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: 38
55
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 04:52 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. 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.




Oh so now he didn't condemn homosexuality but we must "infer" that he would have!

How many other inferred condemnations are there?




posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   
“You wish to give only a small segment of society a civil right while refusing to offer/give that exact same civil right to a polygamists or a pedophile….”
mr3dboot ( there are many more examples)

It is shocking that many of the anti-gay crowd do not know that there is an ethical difference between sex with a child and sex with an adult. They even say that! They do not know the ethical difference! However, I am sure the law will teach them the legal difference!



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by wiser3
Oh so now he didn't condemn homosexuality but we must "infer" that he would have!

How many other inferred condemnations are there?


Mark 11:12-14

12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry.
13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.
14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.

There you have it; Jesus hates figs.



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


"Definition 7 is why I support the renaming of gay "marriage" into a different term. There is "no variance in proportion, structure, or appearance" between a Divine Union or a Marriage, with each concept receiving equal treatment under the law. "

There is nothing "DIVINE" about a homosexual union, it is an act of perversion.
It is that act of perversion that GOD HATES, N O T the homosexual person committing the act. For that person, God sent His Son "JESUS" to save that person from the "spirit" or "spirits" or "fallen angels" or "demonic beings" who are sent by the "devil" to torment GOD's creation and "Kill, Steal and Destroy" all that he can because he was kicked out of Heaven for wanting to be worshiped as GOD is worshiped in Heaven.
GOD is the only one who is "DIVINE" !!! And perversion is the farthest act from Divinity !!!!



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rightone777
reply to post by My_Reality
 


"Definition 7 is why I support the renaming of gay "marriage" into a different term. There is "no variance in proportion, structure, or appearance" between a Divine Union or a Marriage, with each concept receiving equal treatment under the law. "

There is nothing "DIVINE" about a homosexual union, it is an act of perversion.
It is that act of perversion that GOD HATES, N O T the homosexual person committing the act. For that person, God sent His Son "JESUS" to save that person from the "spirit" or "spirits" or "fallen angels" or "demonic beings" who are sent by the "devil" to torment GOD's creation and "Kill, Steal and Destroy" all that he can because he was kicked out of Heaven for wanting to be worshiped as GOD is worshiped in Heaven.
GOD is the only one who is "DIVINE" !!! And perversion is the farthest act from Divinity !!!!


There is nothing perverted about two people who want to join together in a committed, monogamous relationship, and possibly have a family in a stable, loving environment. Jesus would have NO problem with this. I could understand promiscuity being considered "bad", but not a loving lifelong commitment between two people. That's not bad, anyway you look at it.



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

Originally posted by Rightone777
reply to post by My_Reality
 


"Definition 7 is why I support the renaming of gay "marriage" into a different term. There is "no variance in proportion, structure, or appearance" between a Divine Union or a Marriage, with each concept receiving equal treatment under the law. "

There is nothing "DIVINE" about a homosexual union, it is an act of perversion.


I respect your right to have on opinion. My opinion is that your opinion disgusts me. I can taste the hate in your words; it does not suit you as a Christian.



It is that act of perversion that GOD HATES, N O T the homosexual person committing the act.


John 4:8 - Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Hate is in direct opposition to love.



For that person, God sent His Son "JESUS" to save that person from the "spirit" or "spirits" or "fallen angels" or "demonic beings" who are sent by the "devil" to torment GOD's creation and "Kill, Steal and Destroy" all that he can because he was kicked out of Heaven for wanting to be worshiped as GOD is worshiped in Heaven.
GOD is the only one who is "DIVINE" !!! And perversion is the farthest act from Divinity !!!!


I have never killed anyone. The last thing I stole was a cigarette from my step-mom's purse and I confessed, apologized and paid her back for it. I have no desire to destroy.

These demonic beings and devils you speak of are an invention of the human mind, a personification of our own "dark side" which is dangerous to us. You need not fear them, they have no power over you unless you hand that power to them by indulging in those dark emotions.

