I shouldnt be suprised at this point...

[nuttylawprofessor]

Personally, I don't know how so many people are so sure that:

the translation of the Bible they read/follow is correct. The original was in Aramaic. Kings and rulers usually commissioned translations and then monks transcribed things. There's no room for human error?

or

How do they know they're interpreting the allusions, analogies, parables, etc. correctly? Obviously some things are open to interpretation- why else would there be so many different Christian churches arguing while all claiming to follow "the Bible"? Some people state everything should be taken literally, while others state some things are symbolic. How do they know they're right?

or

How do they know that the "original" Aramaic Bible itself if *THE* document we all should be following. How do they know that that is where all the info is? How are they so sure that they shouldn't be reading The Koran, the Tao Te Ching, etc. etc. ? Supposing that it is, how do they know there haven't been any amendments or updates?


I just don't know how someone can say it's okay to have sex before you're married, it's okay to not keep kosher, it's okay to disobey those things, but the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. It's so contradictory.

There really is no doubt that homosexuality is forbidden under the old and new testament. It's explicit. No metaphors. BUT, once you place texts in the historical context, what do you get?

The divinely-inspired authors of the Bible thought that men were solely responsible for the existence of children. Women were merely a vessel to carry the man's child. She didn't have any genetic contribution. In that time, perfectly reasonable. Now, mostly laughable. (I say mostly because there are people who still believe this is true.) In that time, wives were the property of the husband. Now, not so much in western culture. In that time, one human being could rightfully own slaves. Now, not so much. Context is everything.

 

[discernment]

so then tell me what do you want to discuss then. You have it all worked out for you and you will never think in a different way. So be it you think it's wrong OK. But do you have to keep on bothering other people with your antiquated view. Furthermore you are the one insulting people you call us all siners do you think that's right? I'm really glad that i live in a country where most of the people accept and support homosexuality and that i don't have to put up with people like you in "real life". I don't understand why you can't just accept that it doesn't matter who you love be it a man or a women as long as you don't hurt anybody it's all about love not gender. And all the gospels you refer to are written by man not god we don't really know what god really wants.

The thing is we are all sinners. I am never insulted when someone calls me a sinner. Yes, I think its right that all people are sinners.

What country do you live in? Last I checked in the US "most" people disagree with gay marriage? Most states have amendments that will not allow gay marriage.

Just because I may disagree with homosexuality does not mean I hate the person that practices it. I have friends that are not Christians and engage in sinful lifestyle choices but i dont hate them but at the same time i will tell them about it.

 

[nuttylawprofessor]

*** Mindless sheep on a two thousand year old crusade to dominate the world? Booooo

No one is definitively right or wrong until god, buddha, allah or something else comes down from the sky to prove it. Until then, you choose what you want to beleive. What I don't understand is why there's so much intolerance for another's beliefs? So much that we berate, criticize and mock each other over it when there is no absolute truth. *** Christian zealots kill me... Well, any zealot for that matter...but the Christian whackos are on a roll in this thread! ***

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot. Remember not to lose your credibility when trying to make a good point.

 

[hamlet35_2000]

The thing is we are all sinners. I am never insulted when someone calls me a sinner. Yes, I think its right that all people are sinners.

What country do you live in? Last I checked in the US "most" people disagree with gay marriage? Most states have amendments that will not allow gay marriage.

Just because I may disagree with homosexuality does not mean I hate the person that practices it. I have friends that are not Christians and engage in sinful lifestyle choices but i dont hate them but at the same time i will tell them about it.

Man....glad I am not a friend of yours...I bet you don't have many...

Is this a mean post? Hmmmmmmm.....I will go ahead and post it....

 

[oelpa]

I'm not in the US as is stated in my profile i'm from Europe, Austria.

But why do you think it's wrong because an andiquated book tells you so....
perhabs that book is wrong.

Furthermore i can assure you that not all people are sinners that's a ridiculous point of view pursued by brainwashed christians. And i can tell you i don't see myself as a sinner just because some stupid story in an ancient book says so. Why are most religions so intolerant and just exist in their own limited bubble. That really beats me.

 

[Muziqal]

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot. Remember not to lose your credibility when trying to make a good point.

zeal·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (zlt)
n.

One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
A fanatically committed person.

Tell me how I erred there?

Words get misused so often. Especially on the internet. I think you got confused there sonny.

