Define Christianity as Hate - The New Homosexual Agenda

Originally posted by Agoyahtah
Gays don't just want to be free to marry. They can already form gay unions. They want to change the very language itself. They are after the "corruption" of the word "marry".

And you wonder why people consider Christians to be hateful????

You have no idea what I want or what anyone else wants yet you seem to have it all worked out? Unless you have a gnome inside my head that's pushing my buttons and joysticks all I can do is face palm.

Also, get it right! Christians want to change language. Christians want a 'special' word for gay marriage. Gay people just want to get on with their lives.

Imagine you start a new job, and there *is* special word for 'gay marriage'. Your co-worker asks if you're married. You have to respond with 'no, I am in a civil union'. Now, not only does your co-worker know you're married but now knows you're a lesbian as well and finds this offensive towards his or her religion. Could say 'no' I guess, but now I'm denying a partnership I'm proud of and my status as 'taken'.

Or ... insurance. I call up someone on the phone. I want insurance for myself and my partner. Now they have to have a whole seperate category for 'Civil Unions' to not offend the Christians? It's a whole other level of beaucracy that the religious right is asking for and, I promise you, it will be a waste of tax payer's money to update every form to reflect this new 'term'.

Given the word marriage is used to indicate anything from business mergers to metaphorically declaring I'm married to my job ... I don't understand this argument at all.

So we will have ...

Christian marriage
Athiest marriage
Jewish marriage
Satanist marriage
and ...
Civil Unions.

>.<

reply to post by Agoyahtah


This has all been addressed already by many members in this thread. If you're really interested then why can't you acknowledge the points made and address them in turn.

Also.

It's NOT just about marriage. Seriously. If you think that's all there is to it then try really listening for a change.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by troubleshooter

atheism.wikia.com...
Some atheists actively believe that no god exists while others hold that neither claim is sufficiently supported to justify acceptance. These positions are often labeled strong atheism and weak atheism, respectively.

You probably meant deism... or you were just being ridiculous. 'straw God'? Nevermind I am pretty sure I already know

Any true Atheist - - Lacks Belief in a god - - any god. Only accurate description of Atheism. That's it.

However they also know god can not be proven or dis-proven. Hence - no one can say with 100% certainty - - there is no god.

reply to post by Agoyahtah


Cry me a river.
Please.

Poor Straight People,, bless their hearts,
, they No Longer have a non-ambiguous term to call their very Own
, those evil homos have stolen their 'straight only' Words and are using them against,, GOD FORBID,, the Straight people..

All in defiance of the Holy Books main Deity!!!
written solely by Straight men (who tended sheep in a desert with multiple wives 4000 years ago)

I am so sad for you.. Bless your heart,, that must be really tough on you.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

I don't think people are "anti-Christian" but rather "Anti-religion"

Maybe some, but I have noticed that some others seem to be ok with Sharia Law.

The Amish have their own laws.
Jewish sects have their own laws.

When did any of them ever affect you?

You are making the mistake of thinking Sharia Law is the same as the Amish and that it will not affect us or the function of the Constittution. Perhaps the gays can reform Sharia Law too while they are at it.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Annee

The Amish have their own laws.
Jewish sects have their own laws.

When did any of them ever affect you?

You are making the mistake of thinking Sharia Law is the same as the Amish and that it will not affect us or the function of the Constittution.

NO - - I am not.

Sharia would be the same as Amish or Jewish laws in that it pertains to that particular culture/belief.

ALL are subject to US laws.

You have never been affected by Amish or Jewish laws - - because you are not subject to that culture/belief.

Same goes for Sharia law.

You are trying to make a sensationalized "bonfire" - - where there is none.

Originally posted by Annee

Any true Atheist - - Lacks Belief in a god - - any god. Only accurate description of Atheism. That's it.

That's in accordance to what I posted isn't it?

The deist part was not in response to the atheism but his claim of believing in a 'straw God'. Whatever that meant. I just meant to suggest that he was confusing the atheists he's spoken to with the deists...perhaps.

