mmm liberalism… great stuff!
( yeah, decide for yourself… as long as its not deciding to pursue faith because then you wouldn’t be thinking the way the “free” thinkers want you to think. )
false dilemma fallacy. God and science aren’t mutually exclusive.
Interpreting a foundations story for an ancient desert tribe literally
gets us nowhere.
Why is there something rather than nothing? Where did the 4 forces come from, natural selection? 
nothing is better than heaven
a ham sandwich is better than nothing
clearly… a ham sandwich is better than heaven
We need more churches. More would lead to a better outcoume, like an “infinite number” of
monkeys in a room with writing implements. But religion definately
needs more synergy, and openness where all beliefs are just as good as
the next like in those lovely Methodist TV commercials. Thank the
spaghetti monster for liberalism! Contention and strife are an
illusion. Each is obviously entitled to the be sole arbiter of truth.
yes, something is more fit to survive than nothing… that’s why it won the evolutionary race. Its obvious that order can come from lack of order, and by its own volition, especially without agency.
As all the other science minded people know deep down in their hearts its well within the scope of science to ask why the universe was created. Science answers all. It is without limitation.
Would Jesus Shop at Wal-Mart?
Jesus might ’shop’ at walmart because he ate with sinners, reprobates, and the like. Jesus loves all including those with honosexual tendancies. Remember he forgave the whore telling her to go AND sin no more… not hey your cool have a nice day. Activities not chaste (or otherwise not virtuous) are not to be tolerated… the person is in need of conversion, repentance, forgivness, absolution, and amended behavior.
The question is: should YOU shop at Walmart today? especially given their new position of donating 5% of proceeds to pro-homosexual-activity (anti-Christian) advocacy groups… obviously the answer is certainly not! Just as YOU shouldn’t buy Ben n Jerry ice cream as a large slice of their proceeds are donated to pro-natal-child-slaughter-houses (abotion).
Homosexual activites are sinful (evil) and therefore must NOT be tolerated, nor should one tolerate, encourage, or enable others to do or support likewise. The same is true for pro-wrong-choice groups (abotion).
that’s right, join up and believe whatever you want, you’re welcome there. its all good: nothing is wrong as long as you believe its right. A church that advertises liberalism.
WOW
that’s some nerve
its the kind of church secular humanists would like
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Homophobia
I am confused. If we aren’t holding words to their literal meaning, why are we writing encyclopedia entries about them? — bikeable (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The pedophiles and liberalists have on many occasions deleted WORDS like “moralphobe” and “moralphobia” calling them neologisms all the while wrongly tolerating the entry on the colloquialism “homophobia”. Double standard? The talk article even linked to “Moralityphobia“. It was swiftly delted in a state of frantic moralphobia.
Moralphobia APTLY describes the fear driving the deletion of the word itself. As commented above there’s no place in wikipedia for the colloquialism “homophobia”.
Moralphobia
Neologism, nonsense. Rhobite 08:21, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- In a world where there can be homo”phobia” there can certainly be
moralphobia. Motivation to delete this article is self referential:
caused by moralphobia. Comment by User:Crushthem
- Unfortunately I have no idea what “moralphobia” is. Neither does the OED or Webster’s. Rhobite 08:29, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- fortunately “homophobia” hasn’t long been in the OED. We’re
witnessing an evolution of language here on wikipedia. Moralphobia is
quite real as evidenced by the irrational desire to censor the new wiki
article. Where is liberalisms oft touted tolerance now? Comment by User:Crushthem
- I think the “oft touted tolerance” left the building at the precise
moment you started ranting about “moral deviancy.” And don’t call me a
liberal. Rhobite 08:38, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- And how much ranting is in this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_deviant Is it the word “deviant”
that has set you off? Why don’t you move to delete the previously cited
article? Comment by User:Crushthem
- We’re witnessing an evolution of language here on wikipedia. — No, we’re witnessing an example of Newspeak. Delete. Uncle G 12:26, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism. –Carnildo 08:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- right because that argument didn’t apply to this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homophobia What are you people
‘afraid’ of? Comment by User:Crushthem
- “Neologism” means “new word”. A word that only gets 8 Google hits
and isn’t in any dictionary doesn’t need an article on Wikipedia. As
for what I’m afraid of, I’m afraid of Wikipedia becoming a collection
of trivia rather than an encyclopedia. –Carnildo 08:47, 21 Jan 2005
(UTC)
- So then wikipedia articles need only be grossly redundant to
google? Moralphobia applies to essentially the same minority compsed by
those who claim to be homosexual. Comment by User:Crushthem 1:54a PST, 21 Jan 2005
- Delete. Not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. JibJub 08:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Considering the only real “absolute truth” is
death, this is a poorly constructed agenda trying to pass as insight.