 

[discernment]

So Discernment, my little buddy, what is your take on that post I made about those Christians that created Exodus? And the AMA's and APA's position on gay aversion therapy? You haven't addressed those.

Or, like "Judge not lest ye be judged," are you going to ignore that as well?

As for making judgements and intolerance, I do make judgements. Difference is, I don't use the Bible in order to do so. I use education and informed opinion when making those judgements about people that preach hate.

And you are absolutely entirely 100% correct. I have absolutely NO tolerance for people who make rash, ignorant, HATEFUL and rather obsessive judgements of others. Homophobes are really no better than racist people or sexist people, etc... Am I completely disgusted by the KKK, all it represents and the completely ignorant people that are members? Yep! 1000000% You bet I do!

I embrace my intolerance against all homophobes, racists and the like. I pity them for their small mindedness.

I have answered those questions. the AMA and APA are highly charged political agencies that have bowed to the PC crowd and the gay agenda.

http://www.narth.com/docs/insiders.html

http://www.narth.com/docs/press7.html

As far as "judge lest you be judged" is concerned. Have you read the bible study in the link I provided early. Using the Bible as a source to make judgements is not using it as a weapon. Stop all the hyperbole. That one verse in Matthew is so misinterpreted and is more warning about how you judge not whether you should. You read the Bible and are highly intelligent so I am sure you already are aware of this.

I have asked others but now i will ask you: What is "hate speak?" And why are the things you have said to be not considered "hateful"? Oh...thats right...double standards.

 

[nuttylawprofessor]

Music- You called people "mindless sheep" and "zealots" --- I think we can all agree that those terms have negative connotations. You didn't mean to "berate, criticize or mock" with those terms? Don't hide behind dictionary definitions, it makes for lousy argument.

What did you mean by "sonny" --- are we being a bit presumptive? perhaps defensive?

 

[RickinNYC]

I have answered those questions. the AMA and APA are highly charged political agencies that have bowed to the PC crowd and the gay agenda.

http://www.narth.com/docs/insiders.html

http://www.narth.com/docs/press7.html

As far as "judge lest you be judged" is concerned. Have you read the bible study in the link I provided early. Using the Bible as a source to make judgements is not using it as a weapon. Stop all the hyperbole. That one verse in Matthew is so misinterpreted and is more warning about how you judge not whether you should. You read the Bible and are highly intelligent so I am sure you already are aware of this.

I have asked others but now i will ask you: What is "hate speak?" And why are the things you have said to be not considered "hateful"? Oh...thats right...double standards.

You got me! I do have double standards. I preach tolerance, yet people who post inflammatory comments about the "gay agenda"... well, I don't tolerate them. Sue me.

There are major differences between you and I, one of which is I admit what I state and don't complain when called on it. Nor do I use God's word to promote hate.

Call me a hatemongeraphobic.

 

[RickinNYC]

Music- You called people "mindless sheep" and "zealots" --- I think we can all agree that those terms have negative connotations. You didn't mean to "berate, criticize or mock" with those terms? Don't hide behind dictionary definitions, it makes for lousy argument.

Dictionary

Bible

Guess we all hide behind books!

I think I'll hide behind One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish

 

[discernment]

You got me! I do have double standards. I preach tolerance, yet people who post inflammatory comments about the "gay agenda"... well, I don't tolerate them. Sue me.

There are major differences between you and I, one of which is I admit what I state and don't complain when called on it. Nor do I use God's word to promote hate.

Call me a hatemongeraphobic.

OK, I will bite. How do I promote hate?

 

[hamlet35_2000]

Music- You called people "mindless sheep" and "zealots" --- I think we can all agree that those terms have negative connotations. You didn't mean to "berate, criticize or mock" with those terms? Don't hide behind dictionary definitions, it makes for lousy argument.

She/he is just using the same tatics that discernment is-- look at his previous posts where he gives us the dictionary definition of deviant..

what's good for the goose is good for the gander.. or even what's good for the gander is good for the gander

 

[nuttylawprofessor]

Dictionary

Bible

Guess we all hide behind books!

I think I'll hide behind One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish

While an excellent choice, not really the definitive Seuss treatise IMHO. Surely you can find a better one.

 

[nuttylawprofessor]

She/he is just using the same tatics that discernment is-- look at his previous posts where he gives us the dictionary definition of deviant..

what's good for the goose is good for the gander.. or even what's good for the gander is good for the gander

And that's what bugs me. Rise above it. Don't reduce yourself to the same tactics, it weakens your argument.

