Boxer Manny Pacquiao calls for gays to be put to death

[ChickenGuy]

Off-topic - I was just looking for David Haye pics and found this one of the Klitschko fight....

EDIT:

I googled the stump~

So did I, and I found this pic of them both. Didn't know who Cotto was, but he looks OK.

(note the telltale sign of a chain with cross around Pacquaio)

 

[quasar]

I'm still waiting for the follow-up story where the boxer claims he was misquoted....

Manny Pacquiao: 'To the gay community, I apologize' - latimes.com
Official Statement By Manny Pacquiao – “To the gay community, I apologize,” |
Mayweather Chimes in on Pacquiao Controversey | Fox News Latino - where he reveals he hasn't even READ the Book of Leviticus yet.

Regardless of his apology he is still "critical of actions that violate the word of God", and the Bible (including Leviticus) is the word of God. However, like all good Christians, he will pick and choose which words of God he likes and is happy to follow, and which ones he doesn't.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes, revert to name calling when I don't buy your excuses.

You compare us "minority" to christianity? So, now you're playing the victim's card by hinting that christianity is a persecuted minority group. I've also seen this line of debate tactic before.

So, let's see. Christianity has always supported women's rights, the rights of minorities, and now is a minority group that is persecuted by both the fundamentalists and people like myself. And in fact, it is so minority that political candidates have to always mention that they're christian in order to have any kind of chance to getting elected. Christianity is so minority and oppressed that that the evil atheists will bring down brimstone and fire... blah why am I even paying attention anymore?

So, ignoring the millions that were were tortured to death by the various inquisitions...

What else do you have? Again, I've been debating for years. I've seen it all. I'm just curious to see what other card you're going to pull out.

You dismiss me as not knowing anything about christianity or whatever. Have you considered that all my life I've been a christian along with everyone I know?

If you haven't got anything but these non-sequiturs and other fallacies, you should go back to school.

Oh -- and ignorance, of the Bible and history and more.

 

[Kulindahr]

I googled the stump~

View attachment 819374

Looks like a Klingon.

 

[Kulindahr]

Off-topic - I was just looking for David Haye pics and found this one of the Klitschko fight....

EDIT:




So did I, and I found this pic of them both. Didn't know who Cotto was, but he looks OK.

(note the telltale sign of a chain with cross around Pacquaio)

Looks rather human, there.

 

[pat grimshaw]

Looks rather human, there.

No they both look like animals to me. They've both marked their bodies with childish graffiti.

 

[Kulindahr]

Haha, another christian tactic that I regularly see. So, rather than responding to things like the inquisitions, you throw in names of logical fallacies.

I wouldn't throw in the names of logical fallacies if you didn't use them. And I don't respond to them, either.

You know, so far every response you've made confirms exactly what I said you were going to say. Like I said, I've seen it all. And this is why I'm not trying that hard to respond to your excuses and apologetics. I know whatever I'll say will just fall on deaf ears. You've already got a canned response for everything.

I don't have any canned responses -- I address things on their merits. So far, you haven't provided many.

Take, for example, when a christian directly challenged me to show him a single evil command that god gave in the bible. Easy one, right? Jericho comes to mind, where every man, woman, and child was systematically slaughtered via god's command. So, let's assume everyone in that city was a sinner. What about the 2 year olds? Did that city have 2 year olds going around raping other 2 year olds? Well, the christian had a perfect canned response. He said since that city was full of homosexuals there were no kids and everyone was a sinner amen. So, why not just wait a generation or so for them to all die off?
[/QUOTE

Homosexuals? In Jericho?! Your acquaintance was an idiot.

What's rape got to do with being a sinner? Actually, your use of that is another fallacy, but I'll try to fathom what the heck your brain is doing. Are you presuming that everyone who's a sinner is automatically a rapist?

Anyway, I know what you're thinking right now. You think you got the perfect apologetic that I haven't seen before. Trust me, no matter how weird it is, I've seen it before.

You don't at all know what I'm thinking. I don't particularly care what you've seen before, especially since it obviously hasn't taught you history or the Bible or how to reason.

 

[Kulindahr]

And yet once again you managed to avoid addressing the inquisitions. This would be the 3rd time I mentioned it and you've managed to wiggle your way around it.

1. I already said I don't respond to fallacies.
2. If you were awake, you'll have noted that I already covered the inquisitions.

Hehe, ok, so what would be your reason for the extermination of the people of jericho? This should be good.

