If you tell me I am mistaken about my beliefs I will tell you to myob and I promise not to tell your women what choices they should or shouldn’t make.

Posted by Jack Schite
2009-11-12 11:09:49

Yeah, never mind that this is one of those “black and white, absolutely not compatable with Christianity” kind of areas, you want what you want and who is God to say otherwise.

In the same manner that accepting that Christ is God in the flesh, this topic is actually tied to a salvation issue. Either you believe and accept what is written or you don’t, but you don’t get to have it both ways. Either Christ is Lord over all or He’s not your Lord at all.

Christianity And Same Sex Marriage may indeed be Incompatible, but same sex marriage and the teachings of Christ are not.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-12 12:17:23

Stop smoking crack.

Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-12 12:17:23

Oh really? Then put up or shut up. Chapter and Verse, if you can.

I would say evolution is against same sex marriage. A species, unless capable of asexual reproduction, would die off. Or if the species in question was equipped with both options.

The species would die off long before it evolved the asexual method or to produce offspring equipped with both options.

Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-12 12:40:22

Wrong answer dolt.

“I and my Father are one” John 10:30

Christ just laid claim to the rest of the teachings of Yahwah, including His teachings on homosexuals. You can find it under “Abominations”.

Posted by Kingfisher
2009-11-12 12:51:46

Always appreciative when you help to prove my point.

Nice job, Kingfisher.
Posted by TheBaud
2009-11-12 12:55:12

I concur. Thank you for proving my point.

Always appreciative when you help to prove my point.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-12 12:53:37

Yes, you did prove my point. Thank you for your admission.

Always appreciative when you help to prove my point.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-12 12:53:37

If only a man and a woman are to be joined, as Jesus says, than there cannot be anything built on a joining of the same sex. You lose.

This argument has become a non-starter for me. I’m now of a position that Prez advocated at one time, which is to get the government out of the marriage business altogether.

Have the government allow civil contract packages to deal with things like asset sharing, privacy, and cohabitation. Then get married in your church under the eyes of God. Atheists, Christians, Jews, gays, and Muslims all get the same treatment by the state, and marriage remains a bond of Holy matrimony for the demoniations that still give a crap.

It also neatly heads off the slippery slope concerns since legal marriage is no longer being defined according to religious standards (you can’t enter into a civil contract with a minor or animal), and the state doesn’t get to muck around in marriage any more.

Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-12 13:13:20

Once again, your ignorance is staggering. Christ was talking about how marriage is designed to unify men and women into a single unit. They are no longer individuals, but two parts of a single unit. The original teaching is found in Genesis 2:24 and conveys this very idea.

Posted by President_Friedman
2009-11-12 13:23:12

To be honest, I’m not sure what I think about that idea Prez, let me ponder it and I’ll get back to you on it. On it’s surface, I like it but I want to look at a few things first.

Perhaps a better step would be to leave it to the states?

I still think that is by far the best solution, but I do wonder what the conservative Christian response to that idea is.
Posted by President_Friedman
2009-11-12 13:23:12

While it might be the best solution, it does nothing to slap the hands of militant gays and stupid liberals who deserve a good slap for trying to redefine marriage in the first place. It just says “well, we were all wrong” when that clearly isnt correct. If they arent told how it is once and for all, we can expect this whole fight again.

Once again, your ignorance is staggering. Christ was talking about how marriage is designed to unify men and women into a single unit. They are no longer individuals, but two parts of a single unit. The original teaching is found in Genesis 2:24 and conveys this very idea.
Posted by DCS
2009-11-12 13:27:28
Well, the ignorance of ever human being is staggering. But in this case, the point is moot. It is you who have changed the subject of this posting.

Oh, stained one – do tell us what is not being understood.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-12 13:36:01

Simply put: it is you have failed to undersatnd that Christ has never, nor will ever approve of same-sex marriage. That Christ was very specific about what marriage should be: between one man and one woman.

Let me get this straight. The supposed moral crisis of homosexuality is one of the biggest issues for Christians today. So much time and energy is spent obsessing over this, that you’d think it would be the one of the cornerstones of their faith. Yet when asked to provide a direct quote that informs this obsession from their leader, their God, the progenitor of their entire religious structure, Matthew 19:4-6 is the best they can come up with? A quote that doesn’t even refer to homosexuality at all?

How dare you people claim to fight same-sex marriage for Jesus? Say you do it for Yahweh or for Allah–those are the gods who cared about it. But for Jesus it was so unimportant an issue that He never refers to homosexuality–not once.

Jesus condemned the RICH. He condemned those who were comfortable while others suffered. He condemned those who refused to help the poor. And with especial vehemence He condemned those who twisted religious teachings for their own purposes. People like the modern anti-gay rights movement.

I don’t know where your fear and hatred of homosexuality comes from, but it didn’t come from Jesus. But you’re more than willing to put the blame for it on Him.

Don’t you think that if Jesus really cared about homosexuality, if he really wanted you to fight against it as the great evil of our time, putting it ahead of other concerns like caring for the poor, if he really wanted that, don’t you think he would have, oh, I don’t know, MENTIONED IT ONCE?

Posted by Pinky
2009-11-12 14:01:04

You dolt, Yehwah IS Christ. They’re one and the same. Even Christ Himself stated so, several times.

Posted by TheBaud
2009-11-12 14:11:27

I think Pinky’s fixated on this for personal reasons. Hate that for it.

Again, you’ve been challenged to find a quote from Jesus that validates this modern Christian obsession with homosexuality, and you come up empty.

And this quote that you people have been desperately putting forth does not prove your point anywhere near as strongly as you think it does. Jesus is talking about the bond that is created through marriage and he says “man” and “woman” as anyone would say because that’s what the vast majority of couples are. You’re acting like the whole point of the sermon was to declare the illegitimacy of same-sex couples because THAT’S WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE.

