Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Christianity in one word: Anti-homosexual

page: 7
38
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by TerribleTeam2
 





I think the words Fraudulant or Hypocritical would be more precise words for Organised Religion than Anti-Homosexual.


Religion is nothing more then organized crime in other words.




posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
You don't care about homosexuals, you hate religion.

Interesting. thanks for telling me what I do and do not care about.
I actually find religion fascinating mind you..but then again, I find insect traps fascinating also. the lure, the trap..pretty equal really.


If you are going to debate religion at least debate good theology and not some straw man.

Actually, I wasn't trying to debate much personally. As I said, my views or agenda is not really the subject...this study is. Deciding to ignore the meat/potato's and instead concern yourself my with views/agenda is pretty much off topic. Not that I mind discussing it of course..but if I wanted to debate religion, I would have simply made a religious debate discussion about something specific (I have a few out there)..and not used this study by a religious institution as cover. I am not overly sneaky as I don't feel I need to sneak about challenging religion.


Your statement that you would prefer churches to be anti-gay so that they will die off is truly cynical and sad. Why would you want anyone to not learn to be loving?

I am of the strong opinion that religion, specifically the Judaic religion in question had a couple thousand years trying to be loving, and has failed repeatedly and consistantly.
I am of the opinion that these religions are simply incapable of being just that...even with the core character in christianity being simply a teacher of love, the people..the followers, the leaders, all are unable to use the religion for love, but instead as a tool of hate, war, oppression, control, and society stagnation.

I, speaking as a voice of reason, am over it. They had their chance, now its time for secularism to rise and abolish these nonsense religions...but, the kicker is, secularists only have to hold a microphone and video camera towards the religious leaders and let them dig their own grave.

The fruit from the tree that is religion is bitter and rotten. Its leaves are wilted, and the soil is salted...its over..now its just the decay to look forward to.

and from that may spring forth personal spirituality...(I am a fan of this as it proves quite often to be exactly what religion wished to be but unable to be). I personally don't mind a person praying to jesus for love or strength..go for it. my beef is with the establishment of your personal spiritual understandings on me and visa versa...this is what I hate.
I could go on about this..you may even agree with much I have to say about it actually...but lets get back to your post.


You want religious people to be anti-gay so that religion will end and not because you care about homosexuals.

I do not care about individuals I don't know, but I do care about bigotry and inequality. Yes.
I also don't like bullys. and a bully that tries to push inequality on other people is the epitome of all I distain.

The rest of your post talks about hate and all that nonsense. Not in my interest to discuss such tripe. will just say, nope..your wrong.

I push my atheist outlook through use of debate, logic, reason, and proof...not by using any group. Don't need to.
Inefficient,
and not enough relate-able material for any one group. Use gays, straights don't care. Use women, men dont care. Use blacks, whites don't care.

No, groups are inefficient. Best to use logic. That way only the illogical don't care,
and they marginalize themselves overall in time anyhow



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Homosexuality is not a sin. In the bible it's considered an abomination. One of many quotes from the bible.

I"f a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

I am a christian. But I am not a preacher nor a practitioner of the bible. But a believer in it. I believe there is a god, that there is something bigger than humans. But why I'm a christian isn't important here.

Here is what it's important. I just want you to think for a moment. Ask yourself this question and answer it honestly.

Why is it that the world never questions a man and a woman? Why is it that gay people don't rise up and say that a Man and a Woman together is unnatural?

Let's ask the same question. Why is it the world never questions a Man and a Man? Why is it that straight people don't rise up and say that a Woman and a Woman is Unnatural?

Get the point?
Do you think this is really a religious issue? It really isn't is it?

By a show of hands how many in here think beauty are two men holding hands in the park whispering sweet nothings to one another?

Why is it that in every gay relationship there is one that acts as the man and one that acts as the woman?

Again I'm not preaching. I'm just putting a few questions out there that might get your mind going a bit.

Taking nothing from the bible or my beliefs. It just makes sense that a woman and a man can have a baby but a man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot. Not without help.

The goal of man is to procreate. To carry on. To Survive. And if everyone on the planet was homosexual we would not exist at all. That by itself makes homosexuality unnatural.

I personally don't care who or what you are. I live my life the way I live mine. My job as a christian is to help those that need help, that want help and that can except it a push in that direction.

