Major league rant-"Christian love"

[Archae]

This is a picture of the "good Christian" who led the TN county rally to declare gays as being a "crime against nature." :mad: :argh:

This asshole need psychiatric help, soon.

(Full story at my LJ, it's in my sig line)

[kayell]

1. BWAHAAAHAAAA

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin::evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin::evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin::evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin::evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin::evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin::evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:


Charge!

[xchrom]

2. words fail

to express my loathing of these creatures -- and my longing not to live in a country with these idiots in control of anything!
i really can't describe to anybody how i feel about these people -- or people who even remotely come close to thinking the way they do.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

3. I am 100% sure the fellow in your avatar would be just as shocked (nt)

[xchrom]

10. nah -- nothing much shocks him

and he doesn't like them either.
but he's in the business of being more forgiving than me -- although i have it on good authority that lying about his business can get you in hot water.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

12. So nothingshocksmeanymore may be Jesus in disguise? (nt)

[Az]

26. Just a stranger on a bus? n/t

[xchrom]

41. why not?

far be it for me to speak for you know who.

[TlalocW]

4. Man, Demons aren't as scary as what

Books, comic books, and movies tell us then. I have lots of gay friends and instead of turning their heads all the way around and spitting pea soup, their most annoying habits center around being big time fans of Cher.

TlalocW

[Finch]

8. Extreme yeah, but...

...doesnt take away from the fact that it is repeatedly stated in the Bible that Homosexuality is wrong...sorry but thats the truth...if your a Christian then you can't pick and chose from the Bible...Gay people can be good people but they have made a bad choice and you as a Christian should not agree with that choice...

Disclaimer: This is not a reflection of my personal views on the subject...but Judaism, Christian and Islam all repeatedly say that homosexuality is wrong and on a pare with bestiality etc...you can't be both accepting of Homosexuality and a Christian, Jew or Muslim... not really as you are suppose to follow the teaching of the Bible Torah/Talmud or Korah and all of these forbid same sex relationships ...sorry but thats they way it is... at least according to these texts...

Once again not my view but then again i have mixed feelings on it...I'll sit here and wait to be flammed...

[TlalocW]

9. Yahbut

In the same area of the Bible, wearing cloth made of two different kinds of materials is called an abomination as well. If some ass is going to cherry-pick the Bible in front of me, I'll gladly pull this out and ask him why he's disgracing himself in front of God by wearing his 50% poly-cotton T-shirt.

Besides, not every Christian feels that way. There are some of us who recognize that the Bible was written, re-written, copied over and over again, changed by Kings to reflect what they wanted, etc. Idiots like this guy are slowly but surely losing ground in my opinion.

TlalocW

[FlaGranny]

11. I must disagree with you,

Christians pick and chose from the Bible at every opportunity, always disregarding some parts and following other parts that suit them. That's why there are so many different brands of Christianity. If every Christian took every part of the bible as gospel truth, they would all be living in the manner the Jews lived 5000 years ago, with the teachings of Jesus added for good measure.

[supernova]

13. You're wrong Finch

There is a way to look at christianity and the bible without being anti-gay.

1) As for Leviticus, I like to ask fundamentalist xtains when they decided to start keeping kosher? I thought Paul said keeping to the old Judaic Law didn't matter. It matters a great deal to orthodox Jews of course, and I respect that, but it doesn't apply to what makes a good christian.

2) Paul's letter to the Corintians 6:9-10. There is some debate about what he is referring to. I'm sure the subtext was clear to the Corinthians, but it has been lost to us. For an interesting alternative view, go here. He seems to be talking about courtesans who spend more money on clothing and such than helping their communities.

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg00171.html

Personally, I don't think the Bible addresses the issue of private love lives of gays. Notice not a word about lesbians.... anywhere.

I certainly do accept and welcome gays into my life. I don't see them as "possessed" or "evil" or "wrong". People are born gay just as I am born straight. It's built into the system.

