Define Christianity as Hate - The New Homosexual Agenda

page: 68
55
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

...You are absolutely disgusting.
edit on 18-8-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


And there are no mirrors in your house?

Have you ever thought about why the body "rejects" solid refuse through its particular opening?

The body thinks it's "disgusting", and doesn't want to keep it, so it passes it out to be discarded.

It's not play dough.

But, full of harmful bacteria, microbes, fungi, and dangerous biochemicals.

Why would anybody want to make contact with that stuff if they don't absolutely need to?

Do you understand what the word "abomination" means?

Language is supposed to protect us. If we relabel "fire" and call it "water" instead, to make our kids "feel good" about fire, then when they drink that water, they will get burnt.

Where is the "wisdom" in that?




posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

You're so full of yourself and useless gibberish.



Annee, why do you hate homosexuals so much?

You don't subject your own self to the dangers of homosexuality, because you're straight, but you "promote" that life style for them, mindless of the risks that it poses for them. So, you want them to suffer. That's like egging somebody else's kid to put his hand into the fire. It's the same attitude some people take when they see two people arguing, when they jump in and say "fight, fight" to encourage a duel. They don't want to be the one fighting, but they love to see the fight. The misery of others is joy to them.


As Christians, we love the sinner, but not the sin. So, we warn the sinner about the sin. We try our best not to let somebody else's kid put his hand into that fire. We don't egg people on to the duel. We don't take joy in their misery.

Have a little compassion for the sinners, help them to avoid the sin. If you don't sin yourself, why would you promote that sin for others? What investment do you have that profits from their sin?





edit on 18-8-2012 by Agoyahtah because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Agoyahtah
 



You don't subject your own self to the dangers of homosexuality, because you're straight, but you "promote" that life style for them, mindless of the risks that it poses for them.


Risks? What risks? Half of the STDs loose in America today are a result of underage promiscuity and sheer idiocy, not homosexuals. Please post a copy of your PhD certifying you as an expert in this topic.


So, you want them to suffer. That's like egging somebody else's kid to put his hand into the fire.


...Why do they even allow you to post on ATS? This is not discussion, this is blatant devolution in critical thinking!


As Christians, we love the sinner, but not the sin. So, we warn the sinner about the sin. We try our best not to let somebody else's kid put his hand into that fire.


No, you oppress. If it's not the way you want it, or what you're comfortable with, it's a sin. Ever watched Footloose? You should. Bunch of people outlawing dancing because they believe it inevitably leads to fornication, inexcusably ignoring the numerous instances dancing is approved in their Bible.

You are digging yourself an ever deeper pit. It's pitiful.


If you don't sin yourself, why would you promote that sin for others? What investment do you have that profits from their sin?


Because we believe in freedom, not oppression. Freedom to love, freedom to express that love, and freedom to choose whom you love. We don't oppress such things. Take your pick, and choose wisely.
edit on 18-8-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Agoyahtah
 

I'm just wondering, is it possible to have a list of all the sins, perhaps with verses, from your sect or interpretation?

I'd just like a general feeling on the "straight is great" position and how you differentiate some sinners (that would be gays here) from the general teaching in Christianity that all people are sinners.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

You mean like people who have seizures were once believed to be possessed of the Devil.

Your mind is a pathetic twist of ignorance.


That just goes to show how little you know Annee.

Yes, seizures were caused by possession. And it's still happening today. People didn't just believe in nonsense, long ago, they knew things by experience. Today, lots of this knowledge is suppressed. But, you can still educate yourself, if you really care to know. All the old and hidden knowledge is out there on the internet, if you decide one day that you'd like to understand your world better.

The were various drugs people used, made from plants like the Mandrake, to separate the spirit from the body. Popular with witches, and other sorcerers. The Mandrake was also used in medicine, as an anesthetic, because it put the body to sleep, but not the mind, so the doctor could perform surgery on his patient without that patient feeling a thing. The problem the occultists had, however, was that these drugs had two side effects: "death" and "seizures". If the incorrect amount was used, death followed. And depending on the body type of the person, frequent seizures would result. Because of the adverse effects, medical science moved on to other anesthetics, and no longer uses these things. However, they are still popular in the underground, with those do dabble with the devil and his domain.

There's a price to pay for power,


and one of those costs is the likelihood of unexpected and unusual seizures.

www.time.com...



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Agoyahtah
 



Yes, seizures were caused by possession. And it's still happening today. People didn't just believe in nonsense, long ago, they knew things by experience.


Again, why are you allowed to post on this site?

Has no one reported this guy yet? This isn't knowledge, this is disinformation!

edit on 18-8-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agoyahtah

Yes, seizures were caused by possession. And it's still happening today.



OK - we're done.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

As Christians, we love the sinner, but not the sin.


It's amazing to me how this is continually uttered from Christian lips as though it were a fair and valid expression of a loving position.