Everyone has the right to make their own decisions. My decisions are for me and i choose the christian way. You may say my way is Anti-homosexual. I say my way just make sense of the truth.

I respect everyone even homosexuals regardless of my religion.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
My perspective on homosexuality, being brutally honest, is one which attempts to be pragmatic. I would truthfully prefer that it did not exist; but the sad fact is that it does, which means that one way or another, society has to deal with it. Most of what I've seen suggests to me that homosexual life expectancy is much higher if they are monogamous, which in turn leads me to support the concept of gay marriage, as it greatly reduces the potential for terminal sexually transmitted disease, which in turn comes from promiscuity.

Anyone who wishes to consider me bigoted for the above opinion, should keep in mind that I consider sexuality in general to be a curse, and a particularly lamentable and tragic element of the human condition, and that includes heterosexuality. So I am not against homosexuality substantially more than heterosexuality.

Anyone who knows what is good for them, will remain celibate, irrespective of what their orientation is. I am not motivated to say that by Puritan prudery, but by my instinct for self preservation. Sex can be a terrible thing.
edit on 16-5-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden
You cannot be accepting of your own homosexuality or others continued choice to live a homosexual lifestyle and be Christian.


Didn't read the rest yet, sort of got stuck here.
lets see...I am not gay, so let me remove the irrelevant parts of this sentence:

Originally posted by Masterjaden
You cannot be accepting of others continued choice to live a homosexual lifestyle and be Christian.


Lets remove then the specifics and make it a overall mindset statement. If I can not accept something about someone else whom is not harming anyone in their practices and desires, then that is a show stopper, so for me, it could be almost anything in there with equal weight.
What does that leave me with.


Originally posted by Masterjaden
You cannot be accepting of others and be Christian.


Ahh, I see the issue now
Yes, I cannot be a christian, because I accept others for them to be who they are so long as they harm none in their personal persuits.

I accept you being religious (see, I am just incapable of not accepting people...I guess I am simply not cut out to be a christian on your terms)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by TerribleTeam2
 





I think the words Fraudulant or Hypocritical would be more precise words for Organised Religion than Anti-Homosexual.


Religion is nothing more then organized crime in other words.


Exactly! But at least with Organised Crime, the participants are in prison.

Just look at the links between Organised Crime and Organised Religion - Both are out to make as much money as they can, both don't pay taxes on the money they make, both have been known to kill anyone that disagrees with them, both have been known to kill PLENTY of opposition (just look at the Crusades and the wars that have gone on between the big organised crime families), both think they are above the law, and when called out on whether they have done anything wrong, they claim they haven't...............

But hey, if you disagree with what the Church has to say, you are either going to Hell, or are discriminating against them. Sometimes both at the same time...........



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by TerribleTeam2
 


And what is funny about this say for example you gave money to the offering basket. Is the church ever going to ask where you got the money from? Of course not, you could of robbed a bank and gave them a good chunk of it to the church and they wouldn't ask any questions on how you got it.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by KonquestAbySS
 


And what's worse, is the fact of if you and I were to profit from the proceeds of crime, we would be on the docks in front of a Jury quicker than you can say "OMGWTFBBQ!!!!", but if the Church recieves proceeds of Crime, nothing is done to them, because they are, as I said before, ABOVE THE LAW!!!!



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden
p.s. stop looking at everything from an emotional standpoint. I swear for people who try to ride the science kick, progressives are a bunch of emotional non-logic thinking dolts.


OK, this made me chuckle.

Yes, my illogical emotional rant about how 90% of young adults view Christianity scornfully is just that...an emotional outburst with source and numbers.

Whereas your levelheaded response of how I have to grow in christ and smack around some gay people until they stop being gay..totally reasonable and level headed.

My emotions are in full check actually. I see this as a calculation. The decline and fall of Christianity in favor of a more established frame of personal connection, rejecting the dusty books and empty church halls.
Great..now we can focus in on space expansion and stop waiting for Christ to come back and judge us all.

Nope...not feeling much emotion...perhaps we can melt down the golden crosses and use them in computer components.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by AQuestion
You don't care about homosexuals, you hate religion.

Interesting. thanks for telling me what I do and do not care about.
I actually find religion fascinating mind you..but then again, I find insect traps fascinating also. the lure, the trap..pretty equal really.


