God's Judgment on homosexuality.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Not sure what you mean there, mate.

reply to post by Garfee

He is trying to cover the fact that there are 43,000+ religions all based on the same book.

Which means if you took 10 christians off the street, put them in a room and asked a religious question, you would most likely get about 12 different answers.

ONE book, forty three THOUSAND religions..........sort of seems like they cant agree with each other.

reply to post by Garfee

Not sure what you mean there, mate.

I normally never post on the subject of being gay itself, but have, in how that would relate to that person's view of religion.
Criticism by a Christian concerning another person's personal habits should only be directed towards other Christians. The denomination that I am a member of has an outreach program for members who may have a problem but they certainly don't kick people out for having inclinations. It's realy about what you do more than what you might think about. Any sort of useless thoughts should be discouraged in favor of energy being used towards more constructive thoughts. Even a heterosexual person thinking about doing things with their spouse is wrong because it is useless and self indulgent. Cold showers was used by the church for a long time as a treatment for people being too concerned with carnal matters. Vegetarianism was also thought to soothe the passions and lots of physical activity like playing badminton.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I'm following you now, thanks for that.

I agree with you that it's easier and more appropriate to criticise those who are considered peers or those of the same or similar demographic.

I'm not saying a christian or heterosexual shouldn't weigh into this debate though. While it may not concern them, if I have the arrogance to do so in their discussions they should have the same right to throw in an opinion in my affairs.

However - their opinion on what I do with my body and my life should be as much importance as my opinion on their own business.

None whatsoever.

Originally posted by scully222

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by scully222

 

What is it with your fixation on homosexuality? There is a ton of stuff the bible says that you ignore every day! Why pick out one subject that doesn't really harm you at all?

I'd love to hear your response to that without quoting the bible because that would be circular logic.

Thank you in advance.

Take your little clicky thingy and click it on page one. Pretty sure the topic of the thread is homosexuality and God's take on it. Wouldn't be relevant to talk about the weather now would it? Is that circular enough for yah?

Thanks for not answering a simple question. It so easy to hide behind the bible. An original thought process of yours would be a good start.

reply to post by jmdewey60

It's realy about what you do more than what you might think about. Any sort of useless thoughts should be discouraged in favor of energy being used towards more constructive thoughts.

Could you explain "useless thoughts" in more detail? You don't advocate having a "Thought Police"???

I'm sure God has better things to do then worry about homosexuals. If you've ever had a conversation with a person who likes the same sex, they would tell you thats how they always felt. Not to mention homosexually is well known in nature and animals.

reply to post by jmdewey60

We really don't know anything about God other than what we know from Jesus.

What we know about Jesus is mainly from the NT. The first part, OT, gives us many insights into God. I don't understand your thinking? Do you not believe in the first part of that book, but take the second at face value?

reply to post by AllIsOne

Could you explain "useless thoughts" in more detail? You don't advocate having a "Thought Police"???

I mixed the two ideas together without any transition. The actions and the thoughts. Actions which would bring disgrace onto your church should be avoided. That would be when the elders of your congregation would get involved concerning your membership.
Actions would be the result of thoughts so it would be important to consider what sorts of thoughts you are spending time cultivating. It may be natural from an instinctual perspective to spend energy on having carnal relations for survival of the species, but in civilized society we have mates where so much energy should not be focused on that. Having laws against people kidnapping your wife and law enforcement to punish people who go around kidnapping peoples wives makes it so you do not have to always be looking at your wife and holding weapons, and you can do other productive things like work.
The point being, in ordered society, you can be free to not be constantly concerned about sexual things.

reply to post by AllIsOne

Do you not believe in the first part of that book, but take the second at face value?

You are grieving the Holy Spirit if you deny its ability to speak through the prophets.
The OT is a source for informed views on the context of the NT.

Originally posted by AllIsOne

Originally posted by scully222

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by scully222

 

What is it with your fixation on homosexuality? There is a ton of stuff the bible says that you ignore every day! Why pick out one subject that doesn't really harm you at all?

