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.

 

Define Christianity as Hate - The New Homosexual Agenda

page: 26
55
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

As an outsider to the US I've decided to observe these threads to try and understand the politics at the moment, rather than to participate.

However, it's wrong to assume that the gay community is monolithic on any issue, especially globally.

There have been several reactions to Sharia Law and Islam by gay people.

So it is not correct to say it's a Christian/gay issue in any larger sense.

One approach concerns gay Muslims and their internal activism for a paradigm shift concerning gay issues and interpretations of Islam, including the Sharia.

Here one could look at the work of The Inner Circle, and the activism of Iman Muhsin Hendricks.
Similar to gay Christians, he questions the context and validity of certain scriptures misused by homophobes, such as Genesis 19 and the story of Sodom.
He's traveled extensively, and has faced a lot of hatred.
The Inner Circle also argues against misogyny and unsubstantiated traditions that demote women.
They would argue that it's not the religion that's wrong, but the interpretations and traditions.
www.rnw.nl...

There's also the excellent work of gay and Muslim documentary film-maker Parvez Sharma on the plight of LGTB Muslims, such as A Jihad for Love (see Youtube) and In the Name of Allah.

In more secularized Europe, where fundamentalist Christianity with obsessive homophobia hasn't really been pronounced, one of the greatest anti-Islamic (but not anti-Muslim) politicians was Pim Fortuyn, who was openly gay and Catholic. He was assassinated in 2002 for his critical views on the "Islamization" of Europe and anti-immigration stance.

Geert Wilders similarly mentioned "the abuse of homosexuals" as part of his campaign to stop Islamic immigration, and to encourage the integration of the Muslim community into Dutch cultural values.

There have been uneasy alliances between parts of the gay community and the "right-wing", who feel that liberals (the more traditional political allies of gays) have failed to secure post World War II Western liberties for women and gays, and have pandered to an already substantial immigrant vote.
Added to this is the Islamic hate-speech and physical attacks on gay people in the Netherlands by Moroccan immigrants, which the Dutch find completely unacceptable.
It's still debatable how "right" this "right-wing" is, and it's not to be confused with a "neo-Nazi right-wing" (which is itself homophobic), and it seems to be more about cultural values of tolerance, rather than ethnicity.

Even in the US there are websites like gayconservative.org which are critical of the Sharia, and would say being anti-gay marriage is not necessarily being anti-gay.
gayconservative.org...

In SA we had an Islamic float at Cape Town's Gay Pride this year.
Some of our gay activists are very pro-Palestinian, such as former anti-apartheid stalwart Zackie Achmat, but I've been more guarded with Middle East policies until there is at least some assurance of human rights for gay people in Palestinian politics.
We do get academics from the US who encourage the liberal line on Palestine, some of whom, like Judith Butler, are ironically gay and I'd like to know how they can simply imply support for political groups that are violently homophobic.
I guess they'd take a wider human rights approach for now and address gay issues after "liberation", but I'm not convinced.

More generally the OP factually says that Anderson Cooper (whom I assumed was still in the closet until recently) wants people to film church services that espouse hate.
So what?
I'd be interested to see what they film, and one can then decide on a case by case basis which groups are hateful and which are not.
I doubt they'd film anything new however, or anything that's not already in one of the many "Christian" books that capitalize on homosexuality.
Sharma filmed many gay Muslim testimonies, so is the very notion of filming sermons in a free country a big deal?
There's already several threads on anti-gay church clips on ATS.

