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.

 

Racism in the Bible

page: 22
32
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t


If only it worked out that way... But like I pointed out in the bible, people who believe as you do tend to try to use their beliefs to change laws and discriminate against these people then hide behind your religion claiming "Freedom of religion" like the 1st amendment gives you carte blache to keep someone else from having equal rights.

I noted your anger. Is that because you know that you are mistaken? What laws do you accuse me of changing? It seems that when I was a youngster that the laws were discriminating homosexuality in the U.S. but now have become the platform of righteousness. Isn't it a fact that abortion was also regarded as shameful and considered murder but now is the permissive will of the people? Discriminate? I have no discriminative power. As I said you have the right to be a homosexual and kill babies. That right is protected by the law of the land. Don't become so upset with an old geezer with one foot in the grave. I have no power to infringe upon your rights to sin.



That's because people such as I have been vigilant in getting these laws off the books and stopping them when new ones spring up. It's not like y'all just woke up one day and decided to be more tolerant of each other. Y'all have been fighting tolerance every step of the way. You're doing it now by defending the bible's accounts of intolerance.


What do you mean by 'y'all'? Are you seriously suggesting that everyone who is aligned to the faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is a racist homophobe who needs to be restricted by law, while all agnostics/atheists are not?

Please don't give me the 'I'm only focussing on Christianity' nonsense again to try and wiggle out of including other faiths that are based around the Old Testament, it only washes for so long.




posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Barcs
Did true Christians even exist for the first 1500 years of Christianity?


I feel like this is an interesting question given the way that Christians think that "True Christians" should behave. I feel like it could easily be a thread of its own.


I think it's equally interesting how some atheists/agnostics have they own opinions of how Christians (other religions are available but for some reason are typically ignored) behave or should behave.


I think it is rather banal that Christians continually ask questions such as this considering most Western born atheists/agnostics would have a high probability of being familiar with the Christian religion, what it says, what it teaches, and how a Christian should behave. Failing that, knowledge of the Bible is regularly supplied by overwilling Christians all the time.

What IS interesting is why Christians seem to think that when someone leaves their religion, that person just forgets how a Christian is supposed to behave like it hasn't been drilled into his head his whole life.


'Overwilling Christians', 'drilled into his head his whole life' - two very telling phrases. You are I guess going by personal experience and assuming it must be the same for everyone. I'm not sure that being familiar with a religion boils down to being able to quote selectively from a book and then place your own opinion of a particular passage out of context of both the book as a whole, when it was written and the society it reflected, but maybe that's just me being rational.


You are talking about me, so I gave my personal experience. Sunday school sucks. I hated being told that I should do this or that or I'm going to hell. And there is a GROWING portion of agnostics and atheists who feel the same way, and you are being willfully ignorant if you don't believe that is the case.

I didn't take any passages out of context. In FACT I made sure that I posted the entire context of each of those passages so that everyone can read them as they stand and see for themselves what they say. Saying they are "out of context" is a cop out and wrong.


What IS interesting is the comments in this thread that appear to suggest a moral standard the majority of atheists/agnostics adhere to which sets them apart from people who have aligned themselves to a faith (not you, others in this thread) when there is no logic to support such a statement.


Atheists and agnostics are only held accountable to the laws of the country they live in. So they should be aware of the consequences of going against them. With the religious it tends to be a bit different. The consequences for not behaving are vague, the rules of behavior seem to shift all the time, and despite the claims of inclusiveness it tends to be exclusive.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   
dbl post
edit on 5-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Barcs
Did true Christians even exist for the first 1500 years of Christianity?


I feel like this is an interesting question given the way that Christians think that "True Christians" should behave. I feel like it could easily be a thread of its own.


I think it's equally interesting how some atheists/agnostics have they own opinions of how Christians (other religions are available but for some reason are typically ignored) behave or should behave.


