Forty-two Christian groups have threatened Ford with a boycott, if they don’t immediately stop supporting homosexual groups. This includes future incentives that give cash to homosexual organizations based on the purchase of a vehicle and vehicle donations or endorsements to homosexual social activities. The group insists that Ford also pull its ads from gay websites and magazines. This battle has been going on since last spring with the Christians showing no signs of relenting.
This is just another fine example of hypocrisy amongst today’s Christians. For many years, Christians have complained about persecution from various groups, countries, and religions. They have positioned themselves as a target in this country, even though they are the vast majority and have the full support of the Whitehouse. How on Earth can a group who have been persecuted in the past, take the same vengeance against a harmless group of individuals?
The group claims that homosexuals are degrading the American family. That’s amusing when you consider heterosexual marriage is a joke at best in this country. Just look at these statistics and these too. The American heterosexual family is troubled and I can’t see any reason why homosexuals would do any worse.
Now, I would really like some Christians to chime in on this one. I want to know why Christians don’t accept homosexuals and why they see them as immoral. And don’t think you can hide behind the bible on this one. If homosexuality was deemed such a sin, it would have been a commandment. Oh, and anal sex won’t fly as an argument either because there are many straight men who go that route with their girlfriend/wife. I really want you to think for yourself and give some concrete reasons. Any posts that are rife with blatant hatred will be removed.
Related posts:
- Christian Hypocrites Declare War On Common Sense
- Freaks, Fords, And The Gay Rodeo
- Homosexual Equality: Hate Hetrosexuals Just as Much.
- Atheists Under Attack On CNN
- Attack Of The Christian Vegetables!
January 13th, 2006 at 10:19 am
It is a commandment. Just because it’s not on the “top ten list” doesn’t mean it isn’t applicable.
I won’t discuss the non-Biblical issues. James Dobson does a much better job of that than I do.
January 13th, 2006 at 11:18 am
Where is the commandment listed? Is it on the Director’s Cut?
But like I said, don’t hide behind the bible on this one. I want people/Christians to actually think for themselves.
January 13th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Can they? Maybe their heads would explode? Im just kidding. I too would like to hear why this is wrong without someone quoting the bible. The bible and other religious texts have been used in the past to condone behavoir we wouldn’t even consider acceptable today.
January 13th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Frankly, I’m embarassed that I consider myself a Christ-follower when these types of groups open their mouths. It is true that one of the laws God gave to Moses (don’t recall the chapter/verse, but it’s in Leviticus) was that a man shall not lie with a man as he would with a woman, and vice versa. This is most significant if you consider that Leviticus/Numbers/Duteronomy are largely about showing us what God is like. In other words, homosexuality is not part of his nature (now, that is a complex statement that I could see hours of discussion over coffee/beer about).
However, and it’s a big however, Jesus clearly stated that he came to replace the law (which is Leviticus/Numbers/Duteronomy). He was God, so we didn’t need the law to show us what God was like - we could just look at Jesus. So we are no longer under a command to stone/expel/persecute/whatever homosexuals.
That said, I still think that a follower of Christ would recognize that if he/she was homosexual, that would not be compatible with growing to be like Christ (which is most of what being a Christ follower is supposed to be about). Therefore, they would wrestle with those desires/tendencies/whatever you call them. This is no different that a heterosexual man or woman having desires for an affair with someone - we sometimes want to do these things, but if we’re growing to be like Christ, it’s more important to us not to do those things, even though we want to.
God loves homosexuals. He loves every person. The Bible is a story of his desire to be in relationship with us, while we want to do things our own way and not need him. I wish more Christians would get it.
January 13th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
I understand the desire to model one’s self after Christ, but if the serious endpoint of all Christianity is to grow to be exactly like Christ, right down to the sexual orientation, then all female Christians should go ahead and get sex-change operations and men should grow whatever beard they feel Christ had.
Slippery slope indeed.
January 13th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Without the bible to hide behind, any “concrete reasons” you receive will read just as they are: bigotry.
January 13th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Bigotry indeed Tom. That’s why I find stories like this and the current drive to ban gay marriages repulsive and unjust. Christians claim marriage is a religious thing, yet many unreligious people like myself get married.
Marriage is a ‘legal’ union that may or may not occur in a ‘house of god’. It should apply to anyone and everyone.
January 13th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
I’d just like to point out that I (the fourth commenter) did not write comment six.
I will agree with the second Tom that there is no argument except for a Biblical (or whatever holy writings you like) one that can oppose homosexuality that is not bigotry. Also that many who use Biblical arguments are truly being bigots anyway.
To Devin: the point of Christianity is not to become exactly like Christ - that is, by the defenition of who Christ is, impossible. However, I think it is a reasonable statement to claim that God’s/Christ’s nature is a particular way, based on what we have in the Bible. If you take the writings of Moses that would seem to indicate that God is not male, not female, but something that goes beyond both of those genders. It would also seem to indicate that whatever a homosexual nature is, it is not part of God’s nature. It’s not becoming a copy of Christ - it’s growing to have the same nature. I don’t know if I really understand what that means, so I’m afraid I can’t be much clearer - sorry.
On gay marraige, I also have trouble seeing any reason that one could ban them based on Constitutional law, which is what our country follows. I am not a historical scholar, so I may be totally wrong, but it does seem that the concept of marraige is a religious one (from God himself, if you believe the bible. I can see a difficulty for many churches in performing gay marraige, as that does go against biblical teaching, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that there shouldn’t be such a thing. It seems that we could separate the religious and civil parts of marraige quite conviently - a marraige is a civil arrangment handled by a judge, while the church can still do its thing for those who do belive that God is the central part of marraige (like you go to the church after seeing the judge). In practice this takes a few more steps, but it doesn’t seem like it would really be all that different than how most people probably look at marraige today anyway.
January 13th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Nya, exactly like it is for us here in Quebec, if you are adherent to a faith and meets the requirements, you can marry in this religion. If you do not, wish not or can not, there is always civil marriage, that is, with a legal celebrant and two withnesses.
I should say tho that our country (and particularily the Quebec) is really moderate on religion and quite high on tolerance and well, indiference.
January 16th, 2006 at 10:29 am
The fact is is homosexuality is a sin. It also a sin if I cheat on my wife. It’s also a sin if I cheat on my taxes. In Christ’s, eyes a sin is a sin is a sin.
The problem with the bad press that most Christians get is that they focus on those “Christians” that have all righteousness but no love. Righteousness without love is nothing but empty religion and there are several places in the Bible where Jesus speaks against empty religion (i.e. the Pharisees). Those protesters you speak of are the modern-day Pharisees that Jesus despised.
