Sparks Fly As 'Gay" Activist Mob Swarms Christians, page 8

privacy

Pages: << 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 20 times

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 01:05 PM by xmotex

Originally posted by Grandma
reply to post by xmotex

There is no proof that this boy was the boyfriend. Like I said....Jesus was God in the flesh and God made it VERY clear how He felt about homosexually. Just because Jesus didn't say anything about it doesn't mean anything. There is not record that Jesus spoke in tongues either, but his disciples did. Does that make it less important as a gift?

Grandma

And there in a nutshell you have my problem with modern "Christianity" (or at least the fundamentalist portion of it.) If the Bible says something you don't want to hear, tune it out. If Jesus didn't say what you want him to say, it's OK to pretend he did anyway

That's not Christianity - that's an allegiance to a political/cultural traditionalist movement that seeks submission to authority. For this movement, Jesus is just a figurehead - what he actually said and did doesn't seem to matter at all.

And yes, the Greek word Pais at the time was colloquially used to refer to a male lover, whether you cats wanty to admit it or not.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 01:05 PM by Avenginggecko

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by xmotex

Bear in mind I'm not Christian and I have accuracy issues with the New Testament but I can state the following:

Pais does not mean boyfriend.

but it does mean:

a child, boy or girl
infants, children
servant, slave
an attendant, servant, spec. a king's attendant, minister

In the context of the story the person is a slave of the Centurion. The Centurion clearly cares about the person but there is no implication of sexual relationship.

[edit on 18/11/08 by MikeboydUS]

I found this online, thought it might be interesting and give you another perspective. Not saying it's true, but it does show that the centurion's pais was probably more than just a slave to the centurion.

The Bible provides three key pieces of textual and circumstantial evidence. First, in the Luke passage, several additional Greek words are used to describe the one who is sick. Luke says this pais was the centurion’s entimos doulos. The word doulos is a generic term for slave, and was never used in ancient Greek to describe a son/boy. Thus, Luke’s account rules out the possibility the sick person was the centurion’s son; his use of doulos makes clear this was a slave. However, Luke also takes care to indicate this was no ordinary slave. The word entimos means “honored.” This was an “honored slave” (entimos doulos) who was his master’s pais. Taken together, the three Greek words preclude the possibility the sick person was either the centurion’s son or an ordinary slave, leaving only one viable option — he was his master’s male lover. (See note 20.)

A second piece of evidence is found in verse 9 of Matthew’s account. In the course of expressing his faith in Jesus’ power to heal by simply speaking, the centurion says, “When I tell my slave to do something, he does it.” By extension, the centurion concludes that Jesus is also able to issue a remote verbal command that must be carried out. When speaking here of his slaves, the centurion uses the word doulos. But when speaking of the one he is asking Jesus to heal, he uses only pais. In other words, when he is quoted in Matthew, the centurion uses pais only when referring to the sick person. He uses a different word, doulos, when speaking of his other slaves, as if to draw a distinction. (In Luke, it is others, not the centurion, who call the sick one an entimos doulos.) Again, the clear implication is that the sick man was no ordinary slave. And when pais was used to describe a servant who was not an ordinary slave, it meant only one thing — a slave who was the master’s male lover.

Would Jesus Discriminate?

Edit: And yes, the article clearly states how there is evidence he was the Centurion's lover, but unless we were there, I guess we'll never know for sure.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Avenginggecko]

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 01:13 PM by Helmkat

Originally posted by Grandma
reply to post by DemonicAngelZero

But Christians are seperated from the group if it goes against what the bible says. Jesus said. "If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes to his Father's glory with the holy angels." "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?

Jesus made it our right!

Grandma

Since this is Above top secret I'm afraid I must ask for more proof on this quote then just the Bible.

Please post cross referenced data from at least 4 neutral outside sources that these words were actually spoken by Jesus and have not been altered since originally spoken.

Relation to documented historical events will also go a long way to putting the quote (if proven to be factual) in proper persepctive.

thanks in advance.

Helmkat

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 01:17 PM by Jezus

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
They are the ones getting into peoples faces

Your article says otherwise...

"A group of Christians had been singing and praying in the "gay" district for several days"

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
...demanding rights, demanding in their ability to openly flaunt their lifestyle, and demanding in their want of special privileges.

Rights and special privileges are not the same thing.

They want equality.