So I confess that, by the Bible's standards, I engage in a particular act of sin. So do we all. The Bible's concept of sin is so pervasive that none of us can fully escape it.

The difference between my sin and murder, for example, is that I do it because of love.

Matthew 7:17 - Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

So a good tree (love) is now bearing bad fruit?

You may need to listen more closely to the words of Christ; you are not doing what he instructed.
edit on 10/8/2012 by Glass because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
reply to post by Believer101
 

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)


So now you want to use your First Amendment right to shove YOUR beliefs that homosexuality is a deviance and keep people from their RIGHTS to marriage?
nice to know how you work.

ETA: Please tell me how wanting the same rights you heterosexuals have (Marriage) and non-discrimination is "shoving our socio-political movement down people's throats"? From where I'm sitting, it appears that a majority of "shoving views down people's throats" is coming from the Christians who are attempting to treat a section of humanity as second class citizens by denying them a right that others have.

I'm sorry you're so misguided, I honestly am.
edit on 10/8/2012 by Believer101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Glass
 


This deserves a standing ovation, my friend. It's a breath of fresh air to see someone so rational taking part.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rightone777
reply to post by My_Reality
 


"Definition 7 is why I support the renaming of gay "marriage" into a different term. There is "no variance in proportion, structure, or appearance" between a Divine Union or a Marriage, with each concept receiving equal treatment under the law. "

There is nothing "DIVINE" about a homosexual union, it is an act of perversion.
It is that act of perversion that GOD HATES, N O T the homosexual person committing the act. For that person, God sent His Son "JESUS" to save that person from the "spirit" or "spirits" or "fallen angels" or "demonic beings" who are sent by the "devil" to torment GOD's creation and "Kill, Steal and Destroy" all that he can because he was kicked out of Heaven for wanting to be worshiped as GOD is worshiped in Heaven.
GOD is the only one who is "DIVINE" !!! And perversion is the farthest act from Divinity !!!!


So loving someone of the same sex is now an act of perversion? How so? How is loving someone an act of perversion? I don't need to have sex to be in love with someone, nor does anyone else. That isn't what marriage is about. Marriage is about celebrating the fact you're with the one you love and showing everyone else you are committed to that person. Of course, the tax breaks and insurance thing is a benefit
.

I thought God/Jesus preached love, not hate? Didn't he preach to love thy neighbors as thyself? Meaning love everyone like you would yourself? He also preached judge not, lest ye be judged, yet here you are judging the LGBT community.

I'm sure this has been said to you before, but it seems it needs saying again. I would suggest you go back and actually read what your God has stated, because you are definitely very far off from what he actually said.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 


...SUPPOSEDLY said. So far, I haven't seen the first scrap of proof that an actual DEITY dictated the contents of the Bible.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Believer101
 


...SUPPOSEDLY said. So far, I haven't seen the first scrap of proof that an actual DEITY dictated the contents of the Bible.


Neither have I, honestly, but I'm open to the possibility if the proof arrives.

Now, WHERE'S MY TIME MACHINE SO I CAN SET THIS STRAIGHT?!



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 



Neither have I, honestly, but I'm open to the possibility if the proof arrives.


So am I. I'd be the worst kind of hypocrite if I could stare undeniable, concrete evidence in the face and say, "No, it's not real." I may reserve my own personal opinion, but I wouldn't outright deny it. And of course I'll investigate it. The truth is worth checking.

Denying the actual truth is not what I'm about. It's never been what I'm about. I WANT to know the truth. All of this confusion is because I'm pretty sure I've never seen the absolute truth. But I'll be looking for it. And if I find it...I'll let all of ATS know.

Whether they accept it or not is their choice.
edit on 10-8-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Believer101
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.


