Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Christianity and Homosexuality....

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistor

Originally posted by Ford Farmer

Originally posted by Graystar
As for me I don't care one way or the other who out there is homosexual, unless you are wearing a christian mask.

[edit on 5-11-2006 by Graystar]


There is no mask.


No Kidding!!


I think you're secretly hiding behind the flag and the Rocky Horror references.


You must be an illuminati plant, here to subvert us with your pro gay agenda.


Dude, What is your problem. are you stating that God My creator who planned out my life, and made me the way I am, dosn't love me.

Janet Weiss your apple pie dont taste to nice


[edit on 17-11-2006 by Ford Farmer]




posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist
Stating that any person needs to "repent" for who they are is so typical Christian and so incredibly inhumane it makes me sick...you Christians are trying to deny people their civil rights and you make me sick to my stomach.


I couldn't agree with you more, an3rkist.

One thing though, please use the person's name when you are talking about their beliefs...don't throw all Christians into the mix.

If TarzanBeta wants to stand up and spout that kind of tripe, that's his business. But I hate to see Christianity as a whole thrown out with the bathwater.

I'm a Christian and TarzanBeta's last post makes me sick.
All the posts where people claim that the basic tenants of Christianity are about making specific groups of people outcasts...they all make me sick.

I know it seems to be a common theme among Christians...but keep in mind that not all Christians are haters.

Take for example: Jesus.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius
please use the person's name when you are talking about their beliefs...don't throw all Christians into the mix.


Yeah, I apologize for my stereotypical statement. Maybe a better way for me to have worded would have been instead of saying, "you Christians are trying to deny people their civil rights and you make me sick to my stomach," I could've said, "you Christians that are trying to deny people their civil rights make me sick to my stomach."






I know it seems to be a common theme among Christians...but keep in mind that not all Christians are haters.

Take for example: Jesus.


Personally I don't think Jesus is a great example, but that's just me. Jesus himself said something that is along the same lines as these Christians saying the homosexuals need to repent when he said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." At first glance it appears to be a loving quote filled with compassion and such, but it still gives me the feeling that he thinks people need to be forgiven for who they are. Now this statement was made of course in reference to the people who were going to crucify Christ I believe, and so maybe I shouldn't use that example because killing somebody is not really something I would say that makes a person "who they are" and therefore should not be something that should be repented for. But if the statement made by Christ applies to other facets of the human race, then I think it's a valid point. People should not be in need of forgiveness for being their true selves.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Civil rights are rights that somebody already has so how does this apply to gays?

I think you want what you want as an example of flexing your muscles to show your new found power and I can't see the real need for much of what you want.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist
Personally I don't think Jesus is a great example, but that's just me. Jesus himself said something that is along the same lines as these Christians saying the homosexuals need to repent when he said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." ... People should not be in need of forgiveness for being their true selves.


I see what you're saying, but I do disagree with your interpretation. The people who "knew not what they did" were people who were currently executing Jesus. Think about that for a second...that's a long long ways from the culture of hatred being bred in the Christian camp these days isn't it? Jesus is lobbying for people who are murdering him, while Christians these days throw eggs at stores who put up "Happy Holidays" signs instead of "Merry Christmas."

The point is that Jesus was forgiving the actions of his killers.
I believe, as you do, that Jesus wouldn't ask a homosexual to apologize for being gay any more than he would ask me to apologize for having curly hair and a crooked nose.


Originally posted by denythestatusquo
I think you want what you want as an example of flexing your muscles to show your new found power and I can't see the real need for much of what you want.


I don't know what's more pathetic here...the homophobic paranoia or the blind disregard for the history of shaming that homosexuals have endured in the past.

Gosh darn "Queer Eye" fab five...making the straighties think the sky is falling.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Or the blind disregard homosexuals have shown towards male children all through history. 4 out of 5 children molested by gay Catholic priests were boys. Pederasty is found in all gay cultures going back to antiquity. The founder of the gay movement was a pedophile.

gayhistory.com...

One can't help but wonder at the emotional & psychological damage these thousands of children suffered by being forced, sold or seduced into sexual bondage with older gay men.

[edit on 28-11-2006 by Black Sword]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 01:25 AM
link   
www.opinioneditorials.com...

In 1974, David Thorstadt—prominent member of the gay rights movement, Trotskyist, and founder of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Assoc.), co-authored with John Lauritson, a history of the early gay rights movement. The history, entitled The Early Homosexual Rights Movement: 1864-1935 links the modern post Stonewall Rebellion movement to its birth in Germany, in 1864. It also details the linkage to socialism.