The word equality comes from equal.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 01:19 PM by Niall197

To some of you it all seems very much black & white. But really, in the gay scene at least, it's all shades of grey. I'm gay & know many other gay dudes, most of whom are strongly opposed to the term "marriage" being used to describe civil partnerships, It's regarded as a word which should only apply to "conventional" M-F unions.

There. Said it.

But all my mates, me included, also strongly believe that there should be equality in matters of taxation, benefits & all the rest when it comes to two folks who love each other & who wish to commit, that the state should not discriminate on the grounds of sexuality. Because doing so is as bad as taxing a black man more than a white, or a catholic more than a protestant.

There's nothing wrong in wanting to be treated equally. And there's also nothing wrong in becoming upset when rights recently granted are suddenly removed.

Christians (some of whom are gay, no doubt) have the right to peaceably practise their own religion, to pray & all the rest. But to do so in a gay part of town when feelings are running high is as provocative as it is ill considered.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 01:21 PM by Grandma

reply to post by Avenginggecko

I have already said I do not agree with what these people done. They really had no right to do their rally in front of a gay bar. That was wrong and really did nothing to their advantage to show the love and mercy of Christ.

Grandma

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 01:23 PM by newagent89

reply to post by Grandma

They had a right, but what they did was not right.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 01:27 PM by Jezus

I find it ironic this issue exists in the United States.

Most people in the U.S. claim to be Christians.

Didn't Christ say take care of your starving poor and weak?

Well 800 million people in the world are starving...

But this christian nation, the richest fattest country in the world, is debating if two people with the same reproductive organs can get married...

I'm not christian but would Jesus approve of this?

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 01:27 PM by Grandma

reply to post by Helmkat

Yes, the next time I talk with Jesus I will ask him to come to you and show you himself what I said. Never mind that all four gospels as well as Paul all said pretty much the same thing and that there are records in Rome that do prove that Jesus was here and crucified and that Paul was be headed in Rome by Nero. There is much history........one just needs to see after so many times of reading the same thing,.........it must be true,,,,,,,,,,,,plus never mind what your spirit is telling you during your time of study and alone time with the Saviour.

I chose to believe it. You may chose not. We are made with the gift of free will. Our creator made us that way. Just remember, it is your soul you are talking about, not mine.

Grandma

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 01:29 PM by pieman

reply to post by Niall197

that's a fair point well said, but as you say, this for you is a shades of grey issue, so, who should qualify for civil partnership?

should it extend to people in a sexual relationship the we have to allow polygamy.

should it extend to people that are committed to living together then it would have to extend to any two people buying an apartment together.

should it be extended to those that profess love for each other and live together it should be extended to a son that lives in the family home with his widowed mother.

if society chooses to recognise homosexual committed relationships then why not every committed relationship?

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 01:32 PM by Anonymous ATS

reply to post by johnsky

Hate based history? Yes, the crusades were very bad. However, the "real" Christians of the day stood up against those notions. Many things have been done in the name of God or Jesus that would not be sanctioned by either of them. Now ponder this...

Darwin promoted an idea that moat atheists embrace....Hitler and Stalin also embraced that idea. Who killed more people? Do the math my friend.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 01:39 PM by holyTerror

Originally posted by governmentsecrets
well, i guess after years of being treated as a sub-human, denied equal rights, physically assaulted and killed for being born who we are, I guess we've decided we've had enough. Thats what happens when you suppress a group of people and deny them their equal rights. Reap what you sow.

Can I ask you a question? You insinuate that you were born gay,
meaning you were born with a sexual preference to the
same gender, right?

Does this mean that people who have sexual preferences that differ from the "norm of society" are born this way?

Does this mean that people who sexually prefer children are born that way?
Does it mean that people who sexually prefer animals are born that way?

If your answer is yes, than does that mean you are in favor of the above-stated people having the same rights as you do or wish to have?

Are you in favor of a pedophile being able to legally have sex with children?
Are you in favor of a person being able to legally marry a dog or pig or cow?

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 01:41 PM by micheshi

Actually, Grandma, you don't know much about hospitals then. If a gay person is in the hospital (especially in situations where communication is impossible) the partner can be excluded from visitation by a relative that disagrees with the relationship. The same could happen to a hetero couple who don't have a state recognized marriage.