Besides that Jesus person was pretty big on "loving your neighbor as yourself." That "hate the sin, love the sinner" mantra is crap. You either love someone in the some totality of who they are or you do not. If you don't, then don't label it "christian," because it certainly isn't.

[Bertha Venation]

23. EXCELLENT REPLY.

TY, Supernova.

[Az]

25. Intent

Assuming the bible is the word of god, are we supposed to assume that god changed his mind? The NT and Jesus cleared people from having to obey all the ruels because it was pointed out it was virtually impossible. But did this in any way change the definition of what god thought was bad?

Thus all the rules. All the laws. Are definitions of what god believes to be good and righteous. This means that not only is a child talking back to his parents evil, but that taking the child out and stoning them to death is good. Think about the world that creates.

The intent of the rules in the OT is to give the rules that god defines as being good. Eating the wrong food, saying the wrong thing, growing the wrong crops, these all are examples of Evil.

Jesus did not change things. He just forgave people for not being able to be good. Are you not good because you did not kill your child for being rebellious?

[supernova]

37. Who says God is a static being?

Az, I know you're a non-believer and that's fine, but I think you're stuck arguing with the same limited schema of God as the fundies have tried to define Him or Her.

In fact, in the OT, there are two instances of God changing His mind. The first is in the story of Soddom and Gomorrah. Abraham argues with God about how many decent people there are left in the two towns. Abraham negotiates God down from 50 to 10 people, IIRC. The second instance is after Noah's Flood. God expresses remorse and promises never to do it again, no matter what we do.

I as a believer do not think of God as a static being. S/He is ever changing and evolving as we are, albeit at a different level of existance. So it makes sense to me, coming from the reformed tradition, to keeping evolving in ways that I view the bible and view God. I don't know, but I'm pretty certain God is able to keep up with me. ;-)

Some people think of God as the unbending, unyielding, angry Father. Lots of rules to follow and if you get out of line, look to be punished. As for "Evil" as you say, it's so much easier for a parent to tell a little one that something is "bad." and to "stay away from it." It's much harder, as they get older, to tell them why something is bad for you. It's also much harder to watch them fall on their faces and learn from their own mistakes. I tend to think that God takes the harder path.

I have the Parent/child model. Are parents the same people throughout their lives? No, of course not. It's not healthy for you and not healthy for your kid. You don't want to treat a teenager like the baby s/he once was. You also hope that if you did your job right, you and your child get to be great friends and helpmeets when they are adults.

As for following the rules, some of them make absolute sense. Take the one about eating sacrificial leftovers for only two days and throwing it out on the third. Makes sense when you don't have refrigeration. Who wants to eat something that's been sitting out for three days? That one's a keeper for anybody.

Bottom line: I'm not going to pretent to you, God or anyone else that I'm nothing other than a democracy-loving, post-Enlightenment, feminist. And my concept of God does flow from that worldview.

Now, I don't pretend that my view is the prevailing view. However, I will advocate for it. More importantly, I will not be pigeon-holed by others who try to define my spirituality using terms in ways I disagree with.

[Az]

40. God says

Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not

Now it does not sound as if you are an inerrantist. Thus flogging the flaws of the bible will not gain any ground (incidently it wouldn't gain any ground with an inerrantist either). But the issue is that so many people suffer because of some other people's personal choices rationalized on the back of this book. Their interpretation is just as personal as the most relativistic moralists ever was. The difference being that the relativist does not believe they have the right to force their interpretation of morality on another.

The greatest advance of civilization in the last 1000 years was the realization that we the people have to struggle together to determine what is right and wrong for us. There are those that still cling to the notion that their truth must dominate and will not abide the rest. Modern society must abide them but it must also find a way to bring them back into the fold in a way that they realize that they cannot define morality on their own in our society.

[supernova]

67. My reply

God says Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not

I take that to mean God is ever present.

Now it does not sound as if you are an inerrantist. Thus flogging the flaws of the bible will not gain any ground (incidently it wouldn't gain any ground with an inerrantist either).

