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: 37
55
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Arles Morningside
 


That is the other, less discussed side of all of this, How it seems that everyone wants a homogenized society with everyone thinking alike,,, sounds robotic to me. I Love and Cherish the variety of expression of life, especially the differences of culture, etc. It is what makes us human.

There is so much more we could be focused on,, like getting off planet, out into the Stars.
so much more we could be dealing with, instead of this,, trying to get people to step outside of their comfort zones and ALLOW for the differences,, and recognize the similarities enough to realize We are ALL HUMANS FIRST.




posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 


Then you have no problem with teaching intelligent design in the classroom? You should be "tolerant" of those views.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
I'm all for freedoms as long as they don't take away from anyone else's. Currently the church is trying to keep freedoms from the homosexual's that straight people have, which equals discrimination and would be labeled as bigotry. We should just actually have a seperation of church and state in this country, and serious reprecussions for the 'HATE' groups that try to rob freedoms from others.


You mean it is now a right to believe in intelligent design? In public schools? Or, is that right robbed from students to see alternative views?



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen23
 


I agree, it will become crucial for humanity to learn to respect diversity when they start having interactions with other beings in a more meaningful way. Respect of diversity shouldn't be misunderstood as compremising our most cherished values and beliefs.

It's like oil painting, in the manner of which I paint (in accord to the old masters of the renaissance), a whole range of things are required, everything comes together and depends on one another (even the Artist is not seperatenor even the viewer) to form the painting stage by stage with nothing being more superior or inferior, it simply Is. The beauty of the painting is not necesarily the glory of the finished product. Everything involving a painting gives and takes without compremising what is important.

Edit to add: Some of the finest works of art are not perfect because they are perfect, but because they have imperfection.
edit on 10-8-2012 by Arles Morningside because: Because my typing sux. LoL

edit on 10-8-2012 by Arles Morningside because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
reply to post by Believer101
 


Then you have no problem with teaching intelligent design in the classroom? You should be "tolerant" of those views.


You're right, I don't have a problem with them teaching "intelligent design" in classrooms. I don't believe it, but I will tolerate it.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer

Originally posted by NoJoker13
I'm all for freedoms as long as they don't take away from anyone else's. Currently the church is trying to keep freedoms from the homosexual's that straight people have, which equals discrimination and would be labeled as bigotry. We should just actually have a seperation of church and state in this country, and serious reprecussions for the 'HATE' groups that try to rob freedoms from others.


You mean it is now a right to believe in intelligent design? In public schools? Or, is that right robbed from students to see alternative views?


I'm not sure what your obsession with intelligent design is, but please point out where in that post he was talking about intelligent design in public schools. Please do so, or stop trying to derail the thread.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Benevolent Adversary
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


wow nice assumption about my sexual proclivites and nice way to avoid my honest question.
where does jesus specifically address the issue of homosexuality?



Jesus was busy casting out demons, healing the sick, spreading the good word, and teaching his disciples the mysteries of the kingdom of God. Homosexuality wasn't a big thing back then, the entire population of the earth was a lot smaller, and if there were any gays, they were too few in number to get onto Jesus' radar. There was no gay movement, like today, raising issues about getting married, and such. No one asked Jesus what he thought about homosexuality, because it wasn't in the minds of men back then. They did ask Jesus about other issues concerning marriage, but between a man and woman. Jesus also commented on adultery, and prostitution, i.e. sins of a woman prostitute. Typically, people around Jesus asked him things, and he responded. Since nobody asked Jesus about being gay, he never talked about that specifically. So, you'd have to infer what he would have said, from his other comments about sexuality in general, on the things he did speak.

In this case, it is clear that Jesus' position is "abstinence" , i.e. non-sexual relation, is the best form of "love".

So, that would exclude homosexuals immediately, since they must have sex with each other, otherwise they wouldn't be homosexuals at all. Other Christians of the day did comment on homosexuality, but these were not the direct words of Jesus.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by GeisterFahrer
 


The issue here is not about belief in general.