So while some Muslims are grappling with the gay issue, others are learning from some US Christian groups on how to frame homosexuality as evil, and how to run ex-gay camps with aversion therapies.
So some are learning how to enhance an anti-gay Sharia with homophobic moralism, and that homophobia can be a populist tool.
Homosexuality was a judicial issue concerning certain acts introduced by British colonial law to many countries that are now discovering that they can be homophobic as a cultural stream.
But where there is oppression there is agency.
So one cannot say fight this or that homophobia without looking at how certain religious groups are actively spreading homophobia from the US.
That homophobia will be copied and adapted to local circumstances, but so will the resistance.
Therefore, let's see who these groups are, what they are saying and how this is copied in other circumstances like Uganda, or Islamic countries, and what parallels and connections (if any) can be made.

edit on 9-8-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 


"How DARE they try to take away OUR children..." sorry, but i found this funny. how can a same sex couple HAVE children? you either bought them from an orphanage, or paid someone to carry the fetus (which means only one of you is the parent), or scavanged sperm (which means only one of you is the parent).

just being pendantic. carry on.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
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?


Yeah - - I know "weak atheism" - - its something I try to steer away from. There is no atheist belief. There is atheist philosophy which is strictly individual. No atheist can tell another they are wrong - - as long as they lack belief in a supernatural god.

Dictionary definitions are really lacking when it comes to agnostic and atheism. Still too many belief influences. There's an article at atheist.org about dictionaries catching up to fact - - and leaving the personal opinions mostly based in religious believe behind. Some definitions still say Devil Worshiper.

Thanks for the link. I've read most of them.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Thanks for the post
I'm going to download that doc now


I think many of us were looking pragmatically at it being a 'Christian versus gay' because we were intentionally not extending the scope globally. To be fair.

But again thanks for the input, always happy to hear from the 'outsiders'


Response to Annee.
Dictionary definitions are really lacking when it comes to agnostic and atheism. Still too many belief influences. There's an article at atheist.org


Just to be clear that article I posted was from atheist.org


Some definitions still say Devil Worshiper.

I still see that in definitions for Anarchism too

edit on 9-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by stormson
reply to post by Believer101
 


"How DARE they try to take away OUR children..." sorry, but i found this funny. how can a same sex couple HAVE children? you either bought them from an orphanage, or paid someone to carry the fetus (which means only one of you is the parent), or scavanged sperm (which means only one of you is the parent).

just being pendantic. carry on.


So now if the child is not naturally born between the parents, they are not in fact said couples children? WOW, now I clearly know how you think.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by wiser3

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Interesting, too, that some are still pushing the "gay gene" angle, when everyone knows there is no such thing, and all the studies point to environmental and mental factors.



If everyone "knows" please list your sources for where you "FOUND" this knowledge!


How about virtually anywhere that offers the scientific studies? NO ONE with any scientific knowledge claims that there is such a gene. They spent over a decade looking, and never located one. Do the research. This isn't a secret.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
something i dont understand, maybe you can clear it up.

how can a gay be a christian, or muslim, or even a republican for that matter, as one of the basic tenants of each group is that homosexuality is bad? isnt that like being a black kkk member?

i admit my ignorance to islam, but christianity is clear. both old and new testements decry homosexual activity. (makes sense to based on the culture and times they were written) christianity is based on a rule book, and the rules are clear, no matter how you want to parse it. however, since, according to paul, all sins are equal, is homosexuality any different from marrying a divorced person, which creates adulterers of both?



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Interesting, too, that some are still pushing the "gay gene" angle, when everyone knows there is no such thing, and all the studies point to environmental and mental factors.


You left out the part where most studies also point to genes and biology playing a factor. Thus the phrase 'genes create proteins, not preferences.' There isn't a 'I like blue cars' gene but do you choose to like blue cars? What about tennis? Do you choose to like tennis or does it just 'happen' as far as you're concerned? You'd find it difficult to like tennis just by forcing yourself to play no doubt.

The thing I find most odd about these things ... For a country that identifies themselves 70%+ Christian ... there seems to be an awful lot of effort gone to make out that 70% of the population is being persecuted by the other 30% or so.


People supporting the myth make that claim, but no research backs it up. Nope, not buying that people are genetically predisposed to like tennis, either (and wow, talk about off track!).

If you can't see the persecution, you aren't looking. Do some hunting, and you will find links all over the place.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by wiser3

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Interesting, too, that some are still pushing the "gay gene" angle, when everyone knows there is no such thing, and all the studies point to environmental and mental factors.



