It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christianity, homosexuality and pig meat.

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: WarminIndy


No, you find them disagreeable because you aren't reading all of my "twoddle".

It is simply WRONG to marry girls off, but what about the Bacha Bazi Boys of Afghanistan? Those boys are trained to learn how to service men. But that can't be wrong, can it? It's just a little pederasty, after all. I see, pederasty is absolutely fine as long as it is legal. Is it pedophilia when it comes to the Bacha Bazi boys, or is that just men enjoying young boys who are feminized?


No i find this abhorrent as well, in fact i find any sexual activity with anyone under the age of 18 is abhorrent and classed as paedophilia. Despite the western world having an age of consent on average of 16 i find distasteful as we should be letting children stay as children for as long as possible as once your an adult it all goes down hill very quickly.

That however does not explain your views whereby you believe homosexuality is the same as paedophilia.


No, I did NOT say it was the same.

I said that the gay community cannot sweep under the rug the SAME ARGUMENTS that pedophiles are using. And the arguments are :

1: If two people really love each other
2: I am sexually attracted to....

But knowing this, if a young gay man that is 16 is vocally open to older gay men about his sexual desire to have a "daddy" or "bear" and the older man reciprocates, is this pedophilia? It falls back under "if two people really love each other". Correct?

Do you know the movie For a Lost Soldier? It was hailed as a sensitive and touching story about "awakening homosexuality" in a boy. The gay community embraced this movie, called it beautiful....but it depicted a scene of what was clearly rape of a young boy.

New York Times called it "romantic"

And the comments were that it was beautiful. And yet you would have us convinced that when we raise this issue, it gets swept under the rug, you tell us that pedophilia is wrong, and yet one movie that clearly shows rape of a child, the gay community calls it beautiful and romantic. See the hypocrisy there?


I most certainty would NOT have called it beautiful, I would have called it as it was an older Paedophile taking an advantage of a 13 year old child. However do not tarnish the whole LGBT community because of some write up to a movie in the New York Times as that would be the same as me tarnishing every straight man on ATS as a paedophile due to the actions of some dirty old men in third world countries taken young girls some of which are no older than 8 years old as their wives and raping them. Would not really be very fair and its not very fair you tarnishing 350,000,000 LGBT people around the world with the same brush as these paedophiles. See the hypocrisy there?




posted on May, 1 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: WarminIndy


No, you find them disagreeable because you aren't reading all of my "twoddle".

It is simply WRONG to marry girls off, but what about the Bacha Bazi Boys of Afghanistan? Those boys are trained to learn how to service men. But that can't be wrong, can it? It's just a little pederasty, after all. I see, pederasty is absolutely fine as long as it is legal. Is it pedophilia when it comes to the Bacha Bazi boys, or is that just men enjoying young boys who are feminized?


No i find this abhorrent as well, in fact i find any sexual activity with anyone under the age of 18 is abhorrent and classed as paedophilia. Despite the western world having an age of consent on average of 16 i find distasteful as we should be letting children stay as children for as long as possible as once your an adult it all goes down hill very quickly.

That however does not explain your views whereby you believe homosexuality is the same as paedophilia.


No, I did NOT say it was the same.

I said that the gay community cannot sweep under the rug the SAME ARGUMENTS that pedophiles are using. And the arguments are :

1: If two people really love each other
2: I am sexually attracted to....

But knowing this, if a young gay man that is 16 is vocally open to older gay men about his sexual desire to have a "daddy" or "bear" and the older man reciprocates, is this pedophilia? It falls back under "if two people really love each other". Correct?

Do you know the movie For a Lost Soldier? It was hailed as a sensitive and touching story about "awakening homosexuality" in a boy. The gay community embraced this movie, called it beautiful....but it depicted a scene of what was clearly rape of a young boy.