I think it is rather banal that Christians continually ask questions such as this considering most Western born atheists/agnostics would have a high probability of being familiar with the Christian religion, what it says, what it teaches, and how a Christian should behave. Failing that, knowledge of the Bible is regularly supplied by overwilling Christians all the time.

What IS interesting is why Christians seem to think that when someone leaves their religion, that person just forgets how a Christian is supposed to behave like it hasn't been drilled into his head his whole life.


'Overwilling Christians', 'drilled into his head his whole life' - two very telling phrases. You are I guess going by personal experience and assuming it must be the same for everyone. I'm not sure that being familiar with a religion boils down to being able to quote selectively from a book and then place your own opinion of a particular passage out of context of both the book as a whole, when it was written and the society it reflected, but maybe that's just me being rational.


You are talking about me, so I gave my personal experience. Sunday school sucks. I hated being told that I should do this or that or I'm going to hell. And there is a GROWING portion of agnostics and atheists who feel the same way, and you are being willfully ignorant if you don't believe that is the case.

I didn't take any passages out of context. In FACT I made sure that I posted the entire context of each of those passages so that everyone can read them as they stand and see for themselves what they say. Saying they are "out of context" is a cop out and wrong.


What IS interesting is the comments in this thread that appear to suggest a moral standard the majority of atheists/agnostics adhere to which sets them apart from people who have aligned themselves to a faith (not you, others in this thread) when there is no logic to support such a statement.


Atheists and agnostics are only held accountable to the laws of the country they live in. So they should be aware of the consequences of going against them. With the religious it tends to be a bit different. The consequences for not behaving are vague, the rules of behavior seem to shift all the time, and despite the claims of inclusiveness it tends to be exclusive.


No need to post it twice


So you were sent to Sunday school and hated it - I feel for you, personally I wasn't sent so can't comment and can't recall I'd ever go to Hell for anything. I guess this all comes down to personal experiences doesn't it? I'm not being willfully ignorant of anything, we are all products of our own experiences, you had yours, others had theirs, to think otherwise is more ignorant IMHO.

"despite the claims of inclusiveness it tends to be exclusive." again, you seem to pick on the actions of some who use their faith as a flag for their actions as something that somehow represents the majority. Sadly that's not uncommon on ATS.

As for the out of context piece, this whole thread is based upon it. Most of the passages you documented in your OP are from the Old Testament, particularly at a time when the tribe of Israel was trying to expand which by its nature meant occupying areas held by other tribes. That would lead to conflict and (as with virtually every war ever) the tribe of Israel would call on the Divine to help them reach their goal. That's fairly much the historical context which you boiled down to the question 'Racism in the Bible'.

I wasn't actually talking about you per se, but with so many of your comments based on your personal opinion, it's hard not to respond in kind - hope that makes sense.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t


If only it worked out that way... But like I pointed out in the bible, people who believe as you do tend to try to use their beliefs to change laws and discriminate against these people then hide behind your religion claiming "Freedom of religion" like the 1st amendment gives you carte blache to keep someone else from having equal rights.

I noted your anger. Is that because you know that you are mistaken? What laws do you accuse me of changing? It seems that when I was a youngster that the laws were discriminating homosexuality in the U.S. but now have become the platform of righteousness. Isn't it a fact that abortion was also regarded as shameful and considered murder but now is the permissive will of the people? Discriminate? I have no discriminative power. As I said you have the right to be a homosexual and kill babies. That right is protected by the law of the land. Don't become so upset with an old geezer with one foot in the grave. I have no power to infringe upon your rights to sin.



That's because people such as I have been vigilant in getting these laws off the books and stopping them when new ones spring up. It's not like y'all just woke up one day and decided to be more tolerant of each other. Y'all have been fighting tolerance every step of the way. You're doing it now by defending the bible's accounts of intolerance.


What do you mean by 'y'all'? Are you seriously suggesting that everyone who is aligned to the faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is a racist homophobe who needs to be restricted by law, while all agnostics/atheists are not?