Personally, it is my belief that the “religious” Christians latch onto the gay thing so much is that, aside from validating thier political alignment, it is a sin that many of us do not struggle with. It makes those that do struggle with homosexuality an easier target. Why don’t they target adultery or greed with equal fervor? Because they know that they, along with many of us, secretly deal with those sins daily. If we’re pointing the finger at others they nobody’s looking at me, right? Besides, I never actually acted on those thoughts about my babysitter so I’m not even in the same league as those that openly practice that abomonation of nature, right? I know I took a few hundred dollars on my taxes I shouldn’t have but my work against the homosexual community somehow cancels that out, right?
Somtimes, I wish people would give press to the positive things that Christians do. For instance, my church alone has given $820,000 to the Sudan in the last 2 years. The church is located in a town whose population is around 6,000. The Sudanese we are helping have recently reaped last year’s crop which fed 26,000 people. This year we are moving into child protection from the genocide there. Guess what? Many of the Sudanese we are helping are Muslim but that is irrelevant. I also know for a fact that some of that money from our church came from homosexuals and people that struggle with homosexuality and that too is irrelevant. Gay, Muslim, Christian, athiest…we are all God’s children and we as Christians welcome and encourage all to be an example and servant of Christ here on earth.
Jesus did *not* hang out with the religious establishment. Jesus’ friends and disciples were whores, losers, corrupt tax collectors, murderers, and pagans. He changed them and they changed the world. Don’t be fooled by the modern-day Pharisees you see in the news. There is authenticity in Jesus Christ if you look for it. There are *authentic* followers of Christ changing the world right under your nose. They just don’t get the press. And that’s okay because we’re not looking for recognition (at least not here on earth). We’re looking to love others as Christ did and live out our lives as Christ taught us. Not as Pat Robertson taught us. Not as the Republican party has taught us.
I’m rambling but I guess my point is that you’re looking in the wrong place if you want to see evidence of Christ’s followers and love in the world. You’re right - those people that hold signs up saying, “God kills fags dead” suck and, trust me, Jesus will have nothing to do with them when the time comes.
January 16th, 2006 at 11:08 am
> If homosexuality was deemed such a sin, it would have been a commandment.
Just FYI - Old Testament Quotations:
–
Leviticus 20:8 “And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.”
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
–
So, according to Mosaic Law, homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. Looks like a commandment to me.
Now, whether or not Mosaic Laws apply at all to believing Christians, or to what extent, is another matter entirely. Most believers, in practice, pick and choose these things (pork = good; homo = bad). Paul’s teachings had a lot to do with this as well (as circumcision was a major barrier to conversions).
January 16th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Well according to Leviticus 11:9,10 seafood is an abomination aswell. Looks like eating lobster and shrimp is akin to being homosexual as far as the bible is concerned.
“These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you”.
January 16th, 2006 at 11:39 am
gasmonso, I really appreciate the interesting topics you bring up, i don’t come to your sight often ( just when I am reminded from reading one of your /. posts ).
First, the Bible. Without the Bible, I would just be giving you an opinion. The Christian faith holds that the Bible is the word of God and that is the authority on which to say something is right or wrong, not our own opinions.
In parts of the old testament the nation and people of Isreal were under some ‘theocratic’ laws including the dietary laws that need not to apply to the Christian, but the principles still do.
Sexual sins including this one are still condemed in the new teastament.
In the end being a homosexual is not what God is concerened about, it is the soul. Homosexuality is wrong ,(based on what the workd of God teaches ). I am at work, will try to get you some new testament references later if you desire them.
January 16th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
I’m totally fine with Christians feeling homosexuality is a sin. My problem is when they do things like this and try and force others to align with that belief. I don’t understand why they can’t just keep to themselves on these matters and realize that not everyone has the same beliefs. Also, if marriage is a religious thing (which I think it is), then wouldn’t banning gay marriage be unconstitutional? People need to read the ammendments more.
Tom (of #s 4 and 8) makes a nice point about creating some distinction. I think that marriage should be 100% religious, with no mention of it in law, no requirements (license, whatever), no restrictions, but also no benefits legally. Marriage would be according to your religion. Civil unions could be used for the legal stuff, and these would be without regard to who the people actually are.
I saw a bumper sticker the other day: “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ.” - Gandhi
Unfortunately in many cases this is all too true (though Chris is very much correct that it’s the ones who are true followers that never get press, no doubt due to today’s sensationalist media).
January 16th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Just to follow up on my previous post,
1 Corinthians 6:9 ( this is a new testament book penned by Paul )
A link to this passage from an online Bible for your convience :
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206%20:9;&version=49;
Again, this is a sin, all sin leads to spiritual death, that is the death of ones soul. The Bible also states that all have sinned, this includes all Christians.
Redemption of our soul is not found in doing any good deed but in the work of Jesus who offers redemption to all, including homosexuals.
January 16th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
To boycot Ford for supporting the gay and lesbian movement shows how icredibly obsessed these religious groups are with what they regards as sin. I agree with the article that those who claim to suffer from religious prosecution are in many cases the prosecutors themselves. I regard the current religious fundamentalism in the US as an obstacle to progress and one of the greatest dangers to society and world piece.
January 16th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
This couldn’t say it any better.
January 17th, 2006 at 12:22 am
Muslims says you can’t eat pork otherwise you go to hell. Jewish says a jew can’t marry a non-jew. Christians says a man should not go with a man. What kind of self-suffiency must anyone of them have to think they are better than anyone else. Bible, Torah, Qur’an, whatever, are just a pile of good conduct laws. In the old days, pork was always carrying a lot of disease so you shouldn’t eat it. A man should not get with a man because that won’t extend humanity….
In my country, Gay people can have a legal marriage. Whether a priest will give them benediction is regarding the priest.
Whether they’ll be happy is regarding them. I won’t judge them.
I personally don’t care about my “spiritual death”. The Father/God/anyone should always forgive. If he follows what’s written in the bible…
January 17th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Wow JM, I guess you don’t quite get forgiveness. You have to ASK for forgiveness to get it. It’s not given away. If you don’t care, then you’re not going to ask, then you will never receive it.
January 17th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
> You have to ASK for forgiveness to get it.
Assuming that the entity from which one asks forgiveness exists as portrayed in that specific holy book. And this is an assumption, barring demonstrable evidence.
Suppose if I, being honestly remorseful for past mistakes and shortcomings, were to ask Krishna for forgiveness, or Vishnu, or Thor, or Ahura Mazda, or Baal, or Hercules, or Zeus, or Mithras, or who have you, I would be screwed, because I did not ask the correct entity for forgiveness.
Whether or not I put my faith in the correct supernatural entity is a matter of luck, depending on my credulity, and the time and culture into which I am born. My friends born in India to Hindu parents and culture are screwed I suppose. Sucks to be them.
I pity the poor Hindus who ask Vishnu for forgiveness and purification, but end up in Hell anyway.
Or maybe Christians will be shocked to find themselves in Hindu hell (endless reincarnation). That would suck too. Or in Egyptian Hell (fed to a giant Crocodile to be digested for 1000 years). There are lots of good Christian friends that I would hate to see that happen to.
So, pick a holy book, and a doctrine that goes with it, and follow it by faith. Since no holy book provides more evidence to its veracity than any other, hope you picked the right one. It’s a crapshoot.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0016/0016_01.asp
> I personally don’t care about my “spiritual deathâ€. The Father/God/anyone
> should always forgive. If he follows what’s written in the bible…
Perhaps you should read the Bible. God is not always portrayed as huggy-bunches-of-love. The best heroes of the Old Testament who did God’s bidding were the best killers. Only by the time the New Testament rolls around does God become sentimental and forgiving, and stop sending people on Holy Errands of Death (at least until Constantine, that is).
Forgiveness through grace is a New Testament doctrine (provided you suspend reason and just believe, so said forgiveness is in no way “Free”). The Old Jewish God demanded works and sacrifice, just like the neighboring “pagan” gods - fail to provide these, and He would just ignore you, or kill you and be done with it.
It amazes me that the Old and New Testaments have been glued together into a single “book”. The old Christian Thomasines (gnostics) made more sense to me - just reject the old doctrine entirely as false and move on.
January 17th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
This is not hypocrisy. Christians are not against judging others and speaking what they believe to be truth. They ARE against governmental persecution to the tune of jailing, torturing, or revoking one’s constitutional rights because of what they believe. Christians are against denying the right of free speech based on any religious or personal beliefs (such as hate crimes legislation). But this does not mean they are against people speaking what the believe and having the right to boycott companies who support things in which they don’t believe. Most Christians would not ask the government to step in and silence or arrest a gay activist chanting in the streets (legally).. this would violate the first ammendment. Instead they would oppose such activists in other legal ways such as boycotts. Note that this does not apply to gay marriage legislation since this was never considered a “right” to begin with. Christians fighting to protect the traditional understanding of marriage is not taking rights away from people (those rights were never constitutionally there in the first place).
January 17th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
EDIT from above post: I meant to say “hate speech legislation”. Hate crimes, of course, should be punished. But hate speech, which once fell under free speech, might one day be revoked as a right.. and who gets to determine what sort of speech is “hateful”?
January 17th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
I don’t know whether I agree with boycotting Ford or not. I do think it’s clear that the Bible - Old Testament or New - forbids homosexual behavior. Things like dietary requirements change after Christ comes; Peter was given a vision in which God showed him all the creatures of the earth and told him to eat. Early Christians took this vision in its situational context to mean that pork and such were no longer forbidden, but more importantly, that Gentiles, who already ate these things, could also become Christians.
On the other hand, you will never in all of the Bible find an example of a homosexual relationship that was accepted by Jews or Christians. Even if you discount the laws on stoning and the destruction of Sodom (did God ever destroy a fishing village for their flagrant wickedness?), the total omission of one of two types of sexual attraction is pretty glaring.
Should Christians boycott companies for policies they don’t like? I don’t know, but I doubt you’d be as upset if another group did it. For example, if Muslims boycotted Wal-mart for selling pork, or if vegans boycotted Pfizer for testing on animals, you wouldn’t think twice. Groups with strong beliefs naturally want to influence society, and a boycott can be a powerful tool.
You can see this as judgemental, or you can see it as a group of people trying to reshape social norms in a way that they truly believe will help everyone. It depends on how YOU are biased.
January 17th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
“I do think it’s clear that the Bible - Old Testament or New - forbids homosexual behavior.”
Going by the old testament, you’re probably going to hell. I mean, you have a bathroom in your house, right?
The only reference to homosexuality in the New Testament that I’ve came across was by Paul.
Paul was not a contemporary of Jesus. Futhermore, I don’t think he ever actually quoted Jesus. Even more than that, he contradicted Jesus on the matter of divorce. Because of these things, many Christians don’t give Paul much credence.
An exception to this are fundamentalists, who have told me that I have to accept all of the Bible or none of it. I wonder how their heads don’t explode at the contradictions in it…
As for Homosexuality in the Bible, read a few different translations in 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel about Davids relationship with Jonathan. You’ll find Jonathan stopping off naked and giving his clothing to David.
You will also find implications that Saul felt that Jonathan and David were in a sexual relationship. You will also find them kissing each other and it is implied in some translations that David found this sexually arousing.
Even if you choose not to go with these interpretations and thoughts, doesn’t the Bible also say ‘Judge not lest ye be judged’?
I don’t see a whole lot of that in Fundamentalist ‘Christianity’. These people are condemned to hell by their own beliefs, given how regularly they go against commandments written in the Bible, especially considering the fact that they don’t consider their behaviour sinning and therefore aren’t likely to ask forgiveness for it.
January 17th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
I seem to remember a couple things from my days in school.
1. God wants us to be saved, but we have to choose, so if I don’t want to be saved, I don’t have to be. I would prefer to be left alone.
2. Government is a secular organization. Meaning not influenced by religion. This means that it’s not the government’s job to dictate marriage based on gender.
3. Unless you can site a case. I’m pretty sure there hasn’t been any conclusive research done showing that a homosexual family cannot raise a child properly.
I think that you are all afraid that Gays will somehow infect our youth and children. In fact much the opposite. If a gay family were to raise a child, they would bring them up with the idea that the child could do whatever they wanted, not make them gay. Because gay couples have been persecuted, I’m pretty sure they would be accepting of a straight son or daughter. I’m pretty sure their heart wouldn’t be broke if an adopted child didn’t turn out gay like them.
Too bad other groups don’t remember times when they were presecuted and leave the rest that don’t agree with them alone.
Seriously, gays don’t actively campaign to make more gay people, they just keep to themselves. I’ve never had a gay try to convert me. They respect the fact that I’m straight.
January 23rd, 2006 at 11:17 pm
I think I will be all this bias against gays in the old testament into perspective. If you follow those passages you have to follow all the rest right? Or this would make one a hypocrite correct? Or can one just pick and choose what part of the “Word of God” is truth?
Why Can’t I Own a Canadian?