I'd love to hear your response to that without quoting the bible because that would be circular logic.

Thank you in advance.

Take your little clicky thingy and click it on page one. Pretty sure the topic of the thread is homosexuality and God's take on it. Wouldn't be relevant to talk about the weather now would it? Is that circular enough for yah?

Thanks for not answering a simple question. It so easy to hide behind the bible. An original thought process of yours would be a good start.

Fair enough. No fixation, just commenting on topic. That's what ATS is about right? Am I only allowed to have an opinion if it fits your viewpoint? Your right, there is a ton of stuff in the bible that I ignore everyday. I am not a theologian. But the topic of this thread is not "all the other stuff". It is about homosexuality. Last point, AGAIN, I am only on topic. Whether it harms me or not is completely beside the point. It is an opinion that you obviously have a hard time accepting. Then you end your question by telling me I'm stupid(in so many words). Was I supposed to take your question seriously? I'm a little to chubby to hide behind a bible.

Originally posted by Amadeo

Originally posted by scully222

Let me see if I got this straight. All gay people want is to be celebrated for what they are, without all the guilt and possible shame of having to admit there could be differing viewpoints on their lifestyle. Making a gay person feel uncomfortable is considered a hate crime nowadays so congratulations, you are now a special class of citizen. From what I am told the torture and murder of Christians just for being Christians has never happened in the history of the world, so I must be a bigot for even bringing it up. However, mocking ignorant Christians is considered great fun and is encouraged by intellectuals, bloggers, and several people in this thread. Your absolutely right, I can't possibly be a Christian because that's for you to decide. Lastly, I find it hard to believe that Jesus was ever pissed off at anyone, even you. That seems to describe the reality I see everyday pretty well.

Tut tut, scully222. Where in that post did I say we want to be celebrated? I said we want to be accepted; there's a little bit of a difference there. But well done you on twisting that and the rest of my post to fit your little agenda. Nice try but you're not dealing with a fool here. You'd think since Christians were persecuted back in the day that you'd be a little more tolerant of modern-day minorities but that's obviously not the case. You want to persecute and marginalise. I do find mocking ignorant Christians great fun because it shows that you can dish it out with relish but you can't stand getting a taste of your own medicine. And no, I don't think you can be a Christian because Jesus was pretty much all for accepting the social outcasts of the day - are you? No.

When the tables are turned you all start playing the victim but I don't care how you feel about it. The simple fact of the matter is, as I said above, if you can't take it then don't give it out. If you weren't feverishly posting your hate and prejudice we'd have nothing to argue against so how about all you pretend Christians wind your collective neck in and leave others alone? That would solve the problem.

Define "acceptance". Does acceptance for you mean you can throw your sexuality in someones face and they don't even recoil a little? Do they need to cheer for your acceptance? I got news for you. If I threw my sexuality in someones face I would expect them to recoil. It's a natural response for "too much information!". I would also expect the gay community to call me names and maybe even force me to publicly apologize. You've proven this to a tee. Being gay today is not a private experience between two lovers like you proclaim(Just leave us alone!). The gay experience today is a very public display that begins with the "coming out" and continues with protests, Pride Parades, lobbying groups, an "exclusive" community, special laws for special protections, etc. These are all displayed for everyone to see. Someone that wants to be left alone does not create a 3X4 sign that is sometimes vulgar and parade around the street half naked. There is A LOT more going on here than wanting to be left alone. When was the last time you heard of a straight man telling all of his friends, posting on Facebook, posting on Twitter, that he was STRAIGHT and liked to sleep with WOMEN. You and all your friends would tease him and call him names. Heck, I would join you. I would ask him if he wanted a medal or a chest to pin it on. Why? Because the whole idea is just silly. Why would anyone of any sexual leaning feel the need to publicly proclaim their orientation? I'll tell you why. It is required to get into the CLUB. Sexuality is meant to be a private experience, like dozens of posters have stated on this thread(pro and con). Why should homosexuality be any different? This may shock you, but I have no problem with anything anyone does in the PRIVACY of their own bedroom. The problem today is that it is not private, it is VERY VERY PUBLIC. Someone that wants to be left alone goes about their business and keeps a low profile. They are comfortable in their own skin and feel no need to call attention to themselves. Most gays today are so full of themselves it borders on the obnoxious. They will stop at almost nothing to call attention to themselves and totally bash anyone that disagrees(again, thanks for proving my point). Someone that is screaming from the rooftops is not looking for acceptance, they are looking to RULE!