It's a lip service. It's a disingenuous position meant to shield themselves or others from their true thoughts.

In the specific usage towards LGBT. Since sexual orientation is natural, and at the core of who they are as a person, this Christian mantra should read like this:

As Christians, we love who you are, just not who you are.

If they hadn't sacrificed their minds to dogma they would understand how it truly reads and see just how hypocritical it is.

You love someone for who they are, otherwise who are you really loving.
edit on 18-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

As Christians, we love the sinner, but not the sin.


It's amazing to me how this is continually uttered from Christian lips as though it were a fair and valid expression of a loving position.

It's a lip service. It's a disingenuous position meant to shield themselves or others from their true thoughts.


I truly hate that saying.

Talk about a cop out.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

You love someone for who they are, otherwise who are you really loving.
edit on 18-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because:



Really? We love mass murderers and serial killers for who they are? That's really difficult. But, if medical science could explain that some disease of the brain caused them to kill, and developed a cure, and they became cured of their thirst for blood, then maybe we could love them for who they are then. Prior to that, we love the person, but not their actions. We pray to save their souls, not to protect and support their behavior. extra DIV



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Agoyahtah
 



Really? We love mass murderers and serial killers for who they are?


I don't love them. I am not claiming to "love everyone".

That's your claim. You can make sense of loving serial killers, but I have no need to rationalize it myself.

Your blah blah blah I love the sinner not the sin, Jesus died for them, God judges them not me, I am concerned about their soul.

The only thing your version of helping LGBT does is give them the religious belief they might be helped in the future. And I say might properly in your terms as they would need to stop their 'behavior'. It would also most likely make them depressed if they believed it, as they would think something they cannot control is evil.

Well I would rather help people today. Right now. On Earth.

Your religious thought pales in comparison to the level of compassion I meet on a daily basis from non-religious.
edit on 18-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

Again, why are you allowed to post on this site?



Why not?



Has no one reported this guy yet? This isn't knowledge, this is disinformation!


Even Christians are more tolerant than that. You can blaspheme against God the Father, you can blaspheme against his son Jesus.



Jesus said: He who blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and he who blasphemes against the Son will be forgiven; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven.

The Gospel of Thomas, # 44, Matthew 12:32, etc..



SOURCE: www.earlychristianwritings.com...

So you can say whatever you like against God or Jesus, and no matter what you say you'll be "forgiven."

Who would need to be less tolerant than that? Why would anyone want to "silence" a voice, what are they afraid of? Only the Devil needs to suppress free speech because he's afraid someone might see the truth, and convert.

If you have a case against the holy scriptures, and in favor of homosexuality, why not just defend your position with facts?

There is not a single scientific fact that anyone can present in support of homosexuality. But heterosexuality has both "scripture" and "science" on its side. No wonder, the only avenue left for the homosexual movement is to suppress the voice, change the language, remove the signs, all in an effort to "keep people in the dark".

If there ever was an Alien agenda, the evidence for it couldn't be any more glaring.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Agoyahtah
 



If you have a case against the holy scriptures, and in favor of homosexuality, why not just defend your position with facts?


There is no factual basis for holy scripture but it's factual LGBT don't have equal rights.

Now try and refute that with facts, not the Bible


If you use the Bible to prove the Bible that's not defending your position with facts that's circular reasoning. Intellectual weakness.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Agoyahtah

Yes, seizures were caused by possession. And it's still happening today.



OK - we're done.


Of course, you don't want to know. You believe you already know.

If you did a little research you'd find out the world is a lot more complicated than the simple view you hold.

You want to believe there's no possession. The Catholic Church still performs exorcisms. Do you know there are over 2.2 billion Christians in the world?

fallibleblogma.com...

What do you think Christians pray about when they refer to this verse in scripture,



For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

KJV Ephesians 6:12


Who would want to suppress these ideas except the "spiritual wicked in high places" ?



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Your religious thought pales in comparison to the level of compassion I meet on a daily basis from non-religious.


Ok.

Let me give you a scenario, which might help to make things clearer.

A beggar sits at the street corner, asking everyone who passes by "Mr can you spare a cigarette?"

The first man that passes by, looks at the beggar, shakes his head, says no, and walks on. The beggar curses him, "Mean bastard, at least you could spare a quarter to buy a cigarette!" Little did he know, that passer by is a doctor. In fact, he's a lung specialist, and surgeon, who treats lung cancer on a daily basis, and was just coming back from lunch, in a hurry to get back to the operating room to remove yet another tumor, caused by smoking, from a patient. The doctors thought was to save the beggar from that eventual trauma by helping him to quit, and not supporting the negative habit. Too busy to try to explain all this detail to the beggar, the doctor just refuses and rushes on to his job. The doctors idea of compassion.