Please don't give me the 'I'm only focussing on Christianity' nonsense again to try and wiggle out of including other faiths that are based around the Old Testament, it only washes for so long.


How many Muslims or Jewish people do you see regularly trying to put their religion into government or bemoaning the "sins" of society and trying to get them outlawed? And by this I mean western governments. Not third world governments. I can't do anything about the countries already under theocracies.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This topic has been done over and over soooo many times.I wish people
would stop stirring this poo pot and focus their attention on other topics.

Not likely to happen, mamabeth. It's been a topic for centuries, and likely will continue to be so for a long time to come. Especially in a society that is gradually turning away from religion as the answer. If anything, the debate is likely to become more and more vocal from both sides as this form of the dialectic plays itself out in the 21rst century.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted
No need to post it twice


Stupid website...



So you were sent to Sunday school and hated it - I feel for you, personally I wasn't sent so can't comment and can't recall I'd ever go to Hell for anything. I guess this all comes down to personal experiences doesn't it? I'm not being willfully ignorant of anything, we are all products of our own experiences, you had yours, others had theirs, to think otherwise is more ignorant IMHO.


It's part of being Catholic. While not all beliefs do the hell fire thing, they can be equally damaging in their own right.


"despite the claims of inclusiveness it tends to be exclusive." again, you seem to pick on the actions of some who use their faith as a flag for their actions as something that somehow represents the majority. Sadly that's not uncommon on ATS.


If it's not a majority, it's pretty close. Gay marriage is the hot button issue of the day. Roughly half the country is against it, and most cite religious reasons.


As for the out of context piece, this whole thread is based upon it. Most of the passages you documented in your OP are from the Old Testament, particularly at a time when the tribe of Israel was trying to expand which by its nature meant occupying areas held by other tribes. That would lead to conflict and (as with virtually every war ever) the tribe of Israel would call on the Divine to help them reach their goal. That's fairly much the historical context which you boiled down to the question 'Racism in the Bible'.


One of the passages was a decree that people from certain tribes wouldn't get into heaven for ten generations, followed by an example of the Israelites using that decree to excuse ethnic cleansing. Why isn't this denounced as unacceptable behavior? If it is a case of the Israelites claiming godly inspiration and being mistaken, then ADMIT that. Change the bible to reflect that god DIDN'T sanction such activities. That doesn't mean you have to remove the story though. Keep it. Let it be a lesson of something NOT to do instead of something that is condoned by god.


I wasn't actually talking about you per se, but with so many of your comments based on your personal opinion, it's hard not to respond in kind - hope that makes sense.


I know.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t


If only it worked out that way... But like I pointed out in the bible, people who believe as you do tend to try to use their beliefs to change laws and discriminate against these people then hide behind your religion claiming "Freedom of religion" like the 1st amendment gives you carte blache to keep someone else from having equal rights.

I noted your anger. Is that because you know that you are mistaken? What laws do you accuse me of changing? It seems that when I was a youngster that the laws were discriminating homosexuality in the U.S. but now have become the platform of righteousness. Isn't it a fact that abortion was also regarded as shameful and considered murder but now is the permissive will of the people? Discriminate? I have no discriminative power. As I said you have the right to be a homosexual and kill babies. That right is protected by the law of the land. Don't become so upset with an old geezer with one foot in the grave. I have no power to infringe upon your rights to sin.



That's because people such as I have been vigilant in getting these laws off the books and stopping them when new ones spring up. It's not like y'all just woke up one day and decided to be more tolerant of each other. Y'all have been fighting tolerance every step of the way. You're doing it now by defending the bible's accounts of intolerance.


What do you mean by 'y'all'? Are you seriously suggesting that everyone who is aligned to the faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is a racist homophobe who needs to be restricted by law, while all agnostics/atheists are not?