reply to post by scully222


No. Acceptance means you accept that we exist, had as much choice in our sexuality as you did and are experiencing something you do not understand.

reply to post by scully222


As long as gay teenagers commit suicide because they can't take the bullying anymore your post means nothing. Absolutely nothing!

reply to post by scully222

I can't comment on another country, and its forms of gay visibility (except that I imagine a context behind open visibility).

However, as far as social networks like Facebook go all my male straight friends indicate that they are interested in "women" (or married). So straight people do indeed indicate their sexual orientation.

In fact, this is the crutch for anti-gay world-views.
"Straightness" only exists as an opposition to "gayness", and vice-versa.

The radical right only wants complete silence on homosexuality when it suits them.
Otherwise they have a whole industry based on homosexuality, ranging from books and visual media to cult-like sermonizing on the topic.
Preachers and cult-leaders make millions from capitalizing on homosexuality. The "problem" must be made as widespread and contaminating as possible, while it constantly creates its own quarry by encouraging gay people to organize and claim agency.
If homosexuality must become less obvious in society (and should become a simple bedroom fetish) then they should remove all material on homosexuality from Christian bookshops and media.
Why should the homophobes make millions on creating gay "social devils" in their media (using our imagery to boot), when if anybody else dares mention it in scientific and social terms outside the massive doomsday cults it is called "indoctrination"?

If homosexuality should disappear, then start by shutting up about it.

The truth is that homosexuality is crucial to keep religion going at present, just like hair-metal bands that sang about sex and Satan were crucial to Reaganomics.
Without the gay social devils religion could construct no moral meaning from heterosexuality in its broadest terms (and without that broad sense of "heterosexual goodness" it would actually have to address specific Biblical sins like divorce or adultery).

Heterosexuality needs homosexuality to define itself as "natural" and remarkable at present (although, considering the arguments of the homophobes; since simply hearing of homosexuality, or catching a glimpse of gay porn can supposedly turn youngsters gay, heterosexuality seems like a weak or unnatural orientation compared to homosexuality).

On making out: I'm not a big fan of seeing any couple French kissing.
Eew...germs, germs.
I've only seen it in the clubs here - for both heteros and homos.
And then I choose to look elsewhere.
Interestingly however, a recent magazine survey said that a high percentage of South Africans from all races would also not like to see a racially mixed couple kissing in public.
Even for a leading couple in Hollywood that also still seems taboo.
We all see many things daily that we don't like.
Apparently Hitler saw Jews in Vienna with side-locks, and he didn't like it.

What really astounds me is this response that gays who respond are called "bigots".
Why on earth should gay people allow themselves to be attacked in very fundamental means, like making a living (Ellen) or having rights to family, and being visible?
Self-defense is not bigotry, and we shall not go quietly into the night ever again.

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by scully222

 

As long as gay teenagers commit suicide because they can't take the bullying anymore your post means nothing. Absolutely nothing!

Bullying?? Are you serious? I ask questions and I disagree with a viewpoint and you want to accuse me of bullying? What exactly is your definition of bullying? I am not sure when you where born but I went to high school in the 80's I saw kids get mercilessly picked on daily by the "cooler" kids. I got called names and picked on. Guess what? No one offed themselves because of it. A couple kids did kill themselves that I knew growing up. It was due to failed relationships and their inability to deal with them. My point? Bullying is a total crock and you know it. It is a nice tidy excuse for someone making a rash, poorly thought out choice. It is not my fault, those people are so mean!! Bullying is one of the first steps in making some forms of speech criminal. It is just another form of "hate speech". I am supposed to believe that the name calling today is somehow worse and more heinous than it was back then? Give me a break! Making speech criminal had to start somewhere. Lets look at all these kids making horrible decisions that harm lots of people and blaming it on other people calling them names. Throw in a few gay kids and we have a crisis on our hands. Perfect opportunity to justify legislation making name calling criminal. Problem is these laws only apply to select groups needing special protections. It's easy to be smug when you see yourself on the "winning" side. How will you feel when these laws are reinterpreted to make your opinions criminal?

reply to post by halfoldman


This is precious! Let me go point by point:

1. You are comparing a check box that someone hits on Facebook to denote "gay" or "straight" with the social spectacle that is the modern day "coming out"? With all the announcements, parties, back-slapping, etc.? I'm glad you brought up Ellen. Wasn't to hard to see which way she swung. What does she do? Make a big deal out of announcing she is gay so everyone can let her know how great that is. It was big news for days! George Clooney obviously likes women. If he were doing an interview and stated he was a straight man, it would be a complete joke. Good for you, buddy! I know that is hard to see from your viewpoint but that's the reality.

2. Wouldn't the opposition of "Straightness" be "Crookedness"?

3. This is classic. If you want us to go away, just quit talking about us. Give us what we demand (no opposing viewpoints) and then we will go away. Ever heard of the bait and switch? That is hilarious!! And then you end your reply be stating "we shall not go quietly into the night ever again" ??????

4. So the the only reason for the Pride celebrations and parties and protests and political pressure on dissent is because the evil religious cult leaders made you do it? Come on, man!

5. This sounds like a convoluted attempt to show that all religion would be completely irrelevant if it weren't for homosexuality. Wow, just....wow! So the faith, spirituality, redemption, salvation, and grace of God are completely beside the point. The only reason religion exists today is to oppose homosexuality? Really? I know one of the goals is to displace God since he does not approve but according to your argument that has already been accomplished. There are probably about 100 million people in this country that would disagree with you, respectfully of course.

6. You have a pretty distorted sense of the visual appeal of gay sex. Whether you like to here it or not most people are repulsed. And don't give me that crap about guys loving lesbians. They like women and 2 women is twice the fun in their eyes. The problem is the gay lifestyle is so over glamorized that young people want to be involved. The argument is made that the gay lifestyle needs to have equal play with the straight nuclear family. The portrayal is that most people are heterosexual(boring!!). The cool people are gay, don't you want to be cool? Try watching the hugely, critically acclaimed hit "Brokeback Mountain" again. Heath Ledger's character is in a straight marriage with two children. It is portrayed as miserable, dis-functional, dark, and unbearable. The kids are disrespectful and bratty, and the wife is bitchy and controlling. The two cowboys humping in the mountains is portrayed as beautiful, spontaneous, natural, and loving. Of course they had to throw a "hate killing" by intolerant heathens in for good measure. What a one-sided, propagandist piece of crap that was. No shocker that it was nominated for multiple Academy Awards. If you were an impressionable young person what would be more appealing to you?

7. I am glad you brought up the "natural-unnatural" argument for me. I didn't want to go there but thanks for the invitation. How do you define "natural"? Animals (including humans) were created to be compatible so they can reproduce and propagate the species. That is the natural order of things. No reproduction, species dies. According to your views, reproduction and the sexual act that causes it are "unnatural". Therefore by your reasoning, artificial insemination and cloning are the only "natural" means of reproduction. The only argument I have ever heard to support the fact that homosexuality is "natural" is the fact that other species in "nature" display homosexual tendencies. Homosexuality is a form sexual deviancy, and was defined as such until the 70's when political pressure forced a new definition. Homosexuality in nature does not prove that it is "natural", only that other species are capable of sexual deviancy.

8. I agree with you here. PDA's make me want to look away not matter who it is. No argument there. Some people are just a little to graphic and exuberant for my taste.

9. I never called anyone a "bigot". I don't call people names. I think that reflects more on the name-caller than the name-callee. Remember, me calling you names is now criminal and I will not stoop to your level. I will take it and politely refuse to dish it out. I understand that stereotyping and name calling is a huge part of your defense so by all means carry on. Just please do not accuse me of that. Bashing someone and calling someone a "bigot" are 2 very different things. "Bigot" is your term and I think it is used way to freely.

10. The victim is always in self-defense mode aren't they? Even when they are attacking.

Originally posted by scully222
reply to post by halfoldman

 

This is precious! Let me go point by point:

1. You are comparing a check box that someone hits on Facebook to denote "gay" or "straight" with the social spectacle that is the modern day "coming out"? With all the announcements, parties, back-slapping, etc.? I'm glad you brought up Ellen. Wasn't to hard to see which way she swung. What does she do? Make a big deal out of announcing she is gay so everyone can let her know how great that is. It was big news for days! George Clooney obviously likes women. If he were doing an interview and stated he was a straight man, it would be a complete joke. Good for you, buddy! I know that is hard to see from your viewpoint but that's the reality.

2. Wouldn't the opposition of "Straightness" be "Crookedness"?

3. This is classic. If you want us to go away, just quit talking about us. Give us what we demand (no opposing viewpoints) and then we will go away. Ever heard of the bait and switch? That is hilarious!! And then you end your reply be stating "we shall not go quietly into the night ever again" ??????

4. So the the only reason for the Pride celebrations and parties and protests and political pressure on dissent is because the evil religious cult leaders made you do it? Come on, man!

5. This sounds like a convoluted attempt to show that all religion would be completely irrelevant if it weren't for homosexuality. Wow, just....wow! So the faith, spirituality, redemption, salvation, and grace of God are completely beside the point. The only reason religion exists today is to oppose homosexuality? Really? I know one of the goals is to displace God since he does not approve but according to your argument that has already been accomplished. There are probably about 100 million people in this country that would disagree with you, respectfully of course.

6. You have a pretty distorted sense of the visual appeal of gay sex. Whether you like to here it or not most people are repulsed. And don't give me that crap about guys loving lesbians. They like women and 2 women is twice the fun in their eyes. The problem is the gay lifestyle is so over glamorized that young people want to be involved. The argument is made that the gay lifestyle needs to have equal play with the straight nuclear family. The portrayal is that most people are heterosexual(boring!!). The cool people are gay, don't you want to be cool? Try watching the hugely, critically acclaimed hit "Brokeback Mountain" again. Heath Ledger's character is in a straight marriage with two children. It is portrayed as miserable, dis-functional, dark, and unbearable. The kids are disrespectful and bratty, and the wife is bitchy and controlling. The two cowboys humping in the mountains is portrayed as beautiful, spontaneous, natural, and loving. Of course they had to throw a "hate killing" by intolerant heathens in for good measure. What a one-sided, propagandist piece of crap that was. No shocker that it was nominated for multiple Academy Awards. If you were an impressionable young person what would be more appealing to you?

7. I am glad you brought up the "natural-unnatural" argument for me. I didn't want to go there but thanks for the invitation. How do you define "natural"? Animals (including humans) were created to be compatible so they can reproduce and propagate the species. That is the natural order of things. No reproduction, species dies. According to your views, reproduction and the sexual act that causes it are "unnatural". Therefore by your reasoning, artificial insemination and cloning are the only "natural" means of reproduction. The only argument I have ever heard to support the fact that homosexuality is "natural" is the fact that other species in "nature" display homosexual tendencies. Homosexuality is a form sexual deviancy, and was defined as such until the 70's when political pressure forced a new definition. Homosexuality in nature does not prove that it is "natural", only that other species are capable of sexual deviancy.

8. I agree with you here. PDA's make me want to look away not matter who it is. No argument there. Some people are just a little to graphic and exuberant for my taste.

