the relgious by athiests in history… just not in THIS county… Soviet union, Albania, Cuba, Cambodia, and mogolia all have some examples in their histories… don’t see it that much because there are not that many countries where athiests have significant power.

    Main reason you don’t see Athestist nuts trying to pass laws HERE is because they don’t stand a chance in this country. fullblown Atheism makes up a very small minority as far as relious affliation goes; how big of an organization could the atheists nuts make? athiest, especially nutcase athiests are FAR fewer in number than christian nutcases, and thus have no power, no control,and little to no say in the government; which makes organizating an influecial nutcase group much harder… They have a snowballs chance in hell of getting such laws passed… and that’s not just speaking about the religious in this country but also the concept of religious freedom which prevents such laws… The most the atheists can push for is increasing the speration of church and state, lowering religious influence, which is a sensible and a non-nutcase endeavor

     

    Frankly, if the majority of this country and the government were atheists i’m certain the nutcases would start to rise up in power to enforce their views just as much as the religious. You look up atheist states, countries where Atheists have/had a great amount of power and you will see plenty of persecution (though not necessarily in all states). so ya, even atheists are capable of religious persecution, starting religious wars and attempting genocide against others based on belief.

  163. Im_not_Herbert says:

    The problem is that the mere existence of Religion provides these people a concept to grasp onto and a target for them to spew thier hate and insanity."

    Well, on this we can agree, at least.  I am a Christian, but I have little use for religion.

    I posted some counter links to yours in the last thread, in case you are interested.  I like to investigate both sides of an issue as well as possible before forming an opinion.

     

    Your Yak is Weak!

  164. Valdearg says:

    I never said it was free of forceful pricks. Hell, I’m sure the majority of you see me as one of them. I will make it clear that I cannot think of a single, SOLITARY situation where an Athiest was organizing in an attempt to pass laws that prevent you from practising your religion or loving who you love. That would be the main reason why I am not critical of Athiest Nuts. They aren’t out there, trying to ban you from practising your faith or living your life the way you want. If they are, I’ll be the first to condemn them.

  165. gellymatos says:

    Of course atheists aren’t making you miserable; of course you’re less critical of them. You yourself are atheist. It would take quite the atheist to alter your belief if you yourself already believe it. And just because an atheist doesn’t bother you and your belief, which is the same belief, doesn’t mean that atheist don’t bother other beliefs. Again, I have taken enough crap from atheists to know.  Atheism is not some pure ideology that is free from forceful pricks or intolerant fools.

  166. Valdearg says:

    I’ve never contradicted that all ideologies have potentials for crazies. Religions just happens to not only be the most prevalent, but also the most dangerous to my way of life. Therefore, I will come down MUCH harsher on Religion than anything else.

  167. gellymatos says:

    I repeat, atheism is just another ideology, and all ideology has the potential to be twisted. Oh, and shall I tell you of a certain government that was atheistic. It was called the Soviet Union. Look up their past, and you’ll find some anti-religous injustice.

  168. Valdearg says:

    Athiesm isn’t attempting to limit my way of life, and isn’t encouraging the Ugandan Government to pass a law that would have people like me executed.

    I’d say that I’m a bit less critical of Athiesm, because they aren’t actively trying to make my life miserable, because I might have differing morals.

  169. gellymatos says:

    But in that case, you should be critical of all ideology, as it is ideology, when twisted, that makes people spew hatred and insanity. Do you really think that atheism is immune to hatred and insanity?

  170. Valdearg says:

    The problem is that the mere existence of Religion provides these people a concept to grasp onto and a target for them to spew thier hate and insanity. I will always be critical of Religion because of this fact. I freely acknowledge that not ALL religious people are hateful or crazy, but the most prolific ones always seem to be, and they always have plenty of followers to help them profess that hate, all in the name of Religion.

  171. Saxy says:

    "Why is it that every time someone speaks in critisizm of religion, there is always the "by being critical of religion, you are just as bad!""

    Er… because it’s true? It may be a repetitive argument by this point, but from what I’ve seen thus far, it’s being used against a repetitive claim.

     "NEWSFLASH: Religion is not above critique.  What is it about faith that somehow exempts it from any form of critical analysis?"

    This is true, however, what I and others often see on this site is not critique, but blind hatred and generalization. I would like to assume that most everything should be exempt from that, religion and video games included.

    EDIT: hmm, that’s weird, I thought I understood how GP’s comment system worked, yet my post, which was actually before some of the ones above it, is at the bottom. Is that supposed to happen, or what? Well, now that’s I’m saying this, the date will change, but it was January 7th before…

  172. gellymatos says:

    No, it’s not bad to be critical of religon. It is, however, wrong to critisize all of religon for the acts of a few, then insult it with every post.

    Oh, and to make clear, what defines "forcing one’s belief".

  173. Zerodash says:

    You do realize that it has always been such Christian groups and individuals that are initiating these battles, right?  It’s not like the games industry or the audience all of a sudden called for the banning of religion.

    Why is it that every time someone speaks in critisizm of religion, there is always the "by being critical of religion, you are just as bad!"  NEWSFLASH: Religion is not above critique.  What is it about faith that somehow exempts it from any form of critical analysis?

    Oh, and why don’t you re-read my post, where I say that the point where people like me get pissed is when they try to impose their ways on everyone else.  I have every right to be mad about that, and yes- I can be critical of these people when they are trying to impose their beliefs on me.  The only point at which you can say I’m as bad as I say they are is if I try to ban their faith.

  174. sharpshooterbabe says:

         I see your humor as being like this: "I’m getting MAD at you for telling me about religion! Shut up about religion! It’s stupid!" & then that’s when shit hits the fan. The reason why I find you humorous is b/c anything that is talked about religion on here, you always say your same debate over & over to the religious community on here & including myself. Now I don’t read all of yall’s posts, b/c well they are too long & I can read better things w/my time. *sigh* But I also think gellymatos & you (Vald) are funny in this debate b/c in my head when I read some of yall’s posts I see two cartoon characters or stick figures shouting at each other or both of you in a presidential debate about religion when in my head in my world, there is no presidential debate. But just arguing about non-religion & religion. I know it doesn’t make sense to yall, but to me it does, in my head. LMAO.

         When you say put upon by religion, do you mean me or anyone else talking to you about God & Jesus? Or do you mean when I talk about how God & Jesus are in my life & I believe in them? Or do you mean when I tell you that you should really accept God & Jesus in your life? B/c I can take that statement in those 3 ways.

    So what if it was anything else about life? Or what was going on in life that anyone talked to you about other than religion? How would you take it? Or if someone was giving their advice to you?

    But I know you have debated God’s existence & so has everyone else. Which is fine. But if you think people have a logical disconnect then wouldn’t that mean that you & everyone else does too that doesn’t believe? B/c when you say that it is stupidity you are making fun of or tell another believer it is stupid. Which then it would sound like you are crossing the line on the believers when you say that comment to them or myself. So as long as you debate & say your opinions instead of making fun of or telling a person that it is stupidity upon them to believe in a higher power, then stating your opinions are fine by me. But saying someone is logically disconnected that is wrong. It is their beliefs that you are critisizing. I don’t think it is right for the believers to call you stupid either. B/c everyone believes diff things. All I can is that not me or gellymatos or anyone else will change your opinion unless you change that opinion of what you believe. Only you can, no one else.

        I am by no means going to change you, but will state my opinions. Like I have in my previous religious posts. & I don’t want to go back over them w/you or anyone else, b/c it sounds like it would be a lost cause w/you on that debate. I say that b/c its good you are standing by what you say. Just like gellymatos & me & others are standing by what we say. But if you imply I am stupid about believing in my religions then that is wrong of you. Hopefully you wouldn’t.

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  175. Valdearg says:

    I’m glad you are amused by my humor, I guess..