None of you have yet addressed the real point, which is that Jesus simply didn’t care about homosexuality. Of all the supposed sins of the Old Testament, this was one he never encouraged his followers to persecute. I know one of you will undoubtedly think, “But he never said that we SHOULDN’T persecute them!” because that’s how your logic seems to work, but that’s grasping at straws, trying to ignore the fact that one of your hardest fought religious convictions was simply not a priority for Jesus.

Can’t you see that? Can’t you see that you’re twisting and stretching the New Testament to try to fit a prejudice you already have?

In fact, if Jesus’ position on homosexuality is noteworthy at all, it’s in how he DOESN’T condemn it. When every other primitive religion was obsessing over whether men might be having sex with other men, Jesus brought a decidedly more progressive perspective. Who you had sex with, to Jesus, mattered a hell of a lot less than how you treated the most unfortunate around you.

I’m no historian, but I’d guess your prejudice against homosexuality comes more from the social mores of the time, which were codified into the Christian religion by men well after Jesus had left the earth.

I think what you should do is stop lying. Homosexuality is NOT “the great evil of our time” and Christians are not “putting it ahead of other concerns like caring for the poor”.

If you can get past that false rhetoric, you may get some answers.
Posted by TheBaud

I think you need to stop lying to yourself. Modern American Christians absolutely put homosexuality ahead of other concerns. Poverty is at record levels in America right now–where are the Christians on that issue? People are losing their jobs and their homes left and right, and whatever you think is the best policy response to that, you’d be dishonest to claim that Christians are pursuing a solution with the same vehemence that they are opposing same-sex marriage.

Republicans intentionally put same-sex marriage bans on state ballots because they know that’s what gets Christians to come out and vote when they can’t be bothered to for any other reason. The fight against gay rights is one of the most potent and energizing issues in Christian politics today, way out of proportion with the significance Jesus put on it.

You must know this, and the fact that you pretend not to perhaps reveals an admittance of its illegitimacy?

You must know this, and the fact that you pretend not to perhaps reveals an admittance of its illegitimacy?
Posted by Pinky 2009-11-12 14:39:50

Sorry, but AGAIN you are wrong. Abortion is far and away a more important issue to Christians that homosexuality is. Yes, we are against equating a homosexual union to a real marriage, but that is it! Calling it HATE is just your intolerance of a differning viewpoint.

And excuse me, but the Christian church is not about eliminating poverty or making sure people have jobs. That is what you Liberals want the government to do. Christians give to the church and give to the poor. My church has programs for poverty and the jobless, but we have no “Director of Solving the Homosexual Issue”. We probably have homosexuals in our church, mixed in with all the other sinners that attend. But they will have to go elsewhere if the want to get ‘married’.

And Democrats deliberately try to keep same-sex marriage initiatives off the ballot because it gets defeated everywhere it isa tried. The only way to get your agenda through is to have some spineless judge forse it on people.

Again, your demand tolerance from Christians and exhibit intolerance toward those that disagree with your position.

Posted by TheBaud

Arguing with you people is like arguing with a stubborn three year-old: I constantly have to be explaining and re-explaining how logic works.

Read this slowly, please. I never said Jesus approves or disapproves of homosexuality, I said he didn’t CARE about it, it was not, for him, an issue of great spiritual or moral importance–a contention, I believe, well supported by the fact (once again) that he NEVER MENTIONED IT. That is not “stretching” the Scripture to fit an agenda, it is a fair and pretty obvious conclusion–albeit one that doesn’t mesh with YOUR pre-set agenda.

Also, well done on the accusing someone of not being a Christian because they don’t adhere to your specific (and often arbitrary) idea of what a Christian ought to believe. True right-wing Christian style. As it happens, I am a Christian, I was raised a Christian, and probably know more about Scripture and the history of the church than you do.

What makes me different from your particular brand of Christian is that I am a follower of Jesus and his teachings. I’m sure you would say you are too, and you people certainly talk a lot about Jesus, but in reality, you are much more fond of the Old Testament, with its persecutions, its arbitrary rules, medieval mind-set and magic spells. Jesus laid out pretty clearly what was important, what God wanted us to focus on, what was noble and what was sinful, and it had a lot less to do with sex and a lot more to do with social justice.

But you people ignore all that, because it doesn’t fit with your political views.

How dare you people claim to fight same-sex marriage for Jesus? Say you do it for Yahweh or for Allah–those are the gods who cared about it. But for Jesus it was so unimportant an issue that He never refers to homosexuality–not once.

It’s pretty telling that you think Jesus and God are separate entities. Not too well versed in your theology, I guess.

But you people ignore all that, because it doesn’t fit with your political views.
Posted by Pinky 2009-11-12 14:58:51

If you are a Christian, then you would know the verse “by their fruit you shall know them”. And arguing with you is truly fruitless.

I would suggest that you examine your last post to me Pinky, as you are guilt of everything you accuse me of. Jesus didn’t care about homosexuality (your opinion, not Bible-based), so it is permissable? I can think of many things that Jesus never spoke of directly that are not permissable.

And to the not caring part. Jesus discussed marriage often. And it was ALWAYS in the context of man and woman. Never anything else. And there was a reason. There is no need to say “2+2 does not equal 5″ and “2+2 does not equal 6″ and “2+2 does not equal 7″ and “2+2 does not equal 1000″, etc! It is sufficient to say “2+2=4″ and leave it at that. Jesus said marriage is between a man and a woman. Very clear and very simple.

Pinky, when you have to deliberately lie to make your point, that makes your point worthless. And your posts have been one lie built upon another. Think about that.

“Dumb f’er?” Nice. Feeling very Christian around here. What a mature style of debate and cordiality you all have! And completely devoid of irony, throwing out cheap insults and angry words in defense of Christianity. I’ve been to atheist websites to argue with them, and I have to say, they are much more decently behaved people overall.

It makes me very sad that American Christianity is becoming more and more associated with childish anger and spite. How old are you people? Can’t you defend what you believe without sounding like children? You are poor representatives of this religion.

It’s pretty telling that you think Jesus and God are separate entities. Not too well versed in your theology, I guess.
Posted by CavalierX 2009-11-12 14:59:47

CavalierX, I think it is also telling that he describes the miracles of God in the Old Testement as “medieval mind-set and magic spells”.