The second man that passes by, happens to be a fellow smoker, he understands the urge, the need to get that quick fix, so he sympathies with the beggar, reaches into his pocket, and hands the beggar two cigarettes. The beggar blesses him, "God bless you brother, you saved me today, I only asked for one, you gave my two, you're the kindest fellow to pass by all day." The second man, of course, also felt he was being compassionate. In his mind, he's releaving the immediate suffering of the beggar.

Both men thought they were doing good.

They had different ideas of what is good, and what is bad. So, their actions were "opposite" in nature.

Now who was the really compassionate passer by?

The doctor, using his scientific knowledge, acted the best way he could think of.

The smoker, drawing on his personal experience with the habit, acted the best why he could think of.

But, the beggar curses the doctor, and blesses the smoker.

This same drama repeats itself everyday in many different situations.

And this is what the homosexual verses heterosexual debate is all about. Medical doctors know the ill effects of homosexual activity. But, homosexuals know the urge for the quick fix.



edit on 18-8-2012 by Agoyahtah because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
That was a good analogy. Good structure and articulation.

However it's not analogous to our discussion.

1. You're comparing yourself to the doctor, but the doctors help is earthly and is much more immediate. Not as fast as giving him the cigarette, but in the scheme of eternity it's the very next day.

2. This analogy is predicated on homosexuality being an illness. You have presented no strong argument for this at all save for Biblical belief. Note I said 'strong' and I didn't say you haven't mentioned it.


Medical doctors know the ill effects of homosexual activity. But, homosexuals know the urge for the quick fix.

If you bring up science and medicine you welcome a non-biblical challenge.

So present a compelling argument from science/medicine to support the 'ill effects' of homosexual sex. And then be prepared for counter scientific and medical evidence to refute it. That's another form of discussion in case you were not sure.
edit on 18-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

If you bring up science and medicine you welcome a non-biblical challenge.



You do understand, of course, that from a religious point of view, if God says something is wrong, then medical science will be expected to have lots of corroborating evidence, because the spiritual laws are reflected in the physical design of man.

While we cannot expect to have uncovered all that could be known about man's physiology and biology to date, we do know many things already, and will probably find out many more things in the future, as medical science advances.

So, lets look at a few medical facts:



a. Anal-genital

Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men.22 Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.

Furthermore, ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient.23 Semen may have a similar impact on humans.24

The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:

Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis25

Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity. Syphilis, for example is found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners. But in 1999, King County, Washington (Seattle), reported that 85 percent of syphilis cases were among self-identified homosexual practitioners.26 And as noted above, syphilis among homosexual men is now at epidemic levels in San Francisco.27



SOURCE: www.catholiceducation.org...

Now the internet is filled with medical reports, that any interested person could pursue. But, here is a place one could start.

One of the main problems gay men have to deal with is destruction of the anal sphincter, leading to the inability to retain stool, and having to use an artificial "plug" to close the hole, and prevent faeces from just dropping out.




For a period following receptive anal sex, the internal anal sphincter is stretched and is unable to contract strongly, thereby failing to completely seal the anal opening until the muscle regains its original tone. Repetitive anal sex, especially with large penises or rectal insertions of large objects may damage the internal anal sphincter, thereby preventing complete sealing of the anus, and leading to fecal mucus seepage (anal or fecal incontinence). Additionally, anal sex exacerbates fecal seepage by stimulating colonic motility, which sends feces from the colon down into the lower rectum.(6)


SOURCE: www.homosexinfo.org...

After reviewing these medical reports, how could anyone think that gay sex, for example, is natural?



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Agoyahtah
 


Now before I respond to that. And I will respond to that.

Explain first two things.

Why did you omit Lesbians? Can you cite information for that argument as well.

Since anal sex is not practiced by all gay men, and anal sex is practiced by heterosexuals (many), shouldn't your case be against anal sex itself?

Clarify that and I will respond to your other post.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Clarify that and I will respond to your other post.


I just picked a couple things at random.

Lesbians share a lot of the same medical problems that heterosexuals have, like HPV. I'm not aware of any specific Lesbian physical medical problems, other than that arising from the use of sex toys.Lesbians do have a lot of "mental problems", specific to them, and different from heterosexual women, which some doctors have attributed entirely to the negative reactions of society on homosexuality in general, so I'd leave that out of the discussion.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Chill out Agoyahtah
www.youtube.com...
and stop playing rhetorical games * that ( yes, it is fun to vent) disturb your own mind and that of others and do not contribute to a rational understanding of the issue.
* You insult your opponents (you are not as crafty / subtle as you think) and then when they respond with anger you go into “reasonable” mode, so that they will look like the aggressors. Then after a few more posts, you insult them again and the cycle repeats itself.
Trust me, I used to be a "mind game Jedi" myself. I know all the tricks. However, I find that boring now and only use my special powers in emergencies and only for truth justice and the American way!

Calm down and start walking in rhythm!
www.youtube.com...

edit on 19-8-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
active topics
 
55
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum