When are you going to get it old school catholicism...you're not relevant anymore

[FMJeff]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml

It seems to me every time one of these bishops says something along the lines of "floods are punishment for being gay" they actually help the cause of atheists and anti-religious movements in this country. Can they sound any less medieval and irrelevant? I abhor any religion that would spin a natural disaster to reinforce its tenets. They are truly and utterly digusting people, those who take disaster and turn it into communal shame.

Go fuck yourselves.

[cupcakelove]

From the article:

The floods that have devastated swathes of the country are God's judgment on the immorality and greed of modern society, according to senior Church of England bishops.

Looks like its the protestants again, I don't think I've heard stuff like that out of the Vatican recently, but with this new Pope I wouldn't be surprised if it happens eventually.

[ShapopoJoe]

Its reallllll simple.....If you believe in the bible, you know this as something God said he would do and has done in the past...If you dont believe in the bible, ignore it.

[Furtherman]

Its reallllll simple.....If you believe in the bible, you know this as something God said he would do and has done in the past...If you dont believe in the bible, ignore it.

You mean the difference between make-believe and reality?

I love when the church speaks up. I just highlights their stupidity.

[Yerdaddy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml

It seems to me every time one of these bishops says something along the lines of "floods are punishment for being gay" they actually help the cause of atheists and anti-religious movements in this country.

What is our cause anyway? I never got the memo. Something about TPS Reports?

[ShapopoJoe]

:rolleyes:

[FMJeff]

What is our cause anyway? I never got the memo. Something about TPS Reports?

Well, activist atheists, the ones trying to preach life can be lived without religion, without belief in g-d...that religion corrupts, is no longer a vehicle of good, etc.

[FMJeff]

Its reallllll simple.....If you believe in the bible, you know this as something God said he would do and has done in the past...If you dont believe in the bible, ignore it.

You're like the guy in my china thread. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it better, in fact, it most certainly makes it worse, as it allows the problem to spread. Someone needs to butt heads with the christian faith and remind them of that the mission of thier faith is to help people.

Certainly one would agree with that, no? Are we not living in times where un-checked religion allowed to flourish is putting hundreds, if not millions of people's lives at risk?

Should we ignore, say, those preaching rhetoric of radical islam, twisting its message to attack this country and Jews?

I'm really not surprised to hear it either. This country is slowly becoming a victim of its own intellectual laziness and general complacency.

Go ahead, accept the status quo. Next time your home or family's homes are destroyed by a large scale disaster and a bishop says you lost it because you have no problem allowing gay men and women to live thier lives with the same freedoms we enjoy, i'm sure ignoring it will be your first course of action.

[ShapopoJoe]

You're like the guy in my china thread. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it better, in fact, it most certainly makes it worse, as it allows the problem to spread. Someone needs to butt heads with the christian faith and remind them of that the mission of thier faith is to help people.

Certainly one would agree with that, no? Are we not living in times where un-checked religion allowed to flourish is putting hundreds, if not millions of people's lives at risk?

Should we ignore, say, those preaching rhetoric of radical islam, twisting its message to attack this country and Jews?

I'm really not surprised to hear it either. This country is slowly becoming a victim of its own intellectual laziness and general complacency.

Go ahead, accept the status quo. Next time your home or family's homes are destroyed by a large scale disaster and a bishop says you lost it because you have no problem allowing gay men and women to live thier lives with the same freedoms we enjoy, i'm sure ignoring it will be your first course of action.

Oh you are so right...because I need to get revenge against someone, anyone in this case...pathetic....and just who in the hell are you to say "someone needs to butt heads with the christian faith and remind them that their mission is to help people"???!! It sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about so Christians should definitely listen to your idea of their mission....and the mission is to SAVE SOULS, just so you are aware of the facts....What a joke...Yeah Christians should be listening to someone that equates them with FUCKING TERRORISTS....Yeah, my first thought on 9/11 when I saw that 2nd plan going into the trade center was "Fucking baptists, gotta be".....and dont hit me with the Crusades because I will smack that down with great ferocity when you start the tired old misinformed argument

[mikeyboy]

Oh you are so right...because I need to get revenge against someone, anyone in this case...pathetic....and just who in the hell are you to say "someone needs to butt heads with the christian faith and remind them that their mission is to help people"???!! It sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about so Christians should definitely listen to your idea of their mission....and the mission is to SAVE SOULS, just so you are aware of the facts....What a joke...Yeah Christians should be listening to someone that equates them with FUCKING TERRORISTS....Yeah, my first thought on 9/11 when I saw that 2nd plan going into the trade center was "Fucking baptists, gotta be".....and dont hit me with the Crusades because I will smack that down with great ferocity when you start the tired old misinformed argument

You seem to have a real problem with making arguments personal, and the quoted post seems to be veering that way. Don't say "he started it", because his comments are innocuous compared to your reply. Keep to the issues and don't turn these arguments into personal attacks. If you can't do that, you won't be welcome to post in this forum.

[Dougie Brootal]

Oh you are so right...because I need to get revenge against someone, anyone in this case...pathetic....and just who in the hell are you to say "someone needs to butt heads with the christian faith and remind them that their mission is to help people"???!! It sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about so Christians should definitely listen to your idea of their mission....and the mission is to SAVE SOULS, just so you are aware of the facts....What a joke...Yeah Christians should be listening to someone that equates them with FUCKING TERRORISTS....Yeah, my first thought on 9/11 when I saw that 2nd plan going into the trade center was "Fucking baptists, gotta be".....and dont hit me with the Crusades because I will smack that down with great ferocity when you start the tired old misinformed argument

You seem to have a real problem with making arguments personal, and the quoted post seems to be veering that way. Don't say "he started it", because his comments are innocuous compared to your reply. Keep to the issues and don't turn these arguments into personal attacks. If you can't do that, you won't be welcome to post in this forum.

http://www.tothegame.com/res/game/1698/logo.jpg

[feralBoy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml

It seems to me every time one of these bishops says something along the lines of "floods are punishment for being gay" they actually help the cause of atheists and anti-religious movements in this country. Can they sound any less medieval and irrelevant? I abhor any religion that would spin a natural disaster to reinforce its tenets. They are truly and utterly digusting people, those who take disaster and turn it into communal shame.

Go fuck yourselves.

I'm not catholic, but don't you think it's misguided blame to say it's a problem with all of catholicism? This is a bishop who has incorrectly interpreted the bible, or has somehow missed important parts. Just like jerry fallwell, or whoever that guy was that blamed september 11th on gays and abortions.

From Genesis, after the flood.

"I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."

[ShapopoJoe]

You seem to have a real problem with making arguments personal, and the quoted post seems to be veering that way. Don't say "he started it", because his comments are innocuous compared to your reply. Keep to the issues and don't turn these arguments into personal attacks. If you can't do that, you won't be welcome to post in this forum.


No sorry, HE DID START IT and FUCK YOU...Ban me for Christs sakes, if you want to keep the argument silent...let someone ridicule or attack but if someone ON THE RIGHT defends, they get the whining...FUCK OFF...Once again, this is the fucking reason the boys are shopping around other message boards....I will move over to Wack or FBA or Spread The Iris where this shit does not seem to happen....

FUCK YOU AND FUCK OFF

[Furtherman]

Typical christian.

[Marc with a c]

I will move over to Wack or FBA or Spread The Iris where this shit does not seem to happen....

please don't. i love you

[epo]

No sorry, HE DID START IT and FUCK YOU...Ban me for Christs sakes, if you want to keep the argument silent...let someone ridicule or attack but if someone ON THE RIGHT defends, they get the whining...FUCK OFF...Once again, this is the fucking reason the boys are shopping around other message boards....I will move over to Wack or FBA or Spread The Iris where this shit does not seem to happen....

FUCK YOU AND FUCK OFF

Good work turning the other cheek.

http://uberkuul.files.wordpress.com/2006/06/buddy%20christ%20from%20dogma.jpg

[FMJeff]

Oh you are so right...because I need to get revenge against someone, anyone in this case...pathetic....and just who in the hell are you to say "someone needs to butt heads with the christian faith and remind them that their mission is to help people"???!! It sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about so Christians should definitely listen to your idea of their mission....and the mission is to SAVE SOULS, just so you are aware of the facts....What a joke...Yeah Christians should be listening to someone that equates them with FUCKING TERRORISTS....Yeah, my first thought on 9/11 when I saw that 2nd plan going into the trade center was "Fucking baptists, gotta be".....and dont hit me with the Crusades because I will smack that down with great ferocity when you start the tired old misinformed argument

I wasn't comparing the two, I was pointing out what happens when religion is used to justify bigotry and ignorance.

I wasn't going to say the Crusades, but if you'd like a list of atrocities committed by the Christian Church in the name of their religion, you are but a google away from the following:

- The Spanish Inquisition
- Salem Witch Trials
- The mass murder of people the church deemed "heretics"
- The destruction of foreign cultures and religions through the missionary process.
- The wanton ignorance for the mass-killings of Jews during WWII and the clearly documented anti-semetic behavior of the Catholic churche
- The slaughter of Native Americans during the Civil War
- The war against sexuality and its countless victims

Some old, some new. All a black mark on a religion that is now relegated to inflammatory comments like the one I posted with this thread. It's really the only weapon they have left. Falwell, rest in peace, knew this and used it.

Some extreme interpretations religions have other weapons at thier disposal now.

[prothunderball]

No sorry, HE DID START IT and FUCK YOU...Ban me for Christs sakes, if you want to keep the argument silent...let someone ridicule or attack but if someone ON THE RIGHT defends, they get the whining...FUCK OFF...Once again, this is the fucking reason the boys are shopping around other message boards....I will move over to Wack or FBA or Spread The Iris where this shit does not seem to happen....

FUCK YOU AND FUCK OFF

he doesn't want to keep the argument silent he wants to keep the argument civil. Something you shown time and again you have no idea how to do.

[FMJeff]

I'm not catholic, but don't you think it's misguided blame to say it's a problem with all of catholicism? This is a bishop who has incorrectly interpreted the bible, or has somehow missed important parts. Just like jerry fallwell, or whoever that guy was that blamed september 11th on gays and abortions.

From Genesis, after the flood.

"I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."

Yes I would say the problem is systemic because it comes from the Pope himself. It is the M.O. of Christianity to use what ever Biblical justification they can find to convince people not to accept homosexuals or anything else they do not approve of.

[angrymissy]

No sorry, HE DID START IT and FUCK YOU...Ban me for Christs sakes, if you want to keep the argument silent...let someone ridicule or attack but if someone ON THE RIGHT defends, they get the whining...FUCK OFF...Once again, this is the fucking reason the boys are shopping around other message boards....I will move over to Wack or FBA or Spread The Iris where this shit does not seem to happen....

FUCK YOU AND FUCK OFF

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a63/angrymissy/makefun.jpg

[mikeyboy]

No sorry, HE DID START IT and FUCK YOU...Ban me for Christs sakes, if you want to keep the argument silent...let someone ridicule or attack but if someone ON THE RIGHT defends, they get the whining...FUCK OFF...Once again, this is the fucking reason the boys are shopping around other message boards....I will move over to Wack or FBA or Spread The Iris where this shit does not seem to happen....

FUCK YOU AND FUCK OFF

No. Jeff's statements to an entire group were uncalled for -- I don't justify his statements. Jeff tends to do that. However, you made it personal and turned it into an attack on individual members of the board. Knock it off. This is your only warning.

I hope both of you can discuss the issues rather than name calling.

[Dougie Brootal]

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g130/douggrasso/stfukitty.jpg

[A.J.]

Yes I would say the problem is systemic because it comes from the Pope himself. It is the M.O. of Christianity to use what ever Biblical justification they can find to convince people not to accept homosexuals or anything else they do not approve of.

The Muslims do the same thing with the Quran and the Hadith.

[FMJeff]

No. Jeff's statements to an entire group were uncalled for -- I don't justify his statements. Jeff tends to do that. However, you made it personal and turned it into an attack on individual members of the board. Knock it off. This is your only warning.

I hope both of you can discuss the issues rather than name calling.

I understand where he's coming from. I did provoke him, on purpose, to make a point. If we lived in a world where we lived by "you do your thing, I'll do mine, and we'll be ok" then none of what we're going through right now would be happening. Not the extreme violence of Islam and the subtle bigotry and exclusionary rhetoric of the catholic faith, which in my opinion is more damaging to society than any car bomb. At least we can all rally behind the fact that bombs are bad. We're split down the middle on a woman's right to choose, sex out of wedlock, contraception, stem cells, homosexuality, separation of church and state, religion in schools, et al.

[FMJeff]

The Muslims do the same thing with the Quran and the Hadith.

That's my point. ShapopoJoe thinks im comparing terrorist to catholic. I'm not. I'm comparing badness from religion to religion.

[feralBoy]

Yes I would say the problem is systemic because it comes from the Pope himself. It is the M.O. of Christianity to use what ever Biblical justification they can find to convince people not to accept homosexuals or anything else they do not approve of.