Yeah, he’s a real Theologian!

Nice. Feeling very Christian around here.

Since when did “Christian” translate to “be really nice to people who pretend to be Christians to make a Liberal argument but obviously don’t know anything about the religion?”

“Perhaps a better step would be to leave it to the states?”

Marriage is and has always been a state issue. It’s only seen as a Federal issue due to grandstanding politicians who want to turn gay marriage into the next Roe v. Wade, or who want a Constitutional amendment.

Posted by Dick_Nixon
2009-11-12 15:13:16

I don’t think this is Irish, it’s not the right style. I think Pinky’s been here before, but under a different name. I don’t think it’s Tom either, it’s not ranting about jooooooooos yet.

Nor yours, oh stained one. However, it explains so much.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-12 14:19:29

What ignorance, never-show do I have of Scripture? So far, only you and Pinky have shown any real, provable ignorance.

TheBaud,

Okay, how about if I put it this way:

Who, according to the New Testament, did Jesus speak out against more: Homosexuals, or people who made money in the Temple?

Based on that, which do you think Jesus considered the bigger offense to God: homosexuality or making money from religion?

Now here’s where I have a problem. You people have made opposition to homosexuality a major requisite of being considered a “true Christian” (as you accused me of not being a Christian myself because of my acceptance of homosexuality). Yet, you have no problems with people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and other countless evangelists who have turned Christianity into a business, making millions for themselves off of the church Christ founded.

How do you excuse that? Perhaps Jesus’ most condemned act, the only offense that could drive him to violence–mixing money and faith–is running rampant in modern American Christianity, and the vast majority of American Christians have no problem with it at all. Homosexuals however, whom Jesus never even mentioned, are constantly reminded that they are going to hell.

Do you see what I’m saying? There is a major disparity between the Jesus’ priorities, and the priorities of modern American Christians. I don’t know, maybe Jesus didn’t approve of homosexuality. How can we know, he never brought it up? But it is irrefutable to an honest reader of the New Testament that were Jesus here today, he would consider Pat Robertson a more egregious sinner than Elton John.

And thank you all for further proving my point about opposition to homosexuality being a prerequisite for being considered a true Christian. That’s half a dozen people now who don’t consider me a Christian because of my views on homosexuality.

You people have made opposition to homosexuality a major requisite of being considered a “true Christian” (as you accused me of not being a Christian myself because of my acceptance of homosexuality). Yet, you have no problems with people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and other countless evangelists who have turned Christianity into a business, making millions for themselves off of the church Christ founded.

Do you see what I’m saying? There is a major disparity between the Jesus’ priorities, and the priorities of modern American Christians. I don’t know, maybe Jesus didn’t approve of homosexuality. How can we know, he never brought it up? But it is irrefutable to an honest reader of the New Testament that were Jesus here today, he would consider Pat Robertson a more egregious sinner than Elton John.
Posted by Pinky 2009-11-12 15:34:03

First, stop calling the people here “YOU PEOPLE”. If you are a Christian as you calim, then we are brothers.
Second, I have already told you that homosexuality is NOT the ‘major requisite of being considered a “true Christian”‘. Until you can get past that obvious lie, this will never progress.

And do stop with your pathetic mind reading. I have huge problems with the Falwells and Robertsons and any other TV preacher that puts dollars over the word of God!

Why do you keep saying AMERICAN Christians? Are you, by chance from another country come to lecture us on how to be a REAL Christian?

I beleive that your issue is that your position is so weak and so frought with error that the only way you can get yopur point across is to ignore the truth in front of you, keep repeated the same discredited lies, and then insult and deman your opponent.

And finally, you are not God and do not know the mind of Jesus, so stop pretending you can say who he would find to be the more egregious sinner. YOU DON’T KNOW!

And thank you all for further proving my point
Posted by Pinky
2009-11-12 15:38:42

Son, you havent yet made a point…..except that you like pulling chit out of your arse as much as you must like putting stuff in it.

Based on that, which do you think Jesus considered the bigger offense to God: homosexuality or making money from religion?

I’m no Christian myself, but I’m willing to bet that if Jesus went into the temple and found homosexual couples doing their thing all over the place, he’d have thrown them out, too. then the crowd would probably have stoned them all.

Now here’s where I have a problem. You people have made opposition to homosexuality a major requisite of being considered a “true Christian” (as you accused me of not being a Christian myself because of my acceptance of homosexuality).

No we didn’t, we have just been a vocal opposition to the move to remake society, and it’s primary structure to suit a small minority.

Yet, you have no problems with people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and other countless evangelists who have turned Christianity into a business, making millions for themselves off of the church Christ founded.

How do you excuse that? Perhaps Jesus’ most condemned act, the only offense that could drive him to violence–mixing money and faith–is running rampant in modern American Christianity, and the vast majority of American Christians have no problem with it at all.

How do you know this? Other than the fact that aren’t a mulitiude of posts on the subject what proof do you have?

Homosexuals however, whom Jesus never even mentioned, are constantly reminded that they are going to hell.

Do you see what I’m saying? There is a major disparity between the Jesus’ priorities, and the priorities of modern American Christians. I don’t know, maybe Jesus didn’t approve of homosexuality. How can we know, he never brought it up?

All of that evidence was hiw words in the OLD Testament, plain and simple. He was pretty clear on the subject.

But it is irrefutable to an honest reader of the New Testament that were Jesus here today, he would consider Pat Robertson a more egregious sinner than Elton John.
Posted by Pinky
2009-11-12 15:34:03

Wow you really failed all of the lessons of Christ on wealth didn’t you? Falwell may be well off, Pinky, but he is also a man of Christian charity, giving of his wealth to those in need. I’m fairly certain that his place in heaven is better secured than Elton John’s.

And really you’re just trying to justify a point of view which has no support in the text of the Bible or the known context of the teachings of Christ.

It’s pretty telling that you think Jesus and God are separate entities. Not too well versed in your theology, I guess.
Posted by CavalierX 2009-11-12 14:59:47

CavalierX, I think it is also telling that he describes the miracles of God in the Old Testement [sic] as “medieval mind-set and magic spells”.

First of all, the distinction between Jesus and the God of the Old Testament is a very old rhetorical device used by theologians for years. It’s pretty clear to anyone who’s actually READ scripture that the two representations of God have very different personalities and priorities, and anyone who wants to have a discussion about Scripture must be aware of that distinction.

Secondly, truth be told, I’m not a big fan of the Old Testament. Not only does it endorse the murder of homosexuals, but many other minor transgressions we consider acceptable today, like working on Sunday. It also happens to encourage genocide, rape and slavery. Unless you are a fan of genocide, rape and slavery, than you too are civilized enough to take the Old Testament with a pillar of salt (ha ha). I do think that God had a hand in inspiring the Old Testament, but that a lot of Bronze Age prejudices and beliefs of men happened to work their way in there.

What’s remarkable about the New Testament was in how much priorities changed how quickly. How from a society obsessed with archaic rules and ritual could come a downright progressive mindset: DON’T judge people. DON’T strike back at your enemy. Give help to those who are suffering whether or not they deserve it. That’s astounding, but for some reason very difficult for right-wing Christians to accept, who seem to prefer the fire and brimstone persecution of the Old Testament.

That’s astounding, but for some reason very difficult for right-wing Christians to accept, who seem to prefer the fire and brimstone persecution of the Old Testament.
Posted by Pinky 2009-11-12 15:55:16

This is pointless. You insist on repeating the same lies and the same ignorance of the scriptures and you expect anyone to believe you about ANYTHING?

Give it up, Pinky. Your idiocy today has done more to harm your point-of-view than any of us could have done by ourselves. Congratulations on proving what a simpleton you are.

Apples and oranges. Those were the issues at the time. And things are different now. Both are wrong, so why do insist on giving one a pass b/c it appears, to you, to be a lesser offense? And you really shouldnt try and presume what God thinks.
Posted by tblrk2006

Boy was THAT an evasion! “Things are different now?” Weak, man. Really weak. I don’t think I presumed to know what God thinks (I think that’s what you were trying to say), it’s right there in the Bible. Jesus hated making money in the temple so much he beat the daylights out of the people who did it.

Jesus hated making money in the temple so much he beat the daylights out of the people who did it.
Posted by Pinky
2009-11-12 16:01:19

And Jesus did not approve of homosexual marriages since he specifically referenced men marrying women only.

And Jesus did not approve of homosexual marriages since he specifically referenced men marrying women only.
Posted by Kingfisher 2009-11-12 16:04:06

Kingfisher, that point has been made to Pinky… REPEATEDLY. He has countered it by continuing to insist that he knows that God would hate Pat Robertson more than He hates Elton John.

Hey Pinky.
What names did you post previously under on this site? Go ahead and tell, troll. I dare you….

Did you know Jesus never condemned raping 5 month old babies? Clearly, he had no problem with it, nay, even supported it! He had no trouble with torturing people to death, giving heroin to school kids, and grinding women up to eat as sausage – never condemned any of them! He never even spoke of any of those topics! Why, he must support them all!

Thus the “logic” of the intellectual mongoloid.

See, this is what I don’t get about “Chinese menu Christians.” They claim to believe in a religion, but say “You know… I disagree with that God fellow about this, and that, and the other thing over there. He was wrong, and I’m right.” You can’t pick and choose which parts of the religious tenents you want to believe in. Either you believe the religion or you don’t. You obviously don’t.
Posted by CavalierX

Ooh, I was hoping someone would say exactly this, because it exposes the hypocrisy at the heart of people who claim to be “true Christians.”

Do you believe that slavery is morally acceptable? Do you believe that someone who works on Sunday ought to be put to death?

If you answered anything but yes to these questions, then you have committed “Chinese Menu Christianity.” You have used your own sense of right and wrong, your own reasoning and modern social sensibilities to decide that not everything in the Old Testament should be taken at face value. Even if you respond with something like tblrk2006′s “things are different now,” you’ve still used your own judgment to decide that “things are different now,” and how that should change the way we interpret Scripture.

So don’t you turn around and tell me that I’m less of a Christian because I don’t take everything in the Old Testament literally–neither do you.

Unless, of course, you actually DO think rape, genocide, and slavery are morally acceptable, in which case, well, um, hmm…

So don’t you turn around and tell me that I’m less of a Christian because I don’t take everything in the Old Testament literally–neither do you.

Posted by Pinky 2009-11-12 16:13:35

No one said that, Pinky. I already told you why we do not consider you a Christian.

Perhaps the voices in your head have gotten too loud. Must be nap time for you!

Jesus hated making money in the temple so much he beat the daylights out of the people who did it.
Posted by Pinky
2009-11-12 16:01:19

He hated BANKERS from using the temple as a MARKETPLACE!! You really need to get that little scene straight, Pinky. It wasn’t the priests that he was chasing out but those who were using the temple for things other than worship!!!

Luke 17:34-35 “I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”

Oh man. This is bad, this is really bad. You actually think this passage is about homosexuality? Please tell me you don’t. Please tell me the Christian movement isn’t in this much trouble. I just honestly don’t know what to say other than that I feel bad that you miss out on the actual meanings of passages because you’re so obsessed with finding homosexuality wherever you can.

And as for:

Did you know Jesus never condemned raping 5 month old babies? Clearly, he had no problem with it, nay, even supported it! He had no trouble with torturing people to death, giving heroin to school kids, and grinding women up to eat as sausage – never condemned any of them! He never even spoke of any of those topics! Why, he must support them all!

Thus the “logic” of the intellectual mongoloid.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor

Actually, I’m pretty sure a variety of passages refer to Jesus’ general opposition to violence and mistreatment of others. No, he didn’t run through a list condemning the different ways one can kill people, but I wouldn’t think that would be necessary. He also spoke against “scandalizing children,” which would probably cover any kind of molestation or drug-pushing. But for the bazillionth time, what he did NOT speak out against was homosexuality. Never. Not once. Anything else?