Please don't give me the 'I'm only focussing on Christianity' nonsense again to try and wiggle out of including other faiths that are based around the Old Testament, it only washes for so long.


How many Muslims or Jewish people do you see regularly trying to put their religion into government or bemoaning the "sins" of society and trying to get them outlawed? And by this I mean western governments. Not third world governments. I can't do anything about the countries already under theocracies.


That is not the point, and to be honest I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. When you say Western, you really mean America don't you? There are multiple countries in the Western world where for example Islam is if not the predominant faith, then it's not far off. But really, it's still not the point. I know America has its fair share of kooks in some level of public office, the type who think people should be legally allowed to shoot homosexuals dead purely for being homosexual - but then you get such weirdos in all walks of life who will use all manner of things to justify what they say/do. That by no means suggests they represent the majority.

If you only used ATS or some right leaning newspapers, you would think many Western countries are at risk of being governed by shariah law, so interesting question though.

What on Earth do you mean by 'I can't do anything'? That suggests you can do something to further your agenda in other countries - care to expand?



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not going to use quote as it would be to long a reply so....

I was raised a Catholic, never went to Sunday school - it may have been de riguer where you grew up, wasn't where I did, so can't comment on that. Can't ever recall the whole Hell thing being bandied about as such, although of course that's not to suggest it wasn't an epithet that was never used in more general terms, more around the fate of someone who had committed a very terrible crime.

Gay marriage? I personally think the state should sanction it and allow people to marry in a state ceremony, but a faith of any kind should not be forced to perform weddings - I think that's fairly fair actually, it doesn't diminish the fact that the couple are married and is not coercing someone to perform an act that goes against their own feelings. I appreciate you may term that as some kind of oppression, on this particular one I disagree. This is be no means limited to Christianity as I'm sure you are aware.

I'm really not sure what you think I have to admit, I'm not here to defend anything other than perspective and context. I put the thing into historical context, nothing more nothing less and I'm sure I don't know enough about whether a)there is a God, or b) he/she/it did condone it to make any comment to that.





edit on 5-5-2015 by uncommitted because: Whoops, suggested if there is a God then it's male - mea culpa



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t


If only it worked out that way... But like I pointed out in the bible, people who believe as you do tend to try to use their beliefs to change laws and discriminate against these people then hide behind your religion claiming "Freedom of religion" like the 1st amendment gives you carte blache to keep someone else from having equal rights.

I noted your anger. Is that because you know that you are mistaken? What laws do you accuse me of changing? It seems that when I was a youngster that the laws were discriminating homosexuality in the U.S. but now have become the platform of righteousness. Isn't it a fact that abortion was also regarded as shameful and considered murder but now is the permissive will of the people? Discriminate? I have no discriminative power. As I said you have the right to be a homosexual and kill babies. That right is protected by the law of the land. Don't become so upset with an old geezer with one foot in the grave. I have no power to infringe upon your rights to sin.



That's because people such as I have been vigilant in getting these laws off the books and stopping them when new ones spring up. It's not like y'all just woke up one day and decided to be more tolerant of each other. Y'all have been fighting tolerance every step of the way. You're doing it now by defending the bible's accounts of intolerance.


What do you mean by 'y'all'? Are you seriously suggesting that everyone who is aligned to the faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is a racist homophobe who needs to be restricted by law, while all agnostics/atheists are not?

Please don't give me the 'I'm only focussing on Christianity' nonsense again to try and wiggle out of including other faiths that are based around the Old Testament, it only washes for so long.


How many Muslims or Jewish people do you see regularly trying to put their religion into government or bemoaning the "sins" of society and trying to get them outlawed? And by this I mean western governments. Not third world governments. I can't do anything about the countries already under theocracies.