I don't believe it's the M.O. of christianity to preach hatred or non-acceptance of anyone. The bible explicitly states "He who is without sin, caste the first stone." Individuals choose to listen to poor interpretations of the bible, and that's just because alot of the ignorant religious leaders are the ones that talk the loudest.

[FMJeff]

I don't believe it's the M.O. of christianity to preach hatred or non-acceptance of anyone. The bible explicitly states "He who is without sin, caste the first stone." Individuals choose to listen to poor interpretations of the bible, and that's just because alot of the ignorant religious leaders are the ones that talk the loudest.

Your priests believe it, your bishops believe it, your arch-bishops believe it, and your pope believe it.

If by religious law the pope is the leader of your church, and your pope calls homosexuality:


"An intrinsic moral evil"
"An objective disorder"


then those who follow him must agree with him and ultimately, whether you personally feel that way or not, are a member of a religion that considers normal, law-abiding, positively contributing homosexuals "morally evil" people.

That's the reality of your religion.

[feralBoy]

Your priests believe it, your bishops believe it, your arch-bishops believe it, and your pope believe it.

If by religious law the pope is the leader of your church, and your pope calls homosexuality:


"An intrinsic moral evil"
"An objective disorder"


then those who follow him must agree with him and ultimately, whether you personally feel that way or not, are a member of a religion that considers normal, law-abiding, positively contributing homosexuals "morally evil" people.

That's the reality of your religion.

Well, i'm not a catholic. So, bishops, arch-bishops, and pope's (who is just a bishop anway) don't mean much to me.

I also never said, homesexuality was not considered a sin. it is. But that's just the point, in christianity, all sins are equal, and deserving of forgivness. And it is not the role of man to judge, it's the role of god. And god no longer punishes sinners on earth. That's the reality of my religion.

[Tall_James]

I blame the jews.

[FMJeff]

Well, i'm not a catholic. So, bishops, arch-bishops, and pope's (who is just a bishop anway) don't mean much to me.

I also never said, homesexuality was not considered a sin. it is. But that's just the point, in christianity, all sins are equal, and deserving of forgivness. And it is not the role of man to judge, it's the role of god. And god no longer punishes sinners on earth. That's the reality of my religion.

I don't understand your standpoint. Do you approve or disapprove of what he said?

Isn't manipulation a sin? To suggest a flood is caused by "the gays" is manipulative and hurtful. Would not a god-fearing literal interpretation of what the bishop said be misconstrued as "Gay people and those who approve of gay people did this to you?" And what to people do then? Well, most would be restricted to hating gay people and sympathizers..then you have the extremists, who tie them up and beat them to death. It happened, its happening, it will happen again.

And for a bishop to say this. I mean, bishop is a pretty lofty position to have to begin with. This isn't some low level priest. This is a church leader of leaders.

[Dougie Brootal]

I blame the jews.

i blame the whites!




wait a minute....

[Dougie Brootal]

Your priests believe it, your bishops believe it, your arch-bishops believe it, and your pope believe it.

If by religious law the pope is the leader of your church, and your pope calls homosexuality:


"An intrinsic moral evil"
"An objective disorder"


then those who follow him must agree with him and ultimately, whether you personally feel that way or not, are a member of a religion that considers normal, law-abiding, positively contributing homosexuals "morally evil" people.

That's the reality of your religion.

what are their views on pedophilia?

[FMJeff]

what are their views on pedophilia?

i dont understand your question

[mendyweiss]

angrymissy needs to make herself available for a schtup tonight.

[Recyclerz]

I don't believe it's the M.O. of christianity to preach hatred or non-acceptance of anyone. The bible explicitly states "He who is without sin, caste the first stone." Individuals choose to listen to poor interpretations of the bible, and that's just because alot of the ignorant religious leaders are the ones that talk the loudest.

I have got to throw in my $0.02 with FeralBoy here. I think that being a person of faith does not automatically make you good or bad, or right or wrong in the Manichean sense; it just explains where you think you fit in the universe. I would add that this good/evil dichotomy that some religious institutions push as their primary message is the problem and I think that some critics (i'm looking at you Jeff) fall into the same logical trap by saying that if religions don't always live up to their (alleged) good standards then they must always be wrong.

MLK Jr. was inspired by the Bible as a foundation of the moral arguments he made against segregation (one of his heroes, Ghandi, was also religious in action as well as thought). The abolitionist movement in the US had some radical religious types running it. And there are lots of religiously inspired people doing missionary work for NGO's at this moment that are giving their lives, slowly or suddenly, trying to alleviate human suffering as their primary purpose in life (and dealing with any "soul saving" as a follow-up project, if at all.)

I think the line of demarcation is between the literalists and those capable of abstract thought regardless of their individual religious beliefs. those people who believe their sacred texts are literally the Word of God are not going to see the world the same way as those who believe that sacred texts may be divinely inspired but that they are more a poetic representation of that inspiration rather than a to-do list from on high. I would argue that knowledge of history, biology, psychology etc. is necessary to fully understand and appreciate religion rather than just memorizing the books, word for word. But that's me. I think that if you believe that the religious impulse requires a journey rather than a static point that you pick (or have picked for you) and stick with no matter what than you're gonna be on Ronnie B's team in life. If you go with the latter point of view, you'll go around hating on gays and shellfish eaters and not have time for much else.

[Snacks]

No sorry, HE DID START IT and FUCK YOU...Ban me for Christs sakes, if you want to keep the argument silent...let someone ridicule or attack but if someone ON THE RIGHT defends, they get the whining...FUCK OFF...Once again, this is the fucking reason the boys are shopping around other message boards....I will move over to Wack or FBA or Spread The Iris where this shit does not seem to happen....

FUCK YOU AND FUCK OFF

When you say "on the right" I hope you mean a conservative or republican and not mean that you are right meaning correct?

You may think you are correct b/c you believe in religion, others may be correct b/c they believe religion and the bible is a joke.

That's my point. ShapopoJoe thinks im comparing terrorist to catholic. I'm not. I'm comparing badness from religion to religion.


What the catholics did centuries ago is no deifferent then what todays terroists (so called muslim extremists) are doing. They spread fear based on religion and whoever diasagrees pays the price. The only difference is todays terroist have bombs, back then they only had swords and fire.

But being burned alive might suck just as much!

[MadMatt]

Your priests believe it, your bishops believe it, your arch-bishops believe it, and your pope believe it.

If by religious law the pope is the leader of your church, and your pope calls homosexuality:


"An intrinsic moral evil"
"An objective disorder"


then those who follow him must agree with him and ultimately, whether you personally feel that way or not, are a member of a religion that considers normal, law-abiding, positively contributing homosexuals "morally evil" people.

That's the reality of your religion.
Big problem:

THIS BISHOP (and those quoted in the artical) ARE NOT CATHOLIC!!!

He is an ANGLICAN Bishop from the Church of England.

Outside of his ignorance (and that Bishop is an ignorant ass), you are wrongly blaming Catholics.

[Dougie Brootal]

i dont understand your question

well, if "the gays" are causing floods, what are all the kid touching priests causing?

[Furtherman]

What the catholics did centuries ago is no deifferent then what todays terroists (so called muslim extremists) are doing. They spread fear based on religion and whoever diasagrees pays the price.

They still spread that fear when they get their claws into children. Be good or you go to hell. It's psychological fear.

[Furtherman]

well, if "the gays" are causing floods, what are all the kid touching priests causing?

Lawsuits.

[FMJeff]

Big problem:

THIS BISHOP (and those quoted in the artical) ARE NOT CATHOLIC!!!

He is an ANGLICAN Bishop from the Church of England.

Outside of his ignorance (and that Bishop is an ignorant ass), you are wrongly blaming Catholics.

To use your technique of bigger fonts to emphasize points:

"The Anglican Communion considers itself to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and as being both Catholic and Reformed. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican

I could understand the need to make the distinction if Catholics didn't feel the same way as Anglicans. So tell me, what is the Catholic church stand on gay marraige, homosexuality, and what not?

[lleeder]

I shocked a jew would start a thread bashing Catholicism. :dry:

[Dougie Brootal]

I shocked a jew would start a thread bashing Catholicism. :dry:

FMJEFF IS JEWISH!?!?! WELL THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING!!!! :hitler smiley:

[MadMatt]

To use your technique of bigger fonts to emphasize points:

"The Anglican Communion considers itself to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and as being both Catholic and Reformed. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican

I could understand the need to make the distinction if Catholics didn't feel the same way as Anglicans. So tell me, what is the Catholic church stand on gay marraige, homosexuality, and what not?

In this instance, Catholic means universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all pertaining to the whole Christian body or church. It does NOT refer to the Roman Catholic Church.

You are calling out the Roman Catholic Curch based on an article that is about the Anglican Church. I am PISSED because you are mixing apples and oranges; sure they are similar and both Christian churches, but you are saying harsh, inflamatory things without direct proof. The Catholic Church has enough of its own problems without idiots heaping on the ignorant comments of another religion's leadership.

It's like saying "Ron & Fez are assholes because they had 2 listeners do anal sex in St. Patrick's Cathedral as part of a radio stunt." O&A did it, not R&F, but they get the blame because some jackass can't tell the difference. You are doing exactly the same sort of thing.

EDIT: Also, I am not saying that every policy/stance the Catholic Church has is right. There are things that I don't particularly think are good policies or the way Christ would view trhem if he were alive today. HOWEVER - your entire thread is a bash on the Catholic Church based on an article about the Anglican Church. If you are going to bash Catholicism (which you are completely within your rights to do), at least use an article/proof that is based on something the Catholic Church did.

[FMJeff]

In this instance, Catholic means universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all pertaining to the whole Christian body or church. It does NOT refer to the Roman Catholic Church.

You are calling out the Roman Catholic Curch based on an article that is about the Anglican Church. I am PISSED because you are mixing apples and oranges; sure they are similar and both Christian churches, but you are saying harsh, inflamatory things without direct proof. The Catholic Church has enough of its own problems without idiots heaping on the ignorant comments of another religion's leadership.

It's like saying "Ron & Fez are assholes because they had 2 listeners do anal sex in St. Patrick's Cathedral as part of a radio stunt." O&A did it, not R&F, but they get the blame because some jackass can't tell the difference. You are doinfg exactly the same sort of thing.

Ok so prove it. Distinguish yourselves. If you are so different in dogma, beliefs, put your money where your mouth is. Show me the difference between Catholicism and Anglicanism as it applies to homosexuality, stem cell research, abortion and sex, and I will concede that your indigination is justified.

But you can't, and you won't, because they both feeling the same way. Your own Pope said it, and its an attitude that pervades the entire organization, so stow it.

[cupcakelove]

Ok so prove it. Distinguish yourselves. If you are so different in dogma, beliefs, put your money where your mouth is. Show me the difference between Catholicism and Anglicanism as it applies to homosexuality, stem cell research, abortion and sex, and I will concede that your indigination is justified.

But you can't, and you won't, because they both feeling the same way. Your own Pope said it, and its an attitude that pervades the entire organization, so stow it.

Anglicanism and Catholicism are not the same thing, no matter how bad you want them to be. I understand that you may not be a Christian, so the differences are not obvious to you, but just because you are ignorant to them does not mean they are not there.

[MadMatt]

Ok so prove it. Distinguish yourselves. If you are so different in dogma, beliefs, put your money where your mouth is. Show me the difference between Catholicism and Anglicanism as it applies to homosexuality, stem cell research, abortion and sex, and I will concede that your indigination is justified.

But you can't, and you won't, because they both feeling the same way. Your own Pope said it, and its an attitude that pervades the entire organization, so stow it.

Look Jackass, I'm not even Catholic!

Your entire Thread is based upon a faulty assumption. If you look at my edit above, I am not a Catholic apologist. There are a lot of things in the Catholic Church I don't agree with.

However, I hate when ignorant douchebags take one instance of something and spin it into a grand assumption about an entire issue. Hell, even the example article you pulled up doesn't reflect the views of ALL Anglicans, whether that's leadership or laypeople.

You posted an inflamatory thread based upon your own ignorance, prejudice, and distaste. It's no better than an African American taking the views of Hitler and projecting them upon ALL white people. Sure, there are some racists and assholes, but not EVERY person is a racist and asshole.

[FMJeff]

Look Jackass, I'm not even Catholic!

Your entire Thread is based upon a faulty assumption. If you look at my edit above, I am not a Catholic apologist. There are a lot of things in the Catholic Church I don't agree with.

However, I hate when ignorant douchebags take one instance of something and spin it into a grand assumption about an entire issue. Hell, even the example article you pulled up doesn't reflect the views of ALL Anglicans, whether that's leadership or laypeople.

You posted an inflamatory thread based upon your own ignorance, prejudice, and distaste. It's no better than an African American taking the views of Hitler and projecting them upon ALL white people. Sure, there are some racists and assholes, but not EVERY person is a racist and asshole.

If you see the title of my thread, I was referring to "old school" catholics, those who speak in antiquated views no longer accepted by the mainstream. I'm not making a blanket statement, although I still have yet to see an arguement made defending the Catholic Church as it relates to the sentiment expressed by this particular Anglican Bishop.

I doubt I will ever see one. Call me ignorant all you like. You know I'm right. Your church "hates fags", thinks their lifestyle is evil, thinks they are lost and need salvation.

Be my guest and prove me otherwise. Distinguish the Catholic Church from that Anglican priest.

[TheMojoPin]

"His church?" I think you missed a key point...

[MadMatt]

If you see the title of my thread, I was referring to "old school" catholics, those who speak in antiquated views no longer accepted by the mainstream. I'm not making a blanket statement, although I still have yet to see an arguement made defending the Catholic Church as it relates to the sentiment expressed by this particular Anglican Bishop.

I doubt I will ever see one. Call me ignorant all you like. You know I'm right. Your church "hates fags", thinks their lifestyle is evil, thinks they are lost and need salvation.

Be my guest and prove me otherwise. Distinguish the Catholic Church from that Anglican priest.

For Fucks Sake!!! THEY ARE 2 DIFFERENT RELIGIONS!!!

The Anglican Church was created when Britain's Henry VIII BROKE AWAY from the Catholic Church in 1538 when the Pope would not grant Henry an annulment. From that point to the present each religion has had their own hierarchy, belief system, and canonical law. They may share a common root in Christianity, but they are completely different groups.

Look at it this way: They are Fraternal Twins. They were born of the same mother and have a lot in common, even genetically, but they are still two individuals with their own drives and ambitions. They aren't even as close as Identical Twins would be.

[mikeyboy]

If you see the title of my thread, I was referring to "old school" catholics, those who speak in antiquated views no longer accepted by the mainstream. I'm not making a blanket statement, although I still have yet to see an arguement made defending the Catholic Church as it relates to the sentiment expressed by this particular Anglican Bishop.

I doubt I will ever see one. Call me ignorant all you like. You know I'm right. Your church "hates fags", thinks their lifestyle is evil, thinks they are lost and need salvation.

Be my guest and prove me otherwise. Distinguish the Catholic Church from that Anglican priest.

This is getting unnecessarily heated (as I noted before). Dial it down a few notches, stick with the facts and issues, be respectful, and actually read what each other are posting.

[MadMatt]

"His church?" I think you missed a key point...

Thank you! How does Jeff keep ignoring the fact that I am not Catholic or Anglican?

I'm not here to prove anything other than the fact that this thread is blaming the wrong party. Regardless of my personal beliefs, he is using "faulty math." He might as well say that Muslims believe exactly the same thing based on that article.

[MadMatt]

If you see the title of my thread, I was referring to "old school" catholics, those who speak in antiquated views no longer accepted by the mainstream. I'm not making a blanket statement, although I still have yet to see an arguement made defending the Catholic Church as it relates to the sentiment expressed by this particular Anglican Bishop.

OK, to go with this point in particular - the "old school" Catholics you are refering to have been dead for centuries. The Anglicans broke away from the Catholic Church in 1583 to form their own religion. That is the last time the two religions were on "even footing" and believed exactly the same things.

The article has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Roman Catholic Church in any way. Yes, there may be some similarities in dogma or sociological viewpoint between the 2 religions, but there is nothing about the article that can directly pertain to the Catholic Church.

[FMJeff]

For Fucks Sake!!! THEY ARE 2 DIFFERENT RELIGIONS!!!

The Anglican Church was created when Britain's Henry VIII BROKE AWAY from the Catholic Church in 1538 when the Pope would not grant Henry an annulment. From that point to the present each religion has had their own hierarchy, belief system, and canonical law. They may share a common root in Christianity, but they are completely different groups.

Look at it this way: They are Fraternal Twins. They were born of the same mother and have a lot in common, even genetically, but they are still two individuals with their own drives and ambitions. They aren't even as close as Identical Twins would be.

Again, just limit the scope of the arguement to homosexuality. I don't care if one allows woman priests, let's you dance the jig at church. Aside from the wackadoo sects of christianity, they don't accept homosexuality is natural, and they don't accept homosexuals as g-d's children.

I don't understand why we're expanding the dialogue to anything other than that particular point. Of course there are sects within sects that love homosexuals, will marry them, think they're awesome. They are not part of the bigger machine and I will not count them.

[cupcakelove]

Again, just limit the scope of the arguement to homosexuality. I don't care if one allows woman priests, let's you dance the jig at church. Aside from the wackadoo sects of christianity, they don't accept homosexuality is natural, and they don't accept homosexuals as g-d's children.

I don't understand why we're expanding the dialogue to anything other than that particular point. Of course there are sects within sects that love homosexuals, will marry them, think they're awesome. They are not part of the bigger machine and I will not count them.

Just limiting the scope to homosexuality, then Anglican is the same has Muslim and Jewish.

[angrymissy]

Turns out Anglicans are pretty liberal when it comes to homosexuals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_views_of_homosexuality

[Furtherman]

*sigh*

This is why religion sucks. If you were not poisoned with it as a child, you two would be posting :smile:'s at each other.

[angrymissy]

I cannot wait for Jeff's next post where he admits defeat after I pwned him with facts on AIM.

Wait for it.... Wait for it....

[FMJeff]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_views_of_homosexuality#Stance_of_Churches

I would like to print a written retraction stating Anglicans are actually, for the most part, open to homosexuality, with the exception of a handful of churches around the country.

Thanks to my dear, dear wife for this link.

Let me also state my opinoin on catholicism is unchanged.

[cupcakelove]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_views_of_homosexuality#Stance_of_Churches

I would like to print a written retraction stating Anglicans are actually, for the most part, open to homosexuality, with the exception of a handful of churches around the country.

Thanks to my dear, dear wife for this link.

Let me also state my opinoin on catholicism is unchanged.

But I thought they were the same thing?

[FMJeff]

But I thought they were the same thing?

I.....was....

wrong.

[angrymissy]

I'm the smartest.

[cupcakelove]

I.....was....

wrong.

It happens to the best of us. But you are right about the Catholic church for sucking on their stance on homosexuality, but most organized religions suck on this point.

[ChimneyFish]

well, if "the gays" are causing floods, what are all the kid touching priests causing?

I'll take "sore bottoms" for 500, Alex.


I just realized that's not how Jeopardy works.

<-------- picklehead

[sailor]

Your priests believe it, your bishops believe it, your arch-bishops believe it, and your pope believe it.

If by religious law the pope is the leader of your church, and your pope calls homosexuality:


"An intrinsic moral evil"
"An objective disorder"


then those who follow him must agree with him and ultimately, whether you personally feel that way or not, are a member of a religion that considers normal, law-abiding, positively contributing homosexuals "morally evil" people.

That's the reality of your religion.

ok, they think homosexuality is wrong and you don't, how does that make them bad people? and let's change your argument that something they think is wrong should be overlooked, by changing the attribute in question to one i assume you would agree is "evil"...child molesting. "then those who follow him must agree with him and ultimately, whether you personally feel that way or not, are a member of a religion that considers normal, law-abiding, positively contributing [child molesters] "morally evil" people." do you see how if something is wrong, you don't overlook it because they might have other positive characteristics?

Isn't manipulation a sin? To suggest a flood is caused by "the gays" is manipulative and hurtful. Would not a god-fearing literal interpretation of what the bishop said be misconstrued as "Gay people and those who approve of gay people did this to you?" And what to people do then? Well, most would be restricted to hating gay people and sympathizers..then you have the extremists, who tie them up and beat them to death. It happened, its happening, it will happen again.

please, it's such a leap from thinking something is wrong to thinking we should beat those people to death. using that logic we shouldn't ever think anything or anyone is bad, because people will then want to beat those folks to death. i think it's wrong to leave your doors open at night...don't mean i think you should be beat to death if you disagree with me.

[Recyclerz]

I.....was....

wrong.

Put some oomph behind that, son. :wink:

http://www.chicagogigs.com/images/content/social-distortion_social-distortion_concerts_tickets_3351342.jpg

[FMJeff]

ok, they think homosexuality is wrong and you don't, how does that make them bad people? and let's change your argument that something they think is wrong should be overlooked, by changing the attribute in question to one i assume you would agree is "evil"...child molesting. "then those who follow him must agree with him and ultimately, whether you personally feel that way or not, are a member of a religion that considers normal, law-abiding, positively contributing [child molesters] "morally evil" people." do you see how if something is wrong, you don't overlook it because they might have other positive characteristics?



please, it's such a leap from thinking something is wrong to thinking we should beat those people to death. using that logic we shouldn't ever think anything or anyone is bad, because people will then want to beat those folks to death. i think it's wrong to leave your doors open at night...don't mean i think you should be beat to death if you disagree with me.


Ahh. I'm back now.

1) How you could compare the consensual act of lovemaking between two of the same gender and the forcing of sexuality onto another without thier consent or on an individual not old enough to understand the nature of the act is beyond me, and quite frankly a ludicrous comparison. I would normally call you something for that, but Mojopin would frown upon it.

3) It's not "such a leap".

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE7D91638F930A15752C1A9609482 60&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=print

When a religion teaches intolerance, some of its patrons take it upon themselves to become g-d's vengenace. There's many documented cases. But that's the extreme. How about just the denial of homosexuals as people. No marriage rights, different standards in business, exclusionary practices. That's the stuff that eats at a society.

[Yerdaddy]

The Muslims do the same thing with the Quran and the Hadith.

I've Hadith up to here with the Quran!

[Yerdaddy]

Its reallllll simple.....If you believe in the bible, you know this as something God said he would do and has done in the past...

...kill, maim and generally make innocent people suffer for shits and giggles.

[Yerdaddy]

Well, activist atheists, the ones trying to preach life can be lived without religion, without belief in g-d...that religion corrupts, is no longer a vehicle of good, etc.

I live without religion, without belief in g-d and I'm alive, more or less, so I don't see how that's a problem. That religion corrupts and is no longer a vehicle of good, etc... well, despite a couple of over-publicized books by atheists who demonize religion with shitty argument that commit the same demagoguery that they whine about religous people doing to atheists, I don't see how this is a threat to anyone. Atheists AND agnostics make up somewhere between 6 and 10 percent of the country. They've never shut anyone's church down, never prevented a Christian from practicing their religion. What is the threat of this small minority, some of whom express negative opinions of religion, but no worse than a great many religious folk who regularly equate atheism with an inability to be moral and, according to a poll posted here recently, a majority of whom would never vote for an atheist for political office, (we are represented by one recently-confessed agnostic in national government)?

We're no threat to anyone's religious freedom, yet your orginal angry post decries the statements of this Anglican fruitcake because it gives power to atheists as if the atheists, or atheist activists, are a bigger threats than powerful international religious figures who regularly demonize whole classes of people to their followers.

I just think you should ask yourself how much of a threat agnostics and atheist "activists" actually are to religious people. Me? I would say less than zero, (yes, the same as a sadistic yuppie drug dealer who cons talented junkie actors into giving blowjobs for smack. But that don't make you a bad person).

[DonInNC]

Its reallllll simple.....If you believe in the bible, you know this as something God said he would do and has done in the past...If you dont believe in the bible, ignore it.

Actually, in the bible God says he won't use floods again. That's when he invented the rainbow.

[A.J.]

I've Hadith up to here with the Quran!

It was bound to happen Sunnah or later.

[A.J.]

Actually, in the bible God says he won't use floods again. That's when he invented the rainbow.

I thought Ritchie Blackmore invented Rainbow.

http://www.mp3.ge/covers/7208ba09.jpeg

[DonInNC]

It was bound to happen Sunnah or later.

Allahk where this thread is going.

[jetdog]

Allahk where this thread is going.

http://www.roflcats.com/images/0217.jpg

not this Shiite again!

[Furtherman]

ok, they think homosexuality is wrong and you don't, how does that make them bad people?

It makes them ignorant. It makes them closed-minded. It makes them fools. To quote Andy Dufresne, it makes them "obtuse". It makes them the wrong people to give counsel and supposedly help and lead others in a good and moral life. How can they when a basic, natural human condition is ignored and deemed wrong? It's not only primitive, it's just really stupid. And extremely ironic since so many priests ARE gay, but come from a generation where socially the only choice they had was either to enter the priesthood or be shunned by society.

[Dougie Brootal]

im PROTESTANT this thread!!

[TheMojoPin]

Jeff is like the new Martin Luther, except he's nailing his lists on all the wrong doors.

"I have had it it up to here, MAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!"

"ASSHOLE!!! This is a laundromat!"

[JimBeam]

So now they're bad people because they refuse to conform to a social belief that 2 men and/or 2 women together is not correct ?

Why is it people say religion has it wrong with Creation because science proves them wrong but now they believe something that appears to go hand in hand with science ( the fact that nothing at all can be created from a same sex relationship ) and that is wrong as well.

[Dougie Brootal]

So now they're bad people because they refuse to conform to a social belief that 2 men and/or 2 women together is not correct ?

Why is it people say religion has it wrong with Creation because science proves them wrong but now they believe something that appears to go hand in hand with science ( the fact that nothing at all can be created from a same sex relationship ) and that is wrong as well.

sex is not only for procreation. thats a religious thing too.