No, he didn’t run through a list condemning the different ways one can kill people, but I wouldn’t think that would be necessary.
Posted by Pinky 2009-11-12 16:29:16

It is not necessary to list all the ways to kill people, so it’s all included? Yet, Jesus said every time that marriage was between a man and a woman. But you keep insisting that since he did not SPECIFICALLY mention homosexuality, he was fine with it?

Your double standard and hypocrisy is obvious.

You really think it was a zoning issue rather than the obvious conclusion that Jesus didn’t like it when people tried to make money off religion?
Posted by Pinky 2009-11-12 16:36:57

AGAIN, you display your ignorance of the Scriptures and this passage.

The people Jesus drove out of the Temple were the Moneychangers. The priests mandated that only Temple Money be used for sacrifices and offerings. These people would exchange the people’s currency for Temple Money, but were cheating them with the exchange rates (and possibly kicking back some to the priests). Jesus did not run them out because they were making money, He did it because he they had turned “…My Father’s House into a den of thieves.” He dealt with the priests on the subject later.

How many times to you have to be shown as an liar and a fool before you finally shut up?

I wrote about President Obama’s faith once, noting that since he rejects large swaths of basic Christianity and injects his own ideals alien to the religion he is not, in fact, a Christian. I have a commenter (Mr Anonymous) who was so enraged by this he left, after arguing vehemently that Christianity as defined however someone wanted, that there was no base level minimum faith that you had to believe.

Pres. Friedman tried to use satire to point out this guy’s error but he missed it entirely. Friedman isn’t a Christian. Neither is CavalierX. Yet they understand the faith better than several leftist cranks here who claim to be Christians.

And I blame us, the Christian church. Its our fault for not remaining true to the faith, for injecting the outside culture into our faith and trying to adapt to the world around us to make them happy. A guy named Madchen warned about all this about 75 years ago but nobody wanted to listen to him, either.

Either the Bible and God is right, or they aren’t. You don’t get to choose, you either obey and worship or you don’t. The very parts of Christianity that make you the most uncomfortable are the ones you should be studying and praying about, not rejecting so you can substitute your own political viewpoint.

There’s a sad part of people who claim to be Christian which take the Bible as a sort of salad bar. Take what you like, reject the rest. It’s not really the word of God, its just a really bitchin’ book you can sample what you like from. Those passages clearly condemning homosexuality? Well those don’t count. The ones that support what I already think? Those we should all follow.

That’s not religion, its a fancied up self-worship that involves chipper “praise songs” and going to a club once a week on Sunday.

Oh man. This is bad, this is really bad. You actually think this passage is about homosexuality? Please tell me you don’t. Please tell me the Christian movement isn’t in this much trouble. I just honestly don’t know what to say other than that I feel bad that you miss out on the actual meanings of passages because you’re so obsessed with finding homosexuality wherever you can.

Posted by Pinky
2009-11-12 16:29:16

Please what DOES it mean if not that, oh wise and learned one? Please teach us. (Or more appropiately prove that you are far more ignorant than you already appear.)

Hey Pinky. I’m talking to you, punk.

What name(s) did you previously post under on this site?

Considering that people do not choose to be homosexual, what the fuck is your problem with it?

Get over yourself.

History will be remember you as being no different than those that opposed the right for women to vote, civil rights, etc.

I don’t understand how you all can say that Jesus’ silence on the subject of homosexuality doesn’t support his approval of it, but somehow DOES indicate his condemnation. Shouldn’t the same reasoning apply to both positions?

And for the hundredth time, I’m not saying that Jesus was a supporter of homosexuality, whatever that means, I’m saying it wasn’t important to him enough to even make one single, solitary statement on. This was God on earth, able to speak directly to his children, to clarify and explain to us what was really important, spiritually and morally, to make sure we understood what he wanted from us and how we ought to live our lives. If homosexuality was as important to him as it is to you people, I THINK HE WOULD HAVE MENTIONED IT.

What he did say, however, and explicitly, was not to judge people, not to condemn others in God’s name, and to do to others what you would have done to yourself. All of which leads me to believe that most Christians are dead wrong in their opposition to gay rights.

As for Luke 17:34-35, I’ve heard a lot of intelligent people give very different interpretations of this passage (a sermon against homosexuality NOT being among them). It seems to be about the final judgment and perhaps the suddenness and unpredictability of death. I definitely get from it a feeling of us not being able to know why one person is saved and another not. There is no distinction made between the two men or the two women. Only God can know why one it taken and another not. If anything, it speaks to the inanity of us thinking we know who will be condemned.

Quote away? How about “Do to others as you would have them do to you.”? (Luke 6:31) I think that pretty much covers being raped, murdered and ground into sausage. I’d like to hear you try to apply that to opposing homosexuality.

It works rather well. I don’t want them to “do unto me” anything unnatural, so I certainly won’t do it unto them.

Considering that people do not choose to be homosexual, what the fuck is your problem with it?

So we go back to my question. If your homosexual tendancies arise from something in yourself, then what is so horribly wrong with your DNA that Nature itself does not want you to reproduce?

And Christopher_Taylor, same question to you:

Do you think that slavery and rape are morally acceptable? I know it puts you on the spot, but you accuse me of not being a Christian for deciding which teachings to ignore, and I want to know whether you do the same thing.

(And for that highly aggressive gentleman lurking around the edges of this conversation like a Trench Coat Mafia member, I have only ever posted under the name “Pinky” at this site. Take a deep breath and count to ten.)

This post is rated R and grotesque, just so people understand in advance.

Incidentally there are women who want to be raped, sick and twisted as that may be (they are rare and probably insane, but they do exist, as any qualified psychologist will attest to). There are children who do like the sexual attention of older people. There are animals who do the same. There are children who desire sexual attention of their parents, as sick and awful as that is. And I never said anything about murdering a woman and making her into sausage. That was about cannibalism, not murder.