Leslie Feinberg, transgender lesbian activist, author, and managing editor of the communist Workers World Newspaper concurs with Thorstadt: “The first great wave of struggle to demand sexual and gender emancipation had taken place from 1869 to 1935. It began in Germany. It was a dynamic, expanding movement that grew to be international.” (Rise of German Homosexual Emancipation Movement, www.workers.org)




“Rohm was the founding father of Nazism. He believed that gay people were superior to straights and saw homosexuality as a key principle of his proposed Brave New Fascist Order. As historian Louis Snyder explains, Rohm “projected a social order in which homosexuality would be regarded as a human behavior of high repute.” (www.JohannHari.com) The insane notion that socially destructive behaviors should be elevated to a level of ‘superiority’ is the fuel driving America’s gay rights movement and is at work this very moment in schools, universities, Hollywood, etc.


[edit on 28-11-2006 by Black Sword]

[edit on 28-11-2006 by Black Sword]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
That's a fun game, Black Sword.
I first read about it in a book called "How to Become a Complete Bigot in 30 Days or Less." Is that where you found it?

For those of you who don't know the rules, this is how you play:

1) You take one individual (preferably somebody really deviant).
2) You focus on one trait of that individual (skin color or sexual preference is easiest...but don't limit yourself!...try religion, geographic region, or birth defect).
3) Find something despicable that the individual has done in their lifetime.
4) Now take everyone in the entire world that has the trait you chose, and say that they love to do the despicable thing that the one individual did!

Sound hard? Think again!

Check this out:

White People: Redneck bigots.
Black People: Gang members.
Latinos: Lazy.
Gay People: Pedophiles.
Jews: Greedy.
Polish People: Really dumb.
Midgets: LOVE to be ridiculed.
Blondes: Whores.
Arab: Terrorist.
Curly Hair: Serial killer.
Married People: Trapped and sad.
Single People: Alone and sad.
Promiscuous People: Have AIDS and are sad.
From New York: Pompous A-Hole.
From Los Angeles: Egotistical A-Hole.
From San Francisco: Self-Righteous A-Hole.
From Texas: Republican A-Hole.
From Florida: Geriatric A-Hole.
From Hawaii: Stoned. Cool...but ALWAYS stoned.
From Japan: Kamikazee Pilot A-Hole.
From Paris: Snobby A-Hole.
From Italy: Sexy. (Seriously...what can a bigot do here?)
From Iraq: Terrorist.
Visiting Iraq: Baby-killer.
Blue Eyes: Nazi.
Irish: Drunk.
Ripping homosexuals on an internet forum: Gay.


I could go on and on for days and still not beat Black Sword's though:

Gay: Pedophile Nazi

1st prize, that. No DOUBT.

Thanks again, Black Sword.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Are you seriously stating that Gay people are peds. I already see a GIANT flaw in that statement. GIANT

also the thing with Rohm saying that Gay people are "superior" to straight people is a completely skewed. Just because I am Gay, dosn't make me any better than the straight person next to me. We were all created equal. It's the human mind, and upbringing that sets the levels of superiority.

[edit on 5-12-2006 by Ford Farmer]



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius
White People: Redneck bigots.
Black People: Gang members.
Latinos: Lazy.
Gay People: Pedophiles.


That was a great list that definitely showed the stereotypical stigmas that need to be dispelled. I'd like to add one to the list:

Christians: Hypocrites.

I only add that one because I myself am guilty of this stereotype. I probably showed my stereotypical ignorance in regards to this stigma in this very thread. I know not all Christians should be labeled hypocrites even though I act like I think that sometimes.

I do think it's wrong to say homosexuals and pedophiles are necessarily related. If we used that then we could just as easily say, "Well there were pedophiles amongst Christian Cardinals, so Christianity must cause pedophilia."

Homosexuality is not tolerated in Christianity because of some fairly vague references to it in the Bible; and because it's non-conformist and therefore a sin. In my own personal experience with Christianity, anything that could be considered different or remotely non-conformist is strictly forbidden. I believe the Christian religion has played a huge role in causing the whole of society to frown upon homosexuality.

Yet another crime against humanity brought about in the name of "God". PRAISE THE LORD!

[edit on 5/12/06 by an3rkist]



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Christians do not hate homosexuals. It's not a matter of intolerance. Do you feel it's intolerant to have an aversion to child molesters? Homosexuality and child molestation are both perversions and are comparable to one another for sheer wrongness.

Clearly, Christ felt no need to mention homosexuality in the New Testament because it was an unspeakable sin -- those writing the books of the New Testament accepted it as true and didn't see it as being up for discussion. Never would they have even questioned it; many would not have imagined it.