[Yerdaddy]

So now they're bad people because they refuse to conform to a social belief that 2 men and/or 2 women together is not correct ?

Why is it people say religion has it wrong with Creation because science proves them wrong but now they believe something that appears to go hand in hand with science ( the fact that nothing at all can be created from a same sex relationship ) and that is wrong as well.

Homosexuals have existed in every society known to man, scientests and a majority of Americans believe that homosexuality is nature - not nurture, and we all know all homosexuals didn't just up and decide one day to make themselves the source of persecution and murder through the ages. Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon. Therefore, if you believe that homosexuality is a moral choice and not a biolgical one you're ignoring the evidence and I don't respect your religious view on the subject. Or you believe that God created homosexuals the way they are and then said it's a sin for them to be that way, in which case I don't respect your God.

So the contradiction you're claiming doesn't exist but almost certainly masks the contradiction within that religious view about homosexuality. It's right up there in the crazy pile with the eating of shellfish or popping the ballon-knot being sins.

[Furtherman]

So now they're bad people because they refuse to conform to a social belief that 2 men and/or 2 women together is not correct ?

Why is it people say religion has it wrong with Creation because science proves them wrong but now they believe something that appears to go hand in hand with science ( the fact that nothing at all can be created from a same sex relationship ) and that is wrong as well.

That's the problem... "social belief". How many human social beliefs throughout the ages have turned out to be wrong? We're still a young species... we're still figuring it out.

But it is obvious now that homosexuality is a natural state of being in almost ALL species. Even in the animal kingdom, homosexuality has been observed. And if we were able to monitor all species, I'd bet you there would be instances in all. Even the Central Park Zoo has two male penguins who have partnered together for years.

Any inclination that people are holding onto whereas gay is wrong are just feeling that message that was programmed into them as children. If you could erase that program, you'd see there really isn't any big deal. It's nature's way of containing itself. And guess what, the more people that enter the population, the more gays there are going to be. They're here, they're queer, they will not disappear. THHHAAAnk you.

[Yerdaddy]

But it is obvious now that homosexuality is a natural state of being in almost ALL species. Even in the animal kingdom, homosexuality has been observed. And if we were able to monitor all species, I'd bet you there would be instances in all. Even the Central Park Zoo has two male penguins who have partnered together for years.



http://images.hugi.is/teiknimyndir/916.jpg

[Crispy123]

Its reallllll simple.....If you believe in the bible, you know this as something God said he would do and has done in the past...

I believe in the bible, you can buy it at Amazon.com

I live without religion, without belief in g-d and I'm alive, more or less, so I don't see how that's a problem.

I just think you should ask yourself how much of a threat agnostics and atheist "activists" actually are to religious people.

Religion is a broad term, with many meanings as is the term God. I have never met anyone on this board but to say you have no religion seems ignorant to me.

A true Atheist, that has no belief in God, would do the most threat to a religious institution. All of these Pedophile Catholic priests can not possibly believe in the Judeo-Christian God, same with the hate mongers teaching in mosques that young men and women need to blow themselves up.


But it is obvious now that homosexuality is a natural state of being in almost ALL species. Even in the animal kingdom, homosexuality has been observed.

Just because something is natural does not necessarily make it good or right. Cancer, HIV (obviously not the H part), and rape are all things occurring in the natural (animal) world right now somewhere.

[Furtherman]

Just because something is natural does not necessarily make it good or right. Cancer, HIV (obviously not the H part), and rape are all things occurring in the natural (animal) world right now somewhere.

Oh COME ON. Are you serious? Comparing someone's natural state of being gay to caner, disease and RAPE?!

Please step back and look at sentence.

Being born gay doesn't kill anyone. You don't die from being gay. And it certainly doesn't make you rape. Cancer, for the most part, can be avoided by not smoking and staying healthy. HIV - again, practicing safe sex and not sharing needles - CHOICES - that will prevent. Rape? Another choice. I'm insulted as a human being that you could even suggest such a thing.

[Crispy123]

Oh COME ON. Are you serious? Comparing someone's natural state of being gay to caner, disease and RAPE?!

Please step back and look at sentence.

Being born gay doesn't kill anyone. You don't die from being gay. And it certainly doesn't make you rape. Cancer, for the most part, can be avoided by not smoking and staying healthy. HIV - again, practicing safe sex and not sharing needles - CHOICES - that will prevent. Rape? Another choice. I'm insulted as a human being that you could even suggest such a thing.

You compared homosexuality to what is going on in the natural world. I provided other examples of what is "natural".

Im not the smartest man in the world but I do know this everyone dies for some reason. To say that people do die from one thing or another and not from something else is....i don't even know.

As a human being I laugh at you being insulted by my post.

[jetdog]

Religion is a broad term, with many meanings as is the term God. I have never met anyone on this board but to say you have no religion seems ignorant to me.

A true Atheist, that has no belief in God, would do the most threat to a religious institution. All of these Pedophile Catholic priests can not possibly believe in the Judeo-Christian God, same with the hate mongers teaching in mosques that young men and women need to blow themselves up.



I dont' see any justification in calling an atheist ignorant. What do you base that on?

This fear of atheism seems to indicate a very intense insecurity in faith. Is it really that frightening to think that somewhere, someone in the world does not beleive that there is a God, however you want to define that term?

[jetdog]

[B][SIZE="5"]

Im not the smartest man in the world but I do know this everyone dies for some reason. To say that people do die from one thing or another and not from something else is....i don't even know.



EVERYONE!?!?
http://wwwimage.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/images/2007/04/04/image2645518.jpg

[Furtherman]

You compared homosexuality to what is going on in the natural world. I provided other examples of what is "natural".

Im not the smartest man in the world but I do know this everyone dies for some reason. To say that people do die from one thing or another and not from something else is....i don't even know.

As a human being I laugh at you being insulted by my post.

So you provided "rape" as natural. What town do you live in?

Well I'll bet I'm a little bit smarter because I know that when people are born gay, they do not die because they are inherditly gay. The die from choices, accidents or old age.

[Yerdaddy]

I believe in the bible, you can buy it at Amazon.com



Religion is a broad term, with many meanings as is the term God. I have never met anyone on this board but to say you have no religion seems ignorant to me.

A true Atheist, that has no belief in God, would do the most threat to a religious institution. All of these Pedophile Catholic priests can not possibly believe in the Judeo-Christian God, same with the hate mongers teaching in mosques that young men and women need to blow themselves up.


You still telling me what I believe and don't believe and bringing pedophiles into it again? Who exactly touched your Special Purpose?

[Crispy123]

So you provided "rape" as natural. What town do you live in?


I live in Daytona Beach, you???

Even the Central Park Zoo has two male penguins who have partnered together for years.

I have visited this Central Park Zoo that you speak of, have you??? The monkey exhibit has many examples of so called "deviant" sexual behavior to include homosexuality, masturbation, and rape.

Well I'll bet I'm a little bit smarter because I know that when people are born gay, they do not die because they are inherditly gay. The die from choices, accidents or old age.

You got me. I bow to your dazzling intellect.

[Furtherman]

And I cringe at your homophobia.



And now masturbation is "deviant" behavior? This is hysterical!

Yerdaddy's right. Your "special purpose" may have been touched and most likely damaged. At least that's what you are implying.

[Dan 'Hampton]

And I cringe at your homophobia.



And now masturbation is "deviant" behavior? This is hysterical!

Yerdaddy's right. Your "special purpose" may have been touched and most likely damaged. At least that's what you are implying.

If he wants to be homophobic so what? What ever happened to freedom of thought no matter how stupid someone else may think it is.

[Crispy123]

This fear of atheism seems to indicate a very intense insecurity in faith. Is it really that frightening to think that somewhere, someone in the world does not beleive that there is a God, however you want to define that term?

My fear of Atheists has to do with the circus when I was 5...it's still to painful to talk about. If you seriously want to know my views check out this thread (http://ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=61075)

You still telling me what I believe and don't believe and bringing pedophiles into it again? Who exactly touched your Special Purpose?

No, I am giving purely my opinion. I respect your belief (or not), but I disagree.

And I cringe at your homophobia.

It's really getting out of hand. I mean in this thread alone I bashed homosexuals so many.......oh wait.

[FMJeff]

Cancer is neither evil, bad or wrong. It is a disease. Any emotional or social significance attributed to it is our own doing. You can't pass judgement on a disease.

Don't get me wrong, cancer took my aunt from me, but for me to say "I hate cancer" is pretty silly...as if cancer is somewhere sulking over the loss of another friend.

It's a part of our world, like homosexuals.

The inclusion of rape in your arguement is dumb. You can say the same thing about murder, another thing not approved of in religion or civilized society but is an integral part of the natural order.

To deny homosexuality as natural is to deny science, somethign religion is very good at.

[Crispy123]

Cancer is neither evil, bad or wrong. It is a disease. Any emotional or social significance attributed to it is our own doing. You can't pass judgement on a disease.

Don't get me wrong, cancer took my aunt from me, but for me to say "I hate cancer" is pretty silly...as if cancer is somewhere sulking over the loss of another friend.

It's a part of our world, like homosexuals.

I agree.

I never said I hate anything or anyone.

The inclusion of rape in your arguement is dumb. You can say the same thing about murder, another thing not approved of in religion or civilized society but is an integral part of the natural order.

They ALL belong. You can't pick and choose.

I dont see how including rape is dumb??? It occurs in the natural world, as does murder and cancer. I don't see your point.

[FMJeff]

I agree.

I never said I hate anything or anyone.



I dont see how including rape is dumb??? It occurs in the natural world, as does murder and cancer. I don't see your point.

It's an act, not a living thing. Tripping, jumping and sneezing occur as well.

And like murder, the term "rape" is a construct of law. I doubt very much animals have any idea they are commiting rape or murder, and thus are not breaking laws because they don't live by any other than what is necessary to survive.

[jetdog]

My fear of Atheists has to do with the circus when I was 5...it's still to painful to talk about. If you seriously want to know my views check out this thread (http://ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=61075)

I have since reviewed that thread, and rather than argue with you, I will refer you to a system of beleif called humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism). It is compatible with atheism, and I beleive its tenants will illustrate well, why to be a true atheist, you don't have to kill yourself or engage in psychopathic behavior.

Also please check out any book by Kurt Vonnegut.

[Crispy123]

It's an act, not a living thing. Tripping, jumping and sneezing occur as well.

And like murder, the term "rape" is a construct of law. I doubt very much animals have any idea they are commiting rape or murder, and thus are not breaking laws because they don't live by any other than what is necessary to survive.

Nobody said anything about the Rule of Law.

Furtherman said Homosexuality is natural. I agree. I am simply saying that because something is natural does not mean it is good or bad. That is a label we as humans put on these things.

That is why Man made religion will always have flaws and if someone is truly an Atheist they would not care about these human rules of law and live outside of them.

[Crispy123]

I have since reviewed that thread, and rather than argue with you, I will refer you to a system of beleif called humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism). It is compatible with atheism, and I beleive its tenants will illustrate well, why to be a true atheist, you don't have to kill yourself or engage in psychopathic behavior.

Also please check out any book by Kurt Vonnegut.

First Wikipedia as a reference is kinda weak.

Second to believe in truth and morality, one could say these are your "Gods". Thats the great thing about the human language: it is flexible enough to include many meanings for like terms.

Last, if I want to read Vonnegut all I have to do is turn around and pick from a large selection on my bookshelf, thanks.

[jetdog]

First Wikipedia as a reference is kinda weak.

Second to believe in truth and morality, one could say these are your "Gods". Thats the great thing about the human language: it is flexible enough to include many meanings for like terms.

Last, if I want to read Vonnegut all I have to do is turn around and pick from a large selection on my bookshelf, thanks.

A) well whatever.

2) I think the reason nobody seems to be able to get anywhere in this discussion, is semantic. You keep imposing your own deffinition of God, while everyone else is keeping to the classical concept of a creator and master being.

III) your welcome.

[Yerdaddy]

Cancer is neither evil, bad or wrong. It is a disease. Any emotional or social significance attributed to it is our own doing. You can't pass judgement on a disease.

Don't get me wrong, cancer took my aunt from me, but for me to say "I hate cancer" is pretty silly...as if cancer is somewhere sulking over the loss of another friend.

It's a part of our world, like homosexuals.

The inclusion of rape in your arguement is dumb. You can say the same thing about murder, another thing not approved of in religion or civilized society but is an integral part of the natural order.

To deny homosexuality as natural is to deny science, somethign religion is very good at.

All good points that I agree with. If I was gay I probably wouldn't like being compared to cancer, but I'd probably accept the argument for the purpose of defining it as a naturally occuring phenomenon. I'd probably prefer you compared it to some other naturally occuring phenomenon like pineapple improving the taste of sperm or Liza Manelli being so gosh darn fabulous! IF I was gay, that is.

[Crispy123]

I think the reason nobody seems to be able to get anywhere in this discussion, is semantic. You keep imposing your own deffinition of God, while everyone else is keeping to the classical concept of a creator and master being.