Do unto others? They want this. Now what happens to your standard? The golden rule does not trump the rest of Jesus’ teachings.

We don’t do these things because they are morally ghastly, horrible, monstrous, and wrong. Because they are ethically wrong not because they weren’t specifically condemned by Jesus.

My last two comments were not posted. Perhaps this one won’t be either. Hmm.

Ah, there we go. Posting again.

Christopher_Taylor,
You seem to like to steer the conversation towards violence and depravity. Not sure I want to go with you anymore.

(And for that highly aggressive gentleman lurking around the edges of this conversation like a Trench Coat Mafia member, I have only ever posted under the name “Pinky” at this site. Take a deep breath and count to ten.)

And for the hundredth time, I’m not saying that Jesus was a supporter of homosexuality, whatever that means, I’m saying it wasn’t important to him enough to even make one single, solitary statement on. This was God on earth, able to speak directly to his children, to clarify and explain to us what was really important, spiritually and morally, to make sure we understood what he wanted from us and how we ought to live our lives. If homosexuality was as important to him as it is to you people, I THINK HE WOULD HAVE MENTIONED IT.

You think that, but who are you, and why would your opinion matter any more than my own opinion? To me, you’re just someone on the internet who has minimal credibility.

But most importantly, this is the perfect illustrative example of what I said in my post above – in your own words, you have acknowledged that you’re projecting your own beliefs onto Jesus Christ. I THINK HE WOULD HAVE MENTIONED IT.

Homosexuality IS a lifestyle choice, HS. It’s has no basis as a normal physiological aspect of any known species.

Posted by bthewolf
2009-11-12 17:12:51

Homosexuality is present in numerous species, you fucking idiot.

People that oppose equality deserve only one fate.

History will be remember you as being no different than those that opposed the right for women to vote, civil rights, etc.
Posted by Huron_Serenity
2009-11-12 17:00:08

I actually believe this might occur. You libs do your best to change history to satisfy your sadistic beliefs and you’ll lie about this issue as well.

Ultimately the argument in favor of society accepting homosexual behavior is simply “what does it hurt?” Because all the other arguments are either idiotic or red herrings (like the “its natural” argument which Kingfisher tore apart, above).

And given that human culture for its recorded history has uniformly mocked and rejected open homosexual behavior (even in the cultures like Greece which supposedly embraced it) and ever major religion on earth has considered it wrong and improper, we need a better reason to change everything to make a tiny minority feel better about themselves.

If its wrong, it doesn’t matter who feels oppressed or upset. Thieves feel oppressed and upset when they’re caught and thrown in jail, but stealing is wrong so who cares?

Notice that the left demands that we accept their standards.

Here is a question the libs will never answer: why do homosexuals need to marry? Why do they need the Church’s blessing on gay marriage?

Gays can live together, share property, will their belongings to their “partner,” etc.

Gays want to force society to accept their views. If you’re gay and want to “marry” your partner, you don’t need the Church’s or state’s blessing. Commit yourselves to each other and live in peace. Don’t force society to accomodate your views.

and ever major religion on earth has considered it wrong and improper,

Since radical Islam rejects homosexuality as well the libs here must be practicing Islamophobia.

Interesting how the libs only criticize Christianity.

What? Not one quote from Pinky, the “Biblical expert?”

There’s only one response for that:

THE NINTH COMMANDMENT: ” You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”

Jesus would have loved gay husband and husband like he loved all of his brothers.

And homosexuality is no more ungodly than a lot of other things that conservatives couldn’t care less about like gluttony, greed, decadence, gambling and porn.

Even if you think its wrong, its irrelevant because its not illegal nor will it ever be legal. So their be allowed to marry just like gambling addicts or people who love blowjobs get to.

Oh, dear, the thread about Christianity has been reduced to the blathering of the homophobes. Alas (yup – that’s a pun).

Then stop blathering, homophobe.
Posted by Kingfisher
2009-11-12 20:29:55

Ah, poor kinkfisher. Wanting a cock up his ass yet so afraid to ask.

And homosexuality is no more ungodly than a lot of other things that conservatives liberals couldn’t care less about like gluttony,

See “Moore, Michael.” ‘Nuff said.

greed,

Are you talking about the 241 millionaires in Congress, which include the Democrats?
Go here: http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2008. That includes a lot of Democrats.

decadence,

Like what comes from LIBERAL Hollywood or the LIBERAL music media?

gambling

California has a lottery system. Is that not gambling?

and porn.

The vast majority of porn leaders are huge Democrat supporters.

Poor Vega, lost again.

Poor kinkfisher – desperate again.

Being gay is neither wrong nor a choice. One can not choose a sexual desire.

Posted by Dick_Nixon
2009-11-12 21:55:43

Poor dixon, he thinks sexual desire can be controlled. How’s that worked for you,l’il dickie?

Oh, dear, the thread about Christianity has been reduced to the blathering of the homophobes. Alas (yup – that’s a pun).
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-12 20:26:43

Oh look never-show the classless and clueless thinks that because we find the abberation of homosexuality a very poor reason to change the basic family unit of all society we are AFRAID. Too bad his ignorance is a blatant and as Huron_Stupidity’s.

Poor dixon, he thinks sexual desire can be controlled. How’s that worked for you,l’il dickie?
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-12 22:08:57

He’s right, you’re wrong never-show, unless you can provide PROOF. So far neither you nor Huron_Stupidity has even tried.

Oh look never-show the classless and clueless thinks that because we find the abberation of homosexuality a very poor reason to change the basic family unit of all society we are AFRAID. Too bad his ignorance is a blatant and as Huron_Stupidity’s.
Posted by bthewolf
2009-11-12 22:45:08

Oh, stained one, we know how AFRAID you are – what with never showing up and all. Tasty pizza.

unless you can provide PROOF. So far neither you nor Huron_Stupidity has even tried.
Posted by bthewolf
2009-11-12 22:51:30
Ask a gay person, or (as I suspect) ask yourself.