If everyone "knows" please list your sources for where you "FOUND" this knowledge!


How about virtually anywhere that offers the scientific studies? NO ONE with any scientific knowledge claims that there is such a gene. They spent over a decade looking, and never located one. Do the research. This isn't a secret.


Hmm, I thought he asked for sources for your knowledge, not just you saying stuff again.
Why should WE be the one's to do the research? Why can't you post the links to something we obviously don't know about?

BTW, since you've been gone, I'll ask you my questions again:

I have a question for you, then. If you say there is no "gay gene" and it's a choice, when did you wake up and say "I'm going to be attracted to the opposite sex"? When did you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? Did you choose it or did it just happen?



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Now I know why Anderson Cooper finally came out. His mission is to add fuel to the gay v. Christian fire. It's "divide and conquer" at its best. Notice the timing...election year, anyone?

The ruling class greatly fear gay Christians. Why? Because not only will Christians and gays unite, a very splintered homosexual population might unite, giving them a hell of a lot more power. The powers that be need homosexuality as a wedge issue now more than ever. So, Anderson Cooper comes out.

Believe me, it ain't because Anderson Cooper, all of a sudden, is so concerned about gay people. NFW!
edit on 9-8-2012 by divideandconquer because: correction



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

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????


Christians love virtue and hate sin.



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.


You're telling me what you want, you want the word "marry", so I don't have to get inside your head.



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.


Christians have it already, there is a special term, "gay union" for the bond between two men. Christians just want to keep the term "marry" for the bond between a man and a woman. These are two different things, so it makes sense to have two different terms for them. We don't call fire water, nor water earth, because they are different things. To label everything with the same terms is to introduce confusion into the language.




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'.


Perfect. Congratulations, give my regards to your partner. Perhaps the guy hiring you is also gay, and your co-workers are all gay too, you're blessed all around, to be surrounded by like minded folks.



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.


Straight people have been dealing with this for thousands of years. As soon as a man says he's married, immediately they know it's a woman partner he has at home, and visa versa. Now gays want to introduce confusion, so when the man says he's married, they ask, "male or female partner?" They may want to know, to determine whether to send out greeting cards to Mr. and Ms James, or Mr and Mr Smiths.




Could say 'no' I guess, but now I'm denying a partnership I'm proud of and my status as 'taken'.


Hey, "civil union" is something to be proud of, it means somebody likes you and thinks you're cool, so they partnered up with you. Isn't that enough?



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?


They will have a whole separate category anyway, regardless of what your call it, because insurance always calculates risk based on "real" identifying factors. It's based on scientifically determined statistical evidence, and not fooled by word games that try to hide facts.




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'.


It's not a waste at all. New things require new terms and new rules and regulations anyway. That's why we hire the public servants, and put them in office, it's their job, they get paid to do these things, and it keeps the economy hopping along. Better than starting a war to find ways to spend the public purse, to keep the economy moving, huh?



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.


Yeh, but this is not a metaphor we're talking about. It's a real bond between two people. I might say "she" walks like a "man", but that doesn't mean that she is a man, nor that we should change the label reference to the lady to "man" instead.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 


no. if the child is not natural born to the parents, then the child is a ward. i dont make the language, i just define it.

again, i was being pendantic and making a joke. also i was pointing out the limits of language as the parent/child relationship is much deeper than can be defined by words.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Believer101

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Interesting, too, that some are still pushing the "gay gene" angle, when everyone knows there is no such thing, and all the studies point to environmental and mental factors.


I have a question for you, then. If you say there is no "gay gene" and it's a choice, when did you wake up and say "I'm going to be attracted to the opposite sex"? When did you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? Did you choose it or did it just happen?
edit on 8/8/2012 by Believer101 because: typo


Nope, not playing the silly game. Homosexual behavior is a mental issue, brought on by environmental factors. Trying to claim that someone has to "decide" not to have such an issue is a foolish tact.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by apushforenlightment

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 





1. Jesus IS the Word. He is God, and everything contained is His word. Now, you can choose to accept that or not, but that is the position that a Christian takes.


