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.

 

I Am a Straight, Married Christian Male in Support of Gay Marriage

page: 16
60
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 547000

The bible does't say you must have slaves, but it doesn't condemn it either. However homosexuality is definately condemned.


There is homosexual slaves if you know what I mean nudge nudge wink wink -ahem- leather -ahem.




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by voidla
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


You're an atheist? Then shouldn't you understand marriage isn't a christian thing?


We are discussing the judeo-christian ceremony of marriage...yes, there was marriage before then, hell, all religions and cultures in the past have had some sort of ceremonial binding of two, but here in the US, its pretty straightforward as to what it is...biblical abrahamic style marriage.

And in that case, if the state acknowledges it, then it should be open to everyone...man and woman, man and man, woman and woman. But a priest of a abrahamic religion should not do the ceremony because they represent their book, and in their book, it says that gay people shouldn't be..erm..gay or something.

Just going with the details, not the overall arch of morality. judeo-christianity is barbaric and ignorant...what can you say, but if you are going to preach that specific brand of religion, you shouldn't water it down. watered down christianity is the norm today, and doesn't help out the atheist movement at all by pointing out how insane it is. I want a good wholesome westboro baptist church to be the mainstream and let their religion wither away into nothing...not adapt to society and psychological norms.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by spw184
 


What are you trying to imply with this? It's amazing what outrageous things people do to justufy their positions.

en.wikipedia.org...

The revelation of the letter caused a sensation at the time, but was soon met with accusations of forgery. The subsequent discovery that the major plot elements of Smith's discovery - the attempt to plant a hoax manuscript embarrassing to Christianity by a German archeologist in the Mar Saba library, and his unmasking by an American - are found in Canadian writer James H. Hunter's The Mystery of Mar Saba (1940), published the year before Smith's first visit to the Mar Saba library, has led most mainstream scholars today to regard the discovery as a hoax.[1]



There is another occurrence of neaniskos in Mark, this time as a youth dressed in white at the tomb of Jesus (Mark 16:5). For this particular passage, there are also parallel passages in both Matthew and Luke, but neither of the other Synoptic Gospels use the word neaniskos. (In Matthew 28:2 it is "an angel of the Lord" dressed in white that appears and, in Luke 24:4, there are two "men" (Greek: andres)). Thus, it is also possible that all three of these occurrences of neaniskos in Mark and in Secret Mark are somehow related. The proponents of Secret Mark as a forgery, on the other hand, suggest that Secret Mark was created based on Mark 14:51 and 16:5.
Morton Smith indicates that in Clement's letter, the presentation of the young man in the linen cloth has homoerotic connotations. Following Mark 10:34, Clement writes in his letter, the story of Jesus raising the young man from the dead, who then loves Jesus and begs to stay with him. After six days, the young man comes to Jesus in the evening, clothed in nothing but a linen garment, and spends the night, during which time Jesus teaches him the mystery of the Kingdom of God.[10] The phrase "spend the night with" is a euphemism for sex in modern English, but it is important to note that, during the time of Clement, the expression "staying the night" would not have had sexual overtones.
[citation needed]

The authenticity of this passage has been called into question on the basis of biographical details about Morton Smith. Some speculate that the homoerotic overtones were included by Smith because he himself was a homosexual. Although this speculation may not be relevant, Smith's reluctance or inability to present the original document of Clement's letter for inspection has left room for forgery accusations. He made photographs of the document available, but that has not convinced many skeptics.[10]



In addition, there is a tendency for people to superimposed current understanding and lexicon over ancient scripts. In the bible, "knowing" someone meant sexual relations, whereas "loving" someone would not. Case in point, the Gospel of Mark also says Jesus loved his sister. So now what are you and others implying about him???? It's disgusting to say the least.


Smith held that the best explanation for the literary and historical evidence surrounding the mircles of Jesus was that Jesus himself actually performed--or meant to and was understood to have performed--magical feats. Among these was a baptismal initiation rite through which he was able to "give" his disciples a vision of the heavenly spheres. This was in the form of an altered state of consciousness induced by "the recitation of repetitive, hypnotic prayers and hymns," a technique common in Jewish mystical texts, Qumran material, Greek magical papyri and later Christian practices such as the Byzantine liturgy.[14] This is a radical departure from the mainstream scholarship which seeks to minimize or eliminate altogether any possible "supernatural" elements attached to the Historical Jes

www.gnosis.org...


The defamation of the character and person of Jesus is so insidious.


edit on 7-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by yes4141
 


My apologies also, I will admit to PWI (Posting While Intoxicated) having a few glasses of wine after a long day. Normally I would have proofread myself before hitting post. I was being lazy and my use and ability with pronouns diminished with each glass.

I think it was the Line where you said:


Why propose a ceremony to gain the blessing of their relationship from a deity which, if there is an iota of truth in the books, despises everything about that relationship?

that made me post in such haste.
I thought I was being Matter of Fact, not ''hyper defensive'' or otherwise.
As far as being oppressed, unless you have walked in someone's shoes I guess is appropriate. I hardly think I implied oppression as much as "The Church Choir Group" needs understand they are not the only show on the road here, the arrogance is implied in Christianity (not implying you are one) by it's very dogma of Only Through Christ can one be saved. I don't agree and I think neither do you. Apology again.

