Stickman

'Hey runner - newsflash! You are exactly the kind of person Lev was talking about... what's your position on homosexuality, runner?'
My position is irrelevant. God's position is to hate the sin but to love the sinner. People practicing adultery, fornication, lying, homosexuality won't inherit the kingdom of God. Thank God many have turned to Christ for forgiveness from these things. Homosexuality is unnatural, has a very high health risk and is largely promoted as a lifestyle by deviants. The promoters of this lifestyle generally are not happy to live out their lives quitely. They seem intent on spreading their poison through the schools and paint anyone disagreeing with them as the evil ones.

Yes Lev there is evidence to suggest that the earth has warmed by as much as 0.6 of a degree over the last 100 years. Similar evidence suggest that there was a mini ice age centered around 1700 where the temp dropped by as much as a degree.

Warming is not the issue. The issue is anthropogenic climate change and statistical forecasting. Considering we can't even predict the weather much more than a week in advance how do you expect us to believe we can predict climate change 10-100 years into the future.

The problem is that groups are now using sad looking Polar bears floating on icebergs and chunks of ice breaking away glaciers and ice shelfs as evidence that
1. we (via carbon dioxide) are producing this effect
2. catastrophic outcomes are, if not here already, own their way.

This replaces reasoned debate and allows legitimate scientist who are skeptical of many of the claims to be shouted down or silenced as environmental vandals.

There is not yet evidence to come to any conclusion except that the earth has warmed since 1900 but has not warmed at all in the last 7-8 years despite the co2 levels increasing.

There are other factors at play.

Mac's distinction is an important one - it's not religions or the things that inspire them that are hurt by religious defamation, it's the feelings of those who believe.

I hope that my feelings as a Christian will be respected in ordinary social interaction, and they usually are. But when I enter the fray in public debate or a forum like this, I expect my views and beliefs to be fair game and held up to scrutiny and - sometimes - forceful disagreement or even ridicule. And they are.

In no circumstances do I think the power of the law should be brought to bear to protect my religious feelings or silence those who disagree with me, nor would I extend that privilege to any belief system, be it religious, political, environmental or any other flavour. God cannot be hurt by a lie, still less by the truth. Honest, even vigorous, discourse, aids understanding and helps dispel false beliefs. “Come now, let us argue it out, says the Lord.” (Isaiah 1.18). Amen.

Runner, please consider a different perspective. Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus condemn homosexuality. Everywhere he shows compassion and inclusion for those who are marginalised, despised, mistreated and condemned, and rebukes the religiously devout who presume to censure and deride others. In his day that meant consorting with outsiders (tax collectors, gentiles, prostitutes and lepers), and conflict with the pious (Pharisees) and the religious establishment (scribes and Sadducees). Might not the modern equivalent be gays and others our culture despises (junkies, gamblers, drunks, the mentally ill) and the modern Pharisees, those who condemn them?

Perhaps we should make a distinction between simple ignorance and wilful ignorance.

Believing something you were told as a child, when you have never been exposed to any contrary evidence, is perfectly natural and reasonable. It is best dealt with by presenting the contrary evidence.

Believing something in spite of contrary evidence (or even BECAUSE of contrary evidence) is wilful ignorance, reprehensible and dangerous (how dangerous is religion? See

http://atheistwiki.wikispaces.com/Outrage+scoreboard

for just a few examples.). It should be treated in the same way as any other persistent failure to act like a sane and rational human being. It should not be excused because 'it's only religion', any more than threatening children should be excused because 'it's only paranoia'. Both are mental states that put people at risk to themselves and to those around them.

Hmm...how could I have missed this juicy topic till now ?

I see Peter Hodge has discovered "CHICK TRACTS"

http://www.insolitology.com/topten/jackchick.htm

(worth a look no matter what your religious position is:)

Regarding Dawkins.. he is ABSOLUTELY GUILTY of religious vilification, and based on the findings of the CTF/ICV case, he does have a case to answer.. I began the proceedings against Dawkins book in a small way, but lost that vital ingredient..'time'.... to follow though.

THE PROBLEM with the RRTA is

1/ section 9 "Motive" is not relevant.
2/ The interpretation of what consitutes vilification.
3/ TRUTH...is not a defense. (claimed by the lawyers for the ICV)

Now..this little morsel has had profound effects. Not only did it galvanize me into bombarding every forum I could with a sustained attack on the idea.. I've since found ways of multiplying ones impact many times over, even to the point of creating national headlines and obtaining world wide coverage of a particular issue.

The following people made public statements of concern.

-The Prime minister,
-Opposition leader,
-A Police Commissioner
-Minister of Education.
-Spokesperson of a particular group.

All this because of some strategically directed emails.

I'd prefer to leave the actual issue 'vague' at this point.

Yes.. we absolutely need to sort out this sorry state of affairs...

We do NOT need an Orwellian dictatorship of thought and expression.
At present..the RRT as written and intepreted, is just that.

LETS ALL WORK TOGETHER AND RID OURSELVES OF THIS TYRANT! (*echo's of Braveheart's speech floating through the air*)

Boazy: <<I've since found ways of multiplying ones impact many times over, even to the point of creating national headlines and obtaining world wide coverage of a particular issue.

The following people made public statements of concern.

-The Prime minister,
-Opposition leader,
-A Police Commissioner
-Minister of Education.
-Spokesperson of a particular group.

All this because of some strategically directed emails.

I'd prefer to leave the actual issue 'vague' at this point.>>

Talk about delusional. As I recall, various questions have been put in this forum regarding the efficacy of Boazy's endless ranting and preaching in bringing people to his version of God, but absolutely nobody here responded in the affirmative, i.e. for all his biblical quotes, preaching and other godbothering claptrap, not one other OLO member has been converted to his religion.

Now he expects us to believe that his emails create national headlines and provoke worldwide coverage of his obsessions. Dream on, Boazy. Do the radio and TV speak to you personally as well?

Little wonder he wants to be "vague" about the details.