Ha Ha. You have no idea exactly how far I am from the word "inerrantist." :7 You would only say that if you were on some sort of mission to change my mind about leading a spiritual existance. :tinfoilhat: But I don't know why you would be, because I'm not out to change your relationship to the universe. I'm out to get you to understand where I'm coming from. Capice?

But the issue is that so many people suffer because of some other people's personal choices rationalized on the back of this book.

You don't think I'm aware of this? I live in the South. Everybody confronts religion in some form or another here. And what they think about it is their business. I know a handful of fundamentalists, but they don't have an undue influence in my life.

The rest of your post is just preaching to the choir as far as I'm concerned. I agree with you; tell me something I don't know. And I'll add to this sentence:

There are those that still cling to the notion that their truth must dominate and will not abide the rest.

There will always be people who have a need to dominate others. I'm not sure if this is innate or learned behavior. Any body of thought, not just religion, can become dogma with which to persecute others. The old USSR was a good example of this, replacing worship of a being with worship of the state and venerating revolutionary heros to the point they are worshipped as virtual demigods, like Lenin. In short, we do that to ourselves. It's sad but there it is.

I wish we could build a world society based on mutual cooperation and benefit. But we're not there .... yet. *Sigh* So much work to do.

[Az]

68. Preaching to the choir

I thought the bulk of my statement was preaching to the choir. The issue you take with my initial statements seem to have missed the mark. I was suggesting that I did not see you are a literalist and that as such the base argument had not traction in regards to you. I also commented that the base argument would not likely hold any ground with a literalist either, but for wildly different reasons.

So to retiterate I am not on some mission to change your mind. I sometimes say things that may seem obvious but this is because I do not assume I know the ground on which the person I am speaking to stands. I offer an exchange of ideas in hopes that communication is established between all sides.

[northzax]

75. but I have a problem with that

God is ommnipresent, all-knowing and the like, right? and provided, through the angels, all of the prophecies that were interpreted in the old testament. God knows everything that has ever happened and will ever happen, right? How, then, can God be capricious, and change its mind? truth is truth and is everlasting, for ever and ever.

I think your arguement would be better by saying that our ability to interpret the word of God and the will of God evolves, but not God. Claiming that God is evolving is saying the God is not perfect, which of course is not true, God is perfection embodied.

Man is capricious, and greedy and imperfect, which leads to evolution of man towards the ideal that is God, since we are made in the image of God, we can aspire to achieve the perfection that is God (not that we ever will, but that's the model) perfection cannot change. the absolute is not static, it is everything, and sum of everything is still the same incomprehensible thing.

at least that's my reading on it.

[Djinn]

47. Thx supernova, FlaGranny & TlalocW

I'm SO over the "but it's in the bible" justification for discrimination - for a start we don't all beleive in the bible or even in God. Second how come that's the ONLY bit of the bible people who use this justification seemed to have read

[DoYouEverWonder]

53. None of this has anything to do with the words of Jesus

The fundies love to quote Leviticus and Paul of Tarsus when they want to justify their perversions. Of course, they only use the parts that back up their beliefs and ignore the rest.

In regards to the Old Testament, wasn't Jesus the fulfillment of the prophecies and that was why the laws of the Old Testament no longer applied?

In regards to Paul of Tarsus, IMHO, if Saul had not because Paul the whole world would be better off. Paul hijacked Christianity and blended it with his pagan beliefs, taking the god Mithras and turning him into his own version of Jesus. The other Christian sects were soon after deemed Heretics and much of Jesus's real teachings were suppressed or lost, while Paul twisted the rest into a much more oppressive religion.

As soon as someone starts to tell you that the only way to god is through someone else and that god is apart from and outside of yourself you can be pretty sure they are full of shit.

[Terran]

64. It's really quite simple: real Christians...

...need only focus on what Jesus said. Everything else either predates Jesus by a millenium (like Leviticus), or is commentary by someone else (like Paul) and therefore of no force or influence. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality; therefore, Christians should not be concerned that God has any issues about it.