 

[hamlet35_2000]

I guess the next thing we will hear is the Catholic Church releasing a statement that certain Priests of theirs were born with "affections" to young boys.

I mean if "affections" are inborn then arent they all "affections" included under that umbrella or do you get to pick and choose which ones are inborn based on your agenda.

But this newly elected Bishop is more concerned about pushing her agenda than tearing the whole demoniation apart. Nice. She shoudl have stuck to studying oysters

this is an example of hateful speak--

You don't know this woman and yet you make fun of her, and she isn't here to defend herself--that's hateful

 

[Muziqal]

Music- You called people "mindless sheep" and "zealots" --- I think we can all agree that those terms have negative connotations. You didn't mean to "berate, criticize or mock" with those terms? Don't hide behind dictionary definitions, it makes for lousy argument.

For those who go out of their way to berate, sure I'll use negative connotations. Like the troll that started this thread? There has to be some human decency to defend the people that zealots attack. If that means me, I'll surely fall into the category of hypocrites. You can look that one up too. But not once did I say that I was right. I called them mindless sheep for quoting scripture written by men but claim it to be the word of god. It's merely a description of an act.

Some times you have to fight the good fight. You may think Christian crusading is the good fight...I think it's not. I may not be the most tolerant person out there when it comes to religious fascism...but I didn't claim to be either. I just asked the question...why is there so much intolerance when everyone claims their belief is derived from love?

Can you answer it?

What did you mean by "sonny" --- are we being a bit presumptive? perhaps defensive?

Who's getting defensive now? Just a term, i guess. Would you prefer bud, pal, guy, friend?

 

[hamlet35_2000]

1. I believe that both are abnormal, deviant sexual behavior.
2. No, I am not.

Calling someone abnormal is hateful. Abnormal should be used for things like cancer, not people

 

[oelpa]

@muziqal believe me they can't answer you and if they do it's just the same christian hypocrisy again. They can't help it and you see they don't even discuss the point why they think the bible reflects god's views and not the ones of the man who wrote it. They comfortably ignore all the things that could flaw the basis their life is build on, namly a cult that's a view thousand years old

 

[RickinNYC]

OK, I will bite. How do I promote hate?

Stating that homosexuality is deviant behavior when major medical organizations have stopped labeling it as such in 25+ years, and using the Bible to support that stance leads others to believe that we are immoral and wrong. That belief then leads those that are poorly educated to feel their stance is the right one, i.e. supporting homophobia. And then using that stance to allow them to feel vindicated that gay men and lesbians are worthless and should be eradicated. That sense then can lead to gay bashing. All the time, those bashers (verbal or physical) feel that they are doing what is right.

The above is NOT a stretch of the imagination. It happens every friggin' day.

Gay men and lesbians don't just lose their jobs, their children, the right to see their partner in emergency rooms or the right to marry. They get beaten if not killed. Mathew Shephard was murdered EIGHT years ago. More recently, a gay man was beaten and hospitalized three weeks ago HERE In New York City. Five years ago, my best friend was beaten and hospitalized by two men who repeatedly called him deviant and a sinner, while they bashed him in the skull with a bat. In the middle of Manhattan.

If you can't see that your words don't promote a sickening agenda of hate, then this is a waste of time.

All you see is your own agenda, one that will allow anyone who doesn't fit your concept of normal. You don't even consider the consequences of your words.

My intolerance doesn't potentially lead to murder. Yours does.

 

[eclectics]

I have answered those questions. the AMA and APA are highly charged political agencies that have bowed to the PC crowd and the gay agenda.
http://www.narth.com/docs/insiders.html

http://www.narth.com/docs/press7.html

As far as "judge lest you be judged" is concerned. Have you read the bible study in the link I provided early. Using the Bible as a source to make judgements is not using it as a weapon. Stop all the hyperbole. That one verse in Matthew is so misinterpreted and is more warning about how you judge not whether you should. You read the Bible and are highly intelligent so I am sure you already are aware of this.

I have asked others but now i will ask you: What is "hate speak?" And why are the things you have said to be not considered "hateful"? Oh...thats right...double standards.

How come you had a meltdown when I pointed out these website links you constantly like to include in your posts are "highly charged and political" (I'll use your words this time, not what I like to call them, because it obviously upsets you so much) but it's perfectly okay for you to state, as fact, that some organizations are left leaning and base their policies on political pressure? So all these links you post as fact have no agenda at all, right?