9. I never called anyone a "bigot". I don't call people names. I think that reflects more on the name-caller than the name-callee. Remember, me calling you names is now criminal and I will not stoop to your level. I will take it and politely refuse to dish it out. I understand that stereotyping and name calling is a huge part of your defense so by all means carry on. Just please do not accuse me of that. Bashing someone and calling someone a "bigot" are 2 very different things. "Bigot" is your term and I think it is used way to freely.

10. The victim is always in self-defense mode aren't they? Even when they are attacking.

1. So as you now admit, social networking does have options for indicating sexual orientation.
If you're a male and indicate that you "like" women you have come out as heterosexual.
Whether coming out as gay or bisexual is a huge issue depends on the friends or milieu that you choose.
But yes, stars like Clooney do sometimes make a point of being straight (or having innocent "man-crushes" on co-actors). But on social networking people do indicate their orientation, and I see no differences between asserting a gay or straight identity (at least not with my friends).
Perhaps because I came out a very long time ago the issue is irrelevant to myself. However, I don't want to be misread as straight, because that is also seen as dishonest, and can hurt women who feel an attraction, or even your male buddies. I regard "coming out" as doing everyone a favor. I hurt a woman once when I was in the closet because I lived dishonestly, and I will never do that again. Coming out is an act of love.
Not only that, but straight society will literally shove you out of the closet if you don't do it yourself.

2. The opposite of straight is crooked? OK, if you want to play word games: The opposite of gay is sad and miserable.

3. No, if religion really believes homosexuality is a sin then it shouldn't capitalize on that sin, because making money from sin is also a sin. They should stop lying to the gods who exist only in their heads (while confusing their own homophobic super-ego with God), and stop thinking for their God, because that is blasphemy. And no, we won't go without a struggle. When you attack somebody like Ellen simply for being gay that is bigotry.You can't start crap and then try and turn it around. She didn't attack anybody. Who will be next on the "sin-list"? It's in any case just gangster-style intimidation against other stars who might consider being honest and coming out. Fundamentalist groups actively want to stop gay people from having jobs and making a living - those are Nazi tactics.
A society that cannot protect its weakest members and visible minorities is a society heading towards totalitarianism, theocracy or fascism.

4.Gay pride follows older traditions of carnival, which allowed the terror of religion to be lifted for a while, usually before or after a fast. Religion does not form the sole basis of such celebrations, however a lot of theoretical work certainly does. I think a better point would be to address sexual deviancy in general at certain parades and festivals.
The larger unbalanced Christian focus on homosexuality is a concern to myself too, and yes, it comes at the expense of showing the beauty of Christianity. That's really something to take up with Christian cult-leaders, since we are not responsible for how Christianity chooses to represent itself. I'm sure it must be very hurtful to people who consider themselves both Christian and gay, and their families.

5-6. I cannot speak shortly on the complexity of film. Perhaps we could have threads on specific movies, because the film you mention was controversial, even in gay circles. I certainly don't think "Brokeback Mountain" depicted being gay/bisexual as "cool". Did "Raging Bull" depict heterosexual male violence as acceptable, or did "Kramer vs. Kramer" depict divorce as cool? I guess if you only want to see badness as "homosexuality" I can further understand your already stated paradigm.
I know many of my friends watched Brokeback Mountain, and not one person became gay because of it.
In fact, to me it's got some tragic pathos, but ultimately it's one of the most depressing stories ever, and the short-story underlying the tedious film was not even written by a gay man. I don't know why this film riled the heterosexualists so much, because it showed a very dysfunctional aspect of (bisexual) masculinity in all definitions, and the best thing about it was the soundtrack.