[Az]

65. Tricky

The Jesus Seminar went through the bible with a fine tooth comb and determined that only about 9% of what is attributed to Jesus can actually be accounted for as probably said by him.

The bible is hopelessly open to interpretation. Like looking at the clouds in the sky you can get anything you want from it.

[Terran]

66. Agreed

But (and I am no expert), it seems that if people paid attnetion only to those parts, even if dubiously attributable to him, they wouldn't be concerned about stupid crap like homosexuality. The message, regardless of who wrote it, is one of unconditional love and radical generosity toward the poor and oppressed.

[Comadreja]

78. Paul is one reason

Jefferson's Bible leaves out a large part of the NT as churchy embellishments. Paul, after all, advocated celibacy and expressed racism by agreeing with the saying that "All Cretans are liars and good-for-nothings." He was plainly a misogynist and seemed to harbor other sexual issues. Jesus had exactly zero to say about homosexuality or other culture war issues, which is one reason these Fundies have turned more and more to the OT for their moral authority.

Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system. -- Thomas Paine

[tandot]

15. If you use the Bible as your guide

why don't you follow it completely?

Don't eat shellfish, don't wear clothes made of two different kinds of fabrics, don't have your hair cut, and sell your daughter(s) (if you have any) into slavery.

Oh, and you can also take some slaves from neighboring countries. Maybe Canada or Mexico?

[theHandpuppet]

55. Not only slaves...

But the Hebrew Kings of the Bible were the ultimate polygamists -- wasn't it King David who has something like 500 wives (and who knows how many slaves!)? So why is polygamy banned? Aren't some Mormons simply following the practices outlined in the Old Testament? This is just one example of the "pick and choose" gospels of fundamentalists.

Again, "Thou shalt not kill" was one of the basic ten commandments handed down to Moses, but God himself was not above violating his own law. If we were to take a body count of the people God slaughtered (including women, innocent children and infants -- and even their poor animals) we'd have to wonder if he intended to lead by example or these laws were simply arbitrary. (The "do as I say, not as I do method.)

There are hundreds if not thousands of such inconsistencies to be found in the Bible. If "good Christians" want to practice their faith so selectively, then perhaps they ought to follow these words of Jesus Christ: "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matthew 7, 1-5 )

Then I'd invite them to visit http://gadfly.igc.org/liberal/WWJD.htm and elighten us on their own hypocrisy and tally up just who has commited the "abominations" here.

[Supormom]

16. Check out this website:

<http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/>

[tandot]

18. Hilarious

Thanks for the link. I'll pass it on to my friends.

[ulysses]

28. "Pinch the tail, suck the head, BURN IN HELL"

:D

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. The Bible puts homosexual sex on a par with sex outside marriage

so I can see that Christians who believe the New Testament has to be followed exactly would not indulge in it themselves, and could consider it a sin. But only a theocracy would try to make it part of law, like these nutters are trying to.

[Solon]

27. Wrong, those statements were mistranslated and up to interpretation.

The two in Leviticus refer to fertility rites at pagan temples. Paul's condemnation is just his own. Nobody should believe that his words were divinely inspired, especially in a book that was compiled by a vote in the first place.

[Az]

29. Nobody should

but they do. And that is what we must deal with. Its not the truth that is the problem. Its what people believe and how they believe.

[Solon]

32. I just hate when people make statements that something is..

"Clear" when it is not. The Bible is a book that has been translated, interepreted and added to for 2000+ years. To say anything in it is clear is ambiguious in itself.

[LeahMira]

39. What the Bible says...

...doesnt take away from the fact that it is repeatedly stated in the Bible that Homosexuality is wrong...

- Far as I know, homosexuality is mentioned twice, once in Leviticus and once in Deuteronomy; that would be twice, not repeatedly.
- It's also mentioned in the Christian Testament that the Jewish people pushed Pontius Pilate to hand Jesus over for crucifixion.
- There are also two separate and somewhat conflicting versions of creation situated only a page apart in Genesis.

