Christianity, homosexuality and pig meat.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

If it is normal, why did you feel weird?

Because when all the other boys are playing war games and you are not interested you start to feel like you don't fit etc etc.

And no, I don't know what that is like, however, if it was normal, why did you feel weird? Were you basing normalcy on what you perceived as normal? So to you, normalcy was being straight, but instead you felt weird. Do you now have the feeling it is normal to be gay and are you basing that on what others have told you, or that you have discovered on your own?

I was raised in a farming community under a very Catholic roof. I was TOLD what was supposed to be normal and that is what God expects

But we all know that sexual attraction is based on other things, such as eye color, hair color, symmetry and angular features. Just listen to how straight men talk about women, generally it is a superficial, but subconscious attraction, they are animals and as animals will seek those who are capable of reproducing.

It's the same. Physical features first I.e. chemistry and personality if it's going to last.

But if it were simply about same sex, then why are so many gays attracted to those who look like the opposite sex? Butch and Lipstick lesbians...Twinks and Bears. People are not attracted solely because of male or female, but those features that are attractive to them.

Are you seriously trying to tell me straight people don't have sexual fetishes either? Why did 50 shades of grey sell so well?

Why are there so many Transexuals who look like women, that men do have sex with? Why does a man have to look like a woman to attract a man? That means the man they want to have sex with is attracted to feminine features. So there is still a compatibility of feminine vs. masculine.

But then there are those who are attracted to same features as them, but is it really? There are actions of feminine and masculine that are attractable. It is about more than the same gender, it is about those features that one finds attractive. When you look for a man, what attracts you first? His personality or superficial features?

Life is complicated. I'm a guy who likes other guys. I look and act like a guy and I like my partner to as well. As for feminine traits in men and masculine ones in girls, they can't help it. Let them be and get on with your own life. That's what I do

WarminIndy, I'm still wondering why you wouldn't listen to a gay person preaching the Bible in a church? Could you please enlighten me?

a reply to: TheRegal

"NOTHING THAT YOU INGEST IS BAD". It means NO FOOD is bad.

Only when Jesus' other important teachings are blatantly ignored...

"not one dot of the law will pass away"

"do what the Pharisees tell you"

"whoever breaks the smallest commandment shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven"

"I have not come to destroy the law"


The law says "no pork". Jesus said the law is to stay. The law stays. The pork goes. Its that simple. Jesus didn't say "no food is bad" AND "listen to the Pharisees". Or they'd be eating un-Kosher food one minute and getting chased out of town by law obsessed Pharisees the next minute.

Besides if Jesus said "no food is bad", then why did Peter have a problem with eating "unclean animals" in Acts 10? Didn't he get the memo that all foods are clean?

Try addressing this from a theological perspective or don't bother at all.

a reply to: sk0rpi0n

Throwing in contradictions doesn't make your point about the passage we're talking about at all.

I'm an Atheist, I'm not going to defend Christianity, and I'm certainly not going to debate you from a "theological perspective"; I don't warp words and sentences to make it suit my personal agenda and act like I'm holier than everyone around me like some of you folk.

I just wanted you to drop that idiotic argument because it was an embarrassment to human intelligence.

I'm satisfied now, thanks.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
Try addressing this from a theological perspective or don't bother at all.

Try addressing this CHRISTIAN teaching from a non-muslim indoctrinated perspective or don't bother at all. Jesus PERFECTED the law. He corrected that which was wrong. You go around (falsely) saying that Muhammad corrected the errors in Christianity ... so you understand the concept. Jesus corrected the errors in Judaism. He perfected it. If you, a 'devout muslim', are going to try to understand Christian teaching then I suggest you go to a Christian church and go to a bible study or catechism.

a reply to: WarminIndy

People are sexually attracted to dogs, sheep, goats, horses, and a variety of other animals, but it is illegal. However, if it were not illegal, what would your feelings be about it then?

Homosexuality is about sex. Why is it ok for children to even be sexual in the first place? People say "I was born gay", how can they be born with a sexual desire? That's just something I don't understand.

BTW, my grandfather was gay, so it's not like I don't know.

This is a moral argument rather than an argument about legality. Bestiality is perverse as is Paedophilia and both of the aforementioned is sex with another animal/human who is not consenting. Trying to put this argument into the same as Homosexuality is also perverse.