Homosexuality is a sin against nature itself. The fact that it is "popular" now is an indicator of the decadence of our society.



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by southern_cross3
Do you feel it's intolerant to have an aversion to child molesters? Homosexuality and child molestation are both perversions and are comparable to one another for sheer wrongness.


I'm not even homosexual, but I'm extremely offended that you would lump homosexuality and child molestation into the same category. Even with your own arguments that statement is false. You say that "homosexuality is a crime against nature itself." It is a relationship between two consenting human beings. Whereas child molestation is a crime against the child. Homosexuality is only a sin in the eyes of people who have been conditioned by religions to think that.


Clearly, Christ felt no need to mention homosexuality in the New Testament because it was an unspeakable sin -- those writing the books of the New Testament accepted it as true and didn't see it as being up for discussion. Never would they have even questioned it; many would not have imagined it.


This is a typical ignorant Christian statement. (Not calling you ignorant personally, though.) Christ did talk about other things that would be considered "unspeakable sins" by your gauge, such as incest and such, so how can you use this? This is a horribly flawed argument since you are making an assumption based on a shaky foundation of a book that is so full of inconsistencies, and you're using it to argue something while claiming that the man who you base your religious beliefs on didn't even mention it! "Clearly, Christ felt no need"?! How can you possibly even begin to presume what Christ was thinking?



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I have a feeling that few molested children actually say "no".

I have a feeling that few instances of incest are nonconsentual. People engage in relations with their family because they want to.

And, as you say, homosexuals engage in a perversion of a physical relationship with consent.

Clearly, consent means nothing. If two people consent to do something wrong, does the mere fact of consentuality change its wrong nature? Of course not.

I would be interested in hearing arguments from true Christians in favor of the morality of homosexuality. TRUE Christians. Not "I believe the Bible is a good book fabricated by good men, or altered at some time in its history." Not "I go to Church but I believe many parts of the Bible are not applicable to us today." And not "I believe that half of the Bible doesn't apply to modern Christians."

If you want to validate the morality of homosexuality through secular means, then by all means try. But don't corrupt the Word of God to support a sin.

Even ignoring the fact that God created man and woman (not man and man, or woman and woman) expressly for one another, and ignoring all of the arguments about Adam and Eve vs. Adam and Steve, it is clear that homosexality is designated as being "wicked" in Genesis 19.

(KJV) - Genesis 19
Verse 4 - But even before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: (5) And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. (6) And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, (7) And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

It is mentioned earlier in the chapter that God intends to destroy the city specifically due to the sin of the men of the city. We see in this passage the men of the city, who clearly wish to engage in homosexual relations with Lot's male "angel in disguise" visitors. The verb "know" in this case means "to have intercourse with", and any modern translation of the Scriptures will make it clear that the men did not wish to merely talk to them, they wished to have sex with them. Lot refers to this specifically as being wicked. The angels then rescue Lot's family from the evil city before it is destroyed by God for its sins. Not necessarily only due to homosexuality, but this was certainly part of it.

[edit on 12/6/2006 by southern_cross3]

[edit on 12/6/2006 by southern_cross3]



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_cross3
I would be interested in hearing arguments from true Christians in favor of the morality of homosexuality. TRUE Christians. Not "I believe the Bible is a good book fabricated by good men, or altered at some time in its history." Not "I go to Church but I believe many parts of the Bible are not applicable to us today." And not "I believe that half of the Bible doesn't apply to modern Christians."


I would be interested in hearing what you think of the rest of Leviticus. You know, where it states how, when, where and with what incense to burn your offerings to God. You know, how it states that wearing cross materials is an abomination also. You know, where it states that eating shellfish is an abomination. You know, where it states that slavery is a good thing. You know, where it states that even touching pig's flesh is an abomination. You get the point....maybe.



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I am just blown away that you would even compare child molestation to being Gay. Since I am Gay, does that make me as bad as a child molestor. Do I hurt the pshyce of small children???

I didn't think so.



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
The Book of Leviticus lays out the laws of the Israelites. Expressly the Israelites. I don't say that nothing in it can be applied to us today; however much of it is relevant only to Jewish practices, and it would be an insult to Judaism and God if non-Jews were to follow through with their intricate ceremonial procedures.

Many will argue, "Ah, the Old Testament was overridden by Jesus, it doesn't apply anymore." This is not quite true. I do believe that Christ eliminated the need for the finer points of Jewish law. It was impossible at that time for people to obtain forgiveness from their sins by merely asking, so they had to go through a very specific process. Once Christ came, this process was no longer needed, as all could go directly through him.

