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.

 

To the religious that think homosexuality is a sin...

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Hellhound604
 


The extreme case of "We're queer, we're here, get over it." is so intrusive that it is almost a declaration of war.


What kind of psycho fanny babble is this? Rofl.




posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by theRhenn
 

The Bible sees "a man lying with a man as a with a woman" as "lowering" another male to the position of a woman.
Women then could be bought and sold like cattle, and a girl had to marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28).
A man could have many wives and concubines.

Later, Jesus said anyone who marries a divorced woman is an adulterer (I guess that means any woman who's not a virgin).

St. Paul said that it's better for a man to be single, and marriage is allowed to stop weak men from burning with lust.

Mostly however the Bible has some astounding homoeroticism.

During the six day creation God threw His most beautiful angel out of heaven and made Adam.
There was no Mrs. God.
Unless one follows the gnostic heresies, Jesus never married, and lived only with other young men.
He even advices that three types of men are "eunuchs" and should never marry.

One can make of that what one will (or whether the so-called anti-gay verses referred to pagan practices).

Perhaps Robert Anton Wilson had a point in his Everything Is Under control: Conspiracies, cults and cover-ups (Pan Books: 1999) when he refers to the feminist pseudonym Hawthorne Abendsen, and her "hair-raising form of Feminist conspiracy theory of patriarchy" (p.27).

Abendsen argues in her: Inside The Men's Club: Secrets of Patriarchy:


A central part of the cult of Al-Shaddai, god of war, consists of homosexual rituals, affirming male bonding and maintaining the magick subjugation of women as second-class citizens
(Wilson 1999:28).

That's some heavy conspiracy material, and I actually can see how it could be true.
They attack open homosexuals (which is just a diversion), but since the law has protected women and children it's a scandal that it has to interfere in religious organizations disproportionally to stop abuses.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Ouch for that, never thought that you would drag religion into this....



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellhound604
 

Well it is in the thread title.

Of course there are many ordinary good Christians, and many are not homophobic.

A lot of gay people actually go to church and call themselves Christians (and other faiths too).

However for some the debate becomes obsessive, and it's just more grist to the mill in the endless tit-for-tat.

I don't really understand how heterosexuals can be so upset.

It's gay kids that are sent off to religious re-education camps and useless therapies to "cure" their orientation. It's gay people that are told they're possessed by the devil for medieval exorcisms, and it's gay people who are told that no gay person ever did a good thing on the planet, but that homosexuals somehow destroyed civilizations.
Its gay clubs that were bombed by religious terrorists from Cape Town to Israel. It's gay women that are raped by straight men in "curative rapes". It's not gay people who first had AIDS, it was spread to us by heterosexuals and then many of them applauded as we died. It's not gay people imposing religious laws and institutions where women and children are abused and molested, and stoned to death. It's not the gay movement accusing people of witchcraft and taking their money based on false miracles and teachings. We don't beat up people and make the streets unsafe.

What right do they have to cry and point a finger at us?
Really, tell me, what have we EVER done to them?

Sorry, just getting a bit heated, but not at you specifically.
Just thinking in general how scandalous homophobia actually is.
edit on 17-2-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
"Haters gunna hate" is appropraite here.

They can say what they want to each other about homosexuals, but i never saw a gay suiside bomber, blowing other poeple up for his sexuality.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
I just dont like how this, "gay agenda" of late wants to teach our children that this is all natural and that its ok for people of the same sex to get married. Its not ok! I dont like how people are pushing there agenda so much that its causing schools to rewrite and rethink what theyre teaching. Im sorry but the second I hear that daughter is being taught this in her text book or by a teacher, Im taking her out and putting her in a better school.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by rbaker20
I just dont like how this, "gay agenda" of late wants to teach our children that this is all natural and that its ok for people of the same sex to get married. Its not ok! I dont like how people are pushing there agenda so much that its causing schools to rewrite and rethink what theyre teaching. Im sorry but the second I hear that daughter is being taught this in her text book or by a teacher, Im taking her out and putting her in a better school.