Were you born straight? did you make a choice to have sex with the opposite sex or did it come naturally to you as you were "Born this way" as is the same with gay people. If it was a choice as some religious folks believe, why would 350,000,000 gay people in the world chose to become gay in such a hated world, even more so why would they "Choose" to be gay in countries where they can receive the death penalty for being gay?

I think what the OP is saying is there are to many "Cafeteria Christians" who choose what to ignore and what to follow. The main thing that amazes me is is Jesus said the following:

Jesus declares that the person judging will be judged (v. 1) because judging assumes a divine prerogative; final judgement belongs to God alone, and those who seek to judge others now will answer then for usurping God's position

And yet quite a few religious ATS members are constantly ignoring this teaching. Quite a lot of ATS members will have a lot to answer to when they get to the pearly gates, and I personally would love to be a fly on the wall (golden gate) when some of you have some explaining to do.

a

originally posted by: TheRegal
a reply to: sk0rpi0n

Throwing in contradictions doesn't make your point about the passage we're talking about at all.

The contradictions overturn the idea that Jesus meant ''no food is bad''.

I'm an Atheist, I'm not going to defend Christianity, and I'm certainly not going to debate you from a "theological perspective"; I don't warp words and sentences to make it suit my personal agenda and act like I'm holier than everyone around me like some of you folk.

I just wanted you to drop that idiotic argument because it was an embarrassment to human intelligence.

Doesn't matter if you are an atheist or a voodoo priest. 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.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
Try addressing this from a theological perspective or don't bother at all.

Try addressing this CHRISTIAN teaching from a non-muslim indoctrinated perspective or don't bother at all.

Im arguing from the Bible. A jew or an atheist could make the same points and it would still be valid.

Jesus PERFECTED the law. He corrected that which was wrong.

by pointing out the shortcoming of the Pharisees, weeding out their traditions...and completely retaining the law in its original form. More importantly, he made the existing law even more strict.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
a reply to: TheRegal

"NOTHING THAT YOU INGEST IS BAD". It means NO FOOD is bad.

Only when Jesus' other important teachings are blatantly ignored...

"not one dot of the law will pass away

I have not come to destroy the law

Ahem, context.....

Matthew 5

17 “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. 18 For truly I tell you, 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. 1

What Jesus meant is that he was there to fulfill the prophecy of the Christ and make a new covenant for all people this time, not just the jews. He could not fulfill this prophecy if he abolished old law. He updated it instead. i.e. After his crucifixion there was no more need for animal sacrifices. There was a change in what could be eaten, he said it was okay to do things like rescue a sheep from a hole on the sabbath etc etc.

What Jesus did was bring some common sense into the old law because people were placing emphasis on the wrong things, like the food we eat instead of loving God. Jesus mission was to make God accessible to everyone, not police the old ritualistic law that had very little to with showing love and devotion to God.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
Im arguing from the Bible.

You are arguing from a Muslim indoctrinated interpretation, not the Christian interpretation of the CHRISTIAN BOOK that comes from 2000 years of Christian theologians discussing the writings. And thats exactly what you told the Sahabi not to do with the Qu'ran on this thread

Here's your quote (one of many just like it)-

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
you have spoken like some authority on Islam just because you claim to have studied it for sometime. Those who are genuinely interested in researching Islam further can google the Islamic side to the "issues" raised in the OP. People don't usually learn science from those opposed to science. So there's no reason for people to learn Islam from those opposed to it.

More importantly, he made the existing law even more strict.

That's the exact OPPOSITE of what He did. Seriously dude ... we get that you want to make everyone see Jesus like a Muslim does, but it just isn't going to work. Go to a Christian bible study or a Catholic Catechism class. It'll all be explained.

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: WarminIndy

People are sexually attracted to dogs, sheep, goats, horses, and a variety of other animals, but it is illegal. However, if it were not illegal, what would your feelings be about it then?

Homosexuality is about sex. Why is it ok for children to even be sexual in the first place? People say "I was born gay", how can they be born with a sexual desire? That's just something I don't understand.

BTW, my grandfather was gay, so it's not like I don't know.

This is a moral argument rather than an argument about legality. Bestiality is perverse as is Paedophilia and both of the aforementioned is sex with another animal/human who is not consenting. Trying to put this argument into the same as Homosexuality is also perverse.