That is not the point, and to be honest I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. When you say Western, you really mean America don't you? There are multiple countries in the Western world where for example Islam is if not the predominant faith, then it's not far off. But really, it's still not the point. I know America has its fair share of kooks in some level of public office, the type who think people should be legally allowed to shoot homosexuals dead purely for being homosexual - but then you get such weirdos in all walks of life who will use all manner of things to justify what they say/do. That by no means suggests they represent the majority.


By Western world I mean Canada and the US plus Europe.


If you only used ATS or some right leaning newspapers, you would think many Western countries are at risk of being governed by shariah law, so interesting question though.


I don't do that though.


What on Earth do you mean by 'I can't do anything'? That suggests you can do something to further your agenda in other countries - care to expand?


Uh... By saying that I can't do anything I'm pretty sure that DOESN'T say that I can do something to further ANY agenda in other countries. Besides, I only care about the place I live in. Those are the laws I have to obey. That is the society I live in. So that is the one I care the most about.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


Uh... By saying that I can't do anything I'm pretty sure that DOESN'T say that I can do something to further ANY agenda in other countries. Besides, I only care about the place I live in. Those are the laws I have to obey. That is the society I live in. So that is the one I care the most about.


Sorry, I think you may have misunderstood. I assume you live in America or Canada? If you do, then of course you have the right to vote against, or protest against someone who is either in or running for office if you believe their ideals and politics are wrong, regardless of whether they are based on the persons religion or not - in your country.

In other countries, western, eastern whatever, you have the right to protest, sure. So when you said 'I can't do anything about countries already governed by a theocracy' (paraphrase) it suggests you are actively doing something in countries that are not - specifically any country in the western world by your definition. I was just interested what it is you intend to do or are doing - apart from posting on ATS.
edit on 5-5-2015 by uncommitted because: layout went weird

edit on 5-5-2015 by uncommitted because: typo



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

The last thing I did to attempt to change the way a middle eastern country was ran was join the Army and run missions up and down Iraq's main highway. I'm through worrying about the way those people run their country or other similar countries. If they don't want to change, then they are on their own.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

The last thing I did to attempt to change the way a middle eastern country was ran was join the Army and run missions up and down Iraq's main highway. I'm through worrying about the way those people run their country or other similar countries. If they don't want to change, then they are on their own.


hmmm, so, you joined a conflict against another country? Was that part of the action that GWB called a crusade? Interesting, but I admire you for taking such a stance, not sure why that is appropriate to the question though.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Try doing a little REAL research on the religion of islam!



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

The point is that I only care about the issue effecting my backyard. Christians pushing their bible into government, using it to justify intolerance, using said intolerance as "religious freedom", and similar things is what I'm worried about. If Muslims got a good foothold in this country and tried to do the same, I'd be decrying their actions on the regular too. I don't want ANY religion running my life and I don't want one forced on me. If that isn't you, great, but you and I both know that the religion is more than just you.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Try doing a little REAL research on the religion of islam!


What does that have to do with anything? Muslims make up 2% of the population in America. So if there are any Muslims pushing Islam into our government, they certainly don't have the numbers to enforce their will.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

The point is that I only care about the issue effecting my backyard. Christians pushing their bible into government, using it to justify intolerance, using said intolerance as "religious freedom", and similar things is what I'm worried about. If Muslims got a good foothold in this country and tried to do the same, I'd be decrying their actions on the regular too. I don't want ANY religion running my life and I don't want one forced on me. If that isn't you, great, but you and I both know that the religion is more than just you.


No, you missed what my point was. You said you weren't interested in non Western countries, yet you joined a war against one. Not sure what that has to do with the question I asked which is was based around if you are actively doing anything in Western countries where you believe faith isn't being separated from state which is how I perceived your comments. Fighting against a Muslim country is hardly backing that up. Now, if you had been part of UN peace keeping, I could probably understand where you were going.

