You've got to be fucking kidding me...

[MadeInNewJersey]

WHOA NIGGAH, I AIN'T READING ALL A THAT

 

[Demilich]

There are several parts of that essay that are so full of shit it's funny!

Gender relates to what a person is, not what they are? Prove it. I see lots of examples that prove just the opposite. Gender is not a biological characteristic.

Homosexuality is something a person does, not who they are? Prove it. How is homosexuality any less natural than heterosexuality? Cause an imaginary figure said so? I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly for people who don't believe in Him. Because more people are straight than gay? Tell me how that makes one natural and the other evil and I'll agree with you.

Homosexuality is associated with disease? Yeah... completely incidental. Those diseases are transmitted ONLY by gay people who have specific types of intercourse. It is possible to be gay and yet completely abstinant.

On that note, if being gay is something you DO and not something you ARE, explain how someone could be gay and yet not have actually had physical contact or a relationship with someone of the same sex. I could decide that I'm gay right now, and be gay without ever having fucked a guy. Not gonna do it, but you never know!

 

[Conspicuously Absent]

That's my problem with people who say guys like Phelps should be killed. I know, most of you probably don't actually believe that, but seriously, the guy's entitled to his beliefs. If you disagree with his practices, that's wonderful and all, but he disagrees with yours. Why do you think this means he should be killed? Because the more popular belief is upheld by appeals to common sense, universal morality and shit like that? [/devil'sadvocate]

If you were really the devil's advocate you'd be saying kill him too. Because

satanhateschristians.com.



Phelps is a tard, but entitled to his beliefs under the constituion. That said, if I even saw that first hand I'd go kick the shit out them.

 

[Ellestin]

It is possible to be gay and yet completely abstinant.

I concur

 

[dorian gray]

hahah yeah fort campturd isnt far from here so ANYTHING that goes down there is big news with the local idiot news stations. there was a big writeup about this in the "tennessean". phelps was there for like 20 minutes or something and then left. woohoo!

 

[lizard]

one of these protests somebody is going to shoot phelps.

 

[General Zod]

You have some sort of superiority complex or something.

Actually, it would seem that it's you who has the "superiority complex". It was you, who stated unequivocally:

Your information is wrong.

It is you, who is now (ironically) suggesting that I have a "superiority complex" for merely entering into a discussion with you on this topic.

Since I have neither their the time, nor the desire, I won't bother to directly address each scripture you've cut and pasted from your paper. That would require me to write a paper, and I have no interest in doing so. However, I believe all of the arguments you listed here can be refuted without going to much trouble. By the way, I do understand that sounds both flippant and arrogant. However, it is intended to be neither. In reading this excerpt from your paper, it sounds like your research was done looking at a single subject, without having a intimate familiarity with the subject matter (Christianity) as a whole. Perhaps I’m wrong, as your paper is intended to be analytical and focused.

All of the biblical points you made, either come from the Old Testament, the original Greek, or some version of the bible which is not the Old King James. Let me address all three, while looking at my original statement, which you had such an issue with.

The ironic thing about the whole anti-gay thing is, there is only one passage, in either the Old or New Testament, that even speaks to the issue, and it's in the book of Leviticus. Christians don't follow any of the laws in the book of Leviticus, except for this one scripture.

In hindsight, I suppose I could/should have been more specific. However, I hardly expected a scriptural debate to breakout on Royal Carnage (my bad).

Let's work backwards, and look at my second sentence. "Christians don't follow any of the laws in the book of Leviticus, except for this one scripture." Most sects of Christianity will tell you, when Christ died, he freed them from the burden of the law (the law, ironically, is the English translation for the Hebrew word "Leviticus"). To that end, they believe they need not follow the teachings in the Old Testament. There are numerous passages in the New Testament that they typically quote in support of this (Romans 7:6, among many, many others). The fact that they no longer follow the Old Testament is also evidenced by their lifestyles. If they still followed the Old Testament they'd need to have their wives and daughters live in a shack while they were menstruating, they'd be allowed to sell their daughters into slavery, they would smite people who worked on the sabbath, etc. When they do follow/quote Old Testament passages, it tends to be very selective/convenient, as in their love for Leviticus 18:22. So, using any passage from the Old Testament to defend their anti-homosexual stance, seems contradictory to their religous beliefs.

My first sentence is where I should have been more specific, "The ironic thing about the whole anti-gay thing is, there is only one passage, in either the Old or New Testament, that even speaks to the issue, and it's in the book of Leviticus."

What I should have said is, Leviticus is the only passage that directly condems homosexuality. Yes, you can go back to the original Greek off the New Testament (if you you're not very discriminating about source documents). However, you then enter into the debate as to which source documents you should use. I've always found, that those who return to the original Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, tend to do so out of desperation, to support an argument that doesn't have much merit. Do we have any 2,000 year old Greek dictionaries? Do we know what these words meant 2,000 years ago? And regardless, why is it that the translators, who in the case of the men who wrote the King James, chose the translation they chose? If you do any research on the men who wrote the Old King James, you'll quickly find that their credentials are vastly superior to the men who have written any version since. And in the expert opinions of the Old King James writers, the original Greek does not translate as you suggest it does.

Finally, the passages you quoted from Corinthians, are from versions other than the King James. I touched on this briefly, but let me expound a bit. There is a somewhat large and growing movement within fundamentalist Christianity known as the "King Kames Only" movement (these people are sometimes referred to as "Ruckmanites", because of Dr. Peter Ruckman, the man credited with starting the movement). People on the extreme end of this movement believe two things:

1. The King James in divinely inspired, and the source documents are now null and void
2. All other translations not only contain errors, but are inspired by Satan

During my time of serious religious study, I didn't come to either of the above conclusions. However, I did come to the conclusion that the Old King James is by far the best translation, and that all other versions are flawed at best.