From what I understand people use 'agnostic' to erroneously mean that 'weak atheism'. When people say "I don't believe either way there isn't enough evidence" yadda yadda. From what I understand agnosticism was just the anti-thesis to gnosticism and is just the assertion God is unknowable. So there would probably be overlap between 'weak atheism' and 'agnosticism' but they're not the same. Since one could believe in a God, but an unknowable God, and then be thought of as an agnostic theist (actually it would need to be deist since theism entails dogma). But yeah atheism as a whole means you don't believe in God. That's how I understand these terms anyways.

reply to post by sensible1


christian means christ-like, no? a follower of jesus the christ? how come so many christians are merely christers? jesus preached peace. he said many times that you are to accept your torment. that you are to love your enemy and not seek vengence. yet how many christers do you know yell about vengence and how they need their guns? they take one line out of everything jesus said and did to justify themselves.

as a christian, they should follow the example of jesus. a few years ago there was the w.w.j.d. (what would jesus do) movement, but it became burdensome. for example, if someone threatened you with a gun, would you fight them, or submit? many christers say they would fight and defend themselves. jesus submitted.

the big thing now is gay marriage. jesus said (in the catholic bible, the first bible) that there was no divorce unless the marriage is unlawful. that if you married a divorced person, you caused them to commit adultery. but what would jesus do about it? he would preach against it, maybe shake his head, but would he legislate against it? i think not.

the whole point of jesus, everything he did, was focused on the next life, not this one. he preached that bad things happen in this world, yet if you have faith in god you would be rewarded in the next life. if someone killed your family, you are not to seek vengence, but accept it, as job did, and keep faith, for not only is your family in a better place, but you will be reunited with them and rewarded for your faith.

i find it funny that i, a pagan, know more about the teachings of jesus than most of his "followers".

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by Annee

Any true Atheist - - Lacks Belief in a god - - any god. Only accurate description of Atheism. That's it.

That's in accordance to what I posted isn't it?

Just making it clear. You're fine.

Many don't really grasp the Deist concept either. So good you explained that.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Here is the actual and correct definition of Agnostic - - from the guy that coined the word.

It basically says - god can not be factually proven or dis-proven- - - therefore no one can state with 100% certainly there is no god.

However, neither dictionaries nor common usage reflect Huxley's intent in coining the term. His original formulation of the concept goes as follows: Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as, in matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. atheists.org...

I thought we lived in a free country and were all allowed our own opinion and able to speak it. It seems when these groups get organized they turn into the bullies. I do not think a news anchor should be infiltrating Christian organizations with an agenda or promoting others to do so. Then the government steps in and imposes sanctions of sorts on free US citizen business owners as we saw with Chic-Fi-lee or whatever. I'm in the Midwest and don't have them around.

reply to post by Annee


to define all the various words in use.

atheist- no god
deist- there is a god, s/he just doesnt interfere. s/he made us, now its up to us to make it.
gnostic- we can know god only by learning about the god within.
agnostic- there may or may not be a god, we just dont know for sure.
monotheist- hard- there is only one god, in one form (islam, judaism)
soft- one god, three forms (christianity, trinity belief)
pagan/ heathen/ polytheist- soft- one god that takes many forms
hard- all the various gods worshipped are individual gods

pick your umbella term. im soft polytheist myself

Originally posted by WIKDHOTSNOMAN
I thought we lived in a free country and were all allowed our own opinion and able to speak it. It seems when these groups get organized they turn into the bullies. I do not think a news anchor should be infiltrating Christian organizations with an agenda or promoting others to do so. Then the government steps in and imposes sanctions of sorts on free US citizen business owners as we saw with Chic-Fi-lee or whatever. I'm in the Midwest and don't have them around.