Reading the Bible literally is bound to result in some confused thinking... and as we have recently seen, a huge amount of bigotry and resentment.

We can not know at this point exactly what was experienced by the people who lived several thousand years ago. I remember my mother telling me how my grandmother would not permit a radio to come into her house because she did not understand how voices could come through the air and she believed it must be the work of the devil. Certainly if this was the reaction of a woman speaking a hundred years ago about her understanding of the radio, we can only imagine how ancient peoples experienced the events that are recorded in the Bible. Did the Creator actually carve the Ten Commandments onto tablets of stone and give them to Moses amid bolts of lightning and claps of thunder a la Cecil B. deMille? Probably not. But did something extraordinary happen while the Hebrew people were wandering the desert? Probably so.

It seems that we can now have some idea of what happened at the time we are told that the Hebrew people crossed the Red Sea. It seems that we can now say that a flood that covered the known world actually did happen... there are layers of debris buried in the earth at a certain depth over a large area in the Middle East. Perhaps in another hundred or another thousand years, we will have a better idea of exactly what the ancient peoples experienced when Mrs. Lot was supposedly turned into a pillar of salt. But even with all our modern technology and sophistication, we don't know all the answers yet and we may never know them. That's fine, as long as we know and admit that we don't know these things. We very well may never know exactly what practices were being spoken about when what we now interpret as forbidding homosexual behavior was a concern for the ancient Hebrews. It's far easier to verify phenomena of nature than it is to verify the history of human ideas and behaviors.

Nonetheless, one thing can be said for sure. There is absolutely no biblical record of anyone being punished for homosexual behavior. No, Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't qualify, but this post is already long enough without going in to that. Still, if neither the Creator nor any of the priests and levites ever actually punished this particular "offense" (any more than they never stoned rebellious children), then perhaps the biblical injunction concerning homosexual behavior (along with the one concerning rebellious children) did not mean to the ancient peoples what it means to us today. I'd suggest that a better course of action would be to imitate the ancient Hebrews in that they did not punish those behaviors. That much, at least, we do know.

[foreigncorrespondent]

42. You know what the probem is with your post?

Anyone who would have such a disclaimer in their post would have to be either in denial or very, very cunning.

Itis the same old story of, "I don't mean to offend, but", "I don't have a problem with gays, but".

Oh and your little stand about "gay people can be good people", let me remind you that "heterosexual people can be good people too. Remember there is always a rotten apple in amongst a bunch.

[Dunedain]

49. Seems to me

That none of us, especially someone who esposes a 'Christian' view should go pointing fingers at anybody else's seven deadly's.

John 8:7

[Dhalgren]

58. If the Bible says "repetedly" anti-gay things,

can you give mt 5 citations where it does so? Thanks in advance.

[leesa]

69. It's not a choice.

The bible says all sorts of things inappropriate to our time because it is a text based on social and political thought from thousands of years ago. If there was a social prohibition against homosexuality, it probably had to do with the fact that it was CRITICAL to produce children to maintain their populations.

[TrogL]

73. The Bible doesn't say any such thing

http://members.shaw.ca/trogl/bibquote.html

[BOHICA06]

5. Drove through Tenn

two summers ago. Have to say, the brand of Christianity displayed was raw and apocalyptic. A zillion churches and many had signs preaching doom to sinners and the unsaved - very little in welcome to the Peace that is Christ. In general - I did feel any love up there.

[tandot]

6. disgusting

My sister is a lesbian. She is working with mentally handicapped children, is raising her two grand-children, and has done more self-less and good deeds than that scumbag ever will in his whole life.

How I despise those self-righteous idiots.

[Az]

7. Dettached identity

Dettach the identity of a person from their body and you can justify all manner of hatred in the name of love. These people believe they are good and descent people. They believe they are fighting to save immortal souls. They believe that evil is a real presense and represented by satan and demons in this world.

Religion is very adept at defending itself from change. It may adapt somewhat. But anything that presents a threat to its core components will be assailed in all mannner of means. And of course its adherants will only see it as righteous acts against a real evil.