7. That is not my view, but the purported view of fundamentalism. This view makes heterosexuality out as being constantly threatened by the mere fact of gay existence, or queer visibility.
In that collection of evil, misogynistic, money-grabbing dooms-day cults, gays can be "healed" by lengthy therapies or prayers. Unfortunately, they must admit that mostly it doesn't work for long.
Yet they claim kids can suddenly turn gay just by hearing of the topic.
So they are once again lying and misrepresenting any scientific research and truth.
They actually suggest that heterosexuality is very weak, and can be subverted in an instant.
This does make homosexuality seem to be more natural and God-ordained.
But since I've always suspected that religion was invented by misogynistic, sociopathic repressed male thugs, I guess that makes sense.
As far as I'm concerned a minority will be gay, and a majority will be straight.
Both can procreate or choose not to, and there are many other instances where straight people remain celibate due to religion, or they cannot divorce an infertile wife or husband.
There is nothing unnatural about either homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Yes, for a long time homosexuals were regarded as deviant, and neither making them judicial or medical subjects did society any favors.
Instead it gave rise to the modern gay movement as a reaction.
In the ancient world homosexuality was not seen as unnatural, so gays had a long period of history to fall back upon.
Many straight people were also suddenly no longer sexual deviants, and whatever therapies they tried (from lobotomies, to hormone treatments, to emetics and electrical shocks) it didn't work on gays.
It no longer worked on "hysterical women" either.
People wanted equality - and whatever the patriarchal Bronze Age goat-herders labelled it 2000 years ago - there was no stopping it.

Animals cannot be deviant - goodness gracious, listen to yourself!

Homosexuality in nature does not prove that it is "natural", only that other species are capable of sexual deviancy.

Maybe you should start a ministry for the deviant animals?
Do you honestly think that people will quietly be subservient to people who espouse such sentences?
Deviant women, deviant gays, even deviant animals - all that to protect a small group of deluded patriarchs, with not an inch of scientific or material proof on their wild theories.
And that absolute nonsense represents 100 million people (which I doubt in any case)? What a pity.
One can see the countries where religious dogma rules today - poor, misogynistic, over-populated, homophobic, high crime rates (especially rape and murder), high STD/disease infections, despotic ... oh what a shame on humanity to allow such dated crap to still rule our lives.

9. I was referring to how gays are called "bigots" for defending themselves, and you've indirectly repeated that accusation. However I must point out that it was not your specific terminology, and neither did I accuse anyone specifically of being a bigot.
It's just very surprising that when innocuous people like Ellen are attacked simply for being gay and having a job, then gays are called "bigots" for defending their rights.

How do you think it feels for gay people?
And it surprises me, because Christians are oppressed in some countries, so they should know.
Another worrying trend that has been with us in SA for a while, is that gay women are increasingly attacked.
Such public statements don't condone violence and rape, but some bigots see it as an implicit license to police women and their behavior.
It is playing with fire.
But some cults have always played with fire.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by PurpleSun

 

"i pray to a God but I don't know his name"

God's name is Jesus.
Do you really think that for millions of years, people never said anything that sounds like what we call today, a J ?

edit on 3-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Wrong!!! God's name is NOT Jesus and if you think that you REALLY don't know your bible at all and show your ignorance. God's name is the most precious tetragrammaton:" יהוה " which closely translates to (YHWH) which Christians pronounce as Yaweh.

The son of the Messiah's name is Yeshua. Never once did he hear the name "Jesus". Not only that, "Jesus" is not a Hebrew name which according to Old Testament Law the Savior must have had as a Jew. Geeze people, you really are brainwashed and do not know facts, do you?

Originally posted by Amadeo

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by PurpleSun

 

"i pray to a God but I don't know his name"

God's name is Jesus.
Do you really think that for millions of years, people never said anything that sounds like what we call today, a J ?

edit on 3-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

So why wasn't Jesus just called Yahweh when he was born if he's actually "God"? Why give him a different name? I mean, the bible is confusing enough, what with all the huge contradictions already in there. Are you sure you're not just confusing Jesus on Earth with God in Heaven? I know they're supposedly one and the same (along with the holy spirit of course) but if Jesus is God, then why didn't he just say 'me' or 'I' when referring to God, instead of referring to himself as a separate entity altogether? Didn't he know? And if he didn't know, why didn't he just perform another miracle and save all that crucifixion hassle when he DID find out? That would have saved him a whole lot of grief in the long run.

Or did you just pull that out of your sphincter?

It's part of the trinity...a basic concept in Christianity. My sphincter was not involved but thanks for asking.