However, not all of the Old Testament was "for the Jews". While Genesis is surely one of the Books of Moses, it is only the final chapters that even involve the children of Jacob, or the Israelites. Many will try to say that the death penalty is illegitimate because it was specifically given to the Jews through the Law, which was eradicated by Christ, despite the fact that capital punishment was actually commanded to Noah -- and anyone reading this post is descended from Noah, whether you believe it or not.

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah have little to do with the Jews, actually. There is not a stated commandment. It is nonetheless clear in the passage I quoted that the sin of the men of Sodom was homosexuality, that it was wicked, and that this was one of the reasons for which they were destroyed.



As far as the homosexual who questioned me something about a child's "pshyce" or something such, I'm afraid I really can't answer your question, because I don't know what that is.

EDIT: I went back and read the homosexual's post. I couldn't get it all quite at first because the rainbow colors were hurting my eyes. I still can't answer about the "pshyce" because that's not a word, but I didn't insinuate that you literally do anything to children. Instead, I compared homosexuality and child molestation. Both are perverted diversions from sexual norms. Regardless of age, consent, etc, a sexual sin is still a sexual sin. I don't hate you at all, but I believe your lifestyle to be wrong, much the way I feel that serial killers are wrong. It's not the nature of the sin that dictates the intolerance; all sins are equal.

[edit on 12/6/2006 by southern_cross3]



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_cross3
I have a feeling that few molested children actually say "no".


So, let me clarify something: Are you saying that the molested child is committing a sin as much as the molester? If you're arguments are consistent, then I think that's exactly what you're saying. I'm sure you don't believe this, but if you're going to argue these things you need to be consistent or you lose any credibility.


If you want to validate the morality of homosexuality through secular means, then by all means try. But don't corrupt the Word of God to support a sin.


I think that using the Bible to tell people they're wrong for being themselves is corrupting the Word of God as much as anything else. I don't believe the Bible to be the Word of God anyway, but I think that the Bible has been corrupted to the point where you can't take anything said in it without a grain of salt.


It is mentioned earlier in the chapter that God intends to destroy the city specifically due to the sin of the men of the city. We see in this passage the men of the city, who clearly wish to engage in homosexual relations with Lot's male "angel in disguise" visitors. The verb "know" in this case means "to have intercourse with", and any modern translation of the Scriptures will make it clear that the men did not wish to merely talk to them, they wished to have sex with them. Lot refers to this specifically as being wicked. The angels then rescue Lot's family from the evil city before it is destroyed by God for its sins. Not necessarily only due to homosexuality, but this was certainly part of it.


You're attempting to re-translate something that's already been re-translated a hundred times over and is therefore not necessarily a good reference. Not to mention "to have intercourse with" is not necessarily referring to sexual intercourse. The first two definitions of the word "intercourse" are:


1. dealings or communication between individuals, groups, countries, etc.
2. interchange of thoughts, feelings, etc.



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   
No, you didn't read my post very closely. I used the example of the fact that many molested children may not actually say "no" to indicate that you can't base right and wrong on a consentual basis. In no way did I even remotely insinuate that victims of child molestation are wrong.

You mention that you don't believe the Bible to be the Word of God. No doubt this is why nothing I say will make any sense to you. Being as the entire argument I have presented so far is based solely on the Word of God, if you do not believe it to be as such, then in your mind I haven't made an argument at all. I may as well just stop, because any point I make about the Bible, you will merely say "well, the Bible isn't true."


Pointless.



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Sorry southern, Pshyce is a word that I use instead of their psychological state of mind. Hope that that clears everything up.



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_cross3
I would be interested in hearing arguments from true Christians...Not "I go to Church but I believe many parts of the Bible are not applicable to us today."



The Book of Leviticus lays out the laws of the Israelites. Expressly the Israelites. I don't say that nothing in it can be applied to us today; however much of it is relevant only to Jewish practices,


So, correct me if I'm wrong, but these two statements would make you, by your own definition, not a true Christian? Maybe I'm reading too much into it though?


However, not all of the Old Testament was "for the Jews".


So there's a double standard in the Bible? What applies to some does not apply to all? Well maybe the "homosexuality is a sin" only applies to straight people! No?


In no way did I even remotely insinuate that victims of child molestation are wrong.


Okay. But if homosexuals are wrong for consenting to the "sin" of homosexuality, would that not make a child who consents to being molested a sinner also?


Being as the entire argument I have presented so far is based solely on the Word of God, if you do not believe it to be as such, then in your mind I haven't made an argument at all.


I agree.


Pointless.


I disagree.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join