Such fun. In any case, neologism, non-notable, and probable eternal pov problems. Arcuras 09:22, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and refer User:Crushthem to Wikipedia:Don’t disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Dbiv 10:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- “We’re witnessing an evolution of language here on wikipedia.” Delete as poor attempt at neologism. — Asbestos | Talk 11:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as neologism. Even if it was a well-established word,
it’s still just a dictionary entry, and would get deleted either way.
See Wikipedia is not… Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:59, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this POV neologism with extreme prejudice - because I
never claimed to be open-minded or tolerant. Kael 12:31, 21 Jan 2005
(UTC)
- Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article. This is unmitigated twaddle. –Zarquon 12:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Well, I see the point of the neologism. But what I feel could define it would be something like not
liking to be told something is good/should be done, even though it is
commonly accepted as beeing good in a specific cultural context. The
same for “bad”. An example: It would be stupid from me to reject
all teaching of the bible on the basis I am not christian. Indeed some
moral teaching from this book are actually good, common sens ( as in
other religions, philosophies…) but the catch… It’s all too relative. Good/bad/moral are not absolute concepts. As absolut truth
concept is not either. Even in a spcecified culture, variations can be
mind-blowing, to the extent that it blows away the basis of this
neologism. Shorthand: fundamentaly POV. So: delete. Gtabary 12:58, 21
Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The argument based on the claim that there could be a word like this is preposterous. Josh Cherry 13:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not the place for coining neologisms nor a platform to promote their use. — Curps 21:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the nonsensical neoligism. — ckape (talk) 00:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, because we here at VfD suffer from POV-phobia. What criterion for deletion doesn’t this article meet? Szyslak 03:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- comment: - original research? =P Arcuras 04:14, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
- That’s what I’d say, but there was no “research” involved. It’s
more of an “original rant.” Szyslak 10:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) (it still
falls under Wikipedia’s definition of original research, but it’s my
opinion that the word “research” is too good for this crap. –Szyslak)
- Delete, unless citations can be made showing actual usage of
this “word” outside the mind of the article creator. –Dtobias 04:10,
23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like
some other VfD subpages, is no longer ‘live’. Subsequent comments on
the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be
placed on the relevant ‘live’ pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live.
Further comments should be made on the article’s talk page rather than
here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:27, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
http://rapidshare.de/files/24988720/04_-_Don_t_Make_No_Promises__Your_Body_Can_t_Keep_.mp3.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/25083806/Alone_in_Death_s_Shadow.mp3.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/25083974/The_Declaration_of_Indifference.mp3.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/25084902/The_Sinful_Ensemble.mp3.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/25085410/The_widdershins_jig.mp3.html
the worst part is that MANY birth “control” pills are in actuality ABORTIFACIENTS. Yes, your fornication generates life, and the “control” prevents the single cell human from implanting (for long) in the uterine wall!!
queers cannot be married. Being not-married couples cannot receive any benefits of marriage anymore than a single person can claim the benefits of marriage.
:duh:
Do we need to amend the Constitution to ban queer abusive re-definition of marriage?
Hmmm. Pat says no. He claims as the majority of people affirm that marriage is to be between a man and a woman we need not modify the Constitution.
Wait.. don’t we live in a demrocratic republic? Didn’t those same most people affirm that slavery should be [banned]? Did we really need to amend the Constitution?
Oh, it doesn’t matter what the majority wants in a democracy when it offends a teeny, tiny, perverse minority!
Queer advocates of satan: marriage isn’t really a big issue. Gas prices are more imporant, oh and the economy. So since its not an issue we shouldn’t be wasting any time on it.
most people: shut up already
Intolerant of intolerance? yeah, you’rea a liberalist. See also my article on the evilness of whiteness
See also: moralphobe (word coined at himself.blogspot.com)