Love between two people of the same sex is fine, as long as no sex is involved. The bible is full of examples of men loving each other, for example. It's the modern confusion between "love" and "lust" that makes it difficult to clarify what exactly you're talking about when you use the word :"love". Like I mentioned many times before, the gay movement has an agenda to change the meanings of the words in the language, so that people become confused. Just think of the word "gay" itself. It used to mean a "happy" state of mind, no sex involved. Today, you can't use the word "gay" without confusion.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by wittgenstein
It is shocking that many of the anti-gay crowd do not know that there is an ethical difference between sex with a child and sex with an adult. They even say that! They do not know the ethical difference! However, I am sure the law will teach them the legal difference!


Once you start breaking the laws, what does it matter anymore which law you break?
edit on 10-8-2012 by Agoyahtah because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agoyahtah

Originally posted by Believer101
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.


Love between two people of the same sex is fine, as long as no sex is involved.


I guess we must agree to disagree.



The bible is full of examples of men loving each other, for example. It's the modern confusion between "love" and "lust" that makes it difficult to clarify what exactly you're talking about when you use the word :"love".


I have no confusion between the meanings of love and lust. Truth is I feel both. Lust is one of the "deadly sins", which interestingly are the ones to which all people are universally susceptible. Since we can never eliminate all of these sins from our lives, I have come to understand that the Bible simply warns us against overindulgence in these things.

My lust is tempered and reserved for the person I love. I'm sure most monogamous heterosexuals would say something similar.

I do not allow my lust to drive me to deplorable acts. Oh wait, the very form of sex I practice is deplorable to you.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here as well.



Like I mentioned many times before, the gay movement has an agenda to change the meanings of the words in the language, so that people become confused. Just think of the word "gay" itself. It used to mean a "happy" state of mind, no sex involved. Today, you can't use the word "gay" without confusion.


Languages change over time. It wasn't the homosexual agenda that caused us to stop using words like "thou" and "verily" in common language.

Look at the word "retard", originally a verb meaning "Delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment." but now cannot be used in politically correct speech due to its offensive connotations towards the mentally handicapped.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agoyahtah

Originally posted by wittgenstein
It is shocking that many of the anti-gay crowd do not know that there is an ethical difference between sex with a child and sex with an adult. They even say that! They do not know the ethical difference! However, I am sure the law will teach them the legal difference!



Once you start breaking the laws, what does it matter anymore which law you break?
edit on 10-8-2012 by Agoyahtah because: (no reason given)


Laws are there to protect the victims. Victims of rape, crime, hate, incest, pedophilia, etc. Two consenting adults that engage in a loving, committed relationship involves no victims and hurts no one.
edit on 10-8-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Agoyahtah
 


Yeah like eating pork... and working on the sabbath.

Religious people are so dense. Although i respect how much work it takes to stay that stupid.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Agoyahtah

Originally posted by wittgenstein
It is shocking that many of the anti-gay crowd do not know that there is an ethical difference between sex with a child and sex with an adult. They even say that! They do not know the ethical difference! However, I am sure the law will teach them the legal difference!



Once you start breaking the laws, what does it matter anymore which law you break?
edit on 10-8-2012 by Agoyahtah because: (no reason given)


Laws are there to protect the victims. Victims of rape, crime, hate, incest, pedophilia, etc. Two consenting adults that engage in a loving, committed relationship involves no victims and hurts no one.
edit on 10-8-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)


Oh but don't you know? Two consenting adults of the same sex being in love with each other obviously hurts all of those closed-minded spiteful people. I mean, didn't you know that those closed-minded people own the words love and marriage and by using those words when speaking of those evil homosexuals hurts them dearly?
/Sarcasm.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agoyahtah
Love between two people of the same sex is fine, as long as no sex is involved. The bible is full of examples of men loving each other, for example. It's the modern confusion between "love" and "lust" that makes it difficult to clarify what exactly you're talking about when you use the word :"love".


Honestly, it seems to me that you're the only one who confuses Love and Lust. I have no problem differentiating between the two, nor does anyone I know. If I'm talking about lust, I'll use the word lust. If I'm talking about love, I'll use the word love. So, no, it's not difficult to know what I'm talking about when I use the word love.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


That made me laugh. Thanks for lightening the mood in this corner of the observation room.




top topics



 
55
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join