Posts by Inquisitor

108

Gay Marriage - The War for Equality

by Inquisitor in

i've just read lola28's thread "for those against gay marriage".

i thought i should present a clear message on what i think the gay marriage issue is all about.

the trouble with most discussions on this issue is that it gets clouded by a plethora of side-issues, non-issues, cave-men chest-thumping and medieval puritanism.

Inquisitor

Bee,

Be nice. Even big boys deserve love. ;)

INQ

108

Gay Marriage - The War for Equality

by Inquisitor in

i've just read lola28's thread "for those against gay marriage".

i thought i should present a clear message on what i think the gay marriage issue is all about.

the trouble with most discussions on this issue is that it gets clouded by a plethora of side-issues, non-issues, cave-men chest-thumping and medieval puritanism.

Gay Marriage - The War for Equality

by Inquisitor in

i've just read lola28's thread "for those against gay marriage".

i thought i should present a clear message on what i think the gay marriage issue is all about.

the trouble with most discussions on this issue is that it gets clouded by a plethora of side-issues, non-issues, cave-men chest-thumping and medieval puritanism.

I've just read lola28's thread "For those against gay marriage". I thought I should present a clear message on what I think the gay marriage issue is all about. The trouble with most discussions on this issue is that it gets clouded by a plethora of side-issues, non-issues, cave-men chest-thumping and medieval puritanism.

I'm going to present to you a simple argument FOR gay marriage: the issue of equality (justice).

If you stand by the view that gay people must be treated EQUALLY with straight people, then gays SHOULD have the opportunity to marry.

If you oppose gay marriage for ALL gay people (not just yourself) then you do NOT believe that homo folk deserve equality with hetero folk.

Simple?

If you still don't get it, let me put it forward to you in racial/ethnic terms.

In a hypothetical world:

If Caucasians have been constitutionally denied the right (by their non-Caucasian fellow citizens) to get married, should he be thankful? Should he be grateful that he has been given the right to a civil union and some rights on financial matters that are granted by such unions? He could be. But the issue of marriage is an issue of equal opportunity. Even if only symbolic.

It is a question of: "Are Caucasian men the equals of their non-Caucasian neighbours, in that he should be entitled to ALL the opportunities and rights that a non-Caucasian citizen enjoys?"

This, in my view, is what the gay marriage topic is all about. EVERYTHING else is hot air. EVEYTHING else is a mere distraction. You wanna argue against gay marriage? Tell me how you justify the inequality, and hence why it isn't an act of concerted homophobia.

Don't tell me about:

(1) Bible as moral code for individuals and country (founding father-esque false nostalgia)

(2) Claims of wanting less government intervening in people's lives. (what? you're turning a freedom to love disourse into a lecture on economic theory?)

(3) Claims (often by other gay people themselves) that gay people do not need to conform to "heterosexual constructs of monogamy", cheered on by heteros who want to paint promiscuity on the rainbow flag.

(4) How natural is homosexuality...using Bible to teach about nature instead of Science.

(5) The meaning of marriage... people with such high rates of divorce shouldn't pretend to be experts on what marriage really is.

Get to the core of the issue. Tell me how you justify the injustice. Otherwise stop pulling the wool. I'm passionately allergic to it.

INQ.

6

"Knocking" documentary to air in Australia this weekend

by Inquisitor in

abctv to air "knocking" doco on compass this sunday 18 may 08 at 9.05pm.

we may have an objection (or several) to the contents of this documentary, but at least it's a starting point to get people talking about jws.

they rarely get media coverage.

Inquisitor

I know [cheesy smile]

Does this short Q and A bring back memories of TMS talks?

INQ

6

"Knocking" documentary to air in Australia this weekend

by Inquisitor in

abctv to air "knocking" doco on compass this sunday 18 may 08 at 9.05pm.

we may have an objection (or several) to the contents of this documentary, but at least it's a starting point to get people talking about jws.

they rarely get media coverage.

Inquisitor

Was that Friday the 23rd, brinjen?

6

"Knocking" documentary to air in Australia this weekend

by Inquisitor in

abctv to air "knocking" doco on compass this sunday 18 may 08 at 9.05pm.

we may have an objection (or several) to the contents of this documentary, but at least it's a starting point to get people talking about jws.

they rarely get media coverage.

Inquisitor

ABCTV to air "Knocking" doco on Compass this Sunday 18 May 08 at 9.05pm

We may have an objection (or several) to the contents of this documentary, but at least it's a starting point to get people talking about JWs. They rarely get media coverage. Let's make the most of this I say! I believe there is a post-show discussion board online somewhere.