Belief is a tricky thing. Evolutionary belief systems even trickier.

[chefgirl]

57. Funny you should say this

You wrote:
>anything that presents a threat to its core components will be assailed in all mannner of means<

Isn't that exactly what happened to Jesus when he disrupted the status quo with his message?
I was taught that the core of His message was that outward, pious expressions of faith were fake and simply self-righteousness...That you must develop a personal relationship with God.

I never cease to be amazed at people who will beat you over the head with their brand of Christianity, all the while quoting the Old Testament.

WWJP? What would Jesus protest?

-chef-

[Az]

14. Leviticus and Abominations

Here is a list of acts considered to be abominations according to god as reported in Leviticus.

7:18 And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.

7:21 Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing, as the uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which pertain unto the LORD, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.

11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
11:15 Every raven after his kind;
11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. (bats are bird?)
11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. (can you think of anything with four feet that flies?)

11:41 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten
11:42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.
11:43 Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.

18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

18:26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
18:27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;)

18:29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

19:5 And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, ye shall offer it at your own will.
19:6 It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire.
19:7 And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is abominable; it shall not be accepted.

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

20:25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. (This includes rabbits which god declares as unclean in Lev 11:6 because they chew their cud... this despite the fact that they do not chew their cu).

[Finch]

17. Don’t get me wrong here guy’s

…. I’m not being homophobic just saying that the bible is fairly clear on the subject… in both Leviticus and the letters of Paul…while Paul repudiates many of the old Jewish laws such as those governing diet in his letters to the Corinthians he up holds the teachings about same sex relationships… personally sexuality IMHO is a psychological matter…witness that in societies such as ancient Greece most people both male and female where bi-sexual while in more recent societies most have been heterosexual…in the seventeenth and sixteenth centuries for example sexuality itself was not viewed as the same thing as a persons personality any sexual activity that was not about procreation was similarly frowned upon…the common attitude today is that sexuality is a fixed thing…it probably isn’t…but then again modern society is very keen that things be placed in easily defined boxes…IMHO this is just another example…generally speaking most people are capable of having sexual relationships with people of the same or opposite gender or for that matter animals or children…Leonardo De Vinci is reputed to have had a relationship with a ten year old boy and that was excepted then…funny subject and societies attitude towards it can be mystifying….

But Once again I was meaning no disrespect…. While I have a fairly philosophical outlook I regularly go to mass…being a Catholic…but I am not posting in order to attack any groups…so don’t flame me for it anybody…coz that’s not what I’m doing…

[kayell]

19. One sure way to tell if someone is bigoted:

If they start a sentance "I'm not a bigot, but"

They ARE a bigot.

Not meaning any disrespect though, nor refering to you of course. I'm just quoting what I've heard. My mind is still not completely made up on the subject, so please don't flame me, cause I'm not attacking anyone.

[Az]

21. Unfair

Labeling a person a bigot and dismissing them simply because of that label does no one any service. People believe things for reasons. In order to rid the world of the ills of hatred we need to understand where their apparent hatred comes from. There are those that are part of belief systems which tell them that some such person is wicked. Their personal feelings may or may not confirm this. Their beliefs are in conflict. People can have a multitude of beliefs at any given moment as they struggle to see which holds dominance. Dismissing them when you could help them to sort things out is a loss of an opportunity.

[kayell]

24. Maybe, maybe not

But I'm not a therapist, and this isn't a psychological support group. And I definately don't have the level of tolerance anymore to put up with this smarmy stealth kind of slam.

[Az]

20. No flames

Just trying to point out that cherry picking is a constant in a belief system with such a wealth of material to choose from.

In the end it is not the documents that determine the belief. It is what the adherant recognise and hold to be true. I have met with countless fundimentalists that will turn their back on a direct instruction from Jesus in the bible, simply because it does not fit their view of the universe. Its simply not something they believe.

[BiggJawn]

36. OK, so we'll blame the Pope, not you....

Pretty weak protestation.
Ever thought about changing over to Unitarian? They don't have to use qualifiers like "Hey, I'm not a homophobe, BUT...."