I don't know what the official name of this fallacy is, but I call it "Changing the subject" and "dodging the question". But since you can't seem to follow a rational conversation, I'll humor you:

Tactically, Jericho was destroyed because it was in the Israelites' line of march once they'd crossed the Jordan. Strategically, it was destroyed because it was one of the most powerful cities of the region. Both tactically and strategically, it was destroyed because they couldn't afford to leave it behind them.

Psychologically, it was destroyed totally to strike fear into the hearts of future opponents.

Religiously, it was totally destroyed to declare that this was religious war, with all those not acknowledging the conquering God put to death (sort of a custom at the time); this declared to those to be conquered that to have any hope to live they would have to acknowledge the new deity, and emphasized to the conquering people that they were to have nothing to do with the one(s) in the land they were invading, but to adhere to their own. It was all burned to symbolize purification, a reminder to the invaders that they were to keep pure from the religion of the land they were invading, and a declaration to the inhabitants that nothing of their gods would be tolerated.

Cultically, it was done that way because God said to. Religion at that time was a matter of utter obedience to the deity; such a command would serve the purposes above, thus cementing the relationship of obedience.

 

[JayHawk]

Unfortunately, this guy is worshipped in the Phillipines and holds political office there. The social and political power he wields is cause for alarm, especially since he's endorsing murder.

Well then he must not be very in tuned with what's happening in his own country where there were a few civil union bills put to vote in recent times, and gays are allowed to serve openly in the Filipino military. Most Roman Catholics believe marriage is between a man and a woman? Don't tell people in Spain, Brazil or Argentina that.

Well Part of my reply is now tempered by the fact that he did not say exactly those words. What i would point out is that half of the Philippines is Muslim and half is Catholic. When I was there you had to be very discreet or you could end up very dead as a gay man.

Manila may be very well at putting together a bill or an offering for acceptance or marriage for us BUT the rest of the country is vast and very much associated around religion and the family. Don't expect even if Manila makes gay marriage legal throughout the country that most would allow for or follow it. I met very many straight Filipinos who shared my bed while I lived there and all of them would vehemently demand they were not gay.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not realy dodging the subject. The subject is about religionist apologetics to make up excuses for the not so convenient facts in history.

The subject began with ignorant and unjustified attacks on religion, and the use of a straw man to feed further attacks. It continued when you laughed at an accurate summary of some history.

Are you aware that christians are worshiping the same god?

Are you pretending to be stupid, or what???

 

[FuryOfFirestorm]

Question: Let's say a man and his wife is found guilty of a heinous crime. A judge is hired to hand down their sentence. He condemns them to jail for the rest of their lives. While in jail, the woman gives birth. The judge determines that the baby, who was not present at the crime (nor existing at the time), to also be forced to stay in prison. The same goes for his children, and their children, and so on.

So I ask you - is that judgement fair, or should the judge have absolved the children of their parents sins?

 

[Kulindahr]

Question: Let's say a man and his wife is found guilty of a heinous crime. A judge is hired to hand down their sentence. He condemns them to jail for the rest of their lives. While in jail, the woman gives birth. The judge determines that the baby, who was not present at the crime (nor existing at the time), to also be forced to stay in prison. The same goes for his children, and their children, and so on.

So I ask you - is that judgement fair, or should the judge have absolved the children of their parents sins?

What?

If that's supposed to be about original sin, it's not even close to the mark. This would be:

A man and his wife are given an island to live on. They manage to start a fire that burns down everything on the island taller than their toes. Then they have children, and the children are stuck living on an island where they have no choice but to scrape and claw for sustenance, a condition for which they are in no way responsible. Moreover, due to the fire, the parents contracted a heritable and somewhat crippling disease, which is passed on to the children.

 

[ChickenGuy]

What I find slightly telling, Kuli, is that you refused to answer his question. He wasn't asking you for your interpretation of his question, he was wanting you to answer it.

Whatever your opinions, you could VERY EASILY have said

"No, that wasn't fair, BUT...." (your posted remarks)

or

"The judge should have absolved the sins, BUT...." (your posted remarks)

I may be wrong but I have a sense that you're reluctant to answer FuryOfFirestorm's question.

So prove me wrong Kuli and HOWEVER false and misleading you think the question is, it can still be answered. Pretend that there is no allegory or metaphor to it.

So I ask you - is that judgement fair, or should the judge have absolved the children of their parents sins?

Kuli?

 

[Kulindahr]

What I find slightly telling, Kuli, is that you refused to answer his question. He wasn't asking you for your interpretation of his question, he was wanting you to answer it.