Search here: http://www.abc.net.au/compass/thisweek/

INQ

38

22,000 Dead So Far in Myanmar

by Rapunzel in

jw
friends

and i wonder, where could god be now?

) either god wanted to eliminate evil and could not.

if option number two is the case, god is evil.

Inquisitor

Alpaca

You made a correct observation and conclusion of the matter. In the natural world, random events occur. Meteors slam into the moon's face, the earth splits along its faults, slower animals get eaten, etc.

However, the discourse on EVIL and its EXISTENCE is a PHILOSOPHICAL ONE. As such, it does not call for empirical observation of evil. There is none. Even as empirically, there is no masculine sky-deity. Being a philosophical challenge, the question of Evil/Suffering questions how an ALL-POWERFUL GOD can still be considered benevolent if He allows bad things to happen. It is a question of accountability on the part of the Higher Being.

The standard response to such a challenge is to re-invent definitions, "re-write your dictionary, stupid!" thus saith the cheerleaders for Christ:

(1) Omnipotence doesn't mean All-Powerful ALL the TIME. Omnipotence means All-powerful some of the time, usu. when human misery is not at its greatest (e.g. car averted collision with oncoming traffic bcos driver was stopped by ANGELS! "Hallelujah!"). Subsequent testimony of divine power is then the loudest. Rationale for Tsunami? Holocaust? "Dunno. Sorry, My God is Love is all I know."

(2) "Bad", "Evil"? "How do you define it?" "Against what shall we compare it?" Apologists miraculously lose their comprehension of a word they use frequently whenever gay rights or abortion clinics or church/state separation are mentioned. They try to rubbish any means of defining a word they accusatorily use on others in other occasions.

Why do they no longer understand evil? Sometimes they hope against all hope that everyone will make the observation you just have: that there is no evil in a random physical phenomenon. And that is a true observation.

But these apologists want a win-win situation. Not only are they adamant that their Omnipotent God EXISTS, they want to excuse HIM from any accusation of liability when bad things happen. So they play dumb. "Falling rocks are just falling rocks, aren't they? Isn't that logical?" Their OMNIPOTENT God becomes the elephant in the room they desperately try to hide.

It's not difficult to compare their technique to a lawyer who tries to argue that the plaintiff of a negligence lawsuit was careless, prone to self-harm or downright mad. They will say anything to ensure their client, GOD (allegedly omni-potent+present+scient) does not take the stand.

INQ

50

Atheist need to start fighting fire with fire LITERALY

by 5go in

i was watching some program on the inquisition.

you know that thing christianity would love for you to forget happened.. when the court system of rome failed the christian courts took over they instituted trial by ordeal.. simply put any accused of a crime would be tortured tested to see if they were innocent by many forms of painful test to see if god would come to the accused's defence.

if they were innocent then no harm would happen to them because of their faith, of course pretty much 100% of the time they were hurt an were summarily executed punished with all the love of jesus in mind.. atheist should due the same accuse all of christians of crimes and force them into trial by ordeal to prove their innocence and backed by god.

Inquisitor

Did someone say "Inquisition"? I dunno man, I know nothin', saw nothin', did nothin'! I don't even know what the word means.

wINQ

60

Dispelling Watchtower Myths of RC Beliefs

by Amazing in

jw
friends

over the last two years, as i moved back to the catholic church, i have been confronted with objections by several people regarding certain catholic teachings.

these concerns are almost always the same, and are founded in mythology created by the watchtower society, and some evangelical denominations.

god can and does use fallible men to do infallible things?

Inquisitor

I wouldn't take anything out of THE FREEREPUBLIC without disinfecting my hands after to avoid the xenophobic, homophobic, ultra-patriotic bigotry that runs in that site.

INQ

12

Does the Watchtower no longer consider the Bible to be infallible?

by Fatfreek in

i believe the following quotes (2005 wt cd library) from watchtower publications may be last that reference the bible as infallible.

*** w01 5/15 p. 6 gods permission of suffering nears its end ***.

moreover, jehovah gods infallible word, the holy bible, shows that we are living in the last days of human rule independent from god.. .

Inquisitor

I'd be very surprised that they would think so. That implies that the higher-ups are no longer confident that Biblical authority is bullet-proof. I am very skeptical about that. There are many Protestant fundie groups out there (even a few individuals on this board) dishing up pseudo-science to "strengthen" the credibility of scriptural literalism.

Why would JW higher-ups be losing faith? They have a plethora of erudite apologetic nonsense to draw on. I think they actually believe their own BS.

I'm more inclined to believe that when they said the Bible is "God's Word and is Truth", the doggie whistle tells the RnF that it is "obviously" infallible. For how can "truth" be fallible? It wouldn't be truth then, would it?

INQ