If you are going to debate religion at least debate good theology and not some straw man.

Actually, I wasn't trying to debate much personally. As I said, my views or agenda is not really the subject...this study is. Deciding to ignore the meat/potato's and instead concern yourself my with views/agenda is pretty much off topic. Not that I mind discussing it of course..but if I wanted to debate religion, I would have simply made a religious debate discussion about something specific (I have a few out there)..and not used this study by a religious institution as cover. I am not overly sneaky as I don't feel I need to sneak about challenging religion.


Your statement that you would prefer churches to be anti-gay so that they will die off is truly cynical and sad. Why would you want anyone to not learn to be loving?

I am of the strong opinion that religion, specifically the Judaic religion in question had a couple thousand years trying to be loving, and has failed repeatedly and consistantly.
I am of the opinion that these religions are simply incapable of being just that...even with the core character in christianity being simply a teacher of love, the people..the followers, the leaders, all are unable to use the religion for love, but instead as a tool of hate, war, oppression, control, and society stagnation.

I, speaking as a voice of reason, am over it. They had their chance, now its time for secularism to rise and abolish these nonsense religions...but, the kicker is, secularists only have to hold a microphone and video camera towards the religious leaders and let them dig their own grave.

The fruit from the tree that is religion is bitter and rotten. Its leaves are wilted, and the soil is salted...its over..now its just the decay to look forward to.

and from that may spring forth personal spirituality...(I am a fan of this as it proves quite often to be exactly what religion wished to be but unable to be). I personally don't mind a person praying to jesus for love or strength..go for it. my beef is with the establishment of your personal spiritual understandings on me and visa versa...this is what I hate.
I could go on about this..you may even agree with much I have to say about it actually...but lets get back to your post.


You want religious people to be anti-gay so that religion will end and not because you care about homosexuals.

I do not care about individuals I don't know, but I do care about bigotry and inequality. Yes.
I also don't like bullys. and a bully that tries to push inequality on other people is the epitome of all I distain.

The rest of your post talks about hate and all that nonsense. Not in my interest to discuss such tripe. will just say, nope..your wrong.

I push my atheist outlook through use of debate, logic, reason, and proof...not by using any group. Don't need to.
Inefficient,
and not enough relate-able material for any one group. Use gays, straights don't care. Use women, men dont care. Use blacks, whites don't care.

No, groups are inefficient. Best to use logic. That way only the illogical don't care,
and they marginalize themselves overall in time anyhow


Dear SaturnFX,

So nice to know that you speak from reason, all knowledge must begin and end with you. You question my questioning you about you care over homosexuals and in the end of your response you say you do not care about people you do not know. Exactly, you only care about you and your agenda. I don't respect that, I do care about people even homosexuals in other countries that I do not know. You do not use reason, you play deceitful games to push an agenda. As you have said, you will use anyone to promote your agenda, the only truth is what you believe because that is all you will recognize. You are a bigot and deceitful using whatever you can to promote a result rather than the truth. If you knew that most atheists were against homosexuality, would you go after atheists? Your post that I am responding to has already given your answer.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Considering the separation of church and state in this country people can't tell or make christians do anything constitutional right to worship as they wish.

The only thing people are free to do here is agree with it or disagree with it case in point:


“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... ”


And that is that



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


ROFL! The standard reply of the Religious that can't critically think, and have been called out on being in the wrong. As they say alot on the World of Warcraft forums - QQ much????



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I don't deny that the simple one word or one line associations are clear indicators. But that doesn't make them right or correct.

So just because a study shows the the majority of programmed young people have been taught to associated Anti-homosexuality with Christianity doesn't make it so. True Christianity can't be defined by the education system or the mainstream media outlets or by hollywood for that matter.

True Christians are Defined by Christ. It is his moral foundation we stand on and his Love for Sinners that we preach.

Any Homosexual who spent any amount of time around true Christians would come to know two things,

First, that Christianity is Not about Excusing Immorality, but about Forgiving it.
Second, That Christianity is not about Excluding people from the benefits found only in Christ, but about Including them in it.

Forgiveness and Inclusion with Christ is what truly defines Christianity. And the fact that most people do not understand this has everything to do with Sin and Nothing to do with the true Nature of Christianity.