Ok say I accept this as fact, please show me anywhere that Jesus said homosexuality is a sin, just one example of him saying it will be fine, just one. Don't quote me the old testament, give me one quote where Jesus says it, after all from your quote it says "Jesus IS the word, he is GOD, and everything contained is His word." Oh and by the way, I really hate to question your understanding of Christianity, but do you really believe Jesus is god? Is he not actually meant to be the son of god and not god himself/herself?


Below is the text that give the answer and the true nature of what god is. If you cannot figure it out then you are not meant to understand.

Matthew 25:31-46

New International Version (NIV)


The Sheep and the Goats

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. ”


What does this have to do with the discussion at hand? Offering charity to others has nothing to do with homosexuality, or the current attack against Christians.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Believer101

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Interesting, too, that some are still pushing the "gay gene" angle, when everyone knows there is no such thing, and all the studies point to environmental and mental factors.


I have a question for you, then. If you say there is no "gay gene" and it's a choice, when did you wake up and say "I'm going to be attracted to the opposite sex"? When did you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? Did you choose it or did it just happen?
edit on 8/8/2012 by Believer101 because: typo


Nope, not playing the silly game. Homosexual behavior is a mental issue, brought on by environmental factors. Trying to claim that someone has to "decide" not to have such an issue is a foolish tact.


So now me asking a legitimate question as to when you woke up and chose to be heterosexual is a "silly game"? How so, exactly? I'm genuinely curious as to your answer. When did you wake up and choose to be straight?
edit on 9/8/2012 by Believer101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by stormson
just being pendantic. carry on.


To the point of being cold and uncaring.

Plenty of adoptive children love their adoptive parents and are loved back.

I know, I saw it firsthand. Most of my brothers and sisters are not from my biological parents.

*edited in response to your other post.

If you were not being serious than my apologies for the accusation.
edit on 9-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


the "gay gene" issue is one i take to heart.

they have not found a gene for right/left handedness, yet we acknowledge it exists as an inborn trait dictated by genetic code.

not to mention that multiple genes are often times needed to create an outcome. if so much as one is out of whack, a different outcome results.

this idea often leads to the idea that "gay" is a genetic defect. its not. its no more a defect than being left handed. a defect harms the individual biologically. being gay does not. matter of fact, it could be a mutation, much like drinking the milk of other animals, that is beneficial in the long run as it limits the amount of offspring we can produce in a natural world (a hypothosis that i thought of but have no numbers to back up). or simply a change, like between left and right handedness that happens for no reason whatsoever.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
If the louder of the Christians weren't as hatefull, maybe you would not have this problem.

Every action as an equal and opposite reaction. The Christian Community ( the leaders of I mean not the general population) have been VERY hatefull towards homosexuals in the last 30 years.

This is simply the result of that hate.

You reap what you sow and if you as a Christian don't feel like you belong to such a group, then you need to stand up and declare that to people and attempt to make a difference in your community.

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.

~Tenth


How's the view up on that high horse?

Oh, and it's hateful, not "hatefull"

edit on 9-8-2012 by SepticSheepHerder because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agoyahtah
Christians have it already, there is a special term, "gay union" for the bond between two men.


The continual omission of lesbians is quite telling.

Face it. This isn't about homosexuality. It's specifically about your homophobia of gay men.

No take backs



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

I think many of us were looking pragmatically at it being a 'Christian versus gay' because we were intentionally not extending the scope globally. To be fair.


I watch a lot of documentary type stuff on TV. Regular TV bores me.

I've watched a lot of shows on gay issues of other beliefs/cultures/countries. I am aware of other stuff going on. I also follow them up on the internet.

However - - I just stick to America and the Christian (including Mormon and Catholic) movement against it - - that's major enough.




top topics



 
55
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join