[FlaGranny]

38. I believe some HAVE "gotten you wrong" Finch

I saw your disclaimer that you did not believe, but were commenting on what others believe. :-)

[foreigncorrespondent]

43. Oooooo! Guy, you are sending alarm bells off in my head.

Again, "don't get me wrong here guys, I'm not being homophobic" are you in denial about your own feelings, or are you scared of getting banned if you let your true feelings known?

But regardless I would love for you to tell me, the exact moment in time when the words of the bible became the law of the land, because I really must have missed it the day they announced it.

Have you heard of a little thing called SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?

And while we are on the subject of religion, what about the religions that want to marry same sex couples, have you not heard of FREEDOM OF RELIGION?

Neither question is rhetorical, both deserve an answer.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Az]

45. And that convinced the believers how?

Who gives a shit about the bible? A majority of the voting public cares somewhat. Better deal with the problem rather than shouting at the choir.

[Kool Kitty]

48. Isn't there a passage in Leviticus that

says you should be killed for working on the Sabbath? Is everything in the bible to be taken absolutely literally? I particularly like the selling of your children (or was it your sisters) into slavery. Please.

[uhhuh]

51. I don't intend to offend

But there are Protestant groups who will pull quotes out of the bible that show that Catholics are all idoltarous heretics.

I don't think that is accurate, but they seem pretty convinced that it's true. Kinda strage, huh?

If they say it's pretty clear in the bible, is that enough of a justification for you, or would you think they might want to delve deeper into scripture to have a more balanced approach to others?

[Dhalgren]

62. Personally, I don't give a fuck what the Bible says.

But some of these asshole-morons want to make everyone live by the crackpot rules writen therein. We can either wring our hands and say, "Oh on, what shall we do?" Or we can tell them to grow the fuck up, the earth isn't flat, and it doesn't make any difference what makes your willie get hard. Jeeesss!

[Solon]

31. Mistranslation:

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. <--this is incorrect, literal translation of the first part is: "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" the second part uses a form of the hebrew word "to'ebah" which means "Ritually Impure" NOT abomination, thats "zimah". Put this in context with the beginning of the chapter: Leviticus 18:3 states: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." Seems to me that Leviticus 18:22 condemns sexual relations between men in pagan rites.

[Az]

33. A translation of a translation of a copy of a copy of a gathering

of a group of second hand stories that were voted on by a group of biased clergy hundreds of years after the facts they preport to discussl. Not exactly the first source I would go to for the truth. But then this is not about truth. It is about belief.

Trying to argue the letter of the law with someone trying to string a person up for something they believe in will not save the victim. Go look up Luke 6:30 and show it to a believer and then see how much they believe in the specific words of Jesus telling them how to behave. It is not about what is written. It is about what people believe is written. And even showing them the actual words that contradict their beliefs will not change that. It takes more. It takes change.

[Dunedain]

50. Luke 6:30

That was my father.


Sad.....

[Nobody]

52. Does that mean I can't have sex with a man?

"Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"

Since I'm a woman, I suppose I'm required to be a lesbian. Unless they're only talking to males, then again, lesbianism is fine and dandy and NONE of the rules apply to me. But if you say that "mankind" is all of us, then I can't have sex ever no matter what. Masturbation time. Dildos. Celibacy. Artificial insemination. Lots of virgin births. Either "Mankind" is inclusive or it isn't.

(I know: this IS a mistranslation, but since there's a lot of text-proofing going on, I can play that game too. And it's so much fun.)

[kiahzero]

59. Abomination is a bad translation

To'ebah, the Hebrew word, should be more accurately translated as "ritually unclean." Basically, you can do it, but you need to purify yourself before you worship next time (just like if you a women after menstration), IIRC.

[Az]

60. I think you will find

That most that are ready to persecute people based on rhetoric found in the bible are not terribly interested in translation issues. They have found the clause they want to corroborate their beliefs and will resist any attempt to redefine it.