You're allowed to have your own opinion and believe what you want, but when your beliefs start infringing on others and begin taking the rights of other citizens away is when we'll have a problem.

reply to post by WIKDHOTSNOMAN


so free business should be allowed to deny service to (insert minority here) or act against them?

for example, until the 70's, in the mormon church, blacks were inferiour. should a mormon business be forced to serve blacks if it contridicts their religion?

one of the purposes of government is to equalize people. one wo/man, one vote, right? to make sure all citizens are treated equaly as citizens? a right granted to one, can not be denied to another, as all are citizens.

reply to post by Believer101


agreed. as the saying goes, your rights end where my nose begins.

Originally posted by WIKDHOTSNOMAN
I thought we lived in a free country and were all allowed our own opinion and able to speak it. It seems when these groups get organized they turn into the bullies. I do not think a news anchor should be infiltrating Christian organizations with an agenda or promoting others to do so. Then the government steps in and imposes sanctions of sorts on free US citizen business owners as we saw with Chic-Fi-lee or whatever. I'm in the Midwest and don't have them around.

Again with the Minorities being bullies against the Majority.

Now really - - - what if the majority simply said: "Sure - you can get married".

How exactly did the government impose sanctions against Chick-fil-A?

reply to post by Annee

It basically says - god can not be factually proven or dis-proven- - - therefore no one can state with 100% certainly there is no god.

Which is the Athiest stance. "weak atheism" if you will. So why do people use the term agnostic and shy away from using the term atheist?

That being the definition means I was incorrect with my 'agnostic deist'

This was the definition I was using:

agnosticism, (from Greek agnōstos, “unknowable”), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience.

.

So one could believe God is unknowable because God does not exist. One could believe God does exist, but is unknowable. And neither of those would conflict with this definition.

But if I am misrepresenting Huxley here than I will stop using it as such!

*edit to add. Here is a really interesting article from atheist.org I just read. Fairly long but I am sure you'd enjoy it. It sort of agrees with my use :p Not really though as the point would be, if God is completely unknowable you would have no sound reason to believe in an unknowable God.

atheists.org...

reply to post by tothetenthpower

As long as Christians allow bigots to represent them, then you will find that other groups of people who disagree will attempt to call all of you bigots.

The same can be said about Americans....so I've been told.

See, this is why a lot of people equate Christianity with hate; they make it so easy to! They basically dig their own graves.

Fischer the head of the ironically named "American Family Association" took to Twitter to endorse kidnapping the children of same-sex couples:

Bryan Fischer@BryanJFischer
Head of Underground Railroad to deliver innocent children from same-sex households goes on trial. chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us…
7 Aug 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite
Bryan Fischer@BryanJFischer
Why we need an Underground Railroad to deliver innocent children from same-sex households: thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065

Not only are Christians (Fischer at least) saying we cannot get married, but now they want to take away our children?!

The background is Fischer is referencing a trial that is underway where a pastor faces charges of being an accomplice to kidnapping. Kenneth L. Miller, 46, the leader of a Beachy Amish Mennonite church in Stuarts Draft, Virginia, stands accused of helping spirit Lisa Miller and her daughter to Nicaragua. Miller fled the country rather than share surrender custody of her daughter with Janet Jenkins, a woman she had shared a civil union partnership with in Vermont before undergoing a evangelical Christian conversion. Miller's case has become a cause célèbre in American Christian Evangelical circles.

These American theocrats, the Christian Taliban are always telling us God's law is supreme over man's, and here were have it again.

Janet Jenkins sought and legally obtained a visitation order full legal custody of the daughter through the Vermont court system. Bryan Fischer is declaring war not only on the parental rights of LGBT Americans, but on the fundamental system of American jurisprudence. He is essentially saying, "If you don't like the answer the court gives you, it's okay to go rogue."

So now, not only do Christians think it's okay to kidnap children from same-sex couples, they now believe they are above the law.

Source

This is just plain sick and wrong. How DARE they try to take away OUR children because they don't like our lifestyle?!!!

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


i have to disagree.

agnostic- a god may or may not exist. we dont know.
atheist- no god exists.

these are firm beliefs that cannot be interchanged.