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted fan,
Jim
January 30th, 2006 at 10:05 am
Well, Ryan pretty much beat me to the point I Was going to make to Dan (the fellow who posted the link to I Corinthians 6), but I’d just like to state it in a slightly less inflamatory manner. ;)
Dan, the entirety of the chapter you’re quoting is actually addressing people within the church who are absusing positions of power to render unfair judgements to/on their bretheren in the church. The single verse you quoted is in the middle of a longer statement, which ends:
“And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” I Corinthians 6:11
You claim the verse you cited is a condemnation of homosexuality. What the statement actually boils down to, when you read the whole section and not just a single line from a huge body of work, is “Yes, you’re rendering judgement on people who have committed crimes, but remember: You’re /ALL/ sinners, and I forgave you, so be nice to each other, for cryin’ out loud!”
I think this is why gasmonso didn’t want Bible quotes used. Just like sound bites in today’s media, they’re almost always taken out of context. An out of context quote is less than useless: it can be twisted and perverted to mean exactly what the person using it wants it to mean.
– Kintar (My real name is Alec, but I didn’t want to be confused with the previous Alec who posted. Ergo, my ‘net handle. )
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:33 pm
A few points:
1. Why should non-believers care what is in the Bible? If that’s how you want to behave, fine, but leave the rest of us out of it. Does it occur to you that many of us care nothing about what you think the Bible says? This is a secular nation. If you want to base your reality on the those ancient writings, go ahead, but that’s your problem.
2. Why do believers get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are valid in their face value and others are metaphor, anachronistic, or problems with translation? There are plenty of other silly proscriptions in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
3. Lastly, there are homosexuals out there- always have been, always will be. No one knows for sure what causes homosexuality, but it is not changeable. There is no documented harm to society from homosexuality, nor any conceivable harm that a reasonable and reasoning person can claim. Therefore a significant minority of citizens are gay and should be afforded the same diginity as everyone else. That does not mean calling us sinners, or not being worthy of being marketed to by an auto company. You know, you Christian types were not born that way. It is most assuredly a choice you made.
February 21st, 2006 at 9:23 am
Even if your not religious to the bible, it shouldn’t really matter anyway. But its against the Ammendments for it to be illegal for Gay Marriage, Isn’t it? So why do so many people have a problem with it? I think Homosexual marriages should be legalized for many different reasons. I can argue about this topic for hours…. But i’m not going to right now. I’ll simply say that I believe in it and that people shouldn’t have such a problem with dealing with any kind of love. people fall in love with who they want. Somepeople marry somone their mother or father didn’t want them to because they were in love, isn’t Gay Marriage close to that? If two guys want to get married or two girls want to get married I think they should be allowed. Its the pursuit of Happiness to anyway.
But if being homosexual is a sin to god… then why would he make people like that? Most homosexuals are born that way, even if they don’t know as children. So they are condemed to being a sinner in Gods eyes from the moment they are born? Thats just not right. I don’t think God thinks its a sin if he makes people that way. If he didn’t want them like that, he wouldn’t make them that way.
But maybe thats just my point of view, I tend to have an odd way of thinking compared to some people about this sort of thing.
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:25 am
Maku, nothing wrong with your point of view. You think as a child, in the best sense :-) Unless you become as little children :-)
God Bless
Loved the reading here. Esp the letter to Dr Laura :-) Hehehehe.
March 1st, 2006 at 7:03 pm
I just dont get the Anti-gay thing. I really dont. The fags are just gonna burn in hell anyways, so why stop em?
March 17th, 2006 at 11:17 am
Good point Murdocc. Live and let live, or die spiritually in the case of “Christians” towards gays.
Speaking of “Christians,” if you want to go back to pure sense of Christianity, why don’t all these Christians become pacifists? Wasn’t Jesus a pacifist? Lay down your arms, then wave the Bible around. Killing people around the world and then confessing in Church because you had an impure thought does not place you closer to Jesus. That’s like the Japanese apologizing to the US for “dumping†cars on the US market because they committed atrocities during WWII in so many Asian countries. Not that I am bashing the Japanese, they have mended their ways since the war. We on the other hand call ourselves a country founded on Christian values yet we are spending more on arms than ever before.
I think the religious right should rethink their priorities. The Ten Commandments specifically say you should not kill. Weather there is reference about two men or two women in the bible should be dealt with after we have stopped performing the basic sins.
June 8th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
It never ceases to amaze me how little ‘Christians’ know about science (even though all the makeup Tammy Fay Baker wears is developed with the benefit of science, along with all the weapons used in Iraq). There is a thing called GINETICS that determined that I am gay. I knew I was gay when I was very young. I have never had sexual desires for a woman. You might counter that there is no proof (yet) of the gentics theory (and I hope there never is). I was raised in the Christian Reformed Church and this church made the giant leap a few years back and recognized that people are born gay (i.e. GINETICS)although most people in that church still don’t know this. I was born gay just like many people are born Asian or Black or White. Ooops, I forgot, black people are cursed and are the descendants of Cane (you know, the guy who killed his brother in the book of Genesis). There is a small footnote to the Christian Reformed Churches ’stand’ on homosexuality. I am supposed to abstain from sex and not have a relationship (what ever that means) with another gay man. I have to ask, if I do this to make them feel good, and I let them all know I am gay but am a good abstainer, will they still invite me home after church for coffee? I doubt it baby!
September 6th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
>You might counter that there is no proof (yet) of the
>gentics theory (and I hope there never is).
You just contradicted yourself. First you were calling Christians idiots because they don’t know that science has determined that homosexuality is genetic. Then you turn around and admit that there is no proof (yet).
Based on genetics, I was born to commit adultery. Based on genetics I have to fight the urge to steal.
Homosexuals are just like adulterers and pedophiles. They can’t help themselves either but that doesn’t make it right.
I am a voter. I will vote to make the country follow God’s rules just as the founding fathers did. You don’t like that? Go to a communist country and make your own rules. This is a democracy and so far decency still has a foothold.
I vote for God’s laws because one of the oldest and most historically accurate books in the world has indicated that God has destroyed societies that accept anything other than sex between a man and wife.
Leaving religion out of it, it matters to me because homosexual activity causes diseases. AIDs, hepatitis, and other problems including diseases in the colon. I buy insurance. Therefore I pay for your acts.
I’m not a violent person. If you knew me you would know that I am a kind person. I treat all homosexuals with kindness. However, I will fight to prevent acceptance of homosexual behavior just as I will fight against adultery and pedophiles.
And please get off the “judge not” kick. You people always fail to remember the last words of Jesus to the woman: Go and sin no more! The woman was repentant for what she had done. You’re not.
September 6th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
“Leaving religion out of it, it matters to me because homosexual activity causes diseases. AIDs, hepatitis, and other problems including diseases in the colon. I buy insurance. Therefore I pay for your acts.”