New York Times called it "romantic"

And the comments were that it was beautiful. And yet you would have us convinced that when we raise this issue, it gets swept under the rug, you tell us that pedophilia is wrong, and yet one movie that clearly shows rape of a child, the gay community calls it beautiful and romantic. See the hypocrisy there?


I most certainty would NOT have called it beautiful, I would have called it as it was an older Paedophile taking an advantage of a 13 year old child. However do not tarnish the whole LGBT community because of some write up to a movie in the New York Times as that would be the same as me tarnishing every straight man on ATS as a paedophile due to the actions of some dirty old men in third world countries taken young girls some of which are no older than 8 years old as their wives and raping them. Would not really be very fair and its not very fair you tarnishing 350,000,000 LGBT people around the world with the same brush as these paedophiles. See the hypocrisy there?


It's easy to say that on ATS, because it is illegal, therefore you can't endorse it. I get that.

However, where was the mad rush from the LGBT community to address the movie? I didn't see it happen. I only gave you one review, there are many out there.

I am a film reviewer and when it was presented to me, I watched it but when it got to the "love scene" as it is called, I wrote in my review that is was a movie about pedophilia. Do you think my article that called it for what it was, was published? No, because I was not allowed to upset the sensitivities of the gay community.

So what are you doing openly against such pedophilic entertainment other than coming to ATS and telling us here that we paint your community with a broad brush, when the gay community does not itself address the issues?

As I am a Christian and speaking for my community and addressing the issues, you are a member of your community telling me how unfair we are toward your sensitivities and yet you aren't addressing the pedophile issue in the gay community, and I know it is because you don't want to be insensitive to each other.

You speak for your community, but what are you saying within your own community about this very thing? How may gay prostitutes are under 18? Yes, many girl prostitutes are under age as well, but if the gay community isn't addressing the problem, but straight people are expected to, then why do gay men cruise for teenage male prostitutes and the gay community turns its head?

Christians are expected to address clergy when it comes to child rape and pedophilia, and we do. But the gay community is so sensitive that when we address who the clergy is..gay men, we are still expected to address it, but the gay community says nothing when "daddy" parades his "twink". And the "twinks" look feminine and underage. So it is ok to have sex with someone who looks underage, because you might get arrested if he is actually underage. But the sexual desire is still there for someone underage.

Do you ever speak to your gay friends who do this? Or do you justify it with "if two people really love each other"?

Yes, I know that many gay people are attracted to the same age and body type, but the gay community needs to start addressing those who are pedophiles, the same as the rest of us are expected to. Tell me though, why do so many gay people dress like Dorothy or Lucille Ball in parades? That is something I just don't understand.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

You are quite an obnoxious person. Firstly I never heard of the movie until you just informed me about it. Secondly it is not my job to police the world of Paedophiles, and for the record most paedophiles class themselves as Heterosexuals, so i could ask what are you doing about it.

What is your "Christian Community" doing about paedophile priests, it took the resignation of one pope to bring in a new pope with enough balls to deal with the situation. That being said, I did not see many protests outside the Vatican when these paedophile priests prayed on young people for the last few decades. You say your community challenged this, but why did it take you so long and how was it challenged by you?

I am not speaking for "My Community" as my community is the small village i live in, not the 350,000,000 LGBT people world wide. What a foolish notion you paint. I do not have paedophile friends who use teenage escorts as if I did they would no longer be friends of mine.

Your problem is you have bigoted homophobic opinions that have no place in the 21st century



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

You have already completely derailed this thread, so I will not be responding, want to private message me, be my guest but the OP had diddlysquat to do with Homosexuality being classed as paedophilia. However like most of these kinds of threads it gives you and other prehistoric bigoted minded individuals a platform to spurt your homophobic views.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I admire your resolve and restraint, flammadraco. And pretty much agree with everything you have said here.