It's specifically about beliefs that infringe on a minorities rights as a human being in our nation to be treated equally under the law.

Imagine a religion that held the religious belief, and acted on that belief, that Christians should not be allowed to marry other Christians. And this religion was huge and Christianity was a minority. It had such an active campaign and funding behind it that it was actually able to sway votes in its favor and subsequently Christians were not allowed to marry. This isn't exactly analogous obviously.... but does this at least strike a chord?? In this scenario should belief in of itself be respected? And whos beliefs??
edit on 10-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agoyahtah

Originally posted by The Benevolent Adversary
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


wow nice assumption about my sexual proclivites and nice way to avoid my honest question.
where does jesus specifically address the issue of homosexuality?



Jesus was busy casting out demons, healing the sick, spreading the good word, and teaching his disciples the mysteries of the kingdom of God. Homosexuality wasn't a big thing back then, the entire population of the earth was a lot smaller, and if there were any gays, they were too few in number to get onto Jesus' radar.


Christians believe the Bible to be the Word of God, an OMNISCIENT God, but Jesus didn't talk about it..... because there weren't enough gays to get on his radar


That's one point.

The other explanation is that Jesus might not have talked about it because he didn't view it the same way you're taught now.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Just because others are liberated from the idea that all sex is sinful does not mean they focus on the flesh and forgo the mind and the heart.


They are not liberated. They are "bonded" to sex, and therefore wish to change the language to redefine good and evil to suit their fancy, to support and celebrate their activity, and to take pride in sin. Instead of shame, they have become "numb" from feeling, and have no clue what is love at all.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agoyahtah
In this case, it is clear that Jesus' position is "abstinence" , i.e. non-sexual relation, is the best form of "love".

So, that would exclude homosexuals immediately, since they must have sex with each other, otherwise they wouldn't be homosexuals at all. Other Christians of the day did comment on homosexuality, but these were not the direct words of Jesus.



Even if I don't have sex with someone of the same sex, that does not mean I'm not bisexual. While sex is a part of everyone's lives and does happen with attraction, that has nothing to do with being homosexual. You can still be gay and be attracted to the same sex without having sex with them. Therefore, your argument is invalid. Please try again.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agoyahtah

They are not liberated. They are "bonded" to sex, and therefore wish to change the language to redefine good and evil to suit their fancy, to support and celebrate their activity, and to take pride in sin. Instead of shame, they have become "numb" from feeling, and have no clue what is love at all.



Change your language on it sure yeah


Support and celebrate yeah


Take pride in this "sin" yep


Instead of shame for sure


No clue what love is? No clue about your version of love it would seem.
edit on 10-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 


Derail the thread? Isn't this thread about defining Christianity as hate? The new homosexual agenda?

Isn't homosexuality taught as a "perfectly normal" "Non sexual deviance" in public schools? Isn't the subject of intelligent design not allowed in same public schools?

Calling homosexuality what it is, is not hateful. It is a sexual deviance and human beings were not designed to "love" "produce" and "multiply" in same sex cohabitation. It is a biological deviance. Period.

Shouldn't one's 1st amendment rights to practice and exercise their religion trump anyone else's attempt to shove a socio-political movement down people's throats? Shouldn't that type of indoctrination be called out? Especially when used to misguide children?
edit on 10-8-2012 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 


Indeed.

It would also be like saying a virgin doesn't have a sexual orientation


For some of the posters (you know who you are) that keep focusing on sex sex sex as the definition of orientation. Quick Wiki definition.

Sexual orientation describes an enduring pattern of attraction—emotional, romantic, sexual, or some combination of these—

'Attraction' being the operative word.
edit on 10-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
reply to post by Believer101
 


Isn't homosexuality taught as a "perfectly normal" "Non sexual deviance" in public schools?

All I hope, but I am sure some don't.


Isn't the subject of intelligent design not allowed in same public schools?