In one way or another people struggle to Look past the real SIN that still exists even in the true Christian and fail to see the benefit of Christ that covers those sins. Or they hate the fact that Christianity would call their own behavior as immoral and sinful. By this they feel Judged rather then convicted and this causes them to lash out.


Regardless of the reasons, I can tell you that True Christianity will Never become a footnote. It will remain as a light on a hill, as a beacon for humanity to turn toward Christ in repentance. Even as it inspires hate from the unbelieving world for the sin that it exposes.

And btw, very few children who grow up in homes with True Christian parents depart from the Faith. There are far more False believers then there are true Believers in the organized church. As such any statistics on the matter will be misleading toward the actual reality.

Soul
edit on 16-5-2012 by SoulReaper because: error



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TerribleTeam2
 





but if the Church recieves proceeds of Crime, nothing is done to them, because they are, as I said before, ABOVE THE LAW!!!!


Reminds me of the middle age Feudal system...



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
However, I will step in to say that this is so blatantly inaccurate, it's hard to view this as anything but a troll thread.


I would also like to add that i'm a Christian, and yet hold no hostility toward homosexuals or anyone's personal lives. I don't even care if the numbers of advocates are diminishing. What does that have to do with me and my choices? I don't possess a world-view of groupthink [unable to think for myself], nor a world-view of violence [unable to tolerate diversity].

One black swan refutation.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TerribleTeam2
reply to post by AQuestion
 


ROFL! The standard reply of the Religious that can't critically think, and have been called out on being in the wrong. As they say alot on the World of Warcraft forums - QQ much????


Dear TerribleTean2,

What is the standard response of us religious nuts, that we don't have a problem with what others do in their beds? You are contradicting yourself or you are incapable of reading the whole thread. Please use complete thoughts in your posts so that we can know what it is you are trying to say. Glad to know you play world of warcraft, that may explain it.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by KonquestAbySS
 


Hahahahahaha, that's because the Church is still living in the Middle Ages, well when it comes to their "Critical Thinking" anyways!!!!


Now get back to Church and repent your sins! Because we people that don't believe in God are heathens, and don't have Morals or anything of the like, because that is the domain of the Church!!!!



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


So playing a game makes people stupid???? GO GO MASS GENERALISATIONS!!!!


And your response shows EXACTLY the point I was making, that most Religious people resort to name calling, and making mass generalisations, instead of thinking critically and looking at things in a different perspective when proven wrong.

Thanks heaps for proving my point though.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by samsamm9
 



The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word ‘seminary’ as originating from ‘semen-ary, a place of vice’ (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, p. 1131). In ancient times seminaries were male Church brothels where bishops and priests met to ‘exchange semen’ in homosexual activities in a ‘pull-pit’ (‘pulpit today’; Diderot’s Encyclopèdie, 1759). In the 1600s, the term ‘semen-arians’ was applied to the founder of the Jesuits, Ignatius Loyola (1533) and his followers, who were engaged in strange and mutual male-to-male sexual activities (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685; also; Diderot’s Encyclopèdie, 1759). Knowledge of the existence of male priesthood brothels in Christian tradition is ‘pregnant with consequences’ (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, p. 1131) and is rarely mentioned by Church historians today. Nor is it mentioned that there is an old Christian tradition that priests were ‘anointed with semen so that they became ‘holy’, that is, separated to the God’s service’

Is this true ?

No, it is a tissue of lies.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary does not give that origin for the word 'seminary'. Here is the entry from my 1988 edition of the COD:


seminary n., pl. -naries.

From Latin seminarium, a nursery garden, from semen (seed).
  1. an academy for the training of priests, rabbis, etc.

  2. A private secondary school, especially for girls. Rare.

  3. Another word for seminar. U.S.

  4. A place where something is grown.

I have no idea why Diderot's Encyclopedia (an ancient, outdated French publication) is (mis)quoted to define 'pulpit' – an English word, derived (according, again, to my COD) from the Latin word pulpitam, which means 'platform'. The use of the word 'pull' to mean 'seduce' is British and late twentieth-century, so it cannot, obviously, have had anything to do with the derivation of 'pulpit'.

The book Secrets of the Christian Fathers appears not to exist; at any rate, the only mentions I can find on Google are from Christian-bashing sites. I bet it's a fabrication, just like the rest of that extract you quoted.

I've done a fair share of Christian-bashing of my own, on and off, but let's not spread disinformation and libel, shall we?

*


And now, a few words about the OP.

If this news comes as a surprise to anyone, they must be living in a sealed outhouse. The quoted research is about popular perceptions, and popular perceptions are rarely detailed or concerned with niceties. Yes, of course there are thousands, possibly millions of American Christians who are not homophobic; even, obviously, many thousands who are actual homosexuals. The research results don't deny this; they merely establish what the popular perceptions about Christianity among young non-Christians are. Can any American Christian honestly say the reported perception does not exist, or that it is a minority view?

I live on the opposite side of the world from America, yet I, too, clearly perceive that American Christianity is anti-homosexual. That is how it is reported in the media, both US and international. And that is the only way the statements of most American religious conservatives, who are the loudest and most visible speakers 'for' American Christianity in the media, can possibly be interpreted.

If American Christianity is not homophobic, it has a terrible, terrible public-relations problem, and American Christians should be doing their best to show that the perception is false and that they are really cool with homosexuals and homosexuality. They won't, though. Because, mostly, they are not.

edit on 16/5/12 by Astyanax because: I got my dictionaries mixed up.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion

Dear SaturnFX,

So nice to know that you speak from reason, all knowledge must begin and end with you. You question my questioning you about you care over homosexuals and in the end of your response you say you do not care about people you do not know. Exactly, you only care about you and your agenda. I don't respect that, I do care about people even homosexuals in other countries that I do not know. You do not use reason, you play deceitful games to push an agenda. As you have said, you will use anyone to promote your agenda, the only truth is what you believe because that is all you will recognize. You are a bigot and deceitful using whatever you can to promote a result rather than the truth. If you knew that most atheists were against homosexuality, would you go after atheists? Your post that I am responding to has already given your answer.


1) What is my agenda? I do have one, yes...but I would bet a solid dollar you get it wrong. Go on...my agenda then...what is it?

2) A bigot is interesting

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Incorrect. I don't actually hate christians. I have christian friends, family members, etc. Lots of love
I hate religion. religion is a club. its a organization. if I hate microsoft, that doesn't mean I hate the people working at microsoft...it means I hate the organization.
no, you cannot be a bigot for hating a organization...you can be short sighted perhaps, or other things of the like...religion is 100% choice. Tomorrow I could simply decide to be part of a religion, or leave one for another, or none...and it would not require me to change my color, or biology, etc.

3) I don't care for people in general meaning I am not out to save any specific group. I am more interested in gaining equality and dismissing -actual- bigotry from our dialog (it suits my evil agenda..which you will never guess what it is..muahahahaa). But yes, as I said, equality and anti-bully..especially when that amounts to bullying someone over their choice of partners in their bedroom, be it man, woman, both, neither, etc. If someone wants to peek into my bedroom to see who is there, they won't get me begging them forgivness if they disapprove, they will get a firm boot to their face. Religion is peeking into my bedroom and telling me what they think of it. Boot, meet face.

I live in the west...my words carry weight that can perhaps alter some things here through voting processes, and general mindset spreading. my words resonate in the west far more than in the middle or far east.
Should America become that shining beacon of freedom and liberty on the hill once again, well, parody is the best form of flattery...other nations may eventually adopt what we are here...thats the long term plan.
Me bitching about how china 15 years ago didn't like gays has no function towards my agenda (muahahaha). we must progress what we are as a civilization, and that is eyeing what is going on here in our communities, not shaking fists at history...we learn from history, not dwell in it.

As far as caring for other nations peoples...again, I am concerned with making this nations people the best we can be, other nations will fall in line eventually.

If most atheists were anti-homosexuality..well, first off, most atheists are also, for some reason, gnostic in regards to many paranormal stuff...and I speak out against that also quite loudly. I make damn sure atheists are not saying atheism = believing in no ghosts/aliens/bigfoot/etc. That is incorrect.
So, your wrong. If most atheists were anti-homosexual, well, thats their choice...but if they said to be an atheist, you had to be anti-homosexual, I would be quite vocal about calling the BS for what it was.
I have no love (or hate) towards atheists in general...its a diverse group of people...equal to pepperoni lovers for pizza. they have only one thing in common straight across the board...a love for pepperoni..the rest is very diverse.

Your comparing apples to cars. not even in the same state, much less ballpark.





new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def