Maybe I should have posted directly to the OP, but my irritation was an perceived assumption that everyone follows the ways of the 'Books",,, some of us admit our primal sides in positive fashion... such as intellectual sparring of minds here on ATS. Or in our sexuality.
I assure you I didn't mean it to be so personally directed as I sound. The 'You' I referenced was really directed to the plural collective of popular group mind at work in our culture. It is know to affect even hard core Atheist.

Pagans are not immune to mistakes.

Again, my sincere apologies



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by IlluminatusOculus33



Jesus was never a homosexual nor is there any credible proof. He was celibate.


Ahh, Illumiocuti, we meet again. Now that introductions are done, Let me come to this, If god put jesus on earth to see and feel what humans see and feel, that wouldn't god want him to have sex and experiance a relationship with another human? And also, there is no HARDCORE evidence that the gospel of mark is a forgery. Just saying.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by spw184
 


What are you trying to imply with this?


What im implying, is that although i do not personaly beleive so, According to christian holy books, Jesus might have been in a homosexual situation at one point. Again, i go back to my post a LONG time ago on this thread

"Even the devil can cite scriptures to fit his needs"



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen23
 





Maybe I should have posted directly to the OP, but my irritation was an perceived assumption that everyone follows the ways of the 'Books",,,



In that case, one wonders why the new desire to be acknowledged by those who go by the ways of the books...could there be any more hypocrisy in that?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by spw184

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by spw184
 


What are you trying to imply with this?


What im implying, is that although i do not personaly beleive so, According to christian holy books, Jesus might have been in a homosexual situation at one point. Again, i go back to my post a LONG time ago on this thread

"Even the devil can cite scriptures to fit his needs"


See my post from wikipedia. Again see what I have to say about trying to make the bible fit the agenda.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen23
 


ahh right. I only said "in the books" to mean the corresponding religion to where or how you get married.

I also only meant oppression in terms of people not tolerating/ accepting your religion which is what I thought was the reason you seemed to be defensive.

Don't worry about it, I was just a bit confused/ surprised.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


e_e I still dont get the whole "Agenda" thing... It makes us sound like were trying to bring humanities downfall!



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by spw184

Originally posted by rumor21


I'm all for people loving each other, but gay man sex is gross!!!!!


I dont really think this kind of response is welcomed in ATS, I mean.. Is this constructive at all?


Whatever, it's my opinion.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by rumor21

Originally posted by spw184

Originally posted by rumor21


I'm all for people loving each other, but gay man sex is gross!!!!!


I dont really think this kind of response is welcomed in ATS, I mean.. Is this constructive at all?


Whatever, it's my opinion.


So does that mean i can say "Mexicans are icky" and not get banned? no it doesn't. And now im sad that the mods are more likely to delete this post than that one because gays aren't seen as a "Group"....



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by spw184
 


Why you making it a racial thing? I'm talking about the act of gay sex big difference.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by spw184
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


e_e I still dont get the whole "Agenda" thing... It makes us sound like were trying to bring humanities downfall!



Like superimposing homoerotic tendencies on to Jesus because of some desire to make the bible fit a lifestyle? It is the same thing with the story of Lot. In fact, the Roman emperor made anathema of Origen in order to make the Church fit his desires.

Would you like to explain to me Kevin Jennings reasoning in teaching teens fisting techniques in public forums and POTUS appointing him as safe schools czar? Sex ed for kindergartners? You want to tell me it's not an agenda?

President Obama has appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) — which sponsored the conference that produced the notorious “Fistgate” scandal (in which young teens were guided on how to perform dangerous homosexual perversions including “fisting”) — to head up “Safe Schools” efforts at the Department of Education.

atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com...
biggovernment.com...
biggovernment.com...
The last article says Planned Parenthood was involved in giving the kits away to 14 yr olds.

edit on 7-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by rumor21
 


Its still a minority group, I could say "People with down syndrome are freaks" Or "People who like peaches should go die" and be the same thing!



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by spw184
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


e_e I still dont get the whole "Agenda" thing... It makes us sound like were trying to bring humanities downfall!



Like superimposing homoerotic tendencies on to Jesus because of some desire to make the bible fit a lifestyle? It is the same thing with the story of Lot. In fact, the Roman emperor made anathema of Origen in order to make the Church fit his desires.


I am SO OVER people saying "Lifestyle" Its not a "Lifestyle". The world "gay lifestyle" gives people images of me throwing glitter at republican buildings and wearing a bra and a touto. GAaah!



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by spw184
 


Ridiculous comparison!



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
who cares about gay marriage, its like smoking, everyone knows its wrong, but if someone does it, its nobody else's concern.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jondave
who cares about gay marriage, its like smoking, everyone knows its wrong, but if someone does it, its nobody else's concern.


Unless you get cancer from second hand smoke.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by rumor21

Originally posted by spw184

Originally posted by rumor21


I'm all for people loving each other, but gay man sex is gross!!!!!


I dont really think this kind of response is welcomed in ATS, I mean.. Is this constructive at all?


Whatever, it's my opinion.


So what? An opinion is worthless without some sort of reasoning behind it. Are you that arrogant to presume that people need to know what you think about something without an explanation?

I find your approach beyond gross- I think it's obnoxious and pathetic.

P.S. re: spw184 - it is a perfectly valid comparison- it is the same reactionary, unsupported 'opinion'.
edit on 7-9-2011 by yes4141 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join