I'm imposing? Interesting. Universal Morality and the search for truth is much more "classical" than the creator/master being definition that you refer to. Ever heard of Persia, Greece, China?


http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Liza-Minnelli---Cabaret-Photograph-C12149680.jpeg

[Furtherman]

Ever heard of Persia, Greece, China?

Ever hear of Plato? Socrates?

http://members.aol.com/caspirgost/vizzinihuh.jpg

Morons.

[Crispy123]

Ever hear of Plato? Socrates?

http://members.aol.com/caspirgost/vizzinihuh.jpg

Morons.

:lol:

[Yerdaddy]

My fear of Atheists has to do with the circus when I was 5...it's still to painful to talk about.

Must have been Le Cirque de Sore A. Those weren't atheists they were gay Frenchmen. Not a big difference, but a difference nonetheless.

[jetdog]

I'm imposing? Interesting. Universal Morality and the search for truth is much more "classical" than the creator/master being definition that you refer to. Ever heard of Persia, Greece, China?
[/IMG]

Who? Who? and Who?

In terms of defining atheism, all people are saying is that they don't beleive in a "creator/master being" as defined by any existing religion. Then you come along and say well money is your god, so your not an atheist...sex is your god your not an atheist...whatever is your god, your not an atheist...
The discussion can't go anywhere when one can't agree on the terms utilized.

[Furtherman]

Le Cirque de Sore A.

Brilliant. Just so you know, I will be using that someday whenever the moment permits.

[sailor]

It's an act, not a living thing. Tripping, jumping and sneezing occur as well.

actually, while no expert at dogma, i'm pretty sure the catholic church only has a problem with the act of homosexual sex, not with just being a homosexual person.

[angrymissy]

actually, while no expert at dogma, i'm pretty sure the catholic church only has a problem with the act of homosexual sex, not with just being a homosexual person.

The official stance.

The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage and the social acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships,

[angrymissy]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rom.htm

I forgot about this website. It has a lot of good information pertaining to religion.


“This sort of marriage is not in the best interest of children.” “God has a plan for marriage and this isn’t it.” “Allowing this kind of marriage will pave the way for all sorts of moral depravity.” Comments from the 1960s on the interracial marriage of one man and one woman -- Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving.

[Crispy123]

Must have been Le Cirque de Sore A. Those weren't atheists they were gay Frenchmen. Not a big difference, but a difference nonetheless.

http://www.azlance.com/~richasi/Cirque/LaNouba/titan.jpg

[jetdog]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rom.htm

I forgot about this website. It has a lot of good information pertaining to religion.

and humansim (http://www.religioustolerance.org/humanism.htm).

[Crispy123]

and humansim (http://www.religioustolerance.org/humanism.htm).

A web page with an author, latest update preview, and limited website editing. Now that's a reference, you can be proud of. :thumbup:

[angrymissy]

The Wikipedia Page on Humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism) is actually cited up the ass if you look at the references.

[MadMatt]

Who? Who? and Who?

In terms of defining atheism, all people are saying is that they don't beleive in a "creator/master being" as defined by any existing religion. Then you come along and say well money is your god, so your not an atheist...sex is your god your not an atheist...whatever is your god, your not an atheist...
The discussion can't go anywhere when one can't agree on the terms utilized.

To be fair, atheists believe that there is no god or supreme being at all, not just as defined by existing religion. The way your definition was worded applies more to agnosticsism than atheism.

And, I agree with you. You can't claim that money, sex, etc. can serve as "god" - they can be a person's primary motivators, but cannot be considered omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent beings/forces.

[jetdog]

A web page with an author, latest update preview, and limited website editing. Now that's a reference, you can be proud of. :thumbup:
Meh. I operate on the assumption that if someone doesn't like the specific link I have provided, they simply do their own search for the topic of interest.
Your lack of appreciation for wikipedia does not in any way diminish the relevence of humanism.
But hey, I'm just happy I got a smiley! :clap:

[Crispy123]

The Wikipedia Page on Humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism) is actually cited up the ass if you look at the references.

Are you sure its not the other way around? From the religious tolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/humanism.htm) website, "Originally written: 1996-SEP-2".

[jetdog]

To be fair, atheists believe that there is no god or supreme being at all, not just as defined by existing religion. The way your definition was worded applies more to agnosticsism than atheism.


Point taken.

[Crispy123]

You can't claim that money, sex, etc. can serve as "god" - they can be a person's primary motivators, but cannot be considered omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent beings/forces.

The very concept of money is one where the participants have to put their "belief" in its value.

Jetdog has a point in that as long as we don't agree on the definition of words we will never agree on a definition of religion.

Tell an addict that the feeling they have is not omnipresent and Im sure they will disagree, and you can be addicted to sex.

[Yerdaddy]

First off, I think people are confusing C3PO with the couple of guys who defended homophobia. I don't see that, (but then I'm not paying close attention either). I think he just jumped in with the bit about what's natural and what's not and the definitions and something about Garry Glitter.

In terms of defining atheism, all people are saying is that they don't beleive in a "creator/master being" as defined by any existing religion. Then you come along and say well money is your god, so your not an atheist...sex is your god your not an atheist...whatever is your god, your not an atheist...
The discussion can't go anywhere when one can't agree on the terms utilized.

This made me think of an interesting point, and since I'm over being offended by being compared to kid touchers for being an atheist and all, I want to pose this question to you, CB4:

If I can't help but to have accepted something as a god of sorts, a higher power, why would I have done this: I'm a recovering alcoholic. Before I finally got sober 10 years ago I was drinking hard and crazy for a good three years with the full knowledge that I was an alcoholic. Twice I was desperate and stumbled into an AA meeting. I didn't stick around for one reason: the focus of the 12 steps around the "higher power", which of course they say can be literally anything. I tried to think of something that would make sense as a higher power and possibly make this program actually work for me. It was the idea of any higher power that made the whole thing sound like gibberish to me. I know AA is the most effective alcohol treatment program that exists and that it's people working the steps and accepting the concepts. But that statistic, and the knowledge that most people have and want some spiritual life/higher power concept in their life, is the closest I can get to understanding why it actually works. For me, I literally and chose to go on risking my life with booze because I couldn't wrap my mind around the most basic concept of faith as defined by that program. And I eventually walked into a program that had no higher power element or 12 steps, but simply asked what you were dealing with and helped you work on that shit, and I've been sober ever since.

I tried to find or even imagine a higher power in order to save my life and I came up with nothing. But what you say is that I have a higher power that I believe in, but that I'm completely oblivious to even when my life depends on it. How's that work?

And before you answer I want you to know a couple things:

1) It's a qarter to 2am and I'm in a convenience store in Sihanoukville, Cambodia and I'm going to bed - I'll read it in the morning.

Q) I want you to first ponder the idea that I might actually know myself better than you do - and you read the very basics of my own ideas in the other thread.

Incontinentia Buttocks) The truth is spiritual discussions generally bore me. I spent years of my early 20's exploring the big spiritual questions, settled on it's all bullshit and forgot most of what I knew back then. Now I'll read Mark Twain's "Letters From Earth" now and again for laughs, but when I have to talk to someone about their spiritual life or mine it's like I'm coming down from a 14 day meth bender. I'm asking this of you because you're weird and it might be interesting now that I was proved so wrong that you were a Christian fundy. I probably won't know what to make of your answer, but if you feel like explaining it to me - in fewer words than I'm using to ask it - go ahead. Make me a believer.

[Yerdaddy]

The very concept of money is one where the participants have to put their "belief" in its value.

Guy in a bar: "I believe this is a $50 bill."
Bartender: "That's a one dollar bill."
Guy: "Yeah but I believe it's a $50 bill so therefore it is a..."
Bartender: "Get the fuck out of here!"

See, I still don't how so much of ordinary life you say depends on belief that it's virtually a god to everyone. I don't understand why I have to believe in a $20 bill in order to get a lap dance - it's written right there on the bill: "$20". The closest thing to a higher power in the whole equation is the one the lap dance puts in my pants.

Jetdog has a point in that as long as we don't agree on the definition of words we will never agree on a definition of religion.

But you must get this alot, what with your beliefs being "closest to Buddhism with a knowledge that killing and fondue are naturally occuring in human nature..." or something like that? I'm paraphrasing.

Tell an addict that the feeling they have is not omnipresent and Im sure they will disagree,

I'm an addict and I'll say maybe the feeling, (craving I assume), feels omnipresent at the time, but the way I used to beat cravings was movies and Ben&Jerry's Cookie Dough ice cream - sometimes three of each. What kind of a pussy-ass omnipitent god gets beat by "12 Monkeys" and ice cream?

and you can be addicted to sex.

Thank you.

[Crispy123]

My belief system is a bit complicated but since you asked, Mydaddy, Id figure its worth my time to write it down. You dont mind if I call you Mydaddy, do you? I feel a special connection that is lacking in a lot of these other posters (Gvac, Mikeyboy, F_S).:dry:

The Buddhist acknowledges that their is suffering in this world, that is caused by wants. The purpose of life is a quest for enlightenment, verify what you are taught with what you see. The only thing we know for certain is that everything will change.

What I see on a daily basis are sheep mindlessly following along with the herd. I see a system built by (hu)man(s) imposed on others: capitalism, democracy, theocracy, religion, etc. I do not claim to be above it, better than anyone else or trying to convert others to my way of thinking.

If there is a God or not, I can not say for sure. What happens after I take my last breath I also can not say for sure. I do know that there are things out there that are beyond my ability to control (higher power?) such as disease (alcoholism?), the tides, the planets, why Mydaddy gave up alcohol, etc..

I will live my life trying to stay true to my principles and If someone tries to interfere with that pursuit I will, yes, violently protect my will and impose it on others. I know that there are organisms that exist that can not be seen with the naked eye. Because I have seen these organisms, I also believe that there are more out there that can not be seen but are waiting to be seen.

I like to argue. I enjoy futility. Pain is temporary but truth is forever.

[Fat_Sunny]

Somebody, Please, Wake F_S Up When This Is Over!

[high fly]

I've Hadith up to here with the Quran!


Good thing we have you around to unmosque the damned thing......






Makes me wonder what Fat Sunni will have to say about that....








He'll probably get real shiitey about it....

[FMJeff]

actually, while no expert at dogma, i'm pretty sure the catholic church only has a problem with the act of homosexual sex, not with just being a homosexual person.

That's a clever dance with semantics the church uses to avoid the appearance of bigotry. Homosexuals are defined by thier sexuality. If you hate thier sexuality, you hate them. Period.

It's like saying I don't hate painters but I do hate paint.

[high fly]

I wasn't comparing the two, I was pointing out what happens when religion is used to justify bigotry and ignorance.

I wasn't going to say the Crusades, but if you'd like a list of atrocities committed by the Christian Church in the name of their religion, you are but a google away from the following:

- The Spanish Inquisition
- Salem Witch Trials
- The mass murder of people the church deemed "heretics"
- The destruction of foreign cultures and religions through the missionary process.
- The wanton ignorance for the mass-killings of Jews during WWII and the clearly documented anti-semetic behavior of the Catholic churche
- The slaughter of Native Americans during the Civil War
- The war against sexuality and its countless victims



That's an impressive list, but it shrinks greatly when one considers the greatest massacres in history came in the 20th century by heathen comminists.
Read The Black Book of Communism
The number of deaths they caused is over 100 million in about a 70 year timespan.

[Snacks]

My belief system is a bit complicated but since you asked, Mydaddy, Id figure its worth my time to write it down. You dont mind if I call you Mydaddy, do you? I feel a special connection that is lacking in a lot of these other posters (Gvac, Mikeyboy, F_S).:dry:

The Buddhist acknowledges that their is suffering in this world, that is caused by wants. The purpose of life is a quest for enlightenment, verify what you are taught with what you see. The only thing we know for certain is that everything will change.

What I see on a daily basis are sheep mindlessly following along with the herd. I see a system built by (hu)man(s) imposed on others: capitalism, democracy, theocracy, religion, etc. I do not claim to be above it, better than anyone else or trying to convert others to my way of thinking.

If there is a God or not, I can not say for sure. What happens after I take my last breath I also can not say for sure. I do know that there are things out there that are beyond my ability to control (higher power?) such as disease (alcoholism?), the tides, the planets, why Mydaddy gave up alcohol, etc..

I will live my life trying to stay true to my principles and If someone tries to interfere with that pursuit I will, yes, violently protect my will and impose it on others. I know that there are organisms that exist that can not be seen with the naked eye. Because I have seen these organisms, I also believe that there are more out there that can not be seen but are waiting to be seen.

I like to argue. I enjoy futility. Pain is temporary but truth is forever.

Its statements like those that make me hate religion even more then I should. I have no problem with people believing whatever they want. As long as they dont force feed it to me or try to make me a believer in whatever they are. You can believe in God, you can believe that fags are evil, you can believe that abortion is a crime. Thats your choice but dont make these choices for others, allow them THE FREEDOMS TO CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES.

I dont care what people do or believe as long as they dont take my options away from me or others. If you try to make abortion illegal, then I will fight for others to choose. If you wont let gays marry then I will fight for their RIGHT to marrry.