This is not intended to belittle anyone either actively engaged in or now retired from armed service.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

The point is that I only care about the issue effecting my backyard. Christians pushing their bible into government, using it to justify intolerance, using said intolerance as "religious freedom", and similar things is what I'm worried about. If Muslims got a good foothold in this country and tried to do the same, I'd be decrying their actions on the regular too. I don't want ANY religion running my life and I don't want one forced on me. If that isn't you, great, but you and I both know that the religion is more than just you.


No, you missed what my point was. You said you weren't interested in non Western countries, yet you joined a war against one. Not sure what that has to do with the question I asked which is was based around if you are actively doing anything in Western countries where you believe faith isn't being separated from state which is how I perceived your comments. Fighting against a Muslim country is hardly backing that up. Now, if you had been part of UN peace keeping, I could probably understand where you were going.


I joined a war back when I was younger and thought differently than I do today. Remember, after the WoD claim was debunked, we were "bringing democracy to Iraq" as our mission there? I also wasn't there for the initial war. I was there when the Army was a glorified police force.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The God of the Hebrews also used other groups of peoples to punish His people as well .Following the narrative He was more judgmental and stricter will all of the laws .We sometimes forget that there were many more laws then the 10 commandments in the Bible .


One could argue that is Stockholm Syndrome. The Hebrews were subjected to racism as well (we are after all talking about a time when such things were common place) and likely believed the racist claims of their conquerors and oppressors because they clearly were being oppressed.

Here, we are presented with a clear indication that the ancient Israelites could have recognized incoming racism and used that as a model to prevent having racism of their own. Instead, they wallow in it and learn nothing from it.


And here we have an example of you using your own modern perceptions to attempt to judge a very different time.

Do you also call Mohammad a pedophile?


Look. I admitted in the OP that you are more than apt to call the people's actions in the bible a product of their times. I am trying to argue that bigoted actions exist in the Bible, we should recognize them for what they are, and either remove them or teach that these quotes aren't apt for our times. Stop letting Christians justify their hate because your religious forefathers did the same.

I'm an agnostic. Christians don't like listening to me, but if other Christians were to point these things out, maybe ya'll could reinvigorate membership to your religion outside of brainwashing 3rd world countries with missionaries.


Ah, so when God says marriage is between a man and woman and then Christ echoes that teaching - they're bigoted?

Sorry, God is a higher teacher than you are.


So, if God made all humans, then why did He make it so that some men are attracted to men and some women are attracted to women? Then He makes it a sin to act on those urges. Then for the final cherry on top, they aren't allowed to start a family together. Meanwhile, the rest of the population has free reign on their urges, provided they marry first (something which has been restricted to the other people)


You just don't get it man. I don't know that you ever will. You have too much of a perfection mindset. I used to be the same in my atheist days.

We ALL fall short of the glory of God. We ALL have our cross to bear. Most sex and sexual desires are sin. Gays sin is no greater than straight. In fact, there is no scale to sin. This is a very important concept. You cannot look at another person and say, your sins are worse than mine.

Marriage seems the be the fulcrum that gets used to start the name calling.

I could be wrong, but are there any (outside of taxes, although I think this could be done as well) benefits to marriage that cannot be handled with simple contracts and powers of attorney?

Marriage now is a set of contracts. Some people still see it as a religious institution.

Take the State completely out of marriage. Make everyone happy. Call it something else. Give it some secular humanist name, that let's the atheistic folks out from under the yoke of traditional marriages.

Then the religious crowd can have the word back, and it will suddenly get a lot harder to point at bigots everyday, although when you do you may actually be correct for a change.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst

The point is that homosexuals have urges that MAKE them want to engage in these sins. Straight people do not. By the way, premarital intercourse isn't strictly forbidden in the bible, let alone a sin against God. So a straight person acting on his urges and having sex with a woman before marriage isn't sinning, however a gay man who does IS sinning. Yet god made that man with those urges. He burdened that guy with having to fight against his base instincts then demands equal compliance to the people without those urges. It is hypocritical.
edit on 5-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
32
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join