Gay sex is not a cause of those diseases. It is a means of spreading them, just like missionary hetero-sex. Heart disease kills way more people than AIDS, but there’s nothing in the bible about a low cholesterol diet… in fact, it encourages eating meat. Just like all other christians, you choose to see only what you want. Don’t act like you really care about health more than human rights.
“Based on genetics, I was born to commit adultery. Based on genetics I have to fight the urge to steal.”
Based on genetics, you have the intelligence to tell you that stealing is wrong.
“I am a voter. I will vote to make the country follow God’s rules just as the founding fathers did. You don’t like that? Go to a communist country and make your own rules. This is a democracy and so far decency still has a foothold.”
The system is not the problem, it’s the idiots in the system we don’t like.
By the way, comparing gays to pedophiles isn’t fair at all. Gays aren’t hurting anyone. That’d be a lot like comparing christianity to a suicide cult.
September 7th, 2006 at 11:45 am
“Gay sex is not a cause of those diseases.”
Not correct. Look here:
http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf#search=%22diseases%20associated%20monogamous%20gay%20sex%22
Here’s part of what it says:
Anal sex is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men. Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accomodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an “exit-only” passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal sex leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.
The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mising of bodily fluids.
…
The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner to transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal sex is alarming:
Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis
Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown…..
——
So there you have it. Homosexual sex causes all kinds of diseases that the heterosexual community doesn’t. Therefore, you are costing me money. And don’t forget that I fight against any kind of sex other than monogamous man and wife sex.
It’s amazing how everthing God said not to do has some kind of physical or mental consequence.
“Based on genetics, you have the intelligence to tell you that stealing is wrong.”
Wrong. Kids would steal, kill, etc until they are taught that it is wrong. They still have to fight those urges and others when they get older. Self control is a sign of intelligence.
I understand that gay men predominately like sex with gay men. That’s unfortunate. I also understand that most gay men enjoy sex with women and many straight men get a thrill out of gay sex. It all boils down to self control. You have to fight the urge more than most men. However, most men have to fight the urge not to have sex with every woman they see.
Again, I’m a voter and I will vote to fight acceptance of any kind of sex other than monogamous man and wife sex. You can say whatever you want but that’s the way it is. And there are a lot of us “idiots”.
September 7th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Jim, I find your reasoning weak. If you’re so against anal sex because it’s dirty and fraught with disease, then would it be ok if they just wore condoms?
Also, you say that the anus wasn’t made for sex, well guess what my friend I don’t believe mouths were designed for sucking d*ck either, but many many straight couples do that. As a matter of fact, I know many many women who enjoy anal sex.
So how does that factor into your opinion?
Your trying to use logic and reasoning, albeit poorly, to justify your blind hatred of homosexuals. And your part about gay men enjoying sex with women. Hahaha! You obviously don’t know many gay people. And straight men get a rush out of sex with other men?!?!? Are you f*cking high? I’m starting to wonder if you have desires for other men and I’m being totally serious.
Gay men chose to be gay about much as straight ones chose to be straight. There is no choice. You’re either attracted to men or attracted to women. There are some who are bisexual, but that is very small.
Wake up Jim and be more accepting of God’s creatures, whether straight or gay.
gasmonso
September 7th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
“So there you have it. Homosexual sex causes all kinds of diseases that the heterosexual community doesn’t. Therefore, you are costing me money. And don’t forget that I fight against any kind of sex other than monogamous man and wife sex.”
Once again, you list diseases that can also be spread, albeit slightly less easily, by straight hetero-sex, and once again, if you want to eat nothing but steaks and eggs and give yourself a heart attack, your god doesn’t give a shit. I don’t eat like that, but I respect others right to eat like that if they wish. This isn’t about sanity or health… this is about human rights, something which you don’t seem to understand.
I’m a voter, and I’m not going to vote to outlaw churches, even though I feel that it would be a big help to America. Why? because I respect human rights. Some religions don’t allow their followers to accept modern medical treatments, and that sure isn’t healthy, but am I gonna vote to outlaw this? NO, it’s their right to refuse treatment.
“Wrong. Kids would steal, kill, etc until they are taught that it is wrong. They still have to fight those urges and others when they get older. Self control is a sign of intelligence.”
ok, you’re sending mixed messages. Just understand that everything we are is genetics. If you flip around some chromosomes, we’ll turn out way different. Obviously we have the capacity for self control and intelligence, which is genetic. People who don’t believe in god can control themselves just as well as you can, they just don’t need to believe in a fairy tale to give them purpose.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Hello Jim,
It is tough to list all the ways in which you are wrong. I’ll try to hit the highlights:
“So there you have it. Homosexual sex causes all kinds of diseases that the heterosexual community doesn’t.”
Wrong! A majority of anal sex in this country is practiced by heterosexuals. Thus listing the risks involved with anal penetration does nothing to link gays to diseases. I’d link statistics, but right now I’m at work. It’s not the best place to type ’sex statistics’ into Google. I trust that you can look it up yourself.
“It’s amazing how everthing (sic) God said not to do has some kind of physical or mental consequence.”
Wrong! First you’d have to show that God has said anything to us. Assuming that you are Christian, you are referring to the Bible, but saying that it is the word of God is opinion, not fact. Even if we change your statement to “It’s amazing how everything The Bible said not to do has some kind of physical or mental consequence,” you’d still be wrong! I’ll give just one instance of this. It is written in the Bible that eating pork is forbidden. Yet millions of people eat pork all the time and they suffer no “kind of physical or mental consequence.”
“Kids would steal, kill, etc until they are taught that it is wrong.”
This is, perhaps, the most incorrect thing in your entire post! Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! Listen to this program for just a small amount of the evidence against your base-less claim.
“Again, I’m a voter and I will vote to fight acceptance of any kind of sex other than monogamous man and wife sex.”
While I’m sure this isn’t factually wrong it is morally wrong. To purposely restrict the freedom of others when exercising that freedom causes no harm to anyone who willfully participates is authoritarian and anti-democratic. There are nations in the world for people like you, but freedom-loving America isn’t one of them.
September 8th, 2006 at 9:11 am
I don’t think anybody listened to what I said (I’m sure you don’t want to hear it but don’t reply without understanding what was written.)
- You didn’t listen to what I said about the Bible - in short it is one of the world’s oldest and most historically accurate books in the world. It has indicated that God destroyed cities. A major part of God’s anger seemed to be associated with sex outside of marriage - especially homosexual sex.
- You didn’t read the extracted abstract from the physician’s report. It listed lots of diseases (some somewhat preventable by condoms, some not) that is very problematic with gay sex. These diseases are almost unheard of in the heterosexual community. (Aside from that, based on my historical document that I reference, it is wrong for anyone to perform sodomy whether married or not.)