Whatever your opinions, you could VERY EASILY have said

"No, that wasn't fair, BUT...." (your posted remarks)

or

"The judge should have absolved the sins, BUT...." (your posted remarks)

I may be wrong but I have a sense that you're reluctant to answer FuryOfFirestorm's question.

So prove me wrong Kuli and HOWEVER false and misleading you think the question is, it can still be answered. Pretend that there is no allegory or metaphor to it.



Kuli?

Why should I answer a question that is designed to mislead, or at least is misleading through ignorance? I'm always reluctant to answer questions that aren't to the point, but lead off on some other track.

 

[FuryOfFirestorm]

A man and his wife are given an island to live on. They manage to start a fire that burns down everything on the island taller than their toes. Then they have children, and the children are stuck living on an island where they have no choice but to scrape and claw for sustenance, a condition for which they are in no way responsible. Moreover, due to the fire, the parents contracted a heritable and somewhat crippling disease, which is passed on to the children.

In both our scenarios, the children suffer for their parents' fuckups. And yet, God didn't help the children and let them suffer, even though it was within his power to help them. That's even worse.

Every Christian replies that God's punishment is justified because "his sovreignty was challenged". Satan is the one who fooled Eve into eating the fruit, yet the patsy and her offspring suffer for thousands of years while Satan just got kicked out of heaven and let loose on the world. You sure showed him, God!

 

[ChickenGuy]

What I'm curious to know (and I genuinely have no idea) is if you are CAPABLE within yourself to answer it.

It could have been answered twice now at the beginning of either of your last two posts, IMMEDIATELY followed by your explanations why it's not applicable. You're WAY intelligent enough to provide an adequate rebuttal and disclaimer to it, AND provide answers to any misleading follow-ups. But the glaring point is you HAVEN'T.

Why would someone like you who is perfectly capable of explaining yourself articulately find it SO challenging/threatening to answer a simple hypothetical question? So am I wrong? I can't understand why it couldn't have been answered WITH your previous posts.

Do you see the point I'm making? Would we theoretically go round and round and round in circles ad infinitum to 1,000 pages long and 50,000 posts (they'd move it to the Fun & Games thread) where the title would be: "Get Kulindahr to answer the question" and it becomes a ridiculous charade.

 

[FuryOfFirestorm]

Here's one question that Christians never answer: Most other religions have their own ancient books that say their religion is The One True Religion and their god is The One True God.

Why is your book and your god more true or valid than that of other religions?

I NEVER get a straight answer. EVER.

At best, they pretend not to see/hear the question. At worst, they accuse me of "asking silly questions" and change the subject.

 

[Kulindahr]

In both our scenarios, the children suffer for their parents' fuckups. And yet, God didn't help the children and let them suffer, even though it was within his power to help them. That's even worse.

Every Christian replies that God's punishment is justified because "his sovreignty was challenged". Satan is the one who fooled Eve into eating the fruit, yet the patsy and her offspring suffer for thousands of years while Satan just got kicked out of heaven and let loose on the world. You sure showed him, God!

What "punishment"?

Actions have consequences. I suppose the consequences could have been God consigning them to non-existence and starting over, but what would be the point?

And that's the problem with all the complaints about God and the Fall: they boil down to not wanting there to be consequences for actions. They're pleas for a God who would never let us grow up, Who would always step in every time we make a mess and fix it. They're also based on a total misunderstanding: what Adam and Eve did was like in my scenario; they screwed up all of Creation, except deeper, making it flawed at its root.

It has little to nothing to do with God's sovereignty -- I've never even heard that assertion before (it must be some obscure Calvinistic claim). It has to do with breaking what was perfect and being treated like adults, sent out to face what they'd done.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh -- as for Satan, that was an incredible punishment: he was aiming to be like God, perfect and omni-potent, and he ends up tossed in a grim hole of his own making. In other words, he was made to face the consequences of his own actions, too.

In fact, that's a primary point of the entire book of Genesis: actions have consequences. It even makes clear that God isn't immune to this principle: He made a world in which His principle creations could screw it all up, and when they did, He didn't just wipe it and start over, He took responsibility.

 

[FuryOfFirestorm]

I didn't say that Adam & Eve didn't deserve punishment for their sins.

I asked why letting their children suffer for a crime they had no involvement with is fair.

Let me break it down. Parents do bad. Parents get punished. Kids are born. Kids get punished too.

How is that fair?