Were you born straight? did you make a choice to have sex with the opposite sex or did it come naturally to you as you were "Born this way" as is the same with gay people. If it was a choice as some religious folks believe, why would 350,000,000 gay people in the world chose to become gay in such a hated world, even more so why would they "Choose" to be gay in countries where they can receive the death penalty for being gay?

I think what the OP is saying is there are to many "Cafeteria Christians" who choose what to ignore and what to follow. The main thing that amazes me is is Jesus said the following:

Jesus declares that the person judging will be judged (v. 1) because judging assumes a divine prerogative; final judgement belongs to God alone, and those who seek to judge others now will answer then for usurping God's position

And yet quite a few religious ATS members are constantly ignoring this teaching. Quite a lot of ATS members will have a lot to answer to when they get to the pearly gates, and I personally would love to be a fly on the wall (golden gate) when some of you have some explaining to do.

First of all, I was born human. Sexual inclination was not part of my understanding until puberty. The fact that one feels a small child has sexual understanding is absurd. They might have behaviors that an adult might attach sexual understanding to, does not mean a child even considers that.

Do you not like the arguments that pedophiles use? They are saying the exact same thing..."if two people really love each other" This is something you are going to have to address. That's the problem, the gay community sweeps it under the rug, as though it doesn't matter and when the straight people points out this obvious flaw in argument, you tell us it is perverse, but you aren't even listening to what pedophiles are saying. Why is it that those of us who are straight are asked to draw the lines when the gay community are not addressing pedophilia?

The gay community expects us to move the line to accommodate homosexuality, but the gay community does not recognize that the line has been moved by them when it comes to pedophilia and bestiality. We are expected to not only address the problem but police the straight ones. And why is homosexuality a "gay community"? You have to be gay to be part of a "community" but straight people don't have a "straight community". Do you see how you have separated yourselves into a special group?

And yes, there are many consenting teenagers with grown men, it is called pederasty. If pederasty were legal, would it be acceptable to the gay community? But if you say that children have a sexual understanding, then you are leading toward that very thing.

Pederasty is still acceptable to the gay community, but straight people have to uphold laws against it, while at the same time we hear "if two people really love each other".

The other poster indicated exactly what I had said, he is attracted to physical features first. Those same features can be in females, so this argument of "born gay" means nothing if transvestites must dress like women to seduce men and men who have sex with transvestites are seduced by the female features. That doesn't sound gay to me, it sounds more like what is natural. So therefore, it isn't a convincing argument.

The same goes for lesbians, why do women dress like men to seduce women? It goes back to the same thing, attraction to the opposite sex by features.

But it goes back to the individual and their willingness to accept and allow what seduces them. If you say it is mere sexual desire, then step out of the Kinsey report and ask yourself exactly why are adults sexually attracted to who they are, and if you say pedophilia is perverse then say children have sexual identity and understanding, it defeats the argument.

If children have sexual identity and understanding, then you are implying that children are willing and consenting to sexual expression, regardless of age. When a gay person is a small child, there should be no sexual knowledge, but gay people say "I was born gay" or "I knew I was gay when I was a child". What makes gay children different than other children then? Sexual desire is not even part of normal childhood.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
I was born human. Sexual inclination was not part of my understanding until puberty.

It doesn't matter at what age your understanding happens. You are born with orientation in place. Some have life experience that alters that, but most everyone is born with orientation in place. I remember in psychology class - a human sexuality unit - being told about a study done of children born right after the blitz during WWII. The children who were in the womb during the blitz had a much higher percentage of homosexuals among them than the general population. The stress felt by the mother and the unborn child contributed to the orientation. It changed body chemistry during the pregnancy process.

Orientation is chemical. It's not a choice.
Acting on that orientation is a choice ... but not the orientation itself.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I really could not be bothered to read all your twoddle, it was like war and peace and when I saw the section where you said

" This is something you are going to have to address. That's the problem, the gay community sweeps it under the rug, as though it doesn't matter and when the straight people points out this obvious flaw in argument

it seems to me that from your point of view only gay people have the morals when it comes to how perverse bestiality and paedophilia and that straight people will argue that its a paedophiles right to have sex with children as gay people have the right to exist.

What makes gay children different than other children then? Sexual desire is not even part of normal childhood.

Yes its called playing Doctors and Nurses, not sure how sheltered your childhood was but sexuality is very obvious in children. Have a look at third world countries where children as young as 8 years old are married off to older men and some have been brutally killed on their wedding night from being raped. Is this acceptable? This is still classed as paedophilia in the western world but accepted in these third world countries. And using your argument that children are not sexulised in anyway proves a valid point that these traditions in these countries are barbaric.