    As far as my comments, I didn’t mean ANY time you talk about religion, but any time I feel put upon by your talking about religion. For me, that means if you start telling me that if I don’t follow your religion, I’m going to hell, or that my choice of lifestyle is wrong, because of your religion. Those sorts of things. Debating the merits of religion, as far as my opinons that God is fake, and your opinon that he’s real, and that sort of thing is fine. As soon as you cross from expressing your opinon about your religion to trying to get me to convert, or trying to get me to stop being who I am is where you cross the line.

    As far as I’m concerned, I’ve not crossed that line once in this debate. I’ve never told someone that they should stop worshiping, I’ve never told someone to stop living the way they are, and I’ve never told someone to stop believing in God. I’ve debated his existance, and expressed my opinion that Religion is a stupid, stupid entity, and, yes, I’ve even said that I think people who practise religion have some sort of logical disconnect, an inherent "Stupidity", if you will, but I’ve also been clear that as long as you don’t push it on me, you can worship what you want. I’ll just continue to think it’s stupid.

  176. DarkSaber says:

    An adulterer could easily say "It’s not the sex I want, it’s the feeling of comitting adultery."

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  177. MarcL says:

     Interesting E.

    I’m not sure I’d agree with your logic entirely.  I understand the beliefs involved, but I’m talking about the literal interpretation of those words.  The analogy of lust:adultery is not quite the same as "simulate murder":"perform murder".  One implies a yearning to do something versus doing it in reality, the other implies simulating murder versus actually doing it. I enjoy playing some violent games, but is it because I yearn to kill in some form or is it because I like the tactical and competitive challenge?  I feel like the simulation of the killing is simply a byproduct of the nature of the competition, its not the killing I want to do, its the winning.

    Hence I don’t believe your exact interpretation logically flows from the quote you gave, the analogy doesn’t quite fit.  If you yearned to kill, thats a different matter.  

    Perhaps I’m being too literal though. Thoughts?

  178. Valdearg says:

    I suppose I should have clarified: The generalization I made about religious people should have been targeted more at those who believe Video Games are morally wrong will continue to try to fight them, and will never acknowledge the fact that people have different, yet just as valid, moralities.

  179. E. Zachary Knight says:

    Actually, if your read the teachings of Christ, he makes it pretty clear that one should not even think of committing sin let alone follow through with it.

    "Whosoever shall looketh upon a woman to lust after her, the same hath committed adultry in his heart."

    Same with killing/murder.

    "Whosoever is angry with his brother… Say unto his brother ‘Raca’/’Thou Fool’ shall be in danger of hell fire."

    While they are not a sin in and of themselves, such thoughts are not those of the pure in heart.

    As a Christian, I have been taught to avoid media that is overly violent and/or sexual in nature. The teachings of the church I attend has never banned a medium or taught its members to shun an entire medium. What we teach is that we should choose entertainment that does not destract us from our moral obligations or glorify sin.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma


    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  180. Andrew Eisen says:

    If playing video games goes against your moral grain, don’t play them.  That part’s very simple.  If you’re not sure if they do or not, I can’t help you more than offering my own personal opinion.

     

    Andrew Eisen

  181. MarcL says:

    Like I said, he’s asking it from the question of religious morality.  He even says whether its morally acceptable for "the Faithful." He recognizes that people have different moral values, and qualifies it by including that phrase to describe his subject.  

    You have essentially described swingers: couples who mutually understand and accept a degree of sex outside of their relationship. I agree, there’s nothing wrong with that, but are you sure about your definition of adultery? if you check out the wiki on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery then you’ll see that Adultery is rather weighted religiously, and perhaps the way to describe what you’re talking about is extra-marital sex.  Its a fairly gray area though, up for debate.

    Also, you’re drawing huge generalization in your second paragraph.  I know plenty of religious people who accept that others have differing values, and most of my religious friends do not try to push their morals on me.  The most I think any of my friends have done is express their moral perception of something when I express mine, which I think is perfectly normal.  