WarminIndy, I'm still waiting for a response as to why you wouldn't listen to a gay person preaching the Bible? Why are you avoiding this question? It has a lot more to do with the actual topic at hand, than some of the spiel of the last couple of pages. You openly stated that you wouldn't listen to a gay person preach in a Church, and then compared them to thieves and liars. I'm really interested in getting a bit of clarification on that statement. What's your issue? It appears very much like you consider being gay to be somehow more of a sin than anything else; why? Your views across this thread have seemed about one step away from those of the Westboro Baptist Church, so I guess I'd like to gain a bit of an understanding of your opinion here.
edit on 1-5-2014 by 8BitOperator because: Corrections



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
Your ''argument'' regarding mark 7 holds no water. Not because you are an atheist, but because of your inability to process scripture holistically. Taking one verse out of context isn't a bright way to go about on a theological discussions. this has established that atheists shouldn't be talking about religious matters because they simply DON'T get it and waste peoples time talking about things they don't understand.


How about instead of saying something over and over again that is so patently wrong and borderline retarded, you provide an example of a time where someone can say the word "nothing" in context and actually mean "pig meat", or anything else, in context.

By the way, I went to a private Christian school for 18 years of my life. I know what I'm talking about. You don't. You can't even understand simple logical concepts so why exactly should I take your "interpretations" seriously?

Out with it, then. In or out of context, in what circumstance does "nothing" mean anything but "nothing". Stop tip-toeing around this clear language comprehension ineptitude.
edit on 1-5-2014 by TheRegal because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy


I am a film reviewer and when it was presented to me, I watched it but when it got to the "love scene" as it is called, I wrote in my review that is was a movie about pedophilia. Do you think my article that called it for what it was, was published? No, because I was not allowed to upset the sensitivities of the gay community.



It wasn't published because you missed the point entirely. Calling this movie a "movie about pedophilia" would be like calling the beauty and the beast a "movie about bestiality". Hell, Romeo and Juliet might as well be a "play about lust, fornication, and suicide" If you're a film reviewer, you're a bad one, sorry.

You're so off topic on this thread by the way. This thread is about halal/kosher laws, not homosexuality. Homosexuality is only being presented in this thread as a means to try and point out an alleged hypocrisy in the Bible.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRegal

originally posted by: WarminIndy


I am a film reviewer and when it was presented to me, I watched it but when it got to the "love scene" as it is called, I wrote in my review that is was a movie about pedophilia. Do you think my article that called it for what it was, was published? No, because I was not allowed to upset the sensitivities of the gay community.



It wasn't published because you missed the point entirely. Calling this movie a "movie about pedophilia" would be like calling the beauty and the beast a "movie about bestiality". Hell, Romeo and Juliet might as well be a "play about lust, fornication, and suicide" If you're a film reviewer, you're a bad one, sorry.

You're so off topic on this thread by the way. This thread is about halal/kosher laws, not homosexuality. Homosexuality is only being presented in this thread as a means to try and point out an alleged hypocrisy in the Bible.


I am not Catholic, but for some reason I do have to police Christians. That's what you keep informing all Christians about.

The reason I would not listen to a gay person who is actively participating in cruising for sexual relationship and engaging in it, that to me is the same as a straight person also cruising. I'm not making a difference between the two, but hey if you are ok with listening to a preacher tell you to live right while actively engaging in sexual relationships contrary to the Bible they preach from, then that's on you.

If they are gay and not actively engaging in it, then that's a different story, but you can't get away from the sexual acts. But gay or straight, for one to preach the holiness of God and then going against what the holiness of God expects, then I don't have confidence in them.

I am sorry, but if you didn't see the movie, you didn't see the "love scene". Let me tell you what it was, a grown man, lying on a little boy's back, with his finger in the little boys mouth to bite because of the pain from the penetration. Now you can call that beautiful if you wish, but it is child rape.

Other than that, it was a movie about a grown man seducing a little boy. If you don't have problems with it, then perhaps you should ask those in the gay community why they called it what they did.