If you dont believe men should marry men, dont marry a guy. If you feel abortions are bad, then dont have an abortion, if you believe in god then dont force others to.

[Snacks]

That's an impressive list, but it shrinks greatly when one considers the greatest massacres in history came in the 20th century by heathen comminists.
Read The Black Book of Communism
The number of deaths they caused is over 100 million in about a 70 year timespan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Book_of_Communism

"He notes that famine accounted for more than half of Courtois's 100 million death toll"

I didnt read the book but have read many thing about it. First my quote above sounds more realistic.

How about democracies? How many people have been killed "building or creating" democracy? How many Americans have died in this war or how many Iraq's have died in the name of democracy?

And to go back to this conversation based on Religion. All those killing sprees Jeff posted, were just that killing based on belief in religion (or no belief) Forcing people to either accept their god or die. Also add the natzis who have killed based on religion or todays muslims. I would bet more wars and deaths are from religion then communism

[lleeder]

I wish someone would write the phrase "fag enabler" so this thread could end already.

[Crispy123]

Somebody, Please, Wake F_S Up When This Is Over!

Jealous much?

Its statements like those that make me hate religion even more then I should.

I think you're taking me out of context guy. I was explaining how my belief system differs from traditional Buddhism that says violence must be avoided at all costs. If your idea of oneness with the universe does not coincide with mine, I will separate us by force if necessary is my point.

I wish someone would write the phrase "fag enabler" so this thread could end already.

:lol: haha...you said enabler...

[MadMatt]

I want to make it clear that I am not anti-homosexual in any sense and hope my comments were not taken as such. Nor were my posts pro-one religion over another.

My point was that Jeff used an article about Anglicans to take shots at the Catholic Church. I'm not sying those shots are wrong or not allowed - just that he was/is mixing the two religions together as if they are exactly the same thing when they absolutely are not.

I hope there are no hard feelings - I know I got a little angry. However, I was angry that the premise was faulty and that Jeff didn't seem to listen, not that someone was defending homosexuality.

[lleeder]

I want to make it clear that I am not anti-homosexual in any sense and hope my comments were not taken as such. Nor were my posts pro-one religion over another.

My point was that Jeff used an article about Anglicans to take shots at the Catholic Church. I'm not sying those shots are wrong or not allowed - just that he was/is mixing the two religions together as if they are exactly the same thing when they absolutely are not.

I hope there are no hard feelings - I know I got a little angry. However, I was angry that the premise was faulty and that Jeff didn't seem to listen, not that someone was defending homosexuality.

I didn't read your post just tell us why you hate gays so much?

[Gvac]

As an old Catholic school boy, let me assure you that whenever we were preached to we sat there nodding with serious faces but took it all with a grain of salt.

There are no bigger dirt bags than Catholic school boys. Just ask Catholic school girls.

[sailor]

The official stance.

The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage and the social acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships,

HUMAN SEXUALITY (http://www.scu.edu/safespace/viewpoints.html): A CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE FOR EDUCATION AND LIFELONG LEARNING, United States Catholic Conference, 1990

We call on all Christians and citizens of good will to confront their own fears about homosexuality and to curb the humor and discrimination that offend homosexual persons. We understand that having a homosexual orientation brings with it enough anxiety, pain and issue related to self-acceptance without society adding additional prejudicial treatment.

[jennysmurf]

for some, religion helps to make sense of the world. having a belief isn't bad or wrong, but forcing your belief onto someone else is. no one has the right to force their way of thinking onto someone else. telling someone what you believe is fine, if they want to hear it. spouting hate at someone for their belief is wrong, no matter what side of the issue you're on. if you ask me what i believe, i will tell you. it's your choice whether or not to agree. debate is terriffic, as long as no one takes themselves too seriously, and starts letting it turn them into animals. let's agree to disagree, okay?

[MadMatt]

I didn't read your post just tell us why you hate gays so much?

But lleeder, you told me I had to! You threatened my family and all my future generations if I didn't bow to your wishes and hate homosexuals.

Don't you remember?

I have the emails right here...

:lol:




j/k

still don't hate homosexuals.

[Gvac]

for some, religion helps to make sense of the world. having a belief isn't bad or wrong, but forcing your belief onto someone else is. no one has the right to force their way of thinking onto someone else. telling someone what you believe is fine, if they want to hear it. spouting hate at someone for their belief is wrong, no matter what side of the issue you're on. if you ask me what i believe, i will tell you. it's your choice whether or not to agree. debate is terriffic, as long as no one takes themselves too seriously, and starts letting it turn them into animals. let's agree to disagree, okay?

jennysmurf am smart.

[scottinnj]

8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."

12 And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."



That was Genesis 9:8-16
God's promise never again to destroy the entire earth again with a flood.
The Bishops are wrong.
God said that He would never use a flood as punishment.

I'm not a heretic.
Not an atheist.
I am a fundamentalist, Southern Baptist.
I believe the Bible as the inspired word of God.
The Bishops are wrong.

[jetdog]

At the risk of being incindiary, how come God doesn't talk to anyone like that anymore?

[jennysmurf]

jennysmurf am smart.

thanks, i try.

[scottinnj]

That's a clever dance with semantics the church uses to avoid the appearance of bigotry. Homosexuals are defined by thier sexuality. If you hate thier sexuality, you hate them. Period.

It's like saying I don't hate painters but I do hate paint.


Who is dancing on Semantics? Homosexuals define themselves
by their sexuality. You don't see heterosexuals parading in the streets chanting "We're Straight! We're Great! I fucked her now she's late!"

Most homosexuals don't do that. They are NORMAL people, living day to day with everybody else, paying taxes and contributing to society. It's the "in your face" mentality by the radical few that gets most people upset. Having said that though, the people who make fun of homosexuals and harass them need to go to Matthew 22:37-40
"37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40[B]All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."


As far as "hating the sin, loving the sinner" it is possible. I am a smoker, therefore I am a sinner. My family still loves me. My best friend in the Army was an alcoholic. Alcohol abuse is a sin, and yet I loved the guy like a brother, and his family stood by him through thick and thin.

Sin is sin. We are all guilty of it in one way or another. How you define it is between you and God, or yourself and nobody if you don't believe in God. We live in the Age of Grace, now that Jesus has died on the cross God has "hands off" policy regarding our day to day lives. It is up to us to decide how we are going to relate to God, and how much of a relationship we are willing to have with Him.


And remember, this is all faith. You can choose to believe, or not to. I'm not the guy to twist your arm into making you believe my faith. Those who do, stay away from them. Their short-sidedness will only drag you down. Their hatred of gays, alcoholics, drug addicts or sinners in general is a reflection of their own weakness within their personal
lives.
Whether or not preachers and priests who rail against homosexuality/homosexuals have hatred in their heart for gays, I don't know. Some do, some don't. You have to make up your own mind based on what they say and do. Falwell, in my opinion, was a homophobe. To say that 9/11 was because of the gays and feminists was inexcusable, his apology was lame, and I was stunned by the lack of condemnation by the rank and file Christians in this country. On its face the statement was ludicrous-to assume that Almighty God allowed almost 3000 innocent people be murdered because of a "gay day" parade in San Francisco or the ERA movement in the 1970s is to assume you know the mind of God. Arrogance and heresy. Secondly it also did great damage to the grassroots movement within the Protestant Church to reach out and live the two most important commandments Jesus said in Matthew chapter 22.

[scottinnj]

At the risk of being incindiary, how come God doesn't talk to anyone like that anymore?


Because we live in the Age of Grace. When Jesus died on the cross, there was an earthquake that ripped the veil separating the main room in the Temple from the Holy of Holies, the central room in the Temple where God resided. The veil was torn from top to bottom. That was God removing the separation that had always stood between man and Himself because of our sin. Now we have a direct link to God. Which is why Martin Luther (Vandross the first, as Fezzie would say) started the Protestant movement. This is all FAITH, personal between each person and God. No more need for burnt offerings, altars or going to the priest for confession or the High Priest to go into the Holy of Holies on our behalf. We can do it ourselves.

[lleeder]

This thread is gay.
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u280/jimgraz/Gay.jpg

[jetdog]

[QUOTE=scottinnj;1377895]Who is dancing on Semantics? Homosexuals define themselves
by their sexuality. You don't see heterosexuals parading in the streets chanting "We're Straight! We're Great! I fucked her now she's late!"

Most homosexuals don't do that. They are NORMAL people, living day to day with everybody else, paying taxes and contributing to society. It's the "in your face" mentality by the radical few that gets most people upset. Having said that though, the people who make fun of homosexuals and harass them need to go to Matthew 22:37-40
"37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40[B]All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."


So do you feel animosity towards homosexuals? I'm asking because, in the first part of your post you seem to base a dislike of homosexuals on the actions of a few outspokenly gay people, then you seem speak out against people like Falwell, who you obviously don't appreciate. By your reasoning of labelling all homosexuals as defined by the outspoken ones, should religious people be defined by their outspoken components?

[jennysmurf]

*sigh*

[Mike Teacher]

At the risk of being incindiary, how come God doesn't talk to anyone like that anymore?

Ages of Grace aside, God never spoke like that. Greek, Hebrew Aramaic were the languages of the original bibles. Hundreds have existed. and do.

English versions didnt show up until King James in 1611 or so, if memory serves. Tyndale tried an English translation a bit too early for the church's liking, they burned him alive for the act.

As for the flood, I could never get the logic of wiping out humanity to teach humanity a lesson. I'd hope for a God that didnt judge; didnt reward punish didnt concern himself with my petty affairs and certainly wouldnt concern him/her/itself to my paltry beliefs about him. I would hope a God would welcome skepticism, and even doubts of his existance. If he gave us these brains, I'd like to believe we were meant to use em.

It's gard to say no offense when you know what you're about to say may be incendiary, I studied and read the bible a lot, its fascinating at a real base level; having said that, I cant imagine a more jealous, mean, judgemental, grudge holding Diety ever. Homosexuality? That's so microscopic compared to the central idea; why do we belive?

To what end? How much to question? How much to take on Faith?

And which God? There are meny others in the running, and I dont mean that in a flippant way; I mean many others believe a very different set of events, menay others sets actually, and... ugh... pffffttt...

OK enough Mr War and Peace...

...I cant even imagine how long this is already and I can already feel the amount of bullshit in it, wow I am a wordy fuck.

I will say this; it fasciantes me and resonates w/ me to the point that this skeptic is no atheist, but he doesnt believe in any of the gods of any of the organized religions. Thats the short answer.

[Stankfoot]

... dancing on Semetics is just wrong!

[jetdog]

I think what I was getting at, was not necessarily God's diction, or language. I accept the fact that God would not have communicated with people in our present day language, my question was more along the lines of "why doesn't God comminicate with us in such an overt fashion?"

I thought my question would piss someone off due to its seemingly patronizing flair, so I prefaced it. I was happy to get such a response. I have not studied the bible, so this was news to me, a very eloquent explanation.

[sailor]

Ages of Grace aside, God never spoke like that. Greek, Hebrew Aramaic were the languages of the original bibles. Hundreds have existed. and do.

English versions didnt show up until King James in 1611 or so, if memory serves. Tyndale tried an English translation a bit too early for the church's liking, they burned him alive for the act.


the coverdale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myles_Coverdale) bible was printed in 1535

[scottinnj]

So do you feel animosity towards homosexuals? I'm asking because, in the first part of your post you seem to base a dislike of homosexuals on the actions of a few outspokenly gay people, then you seem speak out against people like Falwell, who you obviously don't appreciate. By your reasoning of labelling all homosexuals as defined by the outspoken ones, should religious people be defined by their outspoken components?

I think you misunderstood my first point, but I don't think I explained it good enough. What I meant was that to identify yourself by a part of your life, in this case, your sexuality is not the smartest thing to do. It would be like me defining my identity by the fact that I am a white guy. Being white doesn't explain my personality, what I like, what I am good at, music I listen to and enjoy and so on. It is a part of me, not my identity. And I'm not labeling all homosexuals because of the few. I thought I made it clear that I felt there is a difference between rank and file gays and the radicals.

As far as myself feeling animosity towards homosexuals? Yes, I used to. I was a total homophobe in lockstep with Falwell and Robertson. I thought I was doing God's work, because these were the people presented to me by people I trusted as the moral voice of God's word.
Then my dad told me a story about when he was in the Marines. He was doing some Shore Patrol work, and was in San Francisco patrolling (1946) around making sure the Marines and sailors were behaving. He and his partner parked their jeep in an alley, and his partner pointed out a back entranceway to a restaraunt/nightclub, and they observed a bunch of taxis pulling up in the alley, and dropping off women, one by one, and they went into the club using the back door. My dad asked his partner what was up, and he told my dad that the club was a lesbian hangout, and those were women who didn't want to have their secret exposed.
He told me something that really stuck with me: "I didn't know these women, I didn't know why they were there. What their intent was in going into that club, was none of my concern. The fact that they were there didn't effect me in any way, so why should I get myself all worked up about it?"
Couple that with the illegal arrest (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html) of a gay couple in Texas due to a vindictive neighbor and the sodomy charges being brought up against two adults who engaged in a sexual act willingly, I have changed my mind about homosexuals. I still believe the act is a sin, but like I said in other posts in this thread and other threads, I'm just as guilty. I just hope I am raising my kids to have a better attitude on this topic then I did. I probably lost out on some good friendships for a long time because of my bigotry.