  182. MarcL says:

     Again, thats the question he’s posing from a religious perspective.  He’s unsure as to how view games through the lens of religion. Not exactly as simple as that.  The bible doesn’t say "Playing violent video games is a sin" but one way of looking at it is that you are committing murder… within the scope of the game.  He’s asking whether that applies.

    Personally I don’t see it as particularly morally ambiguous because technically what you’re doing is sending signals through a computer, not killing people.  I would say its more akin to making a painting depicting a murder in progress.  Is the act of depicting someone being killed a sin? Not in my book, and not religiously if I remember.

    Note on my personal views to give you a sense of where I’m coming from: raised episcopalian but I gave that up in 6th grade. I remained involved in the community but I no longer attended services.  Currently I consider myself athiest.

  183. Valdearg says:

    You know what’s kind of funny about that Adultery metaphor? It might be a sin, but many, many people don’t believe the literal act of Adultery (Sex with someone other than your spouse) is actually morally wrong. LYING about it to your spouse, or hiding it from them might be, but what’s actually morally wrong about enjoying casual sex with someone else,  as long as you have permission from your spouse?

    It’s these kind of things that religious people fail to grasp, when it comes to morality. Not everyone thinks something is immoral, just because your religion does. Until they grasp that concept, and stop trying to force thier morality on others, I doubt that the Institution of Religion can exist at peace with games. People can be religious and play games, no doubt, but the Institution will continue to try to destroy things that they believe are wrong, and will always target games as one of it’s primary issues.

  184. Andrew Eisen says:

    Okay then.  If playing games strikes you as morally wrong, don’t play them.  Simple.

     

    Andrew Eisen

  185. sharpshooterbabe says:

    There seems to be a pattern here. lol. But seriously I know I am going to sound to Val like I am imposing my religiousness on him……but we as humans are all put on earth to influence/teach people that don’t know God or Jesus to know about them. That’s from my church & my bible.

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  186. Valdearg says:

    "If I had your attitude for every atheist who tried to force their belief on me, I’d would look like one of those religous idiots."

    I’ve never once forced my belief on you. The core of my comments are for people like you to keep your beliefs and morality to yourselfs and to STOP forcing them on me.

    I’ve even made it clear that "you can go ahead and waste your life however you want." If that’s not the exact opposite of "Forcing" my beliefs on you, I don’t know what is.

    While I’m not exactly nice about it, and am more than willing to express my opinion that I think religion is stupid, and probably does more harm than good in this world, I’m very, VERY careful about telling people that they shouldn’t practice it. Like I said, if you want to believe in some Imaginary Friend who you can mutter to when you need something, be my guest. Just don’t expect me to follow you, and don’t tell me how to behave, because thats how your imaginary friend wants it.

  187. gellymatos says:

    You are aware you’re doing the atheistic equivelent of the religous types you’re complaining about. Can you actually complain about annoying religous people without insulting all of them. If I had your attitude for every atheist who tried to force their belief on me, I’d would look like one of those religous idiots. The problem isn’t religon, it’s ideology. An ideology, religous or otherwise, always produces total jackasses.

    Another thing is the athesitic equivelent to the "holier-than-thou" types are the atheists who find anyone who is religous as stupid and see their athesitic way of thinking as showing their "superior" intellect. I call those the "smarter-than-thou" types.

  188. sharpshooterbabe says:

    Lol Val you cease to amaze me w/your humor on here. Which is rare for me reading your posts. Anyways, when you "The MOMENT that I feel I’ve been put upon by someone due to thier faith, whether that be them talking to me about it…."

    Basically you don’t want no one to talk about any or every kind of religion out there to you. That’s pretty much what you are saying b/c it sounds like the rest of your day will just be a bad day. LMAO!

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  189. Saxy says:

    Please tell me i’m not the only one seeing the irony just dripping off of his words. We’ll have a ironic ocean if all of your comments are like this, Valdearg.