And Homosexuality is mentioned in the very title, I am not off topic at all. I am addressing the very issues that are obviously swept under the rug. If you are too afraid to address the issues, then you are doing a great disservice. Just to say "I'm not a pedophile so I'm not going to say anything to those who are", then demand that we who are straight take care of priests, why can't you address the homosexuality of them?

We are then punishing homosexual priests but letting homosexual teachers and others get by when they engage with teenagers. But if homosexuality is normal, then we are punishing homosexual priests for being normal, wouldn't you think? If you say "They were having sex with teenagers, exploiting them", then why not say the same thing to the many men who are right now actively engaging teenagers they pick up off the streets. I don't see your campaign against them.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Now you are just being a bigot.

You are trying to down gay people by attempting to link us to pedophiles and then you say you won't listen to a gay person who is actively cruising.

ETA How can you even tell here on ATS if a person is actively 'cruising' anyway? Last time I checked this was not a dating website...... If you were being as subtle as a sledge hammer and referring to me personally, I've not 'actively cruised' for 8 1/2 years. I am in a steady and monogamous thankyou very much relationship.

What about an alcoholic who is on the bottle? A drug addict on a bender? Or would you listen to them because they are straight?

And who appointed you as religious sheriff in this thread anyway? The discussion turns away from homosexuality and it is always you whom derails the thread by bringing us back to it.

I ask you, since you seem to think as a gay person I am unfit to participate in a theological discussion, other than the definitions of Eunuch which you clearly have a problem with, how is the rest of the theology i have presented unsound?


edit on 1-5-2014 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: WarminIndy

You have already completely derailed this thread, so I will not be responding, want to private message me, be my guest but the OP had diddlysquat to do with Homosexuality being classed as pedophilia. However like most of these kinds of threads it gives you and other prehistoric bigoted minded individuals a platform to spurt your homophobic views.


I complete agree.Some people are so bigoted and perverted they have a justification for everything they believe.It is absolutely futile holding any kind of discourse with them because their mind is so debased of any truth.My suggestion is to continue to do what you are doing and dust off your feet and not feed the trolls.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

So ignorant.

A pedophile cannot be straight or gay. Pedophiles are attracted to children. It's its own sexual orientation. The overwhelming majority of those who are attracted to children are attracted to children of BOTH GENDERS.

Now, I did watch the film. I saw them wrestling in the shower, them dancing around all over down, enjoying eachothers' company, and yes, of the entire film there is a 5 second sex scene. Clearly this is a film allllll about sex, right?

Romeo and juliet, however? A 21 year old dude sleeping with a 14 year old girl and convincing her she is in love with him and making her commit suicide. Forget all of the family drama, politics, sneaking around, this is clearly a play all about suicidal pedophilia. Straight people all just say how romantic it is. Jesus, what a bunch of pervs all straight people must be.

There's your terrible logic in motion.
edit on 1-5-2014 by TheRegal because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Jesus and the Law

Jesus made one statement about the Law that often causes confusion: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV, Matthew 5:17–18)

Christians have struggled to understand exactly what Jesus meant. At first reading, this seems to say that all the Old Testament rules and rituals must still be observed. But Jesus and His disciples did not observe many of those rules and rituals, so it could not mean that. It is frequently pointed out that the term "the Law" could have many different meanings at the time of Jesus:1,2

The ceremonial laws including "clean" and "unclean" lists, sacrifices, dietary restrictions, ritual washings, etc.
The civil law regulating social behavior and specifying crimes, punishments and other rules
The moral and ethical laws, such as the Ten Commandments
The Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Bible)
The scribal law - the 600+ rules formulated by the scribes that everyone was expected to obey
The Scripture as a whole

Jesus did not abolish the moral and ethical laws that had been in effect from the time of Moses. He affirmed and expanded upon those principles, but He said obedience must be from the heart (attitudes and intentions) rather than just technical observance of the letter of the law (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-42, 43-44, etc.).