- You can’t understand why I want to force my religous beliefs on you. I’ve already explained that but:
1) Diseases such as AIDs would probably never exist if it wasn’t for gay sex.
2) It costs tons of money. You can argue all you want about how little it costs compared to heart research but the fact is that lots of people are needlessly dying from an easily preventable disease. And the cost of research is in the billions I’m sure. What else could be done with that money?
3) Based on my beliefs, I believe that if we Christians do not fight against this type of behavior, the creator of the universe might get pissed at us and wipe us out - just as he has in the past.
(Please don’t talk to me about how a loving God can do something like that. A God that understands how everything, including things smaller than quarks and larger than our universe, works probably thinks a little different than we do.)
Finally, for the last time, I don’t hate gays. I’ve explained to you why it is important to stop gay behavior, but I don’t hate gays.
Proverbs 17:5 – Those who mock the poor insult their Maker.
Substitute “poor” with “Gay” in the above verse and you can see why I don’t hate gays.
Jim
September 8th, 2006 at 9:18 am
One other thing from the physicians report I referred to:
(http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf#search=%22diseases%20as)
“Even though nearly 11 million people in America are directly affected by cancer, compared to slightly more than three-quarters of a million with AIDS, AIDS spending per patient is more than seven times that for cancer. The inequality for diabetes and heart disease is even more striking. Consequently, the disproportionate amount of money spent on AIDS detracts from research into cures for diseases that affect more people.”
September 8th, 2006 at 9:41 am
More Cleanup —
Gasmonso wrote:
“And your part about gay men enjoying sex with women. Hahaha! You obviously don’t know many gay people. And straight men get a rush out of sex with other men?!?!? Are you f*cking high? I’m starting to wonder if you have desires for other men and I’m being totally serious.”
Again, from the doctor’s presentation:
“Social approval of gay sex leads to an increase in such behavior. As early as 1993, Newsweek reported that the growing media presence and social acceptance of homosexual behavior was leading to teenager experimentation to the extent that it was “becoming chic.” A more recent report stated that “the ways gays and lesbians appear in the media may make some people more comfortable acting on homosexual impulses.”
Gasmonso wrote:
“Are you f*cking high?”
No, but the organ we are talking about produces a kind of high. So it’s easy for this idiot to understand how that the reports that say straight men occaisionally have gay sex.
By the way, Mr. brainiac, do you really think changing the “u” to an “*” hides the meaning of the word in the slightist?
September 8th, 2006 at 9:58 am
You didn’t listen to what I said about the Bible - in short it is one of the world’s oldest and most historically accurate books in the world.
Despite the number of historians and archaeologists that would debate that point. Certainly there are events that may have happened in the past recorded in the bible, but the same can be said for any holy text or myth from antiquity. Also note that the bible (every book is the absolute inspired word of god) contains conflicting geneologies, misconceptions on the structure of our planet and local cosmos, a reteling of the story of the Sumerian priest-king Ziusudra (your flood myth), and the fact that Herod’s reign ended in 4BC and the Cencus was not taken till 6AD (both of which overlap in the gospels despite the 10 year gap). For some reading by a man who researched this and his sources see:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/alex_matulich/why_i_believe/2_stones.html
It has indicated that God destroyed cities. A major part of God’s anger seemed to be associated with sex outside of marriage - especially homosexual sex.
God also seems to get very angry with such things as letting the handicapped come to church, eating meat from a sacrificed bull on the third day after, wearing shirts made of more than one fabric, eating shrimp, being around women on their time of the month, and rebelious children (all of which make a person defiled and are grounds for expulsion from his people, being cut off from god, or being stoned). All these are in leviticus, which I felt I should bring into this to preempt the inclusion of the Mosaic code as proof that people shouldn’t be gay.
aDiseases such as AIDs would probably never exist if it wasn’t for gay sex.
You once again have never stated how this CAUSED the disease, certainly it is a vector for its propogation but not an origin. I’m pretty sure that Imuno-retroviruses that spread via cellular-fluid vector would exist even if humans reproduced asexualy.
You can’t understand why I want to force my religous beliefs on you.
No, I used to be an evangilist, I know why you do it. You percieve that you’ve found the truth and that it is what saves people. Its like if you were in a car driving next to your friend in a different car. You see that there is a tree in the road but your friend doesn’t see it. You know that the only way is to hit the breaks, but your friend keeps driving. Why wouldn’t you call them and tell them that they see not the tree and must trust in the breaks to save them from death?
I also have my reasons for wanting you to question your own beliefs. You’ve seen a tree and slammed on the breaks but you didn’t see the big rig of the changing world behind you and you’re about to be flattened. I’ve driven on and found no tree in the road, but I see you about to be crushed because of your decision to stand still. Why wouldn’t I call you and tell you to gun the accelerator? The tenants of the organized form of christianity appear to me now as nothing more than a power grab by the few using divine threats of death for disobediance and social rules from a desert people from 2000 years ago.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:13 am
Also, the articles you keep linking to are comming from the Corperate Resource Council. This is a known pro-christian advocacy group. From their website:
CRC’s resources provide objective analysis of the value to corporations of family- and faith-friendly employee policies. The goal of all CRC resources and programs is to equip corporate executives to establish family- and faith-friendly employee policies based on sound legal, financial and other business principles.
Also to note the doctor who wrote the report, Dr. Diggs. Dr. Diggs has been a member of the National Advisory Council of the Family Research Council, the anti-gay political lobbying group that organized and sponsored the three “Justice Sunday†events (JS, JS II, JS III). Some of his beliefs have been posted on the FRC website (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PD02D3). He has testified against Massachusetts’ H. 1643 and S. 1319, “An Act to Provide Timely Access to Emergency Contraception,†and has argued against “tolerance†education. He is a member of the Physician Resource Council of Massachusetts, “the medical advisory arm†of the Massachusetts Family Institute that is “dedicated to strengthening the family and affirming the Judeo-Christian values upon which it is based.†Dr. Diggs is also listed with the Ambassador Speakers Bureau and Literacy Agency(http://drjohndiggsmd.ambassadoragency.com/client_profile.cfm/cid/1109?categories_id=3) whose “about us†begins with “Ambassador is the oldest and most established Christian-based talent agency in the United States.†This man is a biased person that bends results to his own goals instead of listing the un-fettered facts.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:22 am
This is beyond the scope of a comment thread. I think we need to post two opinions on this piece. One “anti-gay” and the other, well… “not anti-gay”
I would like Jim to take on the first role and Humanistic Jones to take the other one.