    I mean, seriously, you say you want Christians lo leave you alone, and I can dig that. You could have left your statemet at half it’s size, and all would be reasonably well.

    But then you spend the second half-two/thirds of your paragraph talking about how stupid christians are. Really?

    Even more ironic, the guy featured in this article is actually open-minded about this all, making these sort of comments even less warranted.

  190. Valdearg says:

    Sometimes, I think Peter wants to start flame wars…

    That said, I’ll just get started.

    Religions are full of crap, anyways. As long as you aren’t forcing your fake morality on me and MY games, you can go ahead and waste your life however you want.

    The MOMENT that I feel I’ve been put upon by someone due to thier faith, whether that be them talking to me about it, or trying to enforce thier fake biblical morality in my games, or telling who I can or can’t have in my own private bedroom, they are asking for trouble.

    Until those Holier-Than-Thou morality types learn that they need to butt out, STFU, and leave those who don’t follow the same morals alone, there will always be conflict. This goes for games, as well. Frankly, if you think a game is Immoral, and doesn’t mesh with your religion, don’t play it. If you think running people over in GTA is wrong, don’t do it. If you think that your fake "God" will send you to hell because you set eyes Laura Croft’s butt, don’t look. If you enjoy all of those things, and more, keep playing, and keep your religious opinions to yourself.

  191. vellocet says:

    I think it’s funny that when the Simpsons first came out, there were morality police types screaming that it was created by Satan and that it was going to destroy the family unit.  

    Now there are very popular books about how to use The Simpsons to embrace faith and how the show is a good way to teach the principles of Christianity.  

    A lot of the fist shakers and knee jerkers do just that, they don’t think.  They listen to what other knee jerkers and expouse their ill thought out ideas.

    Frumpy ugly middle aged mom is obviously one of these people.  I also find it interesting that she uses Harry Potter as reference as movies and books also keep kids from "playing outside".  Oh and it promotes witchcraft…

  192. Ratros says:

    Best explanation ever.

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  193. Vake Xeacons says:

    Games are more tolerant of the church than other mediums, like movies and television.

    From old classics like "Inherit the Wind" (1960) to modern hits like the Dan Brown series (da Vinci Code, Angels & Demons), Christians are ALWAYS the bad guys. No wonder you guys are always at our throats!

    Meanwhile, in games, we got villians like Dr. Breen, the Darwinistic tyrant, or the psychotic Andrew Ryan, who founded Rapture in the face of God and Country. And let’s not forget fighting demons in games like Doom, and, despite the horrible marketting ploys, the upcoming Daunte’s Inferno, both of which focus on fighting through hell to destoy the devil. What could be more righteous than that?

  194. gellymatos says:

    I see them more as two families. In general, they don’t have anything against each other, but certain family members from each family seem to hate the other familiy. At the same time, some members of each family are close friends, and the bad relatives keep pestering the friendly ones.

  195. Kincyr says:

    actually, Exodus 34:14 explicitly points out that the lord’s name is ‘Jealous’. ‘God’ is simply his title.

    岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

  196. Monte says:

    "noting that players are constantly breaking the Ten Commandments in-game"

    *gasp*

    -Thou shall not use the lord’s name in vain "god damn, fricking bots" (gamer frustration)

    -thou shalt not praise game consoles (console wars are holy crusades)

    -Thou shalt not hold lan parties on the sabbath day (try saturday… you can go as late as you need))

    -Though shalt honor thy father and thy mother by going to bed when they tell you too

    -Thou shalt not steal kills (dick move)

    -Though shalt not kill polygons and pixels (they’re people too you know)

    -Thou shalt not commit adutlry and play with other guilds

    -Though shalt not covet thy neighbors wii/360/PS3 (you made your choice so either suck it up or buy the others)

    -Thou shalt covet thy neighbor’s nightelf wife (i know she is totally hot)

    -Thou shalt not lie on thy gamer profile

  197. saregos says:

    And again, someone commits the sin of generalizing ONE (1) person’s behavior to their culture/creed/race/species/particular variety of rodeo clown as a whole.  Which is really EXACTLY what we all take issue with JT for doing.