So, if you have any other scriptures you'd like to quote, that are from the Old King James version of the New Testament (or those I may have failed to address from your original post), that directly condem homosexuality, I'd be interested in hearing them.

Zod

 

[Nate The Great]

I didn't read all that just yet, but let me address one thing. That stuff I cut and pasted was from a Christian website. I only intended to show how far Christians will go to justify their hatred of homosexuality.

I also was joking about the superiority complex thing. I guess I should use more often. Sometimes people miss my sarcasm/humor/etc.

I'll read your post later.

 

[Dark One]

I also was joking about the superiority complex thing. I guess I should use more often. Sometimes people miss my sarcasm/humor/etc.

I'm always an advocate of the emoticon inclusion in replys meant to convey a certain tone. It's amazing just how easy it is to misinterperet someone's intention based on not being able to hear the tone of their words. I've seen it happen way too many times.

 

[General Zod]

I didn't read all that just yet, but let me address one thing. That stuff I cut and pasted was from a Christian website. I only intended to show how far Christians will go to justify their hatred of homosexuality.

Fair enough. And we agree, that people will be as hypocritical as possible to justify what they wish to justify.

I also was joking about the superiority complex thing. I guess I should use more often. Sometimes people miss my sarcasm/humor/etc.

Cool. You and I have never had a problem and I was a bit taken back by that opening line. No harm, no foul. If any part of my response seems "dickish", it was probably in response to that opening sentence, so disregard.

I'll read your post later.

Cool. I'm quite interested in your response.

Zod

 

[General Zod]

I'm always an advocate of the emoticon inclusion in replys meant to convey a certain tone.

Yeah, they're quite silly, but occasionally necessary.

Zod

 

[Dark One]

Yeah, they're quite silly, but occasionally necessary.

Zod

 

[Nate The Great]

Zod: I'm not going to do a big quote and response thing. All your points are perfectly agreeable with me. Especially in that you say nearly every scripture verse that Christians can quote as "anti-gay" can be conversely quoted as something other than "anti-gay".

I live (and grew up) in a VERY Christian-Right area. I'd estimate that 85% of the 1,500 or so that live in my county are Christians and Repulicans. The whole homosexuality vs Christianity issue sickens me because Christians have sort of taken it on as their public enemy #1. I know not all Christians agree with this stance, but a huge majority do.

I don't even think you have to break down Christians into followers of the Old or New Testament. Christians in general have an extreme fear of homosexuals, and I just can't comprehend why. They boycott Brokeback Mountain but not Sin City, with all its violence, nudity, sex, etc.

The good news is that several denominations (Methodists for sure) have stated that their fight should not be against homosexuals. Instead they have decided to concentrate on poverty, racism, and so on. I believe this is a response to the growing acceptance of homosexuality. Eventually (probably 25 to 50 years from now) all churces will be divided between those that accept homosexuality and those that don't.

You should do an internet search and look at some of the versus and arguments that pro-gay rights Christians use. Pretty interesting stuff.

I really feel that Christianity vs homosexuality is going to be a REAL issue in the next election. In previous elections, it's just been a very small side issue.

Zod: Do you go to church? I just wondered, because you have a lot of interest in the Bible, it seems. I'm more interested in the reaction Christians have toward any certain subject . . . especially homosexuality. Personally, I think the Bible is the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity.

 

[Demilich]

Personally, I think the Bible is the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity.

This is one of the most insightful statements I've seen on this forum EVER!

 

[Nate The Great]

Yes. Sometimes I amaze even myself.

 

[General Zod]

The whole homosexuality vs Christianity issue sickens me because Christians have sort of taken it on as their public enemy #1.

Agreed. It's actually quite bizarre. My wife is fond of pointing out that Christ never directly addressed this issue. However, he spent a good deal of time talking about helping the poor. Yet, somehow, banning gay marriage seems to be a much more important issue to most Christians than helping the poor.

The good news is that several denominations (Methodists for sure) have stated that their fight should not be against homosexuals. Instead they have decided to concentrate on poverty, racism, and so on. I believe this is a response to the growing acceptance of homosexuality. Eventually (probably 25 to 50 years from now) all churces will be divided between those that accept homosexuality and those that don't.

Agreed on all points. It's a shame, that with any debate, it's the people at the extremes that seem to have the loudest voices.

You should do an internet search and look at some of the versus and arguments that pro-gay rights Christians use. Pretty interesting stuff.

It is. It's quite frustrating how Christians can twist scripture to fit their needs.

I really feel that Christianity vs homosexuality is going to be a REAL issue in the next election. In previous elections, it's just been a very small side issue.

Actually, I'd argue that it decided the last presidential race. USA Today reported that for 33% of the folks that voted for Bush, gay marriage was the most important issue.

Zod: Do you go to church? I just wondered, because you have a lot of interest in the Bible, it seems.

No, I'm an atheist. Though I wouldn't rule out the possibility of some sort of "prime mover". There was a 1-2 year period of my life, where I would have considered myself "born again". During this time, I did some intensive research; reading the bible with parallel concordances, 8-12 hour bible studies every Saturday, spending days at the Princeton Theological library, etc.

Personally, I think the Bible is the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity.

I wouldn't totally disagree. However, I think the problem is less the book, and more how people use it. The greatest irony is, if the bible is in fact that divinely inspired word of God, than 99.99% of those who consider themselves Christians, are destined to spend eternity in hell.

Zod

 

[KILL TULLY]

Those bikers kickass.

AND ALL CHRISTIANS ARE JUST LIKE PHELPS, DUH!


AND ALL METALHEADS ARE JUST LIKE VARG!