Oh, stained one, we know how AFRAID you are – what with never showing up and all. Tasty pizza.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-12 22:53:19

I was there and provided proof, never-show, you are the liar and coward, who made up an elaborate and completley bogus tale about flying all the way here, lecturing at a local college(on the spur of the moment no less) supposedly finding your way to the restaurant I work at, on a night I was working. and had only hear-say as proof.

Yeah I’m the one who’s afraid!! Putz.

No, stained one, homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. It is born and bred into an individual (one of God’s gifts, you might say) and happens in many species. The proof is in the people who are this way.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-12 22:55:28

Ask a gay person, or (as I suspect) ask yourself.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-12 22:56:27

I have my step daughter, and yes it is a choice, there is NO proof that it’s any species carries a genetic that is so antithetical to it’s ability to to procreate. But please keep on telling yourself that you didn’t choose to love those little boys, that it was natures fault.

Posted by bthewolf
2009-11-12 23:02:28
Do you mean your step daughter is gay and you despise her?

Of course homosexuality is natural in many species.It has been verified for centuries, just as it is in humans.

And what’s this about “little boys”? More of your desires coming through?

That’s quite a tale about the restaurant. StanW made one up about a restaurant, when noshow never showed. You guys work in tandem? You guys work *real close* in tandem?
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-12 23:04:50

The only one telling tales here is you, never-show.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25998604@N03/sets/72157622463774963/

That’s the restaurant I work at, just spent another 2 hrs there tonight, it’s great part-time work. A nice compliment to my full time job.

Do you mean your step daughter is gay and you despise her?

Of course homosexuality is natural in many species.It has been verified for centuries, just as it is in humans.

And what’s this about “little boys”? More of your desires coming through?
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-12 23:09:36

No retard, I mean my step-daughter has CHOSEN to be bisexual, and although I do not agree with her choice and still love her as my own child, I don’t condone the sin of her sexual actions.

And homosexuality is not natural in any species, and you have not made one effort to prove that is. Your hearsay is not, now, and will never be acceptabble as proof.

I’ll repeat what I said above here in brief about the “its natural” argument and why its such a red herring. A particularly idiotic red herring:

So your criteria is that people are naturally born with a given inclination so its wrong to oppose that then? That’s your basis for objecting?

Because people are born with all sorts of inclinations and proclvities you (I presume) would call horrific and wrong. Alcoholism, theivery, murder, rape, pedophilia, lusting after animals, violence toward women, general sociopathy, and more are all in born tendencies with the people who suffer from them. If you believe those idiot crank psychologists at leftist universities, being conservative is an inborn natural tendency.
By your standards people are horrible for opposing what
these people do.

See, animals engage in all sorts of reprehensible behavior so you can’t appeal to animal behavior either. Eating their young, for one shocking example. Why, its natural! How can you condemn it!

The only argument left, once you strip away all the red herrings and pathetic sophistry is “well what could it hurt?” Which simply isn’t sufficient to change the world’s culture and institutions for a tiny minority of people.

Face it: the reason you feel guilty and like an outcast as a homosexual isn’t because people are mean to you but because you know deep down you’re doing something weird. Something condemned by all major religious faiths. Something abnormal. Deal with it, but don’t demand everyone change to make you feel better about yourself. Grow up, and learn to control yourself better.

Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2009-11-12 23:23:10

Seems to me you should be facing your own *weird* desires, because the evidence is strong that you’re avoiding something you find repulsive.

The pathetic sophistry is yours – as are the red herrings. And your assumptions are downright ludicrous.

And it’s time you accept that you, as a homo sapiens sapiens, are as much an animal as any other species.

Realpolitik,

Hmm, you seem to be trying to insult other posters here by implying that they are secretly homosexuals. Does this mean that you think that you, personally, have some problem with homosexuals/homosexuality? It kind of seems like you do.

Hmm, you seem to be trying to insult other posters here by implying that they are secretly homosexuals.

Liberals are often guilty of projection.

Realpolitik is a sockpuppet of a banned regular poster here. From the right.

Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-12 23:21:11

Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-12 23:30:26

Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-12 23:47:54

Still more lies and pathetic attepmts to show knowledge without any veracity, courage without ever showing up, and intellect without the brains. It would be humorous if it weren’t so pathetic.

I mean (was I at work? I even posted a copy of my time-card from that very shift.) You couldn’t even provide copy of ticket stub or boarding pass.

Never-show is a liar and coward, and completely lacking in knowledge, intellect and the ability to provide ANY support for his pathetic arguments.

an organization committed to the treatment of homosexuality,
Posted by bthewolf
2009-11-13 09:05:40

LOL

LOL
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-13 09:42:13

Since homosexuality is lifestyle choice and aberrant on at that, what’s so funny about helping to treat those who want to change. There are people who have given up homosexuality, there are 2 at my church, both are now living normal heterosexual lives, married happily. The proof is there you just refuse to accept it.

Posted by bthewolf
2009-11-13 10:03:02
Not one, solitary statement in your post is true.

Posted by TheBaud
2009-11-13 10:11:38

I don’t know which side of the confusion bed you got out of this morning, but take note. Homosexuality is not *treatable*. It is not a *choice*. No one can change their natural desires. This *research* organization is bogus.

No one can change? Are you serious?

Kleptomaniacs can’t change? Pedophiles can’t change? Psychopaths can’t change?
Posted by TheBaud
2009-11-13 10:21:30

Yes, I’m serious. They can not change their nature. You confuse the ability to *change* with the ability to *control*.

I – and you – may be more than other animals, but animals we remain. It is how we were created by God.

It is you who is confused here.

You want us to believe that we are born and have no control over our actions, that we are slaves to nature? Therefore, we are responsible for NOTHING.
JUDGE: “You are charged with kidnapping and raping children, how do you plead?”
PERVERT: “God made me this way, Judge. I can’t change my nature! So I am innocent.”

It is very convenient for you to dismiss showing that people CAN and HAVE changed. And the proof on your side, a simple “Because I said So!” You and D-Vega have a lot in common.
Posted by TheBaud
2009-11-13 10:35:48

Again, you confuse *innate nature* with *actions*. It is when we can not control our negative actions that God and the law mete out punishment.