Intelligent Design nor Creationism belong in science class they belong in philosophy or theology class. I would be fine if the school offered the proper class for them!


Calling homosexuality what it is, is not hateful.

Saying that over and over isn't convincing us.


It is a sexual deviance and human beings were not designed to "love" "produce" and "multiply" in same sex cohabitation. It is a biological deviance. Period.

Saying we are incapable of love IS hateful...

But anyways us in the 21st century figured out how to multiply. I guess that was a biological deviance as well



Shouldn't one's 1st amendment rights to practice and exercise their religion trump anyone else's attempt to shove a socio-political movement down people's throats?

Shouldn't that depend on what's being practiced and what the socio-political movement is?? Why is this sooooo hard to grasp??


Especially when used to misguide children?

In this case it's taught as proper conduct. Schools should discourage racism because it's not proper conduct in our society right? Same with discrimination against LGBT. Fortunately for our society less and less people are agreeing with you.
edit on 10-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   
How in the **** do you equate a biological sexual deviance to racism?


I think the OP was spot on ... this is outrageous!!! It is NOT hateful to call something what it is. Should we allow blind people their "right" to obtain a drivers license? Or ... should we be sensible and realize they have a biological trait that prevents them from driving?

Is it hateful to deny the "rights" to the blind that we allow everyone else?

Using your logic, the answer would be yes




edit on 10-8-2012 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-8-2012 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
reply to post by Believer101
 

Isn't homosexuality taught as a "perfectly normal" "Non sexual deviance" in public schools? Isn't the subject of intelligent design not allowed in same public schools?


Two completely seperate and unrelated issues.

One is teaching children that there are homosexual people, they exist, and they are normal people. (It generally doesn't get into whether or not homosexuality itself is normal in my country it just says that gay people exist)

The other is because intelligent design has contributed nothing to the field of science in it's decades of existence. PERIOD. All intelligent design is, is an unverifiable theory about a creator who may or may not exist.


Calling homosexuality what it is, is not hateful. It is a sexual deviance and human beings were not designed to "love" "produce" and "multiply" in same sex cohabitation. It is a biological deviance. Period.


It's pretty hateful when you have no evidence, no cure, and no useful input. Also you're mostly just applying your understanding of biology and are assuming that biology is objective orientated. If that's the case, explain why Pandas don't like sex.


Shouldn't one's 1st amendment rights to practice and exercise their religion trump anyone else's attempt to shove a socio-political movement down people's throats? Shouldn't that type of indoctrination be called out? Especially when used to misguide children?


See I can turn this around just as easy ... Shouldn't one's rights to love the person they please trump anyone else's invisible-friend-related beliefs? Shouldn't that type of indoctrination be called out? Especially when used to misguide children?

I'll meet you half way though ... Lets assume that homosexuality is a hideous and randomly distributed handicap which is randomly distributed and you have no knowledge of why or how it exists, but it isn't threatening the human race. When someone is born without legs, you give them a wheel chair. When a person is born gay, you give them ... ... ...



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by GeisterFahrer
 


What I was equating is apparently beyond your current understanding. Not much I can do about that. It's all in the thread pal.

I'll try though. Because you're 'friendly'

It's analogous because both are minorities, both don't have a choice to be who they are (IDC if you don't agree), and both have been and are discriminated against for who they are. It equates that way. Schools help teach proper conduct for children. It's proper conduct to not discriminate against races. Guess what? It's also wrong to discriminate against LGBT. If schools guide children away from discriminating against them..... it equates that way.
edit on 10-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by GeisterFahrer
 



Should we allow blind people their "right" to obtain a drivers license?
Is it hateful to deny the "rights" to the blind that we allow everyone else?

Using your logic, the answer would be yes


Using my logic? You are not following most of the logic. Sorry but you have no idea.
edit on 10-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Agoyahtah
 


Homosexuality is not all about sex! I am Homosexual and I too am celibate and have been for over 20 years.
Just because I am celibate does not make me "not gay", I will be gay for the rest of my life!



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join