And yes, you have every right to condemn Christians in general because of the outspoken few. And I'll tell you why: WE the Christian COMMUNITY, did not condemn loudly enough the stupid remarks of the likes of Falwell, and Robertson.
We are working on this. Please be patient.

[jennysmurf]

the coverdale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myles_Coverdale) bible was printed in 1535

http://www.80srockphotos.com/Rock_Stars/David_Coverdale.jpg



wow, he's older than i thought.

[scottinnj]

I'm the smartest.
and from what I hear.....the hottest.

[Snacks]

Because we live in the Age of Grace. When Jesus died on the cross, there was an earthquake that ripped the veil separating the main room in the Temple from the Holy of Holies, the central room in the Temple where God resided. The veil was torn from top to bottom. That was God removing the separation that had always stood between man and Himself because of our sin. Now we have a direct link to God. Which is why Martin Luther (Vandross the first, as Fezzie would say) started the Protestant movement. This is all FAITH, personal between each person and God. No more need for burnt offerings, altars or going to the priest for confession or the High Priest to go into the Holy of Holies on our behalf. We can do it ourselves.

it seems there is always an answer, a reason why god no longer does this or that. Why not look at the bible or any religious book for what they are? They are all stories that can not answer anything b/c they are written by man. If there is a god and he wants us to know something he wouldnt have so many different stories, that formed so many different religions. Why would he want so many people not following him correctly? Wouldnt he want people to stop fighting over him?b/c when its all said and done, if there is a god then only 1 of the many religions can be true. This means everyone else will go to hell.

[Snacks]

I think you misunderstood my first point, but I don't think I explained it good enough. What I meant was that to identify yourself by a part of your life, in this case, your sexuality is not the smartest thing to do. It would be like me defining my identity by the fact that I am a white guy. Being white doesn't explain my personality, what I like, what I am good at, music I listen to and enjoy and so on. It is a part of me, not my identity. And I'm not labeling all homosexuals because of the few. I thought I made it clear that I felt there is a difference between rank and file gays and the radicals.

As far as myself feeling animosity towards homosexuals? Yes, I used to. I was a total homophobe in lockstep with Falwell and Robertson. I thought I was doing God's work, because these were the people presented to me by people I trusted as the moral voice of God's word.



is it any better to define yourself by your religion? Whats the difference? You may not choose to define yourself by being white but you may decide to by being baptist. Others choose define themselves by being black or hispanic and others by their sexuality. Most of the times its minorities who choose to define themselves because they want to show they are proud of who they are.

I dont want to hear or see religious stuff on tv, or forced down my throat but I dont go crazy or protest it because it really doesnt do anything to me. I try to ignore it, people who dont like gays can do the same thing. Dont go to the village, dont go to gay pride parades. Im straight and kiss my girlfriends in public why shouldnt gays be allowed to do the same? The same way you dont like to see 2 guys kissing maybe they think its nasty to see a guy and girl kiss? Get over it or live in a bubble or move to the South, lol

And the bible never mention anything about "gays" Please tell me where in the bible it says that.

And dont quote "no man shall ley with another man" crap.

[scottinnj]

it seems there is always an answer, a reason why god no longer does this or that. Why not look at the bible or any religious book for what they are? They are all stories that can not answer anything b/c they are written by man. If there is a god and he wants us to know something he wouldnt have so many different stories, that formed so many different religions. Why would he want so many people not following him correctly? Wouldnt he want people to stop fighting over him?b/c when its all said and done, if there is a god then only 1 of the many religions can be true. This means everyone else will go to hell.


I'm not sure of that. I used to believe that, and I was convinced that I was going to Heaven and everyone who wasn't a Christian is going to Hell.
Here's a thought. What if God really is the smartest dude that we make Him out to be? What if He realized that mankind really was a bunch of idiots who constantly argued with each other, and distrusted one another? What if He realized that one culture would not understand the religion of another?
I've been playing around with this thought:
I don't know if I believe it yet or not, or maybe I am being blasphemous, but it's just a thought.
What if there were two boys,
One was raised in America as a Southern Baptist.

One was raised in Pakistan as a Muslim.

All their life, they were brought to church, and were educated in Religious School. They both learned to love their God, and wanted nothing more then to please Him. They studied hard, and through their kindness, they hoped that the love of their God would show through so that those who were lost in their souls would find hope and peace.

Then one day, out of sheer coincidence, they both died. How it doesn't matter.
But the question is:
Which one went to Heaven?

[Snacks]

What if there were two boys,
One was raised in America as a Southern Baptist.

One was raised in Pakistan as a Muslim.

All their life, they were brought to church, and were educated in Religious School. They both learned to love their God, and wanted nothing more then to please Him. They studied hard, and through their kindness, they hoped that the love of their God would show through so that those who were lost in their souls would find hope and peace.

Then one day, out of sheer coincidence, they both died. How it doesn't matter.
But the question is:
Which one went to Heaven?

1 or maybe none. It all depends which one believed in the right God. If one religion is right then they both could have been wrong.

[sailor]

1 or maybe none. It all depends which one believed in the right God. If one religion is right then they both could have been wrong.

most religions and religious folk would say there's no one true faith, which i believe was his point.

[Gvac]

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c34/Gvac/FingerPointMoon-1.jpg

[epo]

most religions and religious folk would say there's no one true faith, which i believe was his point.

What's to say that all religions are or are not valid? Why would an all-knowing deity create a species with freewill and allow those children to enter a world which they may be exposed to only one religion in their lives....and that religion just happens to be the wrong one?

That would be a pretty cruel God wouldn't it?

[Snacks]

most religions and religious folk would say there's no one true faith, which i believe was his point.

If all religions lead back to one then why do so many religions fight for centuries? If there truly isnt 1 true faith then a lot of people are wasting a lot of time fight over theirs and following their beliefs so strictly.

[Snacks]

What's to say that all religions are or are not valid? Why would an all-knowing deity create a species with freewill and allow those children to enter a world which they may be exposed to only one religion in their lives....and that religion just happens to be the wrong one?

That would be a pretty cruel God wouldn't it?

I agree or why would a diety who gives free will put us here only to worship and spread his word? It makes no sense. If he really exists and gives us free will, then maybe this is the time to enjoy life and all that the world he created has to offer. B/c we will have eternity to follow him in the after life.

[Yerdaddy]

Because we live in the Age of Grace. When Jesus died on the cross, there was an earthquake that ripped the veil separating the main room in the Temple from the Holy of Holies, the central room in the Temple where God resided. The veil was torn from top to bottom. That was God removing the separation that had always stood between man and Himself because of our sin. Now we have a direct link to God. Which is why Martin Luther (Vandross the first, as Fezzie would say) started the Protestant movement. This is all FAITH, personal between each person and God. No more need for burnt offerings, altars or going to the priest for confession or the High Priest to go into the Holy of Holies on our behalf. We can do it ourselves.

I just want to clarify this one point: This is not in the same ballpark as touching a woman's feet. It aint even the same sport. Carry on.

[scottinnj]

is it any better to define yourself by your religion? Whats the difference? You may not choose to define yourself by being white but you may decide to by being baptist. Others choose define themselves by being black or hispanic and others by their sexuality. Most of the times its minorities who choose to define themselves because they want to show they are proud of who they are.

I dont want to hear or see religious stuff on tv, or forced down my throat but I dont go crazy or protest it because it really doesnt do anything to me. I try to ignore it, people who dont like gays can do the same thing. Dont go to the village, dont go to gay pride parades. Im straight and kiss my girlfriends in public why shouldnt gays be allowed to do the same? The same way you dont like to see 2 guys kissing maybe they think its nasty to see a guy and girl kiss? Get over it or live in a bubble or move to the South, lol

And the bible never mention anything about "gays" Please tell me where in the bible it says that.

And dont quote "no man shall ley with another man" crap.

Whoa, I thought you and I were friends on this board. Or were you just teasing me with your ultimate cheeseburger sig pic. MMMMMMMM Burgers.......

First of all, I am not saying I am defining myself by my religion. The reason I am a Southern Baptist is because that is what matches my faith. I'm also a conservative, a Republican and veteran. There are lots of things about me that make me the person I am. Just as beautiful burgers and funny posts help define you.
Second, since I live in South Jersey, I guess I can't go to the village. And we don't have parades down here, except on the fourth of July. My point was that as much as you preach "don't judge the gays" I sick of being told I have to give up my beliefs in order to not be a hateful person, being told this by people who don't know me or judge me for one aspect of a total life. And the other point of that was to say that if you define yourself by only one aspect of your total life, you will be selling yourself short by not letting the rest of your personality help define you when brought to scrutiny by strangers.


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


This was from a series of laws passed by the judges of Israel. The punishment back then was death, but like I said in another post, we live under the Age of Grace, where we are not subject to judgement here on earth for our sins.

BUT THIS IS FAITH! Snacks, remember, I am not trying to tell you I am right, and you are wrong. I am trying to tell you what I believe, and you can choose to accept that or not.
I am not a perfect person. If I am wrong about all this, then I am wrong. Maybe one day I will change my attitude further, maybe not. Maybe one day I will be proven right, maybe not. I will, however, keep working on it.

[scottinnj]

If all religions lead back to one then why do so many religions fight for centuries?
Because we as a species, are stupid.

[Yerdaddy]

Who is dancing on Semantics? Homosexuals define themselves
by their sexuality. You don't see heterosexuals parading in the streets chanting "We're Straight! We're Great! I fucked her now she's late!"

Most homosexuals don't do that. They are NORMAL people, living day to day with everybody else, paying taxes and contributing to society. It's the "in your face" mentality by the radical few that gets most people upset. Having said that though, the people who make fun of homosexuals and harass them need to go to Matthew 22:37-40
"37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40[B]All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."


As far as "hating the sin, loving the sinner" it is possible. I am a smoker, therefore I am a sinner. My family still loves me. My best friend in the Army was an alcoholic. Alcohol abuse is a sin, and yet I loved the guy like a brother, and his family stood by him through thick and thin.

Sin is sin. We are all guilty of it in one way or another. How you define it is between you and God, or yourself and nobody if you don't believe in God. We live in the Age of Grace, now that Jesus has died on the cross God has "hands off" policy regarding our day to day lives. It is up to us to decide how we are going to relate to God, and how much of a relationship we are willing to have with Him.


And remember, this is all faith. You can choose to believe, or not to. I'm not the guy to twist your arm into making you believe my faith. Those who do, stay away from them. Their short-sidedness will only drag you down. Their hatred of gays, alcoholics, drug addicts or sinners in general is a reflection of their own weakness within their personal
lives.
Whether or not preachers and priests who rail against homosexuality/homosexuals have hatred in their heart for gays, I don't know. Some do, some don't. You have to make up your own mind based on what they say and do. Falwell, in my opinion, was a homophobe. To say that 9/11 was because of the gays and feminists was inexcusable, his apology was lame, and I was stunned by the lack of condemnation by the rank and file Christians in this country. On its face the statement was ludicrous-to assume that Almighty God allowed almost 3000 innocent people be murdered because of a "gay day" parade in San Francisco or the ERA movement in the 1970s is to assume you know the mind of God. Arrogance and heresy. Secondly it also did great damage to the grassroots movement within the Protestant Church to reach out and live the two most important commandments Jesus said in Matthew chapter 22.

This makes sense coming from a dedicated believer who has done his homework and isn't trying to impose his beliefs on anyone.

My question is about the first part: "Homosexuals define themselves by their sexuality." What do you think about the apparent biological predetermination of homosexuality? Do you doubt that phenomenon and think that homosexuals choose their sexuality purely by their own will? Or are they essentially born that way but are still expected to resist their natural urges and either be celibate or marry a woman and make babies even though for them it would be like heterosexual men like you or I, (or you and I), marrying and sleeping with a man, (or each other), all our lives? Has God put them in a no-win situation of resisting the urges that he apparently gave them, and why, (and will you marry me?)? Wouldn't it have been more just if God really wanted to create gay men the way they are to put functioning wombs in gay men's butt cheeks? Hell, that way it might even make twins easier to carry, (and finally get MC Hammer employed making maternity clothes). And he could have made lesbians with a set of working testicles under their chins. I mean if he were going to be right and just and all.