    Try this:  Instead of insulting a CLASS of people, try to restrict your insults to the PARTICULAR people who you take objection to.  Perhaps then we can actually claim we practice the tolerance we preach?

    Because really, if we continue to insult entire groups of people this way, how many allies do you think we’ll have?  Take a look at JT, in the end only the extremists on both ends really care at all about what he does.

    — Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

  198. Zerodash says:

    As long as Christians keep their values and beliefs to themselves, I’m A-OK.  Too often, these people seek to force all of society to change and bend to fit their ways.  

    They can hate gay people all you want, believe the earth is <6000 years old, avoid having sex (other than to procreate), hate Harry Potter, fear wiccans, and anything  else they want to do.  Hell, I would fight the good fight to preserve their rights to practice their religion or believe whatever they want. 

    HOWEVER

    The moment Christians beat the wardrums of the "culture wars" and try to impose their ways on everyone else- the gloves come off and I say they can all go rot in hell.  Jack Thompson, Creationists, The Westboro Baptist Church, the 700 Club, and the like prove that Christianity is dominated by these types of people. 

    The constitution that gives me the right to NOT be a Christian is the same one that allows them to be Christian (or Jew, Muslim, etc).  I just wish these people would understand that and respect that.  

  199. Neeneko says:

    I see no conflict between games and religion.

    I DO see a conflict between games and religious leaders though.  When I say relgious ‘leaders’ I do not mean just the official hiearchy, but anyone who uses their faith as a mechanism for people to look up to them and seek advice.

    Religious leadership centers around the power of one person to have influence over the moral choices of another person.  That second person, the follower, is discouraged (sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly) from making thier own moral judgements but instead is encouraged to look up to some figure to teach them what the right choice is.  This also couples with the idea that there is not only a ‘right’ choice, but that there is no ‘choice’.. follower X simply must do Y.

    The problem the leaderships tend to have with games is they give the player choice.  They can be good, they can be bad,.. they can do whatever the world allows them to do.  This goes against the idea of lack of choice, thus it is quite threatening to these people since it undercuts one of the core pieces of how they draw power from their followers.

    (edited to add)

    I should also point out, while religious leaders are often the focus of this type of discussion, this basic problem exists with any group where the leaders pull their power from being seen as moral or wise.   Religion often provides a convient framework for the leader to attack what is threatening them, but non-religious leaders often feel the same way about a medium that allows so much choice.  Thier attacks have been much less organized and consistant though since they do not have as many pre-packaged reasons to fall back on.  Usually they end up using economics or health as their vectors instead.

  200. Afirejar says:

    I’d say, that depends largely on the religion in question. Gaming certainly isn’t for the Amish.

  201. MarcL says:

    As much as I support gaming, and I don’t believe that there is a serious moral conflict here, I have to say its not that simple Andrew.

    It might be a poor metaphor, but lets take adultery: its a sin, but the people doing it sure are having fun at the time.  Just because the activity is fun to you does not make it a morally acceptable thing.

    The metaphor is a little heavy handed, but it gets the point across. In a case like that, there isn’t much moral ambiguity, most people believe its wrong.  In the case of video games, its not that clearly defined as morally wrong, but for Mike Gringas its a question that has yet to be answered.

    long story short: just because something is fun doesn’t mean you should embrace it.  Your personal/religious/communal values do take some part in the decision.

    Personally, I have no such conflict with regards to gaming.

  202. Andrew Eisen says:

    [Is gaming a hobby] that the faithful should stay away from?”

    That depends, are you (one of the faithful) having fun?  If so, play away.  If not, stay away.  Simple.

     

    Andrew Eisen

  203. dsparil says:

    The problem is that the fundamentalists see videogames as merely another a medium that they can condemn and try to censor to their standards judging by my experiences on this site.

Comments are closed.