Deal with it. Nobody wants to listen to your scripture being taught in schools either but you still try pushing that through. Your ridiculous and unprovable religious beliefs dont have any right to trump anothers freedom.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellhound604
 


I know what you meant and no offense ok? I was just bringing it up to serve a point.

Frankly what people do in private as long as it is consensual and are over 18 is their business. That said, I getting am tired of any agenda, Religion, Sexual orientation, Race, Creed, etc being pushed on me. And believe me all parties are equally guilty of an agenda, some subvert some overt but they all want you to join the cause...



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Here's my strange take on the supposed "anti-homosexuality" verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

Looking at these beyond the current debates, and a human rights culture, and imaging it from a "bronze age" perspective, I think they are meant to protect men's rights, including gay men.

It's fair to say that anal rape is immensely painful, and comparable to torture, and may leave lasting complications.

Now, in an ancient scenario where even men could be temporary slaves, and spoke of even straight sex as "humbling women" (in the KVJ), I'd certainly prefer a culture where male rape is taboo.

In hindsight it all seems primitive and backwards to us, but at that time it was probably a major advancement in human rights.
Male rape became illegal, which even in modern understandings made the OT society more desirable than many of the surrounding cultures and their abuses.

Did that make individual gay people more free or restricted?
I think it made them more free than in many of the pagan cultures.
Not only heterosexuality, but homosexuality was very abusive to slaves and other "non-citizens".
At least in the OT culture they were free from rape and the constant pain.

So I view the OT as bringing some law to a totally unbridled neighborhood.
Even with the once unrestricted abuse of women, it did bring certain fines and norms that might very well have decreased abuses.

To me the OT brought the first law against male-male rape (in that sense I regard it as liberationist and revolutionary), and in the modern era it was only very recently when SA finally got the law that equates male rape with the gravity of female rape. www.iol.co.za...

So in that sense, the Old Testament was ahead of its times, rather than behind it.
I honestly don't think it was looking for the odd gay sex behind the dunes, it was trying to stop very real rape where masters tortured their slaves.
I think the toughness of the penalties are moral warnings, rather than commonly imposed sentences.
Nevertheless, slaves had some recourse (and slavery as an institution wouldn't become immoral until the 19th century).
Many would even say slavery goes on today under various economic systems, including sexual slavery.

Now the NT is a bit different, because it brings with it a common idea of "thought-crime" (which apart from jealousy for goods, wives or slaves is not widespread in the OT).
Not all punishments are literal, such as gouging out your eye, or cutting off an offending hand.
The laws to me are also based on human rights, and not hurting your partner (it preaches loyalty and respect), and acknowledging that not all men can receive all teachings.

So from my view I can see parts of the Good Book in a homoerotic splendor that makes sense to me, and I think colonial Western culture made a grave mistake in the way it misinterpreted scripture, and forced the modern gay movement into existence against untenable and un-Biblical laws.

edit on 19-2-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by abeverage
reply to post by Hellhound604
 


I know what you meant and no offense ok? I was just bringing it up to serve a point.

Frankly what people do in private as long as it is consensual and are over 18 is their business. That said, I getting am tired of any agenda, Religion, Sexual orientation, Race, Creed, etc being pushed on me. And believe me all parties are equally guilty of an agenda, some subvert some overt but they all want you to join the cause...


No offense taken. I agree fully with the agendas too. I've always been a supporter of the bra-burning women's libbers, the gay-parades, and lots of other things, in which a suppressed group tries to show their point by pushing their agenda down others throats. Then slowly I learnt that a lot of people (liberated women, homosexuals, and others) don't support those things either, and my eyes opened. I don't support those groups anymore, even though I sympathize with them, but I learnt that the vast majority of those groups just want to be left alone. I can understand why some groups want to push their agendas, but I think pushing those kinds of agendas does more bad than good.

(I hope I make sense)




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join