Are you guys up for the challenge? I will post these at pages with permanent links on main page in a new section I’m creating that deals with specific issues like homosexuality, stem cell research, etc.
Just let me know if you want in :)
gasmonso
September 8th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Hello again Jim,
Again, let me address the multitude of errors in your post:
“You didn’t listen to what I said about the Bible - in short it is one of the world’s oldest and most historically accurate books in the world.”
The age of a book has nothing to do with the accuracy of a book. Also, the Bible is clearly not historically accurate about all things. In the four gospels alone, there are a multitude of contradictions when detailing the life of Jesus. Here are just a few:
1. According to Matthew 2:1 and Luke 1:5, Jesus was born during the ‘days of Herod the king’, who died in 4 BCE. But according to Luke 2:1, his birth took place while Cyrenius was governor of Syria, a post which he took in 6 CE, 8 years after Herod’s death.
2. Matthew 2:14 has Jesus, Mary, and Joseph traveling to Egypt after Jesus’ birth. Luke 2:39 has them going back to Nazareth.
3. Matthew 3:7-11 has John the Baptist baptizing the Pharisees, Luke 7:29-30 says the Pharisees rejecting the offer of his baptism.
4. In Matthew 8:5-8, Capernaum asked Jesus directly to help his servant, in Luke 7:1-7 he sent ‘Elders of the Jews’ to ask Jesus to help his servant.
There are many more examples of these sorts of contradictions. Which of each of these contradictions is historically accurate? If Matthew is accurate, wouldn’t that make Luke historically inaccurate? And, thus the Bible must have historically inaccuracies. It cannot be trusted to accurately depict history.
Even if it were historically accurate, that fall far short of demonstrating that it is the word of God. There are many accurate history books that exist that I’m sure that you would conclude are not the word of God.
“Diseases such as Aids would probably never exist if it wasn’t for gay sex.”
Wrong! At least back up this claim with facts, reason, and/or evidence.
“It costs tons of money. You can argue all you want about how little it costs compared to heart research but the fact is that lots of people are needlessly dying from an easily preventable disease. And the cost of research is in the billions I’m sure. What else could be done with that money?”
According to these two sources, I calculate the average cost per tax payer to be less then $90. According to this CDC article, homosexuals only make up about 50% of those with Aids in the US. Thus you are complaining about less than $7.50 a month on average to pay for Aids research that would benefit homosexuals. Oh yeah, and a portion of Aids funding goes towards abstinence-only programs.
“Based on my beliefs, I believe that if we Christians do not fight against this type of behavior, the creator of the universe might get pissed at us and wipe us out - just as he has in the past.â€
According to your ‘historical’ document, Christians are not under the Old Testament laws and thus are not punished in the Old Testament way. Look up the following verses:
Luke 16:16
Romans 6:14
Romans 7:4, 6
Romans 10:4
Galatians 5:18
Ephesians 2:15
Colossians 2:14
…or are they???
Exodus 12:14, 17, 24
Leviticus 23:14,21,31
1 Chronicles 16:15.
Psalm 119:151-2
Psalm 119:160
Malachi 4:4
Matthew 5:18-19
Luke 16:17
Yet more contradictions!
September 8th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Sorry Gasmonso.
I’ve made my points. I’m tired. You’ve heard the plain facts. Choose to ignore/distort the medical and historical facts and just plain logic if you must. We’ll have to agree (or not) to disagree. I’ll continue to do my thing.
Mr. Humanist: What’s going to happen to you after you die? Perform the calculations that cause the consciousness that we have when we are alive. Seems infinitely impossible. Like an infinite God.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Jim,
Come on, we never have a person that will stay the course on this (there was another guy that Gasmonso offered to post an opinion page for that backed out on that offer). You obviously feel very strongly on this, and posting and rebuting this whole point in a comment thread just isn’t the best place to get a footing and hold your issues. Seriously, take the time, write a well drafted statement of belief, write a manifesto, write a book on it even, and send it in. Don’t just walk away because we’ve got our own beliefs. Its not about convincing the other side, this is mostly about reinforcing your own side. Let them see that there are strong arguments for your position. Let them see you put up a weak argument, have it pounded in rebutle, only to return with a better and stronger one. This can only help you and those that think as you do to post something like this. You just have to take it seriously and put yourself into it.
September 8th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
I took so long in crafting my response to Jim, I missed out on the discussion :(
September 8th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
“Mr. Humanist: What’s going to happen to you after you die? Perform the calculations that cause the consciousness that we have when we are alive. Seems infinitely impossible. Like an infinite God.”
WHY WHY WHY is it that you equate you’re belief that their must be a god with proof for your ancient story about a half god half man with super powers getting slaughtered to save the world. Why do you beleve that if god exists he MUST be as described in that collection of myths and contradictions?
Personally I don’t believe that there is a god, but arguing about god and arguing about christianity are two distinct, seperate topics. You cannot prove or disprove one with the other.
Why don’t you believe in scientology. It’s got a book with neat stories, it’s probably accurate in a few provable points, and probably isn’t even riffled with contradictions. I’ll tell you why… because it’s ridiculous. It’s a huge load of crap and it’s easy for most people to see that because they haven’t been taught it their whole lives.
September 8th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
{humor}
I know that when I pass on I will arrive at the monastery on the Plateau of Leng in the Dreamlands. There up sits the The High Priest Not to Be Described, servant of the crawling Chaos, messanger of Nyarlathotep and avatar of Hastur, spawned of Yog Sothoth, the Key and the Gate! He shall usher me to the vaults of Zin in the underworld! Fthagin Ia!
{/humor}
Seriously though, you have just as much knowledge of that as I do. What I just stated was from a book writen by a man around a hundred years ago, it also includes real places and history. The bible is just as much proof of the beyond and unknown as the Cthulhu Mythos.
Whenever my consiousness decides to terminate its lease on my simple meat-shell of a body, do you really want me to come back and tell you the truth of the otherside? Do you think you could actually understand that which you have no capacity to frame in understanding? Its not a question I dwell on. Look at the username. HUMANISTIC Jones, we humanists tend to focus on living this life and making it as good as possible by enriching ourselves and others. Leave death to the dead and the next life to those in it. I’m alive and that’s my focus.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Humanistic Jones Said:
>Also, the articles you keep linking to are comming
>from the Corperate Resource Council. This is a known
>pro-christian advocacy group. From their website
The people producing the reports are doctors stating facts. Real diseases and problems associated with homosexuals doing things that their bodies weren’t made to do. If the doctor said 2 plus 2 is four you would say “no it’s not because a Christian said it.”
sidfaiwu Said:
>According to these two sources, I calculate the average
>cost per tax payer to be less then $90. According to this
>CDC article, homosexuals only make up about 50% of those
>with Aids in the US. Thus you are complaining about less
>than $7.50 a month on average to pay for Aids research
>that would benefit homosexuals. Oh yeah, and a portion of
>Aids funding goes towards abstinence-only programs.