You do seem like another ATS member who has a fascination for tarnishing homosexuality with the same brush as paedophiles. Homosexuality is between two consenting adults, Paedophiles groom young children into having sex with them or by force, absolutely nothing to do with two consenting adults. And yes children can feel they are different at a young age, i for one was about 8 years old when i realised I was different to other boys, that does not mean however i wanted some dirty old man to groom me into having sex.

I find your view and opinions repulsive, nauseating, and stomach-churning

I didn't find the exact study I was talking about ... but here is something similar -

Stress in the Womb Leads to Homosexuality

Women who suffer stress during pregnancy increase the chance of their child being gay, according to a controversial new book. The lifestyle of pregnant mothers affects the sexuality of their unborn child, altering their hormones and the formation of their brains, it claims. Smoking or taking drugs can also result in a child who grows up to be gay, according to the book by Dutch neuroscientist Dick Swaab.

‘Pregnant woman suffering from stress are also more likely to give birth to homosexual children, because their raised levels of the stress hormone cortisol affect the production of fetal sex hormones.’ And he claims: ‘The more older brothers a boy has, the greater the chance that he will be homosexual. ‘This is due to a mother’s immune response to male substances produced by boy babies in the womb, a response that becomes stronger with each pregnancy.’

The Blitz was a lot of stress.
That explains the higher number of homosexual children born during that time.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: WarminIndy
I was born human. Sexual inclination was not part of my understanding until puberty.

It doesn't matter at what age your understanding happens. You are born with orientation in place. Some have life experience that alters that, but most everyone is born with orientation in place. I remember in psychology class - a human sexuality unit - being told about a study done of children born right after the blitz during WWII. The children who were in the womb during the blitz had a much higher percentage of homosexuals among them than the general population. The stress felt by the mother and the unborn child contributed to the orientation. It changed body chemistry during the pregnancy process.

Orientation is chemical. It's not a choice.
Acting on that orientation is a choice ... but not the orientation itself.

That may be, but there are many gay people born to mothers who were not under such extreme stress. If that is the case, then there should have been more gay people born during the Irish Potato Famine.

There are always going to be disagreements when it comes to psychology, but the thread addresses the Westernized view of homosexuality, here is a book addressing some of the psychological and social aspects

Human Sexuality And Its Problems

originally posted by: WarminIndy
there are many gay people born to mothers who were not under such extreme stress.

Sure. But the studies do show it's a mostly a chemical thing.

If that is the case, then there should have been more gay people born during the Irish Potato Famine.

There very well could have been. People back then, and in that Catholic culture, wouldn't exactly have been really open about it.

Human Sexuality And Its Problems

Hey thanks. I did a quick look and it looks interesting. I'll have to see if I can get a hold of it to read. I love all the psychology stuff ... (as you probably know).

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: WarminIndy

I really could not be bothered to read all your twoddle, it was like war and peace and when I saw the section where you said

" This is something you are going to have to address. That's the problem, the gay community sweeps it under the rug, as though it doesn't matter and when the straight people points out this obvious flaw in argument

it seems to me that from your point of view only gay people have the morals when it comes to how perverse bestiality and paedophilia and that straight people will argue that its a paedophiles right to have sex with children as gay people have the right to exist.

What makes gay children different than other children then? Sexual desire is not even part of normal childhood.

Yes its called playing Doctors and Nurses, not sure how sheltered your childhood was but sexuality is very obvious in children. Have a look at third world countries where children as young as 8 years old are married off to older men and some have been brutally killed on their wedding night from being raped. Is this acceptable? This is still classed as paedophilia in the western world but accepted in these third world countries. And using your argument that children are not sexulised in anyway proves a valid point that these traditions in these countries are barbaric.

You do seem like another ATS member who has a fascination for tarnishing homosexuality with the same brush as paedophiles. Homosexuality is between two consenting adults, Paedophiles groom young children into having sex with them or by force, absolutely nothing to do with two consenting adults. And yes children can feel they are different at a young age, i for one was about 8 years old when i realised I was different to other boys, that does not mean however i wanted some dirty old man to groom me into having sex.

I find your view and opinions repulsive, nauseating, and stomach-churning

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?

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.

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?