[kiahzero]

61. Oh, I know.

Just look at this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1245446

Some people's reaction seems to be - "But it's different than what I learned before! It must be wrong!"

[Az]

63. Well its really about how we come to believe things

Belief superscedes everything. Belief is based on emotional weighting of experience. We believe whatever wins the struggle of balance in our minds based on the emotional weighting we have learned to apply to the various tools we have adopted over time.

Thus pointing to a clear error in a person's beliefs will not immediately alter their beliefs. Depending on the balance of criterian that give their mind its modus operandi they may eventually accept the issue (some more quickly than others) or they may entirely reject it and never look back.

I like to use the Luke 6:30 reference as a prime example. It is a clear statement in the bible from Jesus telling people what to do in a circumstance. Point it out to the individual and then ask them to act on it and they balk nearly everytime. Their criterian of belief cannot be impacted so suddenly even by a text they claim to believe in.

In the end it is belief of the interpretation that forms their world view. Pulling aside the curtains only makes them uneasy until they can sort the issues out and safely catelog such encounters.

[VOX]

30. My older brother is gay, so this whackjob-fundie shit is personal to me...

So my first reaction is that this is my beloved brother -- my blood -- and his partner, that this flaming asshole is talking about. I don't know what Jesus would do, but I would beat the living hell out of this pinhead.

Christ, why are these nutjobs so fucking happy with their Dark-Ages mentality?

Moreover, why do they feel it's necessary to ram it down everyone's throat?

It's a real comfort to know that our society is so "enlightened."
:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Wapsie B]

34. Let them give the keynote speech

at the convention in NYC. How much ya wanna bet that will happen?
Seriously, let's amplify this all the more. Let's paint the gop with this brush.

[Mugtoe]

35. the more press that guy gets

the better. I spent a couple of days watching Fred Phelps' folks (mostly his daughters) protesting the Episcopal convention in Minneapolis when they were voting on the ordination of gays. I took a ton of pics and posted them at the Ranch. The best thing for those folks is to let everyone see how laughably ridiculous they really are. The free marketplace of ideas is the best venue for idiocy to die a timely death.

[raysr]

46. Yeah

and these guys are the crackers you see on Jerry Springer!

[Donny Bradman]

54. That guy is gay

A major study was conducted a few years ago, here's the shortened version:

They got together 3 groups of men. The first group was openly gay. The second group (the control group) was hetrosexual, but had no hatred towards homosexuals. The third group (the study group) were "hetrosexual", and vocalised a strong degree of hated towards gays.

Each group of men had a devise attached to their penises to measure blood flow. They were then shown erotic homosexual porn.

Guess what?

The first group of men (openly gay) had strong blood flow to their penises.

The second group (hetrosexual, non hateful towards gays), had no or little blood flow.

And here's the surprise (shock, horror!), the "hetrosexuals" who hated gays, measured significant blood flow. They're gay.

I wish I could post the link, it's an excellent study.

DB

[skippysmom]

56. If you think being gay is wrong,

don't be gay! Otherwise, live and let live, and butt out of other people's lives.

[TreasonousBastard]

70. Not possessed...

but chased and harassed by demons.

[redqueen]

71. Please don't call this "Christian Love"

These people are not Christians. Jesus instructed us not to judge. They may consider themselves Christian, but they are not the example to use. These types of people merely provide an example of how dogma perverts spirituality, nothing more.

[PATRICK]

72. Secret message

His hands thoough are on the "B" and the "S".

Friends, I think this a plea for deprogramming. Is there a SWAT team of deprogrammers to rescue this guy?

[GreenPartyVoter]

74. I agree, needs help for that homophobia prblem.

http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[devinsgram]

76. Only demon in that picture

is the asshole holding the sign. C'mon you see the horns on the head, don't you.

[Comadreja]

77. He and his supporters

Would claim you are "persecuting" them and "hate" religion when you say those mean things about them.

Why has a religious turn of mind always a tendency to narrow and harden the heart? -- Robert Burns