However, Jesus and His disciples did not observe the strict scribal rules against doing any work on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14, Mark 2:23-28, 3:1-6, Luke 6:1-11, 13:10-17, 14:1-6, John 5:1-18). Neither did they perform the ritual hand washings before eating (Matthew 15:1-2). In contrast to the dietary rules of the Law, Jesus said no food can defile a person; it is bad attitudes and actions that can make a person unholy (Matthew 15:1-20, Mark 7:1-23). Jesus frequently criticized the scribal laws (Matthew 23:23, Mark 7:11-13) and some aspects of the civil law (John 8:3-5, 10-11).

Therefore, Jesus may have been specifically teaching that the moral and ethical laws in the Scripture would endure until the end of time. That would be consistent with His actions and other teachings. Through His teachings and actions, Jesus revealed the true meaning and intent of the Law. It is also pointed out that Jesus, Himself, is the fulfillment of the Law (Matthew 26:28, Mark 10:45, Luke 16:16, John 1:16, Acts 10:28, 13:39, Romans 10:4) The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross ended forever the need for animal sacrifices and other aspects of the ceremonial law.


Jesus PERFECTED the law. So he threw out things like stoning a person to death, and instead installed mercy and forgiveness. He brought COMMON SENSE to the law - something the legalistic people can't seem to understand.

edit on 5/2/2014 by FlyersFan because: spacing



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

originally posted by: abe froman
It's not just Christians, people of all types are masters of self justification.
This thread isn't about people of 'all types' being masters of 'self justification', is it?


Certainly it is. Christians are people. Humans. And human behaviors drive their behaviors. The same behaviors you see in all other belief systems: ignoring that which is inconvenient.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 04:44 AM
link   
I feel like resurrecting this thread.

Looks like the thread basically got derailed.

This thread is NOT about homosexuality. Rather, its about the LAW that condemns BOTH homosexuality and pork, that Christians claim is done with". Christians eat pork, that was banned by the LAW..... yet use the same LAW - that they believe is done with - to justify their condemnation of homosexuality. This is hypocrisy and cherry picking at its finest.

Several times in this thread people quote Jesus saying that foods don't defile a man. Christians interpret that as meaning all foods are permitted. That is a false interpretation because Peter had a problem with eating unclean meats in his vision. That is not my take on the Biblical narrative, that's what the Bible says.

Didn't Peter get the memo that "foods cannot defile"? Why did he distinguish between clean and unclean meats if Jesus supposedly taught that they could eat anything.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan



Jesus PERFECTED the law. So he threw out things like stoning a person to death, and instead installed mercy and forgiveness.


....and then he said "Do as the Pharisees say".

Basically, show mercy but then stone them as the Pharisees tell you.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:05 AM
link   
a reply to: halfoldman

A star from a fellow Safrican !
Also for the final paragraph

If you chooseto go somewhere that has diffrent practices/beliefs than yours you have to accept it and keep quiet.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
That is a false interpretation .....


1 - 2,000 years of Christian scholars and theologians understand Christian theology better than one Muslim reading some anti-christian books.

2 - It's not a false interpretation.

3 - No matter how hard you try, you are not going to get Christians to see Jesus or the bible like Muslims do.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
....and then he said "Do as the Pharisees say". .

.... and then didn't do as the pharisees said.
Hang it up dude. You've been proven wrong.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan
I''m quoting from the Bible itself....not anti-christian books. "

Peter DID have a problem with eating unclean meats in his vision. That is not my take on the Biblical narrative, that's exactly what the Bible says.

So clearly, the Christians are wrong. Jesus did not lift the ban on unclean meats...or Peter in his vision would not have had a problem with the unclean animals.
edit on 19-5-2014 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan



.... and then didn't do as the pharisees said.


He didn't..... but he instructed Christians to do as the Pharisees say. He also said that the law is to remain till heaven and earth pass away.
So all you Christians stuffing their faces with bacon will have a lot to answer when they meet Jesus
edit on 19-5-2014 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join