So what? It’s still billions of dollars ($90 times 300 million is $2.7 billion) spent because people can’t control themselves. That’s BS
And regarding the inaccuracies of the Bible, all of the so-called inaccuracies have been explained. Unfortunately I don’t have time to research it now. If you insist on continuing with your accusations of Bible inaccuracies, I will research and find the answers to each of the questions you have posted.
March 14th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Hello reincarnated,
I made that post over half a year ago, so it may take me a bit to get my head back into the topic. I’ll give it a shot though.
“It’s still billions of dollars ($90 times 300 million is $2.7 billion) spent because people can’t control themselves. That’s BS”
Hmm, let’s see. At least $37.6 billion dollars in tax dollars is spent on overweight and obesity related illnesses. That’s about 14 TIMES as much as is spent on those with aids. Oh, and costs around $13 billion in Medicare costs alone for smoking related illnesses, almost 5 TIMES that of total AIDS funding. I’m sure alcohol related costs are similarly high. That’s a lot to spend because people can’t control themselves.
In other words, if you are going to make an economic case for banning sodomy, there are much bigger fish to fry first. We should start by banning desserts, fried foods, and soft drinks. Then, we need to outlaw tobacco and alcohol. Only then does it make financial sense to tackle the smaller preventable illness costs, such as STDs.
Most people feel that the savings to the taxpayer is not worth limiting individual freedoms. Why is the same not true for the MUCH smaller cost of AIDS treatment?
“And regarding the inaccuracies of the Bible, all of the so-called inaccuracies have been explained.”
But not adequately. I would love to discuss this, but I want to make sure you first have an opportunity to reply to my rebuttal.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:04 am
I appreciate your patient reply, sidfaiwu.
According to Phylosophy, you’re using the fallacy of Argumentum ad hominum in your points. For example:
You (or your supporters) are saying:
- 4+4 is not 8 because a Christian doctor said it.
- 2.7 billion dollars doesn’t matter because they spend more on obesity.
Obesity is a different subject. Most people would agree that it too is wrong and a burden on society. I don’t know what the total numbers are for treating AIDS and/or gay related illnesses, versus the numbers for treating obesity, but it doesn’t matter. Obesity is a different subject.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Hello reincarnated,
Since I didn’t bring up any Christian doctors on this thread (as far as I remember), I cannot speak to your first point. Those whom you accuse of ad hominem will have to speak for themselves, in this case.
As for your second point, what can I say? But to complain about the amount of money spent on AIDS research (which, from a world-wide perspective is largely a heterosexual, African pandemic, not an American, homosexual one) in light of obesity expenditures is like complaining of a paper cut when arm is being sawed off. It’s an order of magnitude of difference.
“Obesity is a different subject.”
Not according to your objection to funding AIDS research. You don’t want AIDS funding because AIDS is preventable through self-control. Obesity is identically preventable and MUCH more expensive.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Note: I have a habit of capitalizing certain names.
Here are some thoughts that have occurred to me…
All of you are too smart to understand. “Unless you become as a little child, you will not enter the Kingdom of God.”
You can’t see. “Unless you are ‘born again’, you cannot see the Kingdom of God.” It requires a LEAP of faith.
We do not change ourselves. We have to ask God to change us then He has to drag us (kicking and screaming) through change. God is able to make us compatible enough or perhaps solid enough so we won’t be crushed in His presence.
Becoming Christ-like doesn’t refer to the physical but rather the spirit, which can retain or lose it’s soul (the part of you that hopes and dreams and gets upset at me). Jesus did say, “If you see Me you’ve seen the Father”. So, Jesus was Father-like.
You are an immortal soul. So the question seems to be: Do you want to be accepted or rejected forever?
I rejected Jesus Christ for many years, searched everwhere then found the answer was right in front of me. Granted, church can sometimes seem a little weird, but I’ve found that in most churches, there is at least one person who is very close to God. I am not concerned with titles, positions, orgaizations, but rather the “fruit” - patience, love, compassion, etc.
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:30 pm
It is true that some Christians do not love those they see as sinners. This is true of everyone, I guess. It is hard for you to love Christians when to do things you disapprove of in public. If they kept their rejection of homosexual behaviors private, you would not mind their beleifs so much. The sexual behaviors of homosexuality is what is condemned in the Bible. But to many homosexuals, to reject the behavior is to hate them as people. That is a lie.
Ford was promoting homosexual behavior. That is like promoting smoking, adultery or any other unhealthy and self destructive behavior. If homosexuals were not pushing acceptance of their sexual behavior as something healthy and good, Christians would not be speaking out against it. Privacy is a beautiful thing.
The conflict is a two way street. Adult sex is private. Promoting adult sexual behaviors - healthy or unhealthy, should not be a “struggle” carried out in the public square and in the public schools among other people’s children. It should not be imposed on people by authority and power.
It is hard to get angry with Christians who condemn homosexual behaviors in public when homosexuals make it a point to promote their private behaviors in public and especially target children. This is a fight that will continue until people respect privacy.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:33 pm
look,folks its like this,god said it was a sin to lay with another man…a sin is a sin,god named the main commandments.that his choice cause hes god.. ok,now i know gay people,i converse with them i dont hate them,what they do is wrong but im not perfect my self,if a gay persomn was hurt id help ,if i saw people beating them id help,but its still a sin!i know there hipocrites,both sides,like people are pro gay, but lets throw a baby in the trash for birth control.gods law is law,you dont want to obey fine,we will both know in the end huh.
August 4th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
This one goes out to Sara:
Do you want to know why homosexuals push for acceptance?
If a homosexual can marry, homosexuals will finally be near to having the same civil rights as heterosexuals. Let’s examine what marriage can do for you, and what not being married can do if you have a partner.
1) Medical decisions.
An unmarried partner (cohabitating as it were) has no rights to make medical decisions for you, they cannot be present in your hospital room, and cannot be admitted unless you demand their admittance(and in this case you are most likely unconscious and near death). So, your life goes into the hands of your family, which may be hostile to you and your partner for being homosexual. They may make decisions that you or your partner would not agree with, such as euthanasia/lack thereof.
2) Will.
Should a hostile family feel the desire to challenge your partner’s will, they can easily overturn it if you are not married to them, and they can kick you penniless out on the street.
Do I even need to go on?