The smartest thing to do would be to get the government out of marriage altogether but since that ain't likely to happen soon, equal protection under the law must be provided. You see, the hetero couple in the aforementioned example can simply go get the license but the gay couple isn't permitted to protect their life in the same way.

Of course, there are many other issues such as being taxed for SS but being unable to have your surviving partner collect a benefit etc.

I think that the 'christians' in this situation are absolute jackasses for 1) meddling in the affairs of others, 2) judging in god's place, and 3) being sore winners. They got what they wanted on Prop 8 even though it is anti-christian, anti-liberty and anti-human and then they went to rub it in.

My two cents as a non gay, non christian grandma.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 01:42 PM by MikeboydUS

reply to post by pieman

I think the idea of legally binded committed relationships is probably the best route to go with this. Legal contracts could then be drawn up that encompass the concept of a dependent that could be a person who is older that requires care but isn't a blood relative, the same for a child being cared for by a guardian, or designates of a relationship who has various legal rights in regards to the contract. In a sense it would be available to anyone male, female, young, old, straight or gay to create a legally binding contract with another human, giving them status as guardian, dependent, or cooperative status. It could be called a Civil Cooperative Contract.

I think this would alleviate all of the concerns I have seen on here, e.g. the hospital and burial issues.

[edit on 18/11/08 by MikeboydUS]

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 01:42 PM by Grandma

reply to post by Jezus

How much did your church do today to help the hungry and starving?

My church does a lot every month. Besides all the other ministries that it does because Jesus has asked us to do this in his name.

The US has helped so many countries with food, clothes, teachers, housing, medical help....we are just one country but we carry the load and that is alright. We are a Christian nation and that is the way it should be.

But don't people who do not go to there church to give tithes that help go towards outreach ministries start saying......."Where are the Christians?"

Grandma

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 01:44 PM by Nonvexatious

reply to post by resistor

I completely agree with you. Gay people move from all over the US to get away from bigoted attitudes, and the Castro is the main gay area. Why should gay people then have to put up with being followed there by a bunch of people who don't approve of them? That's harassment. Those Christians are entitled to their views but others are also entitled to go about their daily life without being preached at or told they are evil under a belief system they don't subscribe to. I notice US libertarians are often quite selective - "I should be entitled to live my life with as little interference as possible, but not you, because I disapprove of your lifestyle or who you are." I equally disapprove of the gay activists who recently staged a demo in a church, that's equally harassment of the Christians who have a right to worship in private whatever their beliefs are. Ok, someone's going to come back at me with, but the streets of SF are not a private space, anyone is free to go anywhere and say anything....but come on, the Castro is the only completely gay district in the whole however many hundred thousand square miles of the US, let people have some respite from the Christians.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 01:46 PM by detachedindividual

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Niall197

that's a fair point well said, but as you say, this for you is a shades of grey issue, so, who should qualify for civil partnership?

should it extend to people in a sexual relationship the we have to allow polygamy.

should it extend to people that are committed to living together then it would have to extend to any two people buying an apartment together.

should it be extended to those that profess love for each other and live together it should be extended to a son that lives in the family home with his widowed mother.

if society chooses to recognise homosexual committed relationships then why not every committed relationship?

No, it should be extended to two gay people who are in a committed relationship.

That is the argument here, not whether it should be extended to "any".

If any other group wishes to be treated equally, then they have to request it.

People living together are not requesting the right to civil partnership recognition. A son living with a widowed mother is not requesting civil partnership and associated rights.

Throwing other possibilities into this argument does nothing to support your side of this debate.
It has nothing to do with other sections of society in specific arrangements. It has everything to do with the majority denying a minority equal rights.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 01:47 PM by Grandma

reply to post by MikeboydUS

I think you are right. I think most people would go along with this and not have a problem with it. But, I fear most gays will still not like it. They want what they can't have and that is the law changed. Even is this could be a way to bring peace they still would not want it. I fear it has all gotten out of control now and will be a thorn in everyones side for a long time to come.

Grandma

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 01:47 PM by pieman

reply to post by MikeboydUS

sounds like a very good idea to me, i'm sure it could even be passed without objection from any community, i'ld love to know if it would be acceptable to the gay contributors.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 01:51 PM by Jezus

reply to post by Grandma

That is completely beside the point.

People are going out of their way to stop two people from being able to get married. They are ACTIVELY doing it.

People are STILL starving.

Wouldn't Jesus want our focus to be on some issues that caused people pain and suffering?