Again, you confuse *innate nature* with *actions*. It is when we can not control our negative actions that God and the law mete out punishment.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-13 10:42:32

Well accept that HOMOSEXUALITY is NOT natural, moron. NO ONE has ever PROVEN that it is.

Well accept that HOMOSEXUALITY is NOT natural, moron. NO ONE has ever PROVEN that it is.
Posted by bthewolf
2009-11-13 10:45:36
Every homosexual proves that homosexuality is normal. Quite frankly, who are you to say it is not, and why do you insist upon doing so?

Posted by TheBaud
2009-11-13 10:59:34
And you prove to be a clueless fool, reduced to crazy comparisons. Come back after you’ve wiped the spittle from your mouth.

Every homosexual proves that homosexuality is normal. Quite frankly, who are you to say it is not, and why do you insist upon doing so?
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-13 10:48:03

No it does not, it only proves that some people mad a choice no matter how concious, to behave that way. Now you are quite literally arguing a logical circle which fails at fisrt galnce. And SCIENCE, BIOLOGY, and NATURE all say it’s NOT normal, refusal to accept facts does not discount them as facts.

Why are you too stupid to realize this?

And you prove to be a clueless fool, reduced to crazy comparisons. Come back after you’ve wiped the spittle from your mouth.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-13 11:02:54

It’s no more a crazy comparison than trying to call abberant behavior as NORMAL. It’s actually a very legimate comparison, when species survival is VERY dependent on procreation, and homosexual behavior is NOT conducive to procreation, it makes the behavior NOT normal. This simple logic, and basic science, retard.

You confuse deviant with depraved.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-13 11:19:33

No they are all deviant, deviant being defined as a DEVIATION from the NORM. Dear god, have you ever been to school, this basic logic, rational thought, and clear use of the English language.

de·vi·ant (dv-nt) KEY

ADJECTIVE:

Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.

de·praved (d-prvd) KEY

ADJECTIVE:

Morally corrupt; perverted.

Posted by DCS
2009-11-13 08:54:26

Nope. A conservative who hates John for some reason.

Actually you put forward simplistic logic which is in error.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-13 11:24:01

Fail, never-show, EPIC FAIL.

Posted by bthewolf
2009-11-13 11:27:16

You’re just repeating yourself and wasting my time. If you want to discover the truth about homosexuality, go talk to a homosexual.

Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-13 11:28:34

You tried to say that homosexuality WSAN’T deviant MORON!!

you want to treat one deviant behaviour different from others.

Posted by TheBaud
2009-11-13 11:11:23

You confuse deviant with depraved.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-13 11:19:33

None of Bauds examples, INCLUDING HOMOSEXUALITY is NORMAL.

You’re just repeating yourself and wasting my time.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-13 11:31:00

POT MEET KETTLE!!!!!!!! Retard.

POT MEET KETTLE!!!!!!!! Retard.
Posted by bthewolf
2009-11-13 11:34:32
Dear Lord. You prove to be too stupid even to wash dishes.

Dear Lord. You prove to be too stupid even to wash dishes.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-13 11:37:31

All you do is repeat the lie that Homosexuality is NORMAl. And you PROVIDE NO PROOF. And you can’t see how that’s hypocritical? You’re not only stupid, you’re fucking insane.

Posted by Dick_Nixon
2009-11-13 12:07:12

Yes, dixon – to say that homosexuality is a voluntary state is a lie. There is no choice made to be a homosexual. Just as heterosexuals do not make the choice to be what they are.

Just as heterosexuals do not make the choice to be what they are.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-13 12:21:04

Heterosexuals exist in their natural state. Homosexuals exist in a artificial state that they choose to be in.

Hate it for you. Don’t worry, maybe you and your partner can have a civil union and pretend it is a marriage.

Unfortunately for you, it isn’t a lie. Most people fully realize that homosexuality is un natural, and a voluntary state of existence. A choice is made to indulge in deviant behavior, nothing more. A choice.

Posted by Dick_Nixon
2009-11-13 12:07:12

You’re truly an idiot. The majority of people acknowledge being homosexual is not a choice. It is determined before they are even born.

This site is the perfect example of the failure of the American education system. It sickens me to know that society is contaminated with filth such as yourselves.

The majority of people acknowledge being homosexual is not a choice.

A bunch of people used to believe in Man Made Global Warming. Are these the same dumbasses?

You’re truly an idiot. The majority of people acknowledge being homosexual is not a choice. It is determined before they are even born.

The idiot is the reatrd post completley unsubtatiated OPINION as fact, most people DON’T KNOW if it’s a choice or inborn. But so far there is NO PROOF that homosexuality is genetic, none.

This site is the perfect example of the failure of the American education system. It sickens me to know that society is contaminated with filth such as yourselves.
Posted by Huron_Serenity
2009-11-13 17:38:00

You’re the dumbass who thinks homosexaulity is genetic, that means you’re the one whose education is lacking. And the filth in society are people like you denigrating their betters for not caving into those who choose to live a deviant lifestyle.
And I’m not sickened by your kind, I’m saddened that stupidity such as your is acceptable to much of society.

Pinky,

(In fact, if Jesus’ position on homosexuality is noteworthy at all, it’s in how he DOESN’T condemn it – Posted by Pinky)

Just because Jesus is silent on homosexuality does not mean that He condones it. There are plenty of other scriptures in the New Testament that do call homosexuality, as well as heterosexual infidelity, a sin also. Going by your logic that Jesus doesn’t specifically condemn homosexuality, then pedophilia is not sin either. It opens a wide door that allows us, mankind, to define what is and what is not sin.

It’s the temptation that Adam and Eve faced. Here Adam & Eve, take and eat this fruit and YOU will be like God. YOU will get to decide what good is and what evil is, what right and wrong is. YOU will be your own God.

Pinky, you are eating that forbidden fruit and living by your definitions of what sin is and what it is not. You are being your own God.