[Yerdaddy]

Then my dad told me a story about when he was in the Marines. [Here we go.] He was doing some Shore Patrol work, and was in San Francisco patrolling [Hot!] (1946) around making sure the Marines and sailors were behaving. [Oh, behave!] He and his partner [Was he blonde? I bet he was blonde.] parked their jeep in an alley, [Mmmmm hmmmmm!] and his partner pointed out a back entranceway [I bet he did!] to a restaraunt/nightclub, and they observed a bunch of taxis pulling up in the alley, [Pushing up in the alley is more like.] and dropping off women, [Eeew!] one by one, and they went into the club using the back door [That's more like it! Get in that backdoor ya big studs! Slam it!]. My dad asked his partner what was up, [I am, big boy!] and he told my dad that the club was a lesbian hangout, [Let's go check out their shoes!] and those were women who didn't want to have their secret exposed.
He told me something that really stuck with me: [Stuck on you?] "I didn't know these women, I didn't know why they were there. What their intent was in going into that club, was none of my concern. The fact that they were there didn't effect me in any way, so why should I get myself all worked up about it?" [Wait. What about the hunks and their bakcdoors? Aw, that story didn't go nearly the way I thought it would.]
Couple that with the illegal arrest (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html) of a gay couple in Texas due to a vindictive neighbor and the sodomy charges being brought up against two adults who engaged in a sexual act willingly, I have changed my mind about homosexuals. I still believe the act is a sin, but like I said in other posts in this thread and other threads, I'm just as guilty. [You go girl!] I just hope I am raising my kids to have a better attitude on this topic then I did. I probably lost out on some good friendships for a long time because of my bigotry. [And some hot sex!]

And yes, you have every right to condemn Christians in general because of the outspoken few. And I'll tell you why: WE the Christian COMMUNITY, did not condemn loudly enough the stupid remarks of the likes of Falwell, and Robertson.
We are working on this. Please be patient.

[Turning off teh gay now.]

OK, I got the tolerance thing, and I knew that already, so I still have the question: nature or nurture?

[scottinnj]

most religions and religious folk would say there's no one true faith, which i believe was his point.



17 God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. 18 Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation."

Genesis 21:17 & 18

Ishmael is the son of Abraham, as well as Isaac. In this verse in the Christian Bible, God blesses Hagar with sparing Ismael's life, and promising her that her son would be the start of a nation.

So now God has made the Isrealites, where Judiasm and Christianity came from, and He is also responsible for the Arabs, where Islam is from.

How do you like that? Anyone have an explanation for that one? I'm still wrapping my head around it.

[Yerdaddy]

I heard Hagar was Horrible. He must have made him into Russia.

I don't have an explanation, I can only make the question harder: He made the Buddhists and the Hindu and the Animaniacs and the ZorroAstroglides and all the rest of the religions too, didn't he?

[Yerdaddy]

I'm not sure of that. I used to believe that, and I was convinced that I was going to Heaven and everyone who wasn't a Christian is going to Hell.
Here's a thought. What if God really is the smartest dude that we make Him out to be? What if He realized that mankind really was a bunch of idiots who constantly argued with each other, and distrusted one another? What if He realized that one culture would not understand the religion of another?
I've been playing around with this thought:
I don't know if I believe it yet or not, or maybe I am being blasphemous, but it's just a thought.
What if there were two boys,
One was raised in America as a Southern Baptist.

One was raised in Pakistan as a Muslim.

All their life, they were brought to church, and were educated in Religious School. They both learned to love their God, and wanted nothing more then to please Him. They studied hard, and through their kindness, they hoped that the love of their God would show through so that those who were lost in their souls would find hope and peace.

Then one day, out of sheer coincidence, they both died. How it doesn't matter.
But the question is:
Which one went to Heaven?

This might not be the best examples to contrast because they both do worship the same God. Muslims had the New and Old Testaments as their holy books before Muhammad, and still do, and in fact Muslims know the Bible better than Christians do in my experience, (yourself being an impressive exception). It was a customer at the Costco I was working at years ago that first told me who my namesake was in the Bible. (He later turned out to be the judge that sentenced me for my DUI. Really cool guy though.) But it was Egyptians, Jordanians and Yemenis who told me all the various stories about the guy in great detail.

So, yeah, the fact that Allah is simply the Arabic word for God may make it better to make the comparison between a Christian living his faith and a non-Judeo-Christian-based religious person living his faith - which one goes to heaven? Otherwise you'll just get more questions about Jesus being The Son or prophet? Or Muhammad as a prophet being blashemous or not? And you've got enough questions on your plate already.

Maybe it's time for an "Ask Drunken Pastor Scott" thread?

[Snacks]

Whoa,

1) I thought you and I were friends on this board. Or were you just teasing me with your ultimate cheeseburger sig pic. MMMMMMMM Burgers.......


First of all, I am not saying I am defining myself by my religion. The reason I am a Southern Baptist is because that is what matches my faith.
2)I'm also a conservative, a Republican and veteran.


There are lots of things about me that make me the person I am. Just as beautiful burgers and funny posts help define you.
Second, since I live in South Jersey, I guess I can't go to the village. And we don't have parades down here, except on the fourth of July.

3) My point was that as much as you preach "don't judge the gays" I sick of being told I have to give up my beliefs in order to not be a hateful person, being told this by people who don't know me or judge me for one aspect of a total life.

And the other point of that was to say that if you define yourself by only one aspect of your total life, you will be selling yourself short by not letting the rest of your personality help define you when brought to scrutiny by strangers.


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


This was from a series of laws passed by the judges of Israel. The punishment back then was death, but like I said in another post, we live under the Age of Grace, where we are not subject to judgement here on earth for our sins.

BUT THIS IS FAITH!
5) Snacks, remember, I am not trying to tell you I am right, and you are wrong. I am trying to tell you what I believe, and you can choose to accept that or not.
I am not a perfect person. If I am wrong about all this, then I am wrong. Maybe one day I will change my attitude further, maybe not. Maybe one day I will be proven right, maybe not. I will, however, keep working on it.

1) we are friends. I have friends of all walks of life. I can agree or disagree with them and even argue with them,. But when its over its over. No one (when it comes to religion) will ever truly win these arguments.


2) And Im a extreme liberal raised catholic, italian snacker who was enlisted in the Navy then delayed over a year after D.E.P.S. But once again we can still be friends!!! But dont touch my burgers!!!



3) I agree I dont think people should force you to like anything but that doesnt mean they can be who they are. Just like your right to religion is your right and I may not agree with your religion but I will fight with you to be able to practice it with others and be who you are.



4) you had to bring Leviticus in this didnt you? I think everything wriiten in Leviticus is nuts, and hateful (maybe not everything) I think the laws of Leviticus are the reason for some of the hate against others, even catholics and jews.

5) Like I said earlier no one is right or wrong, its what we believe. I dont take out my beliefs with hate. I choose to listen and then speak my mind. I just dont want laws that are based on religion, b/c not everyone believes the same religions. I think laws should be open to everyone. Meaning if your religion is against something then you shouldnt do it, just dont force your beliefs on others. Its mainly on abortion and marriage. Like making abortion illegal b/c religion says so to me is bad. If you dont believe in abortion then dont have one, but allow others to make that decision. If you make it illegal b/c of your views (not you, people in general) then you are choosing for everyone and thats not right.


OK now im ready for a late night snack! White castles time!!!

[scottinnj]

This makes sense coming from a dedicated believer who has done his homework and isn't trying to impose his beliefs on anyone.

My question is about the first part: "Homosexuals define themselves by their sexuality." What do you think about the apparent biological predetermination of homosexuality? Do you doubt that phenomenon and think that homosexuals choose their sexuality purely by their own will? Or are they essentially born that way but are still expected to resist their natural urges and either be celibate or marry a woman and make babies even though for them it would be like heterosexual men like you or I, (or you and I), marrying and sleeping with a man, (or each other), all our lives? Has God put them in a no-win situation of resisting the urges that he apparently gave them, and why, (and will you marry me?)? Wouldn't it have been more just if God really wanted to create gay men the way they are to put functioning wombs in gay men's butt cheeks? Hell, that way it might even make twins easier to carry, (and finally get MC Hammer employed making maternity clothes). And he could have made lesbians with a set of working testicles under their chins. I mean if he were going to be right and just and all.

My point about Homosexuals defining themselves by their sexuality is separate from the discussion of whether or not it is "nature" vs. "nurture". It is just the point of defining yourself
Simplisticly, (real simple, because I'm not that smart) it's like saying
I'm Dale Earnhardt Jr. and I'm a race car driver.
He is defining himself as a race car driver. How he came to be one is a different story.
I'm just worried about people opening themselves up for scrutiny in a way that doesn't describe themselves as a whole person.
Not to say that "activists" don't have a part in society. Just like anyone else, Gays deserve some sort of protection, and if you are an American, I feel you should be able to defend your country, regardless of your sexual orientation. Activism is different then the "in your face" stuff I was talking about.
The part of how they became that way is beyond me. For real. Is it something that they are born with, or is it simply succumbing to a temptation that is out there just like anything else that feels good, but in the long wrong is not healthy for you? But then again, looking at how I got going, I just remember one day waking up and seeing a girl and all I could see were "TITS! BEAUTIFUL WONDERFUL TITS!" I will leave it alone, and just do what I have done, "tolerate" what I don't like or understand. Again, that probably makes me a bad person, but I at least have gotten past the point of hatred and intolerance.

I am making myself out to be a total ass, and I'm sure there are going to be a lot of people on the board who will read this stuff and just conclude I'm another Phelps type.

BTW, love the MC Hammer goto, and while I won't marry you, I would love it if we could just learn to speak the international language...
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o217/themarshal/LaneMeyer.jpg

You know, Love!

[Yerdaddy]

Some day, when you come to the end of your journey from intollerance you will agree to marry me. And I will point at you and yell "HOMO! This guy's a big homo!!!" And you will see that true tolerance is not loving the sin, but being able to accuse your friends in public of the sin.

[scottinnj]

4) you had to bring Leviticus in this didnt you? I think everything wriiten in Leviticus is nuts, and hateful (maybe not everything) I think the laws of Leviticus are the reason for some of the hate against others, even catholics and jews.



OK now im ready for a late night snack! White castles time!!!

Yay for still being friends! Okay first of all, sorry for the half hour delays in my replies and posts...I'm watching flyboys on PPV and it really is a great movie. Two thumbs up.

Now for the Leviticus part. When Jesus said that love your neighbor and all the laws and prophets will fall into place He meant what He said. So, since I'm the schmuck who believes this, it is up to me to figure out how Leviticus ties into the coolness of Jesus. I'll probably never figure it out-so since the first two commandments are easy, I'll stick with them, and just believe the rest will work itself out. So as far as Leviticus goes, if I were you, I wouldn't worry about it. Besides, those were the laws that the Judges of Israel enforced, and we live in America.

[badmonkey]

Yay for still being friends! Okay first of all, sorry for the half hour delays in my replies and posts...I'm watching flyboys on PPV and it really is a great movie. Two thumbs up.

Now for the Leviticus part. When Jesus said that love your neighbor and all the laws and prophets will fall into place He meant what He said. So, since I'm the schmuck who believes this, it is up to me to figure out how Leviticus ties into the coolness of Jesus. I'll probably never figure it out-so since the first two commandments are easy, I'll stick with them, and just believe the rest will work itself out. So as far as Leviticus goes, if I were you, I wouldn't worry about it. Besides, those were the laws that the Judges of Israel enforced, and we live in America.

how about combine both verses and put God's words into a little more simple language?

God: Hey man, I don't want you to judge that dude over there. I want you to love him, but I'm gonna tell you right now that I personally think what he's doin is pretty fucked up.
You: Him? over there?
God: Don't look right at him or he'll... shit he saw you. nice goin idiot.
You: I didn't judge him!
God: Bullshit. Go to hell!


:unsure::devil2:

[FMJeff]

and from what I hear.....the hottest.

And from what I hear, the marriedest.

[FMJeff]

It's the "in your face" mentality by the radical few that gets most people upset.

Umm, no, I imagine its the fact that they fuck thier own gender. You think people are only offended by the "flaming"? What hayseed town do you live in? Do you think they all walk around like Divine in Hairspray? The simple act of two men holding hands is enough to piss off a homophobe.


Having said that though, the people who make fun of homosexuals and harass them need to go to Matthew 22:37-40
"37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40[B]All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."



That would be great if the Catholic Pope felt the same way instead of dimissing an entire group of people as immoral and evil.

It is up to us to decide how we are going to relate to God, and how much of a relationship we are willing to have with Him.


I'm doing fine without him. He's all yours.


And remember, this is all faith. You can choose to believe, or not to. I'm not the guy to twist your arm into making you believe my faith. Those who do, stay away from them. Their short-sidedness will only drag you down. Their hatred of gays, alcoholics, drug addicts or sinners in general is a reflection of their own weakness within their personal
lives.


Tell that to the pope.

[scottinnj]

Umm, no, I imagine its the fact that they fuck thier own gender. You think people are only offended by the "flaming"? What hayseed town do you live in? Do you think they all walk around like Divine in Hairspray? The simple act of two men holding hands is enough to piss off a homophobe.



That would be great if the Catholic Pope felt the same way instead of dimissing an entire group of people as immoral and evil.



I'm doing fine without him. He's all yours.



Tell that to the pope.

Can't. I'm Baptist. I'm going to Hell according to the pope.

[scottinnj]

And from what I hear, the marriedest.


Just a joke.......just a joke!