Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does being called a bigot count for a demeaning term? It usually goes in one ear and out the other (so to speak)... but I will just start reporting it when it occurs. It seems to happen regularly.
You being called a bigot is no more offensive than you calling a homosexual an abomination. Unless you wish to state emphatically for all here that no homosexual is EVER an abomination and should be treated in ALL circumstances as fundamentalist "christians" desire to be treated.
You wont say that because your heart isn't in it. It remains a heart of darkness.
But make that statement and live by it with your future posts and I'll never call you a bigot again.
How's that for being fair-minded.
And for your further edification of how gay bashing is an import of whitey to Africa, here is this:
Quote:
The Portuguese were among the first Europeans to explore the continent. They noted the range of gender relations in African societies and referred to the "unnatural damnation" of male-to-male sex in Congo. Andrew Battell, an English traveller in the 1590s, wrote this of the Imbangala of Angola: "They are beastly in their living, for they have men in women's apparel, whom they keep among their wives."
Transvestism occurred in many different places, including Madagascar and Ethiopia. Among the Pangwe people of present-day Cameroon and Gabon, homosexual intercourse was practised between males of all ages. It was believed to be a way to transmit wealth. The Nzima of Ghana had a tradition of adult men marrying each other, usually with an age difference of about 10 years. Similar to the pederasty of ancient Greece, Sudan's Zande tribe had a tradition of warriors marrying boys and paying a bride price, as they would for girl brides, to their parents. When the boy grew up, he too became a warrior and took a boy-wife.
In this same tribe lesbianism was practised in polygamous households. In the 18th century the Khoikhoi of South Africa used the word koetsire to describe men considered sexually receptive to other men, and soregus was the word they used for a friendship which involved same-sex masturbation.
Homosexuality is also recorded among the Siwa of Egypt. It was considered a boy's rite of passage in Benin, and woman-woman marriages involving a bride price existed in more than 30 African societies from Nigeria to Kenya to South Africa.
How far back can homosexuality be traced in Africa? You cannot argue with rock paintings. Thousands of years ago, the San people of Zimbabwe depicted anal sex between men. The truth is that, like everywhere else, African people have expressed a wide range of sexualities. Far from bringing homosexuality with them, Christian and Islamic forces fought to eradicate it. By challenging the continent's indigenous social and religious systems, they helped demonise and persecute homosexuality in Africa, paving the way for the taboos that prevail today.
From the evangelistic point of view one must do the following to deserve to burn in hell forever:
And from the evangelical point of view, one must do the following to deserve to go to Heaven:
But in answer to your question...why do you think Jesus said it would be better to tie a millstone around the neck and toss some into the sea? It's obvious that SOME sins are seen as worse than others. Some also have more earthly consequences. Most here would agree, and they tell us that homosexuality is "victimless", or that it "hurts no one", so it must be ok. You don't believe that?
You don't believe some sins are more damaging than others?
Really?
He neve said that no sins were more damaging then others. He asked a question to a poster on which sins that poster thought were the more damaging sins.
He neve said that no sins were more damaging then others. He asked a question to a poster on which sins that poster thought were the more damaging sins.
He wouldn't have asked the question if he didn't believe that some sins are more damaging than others.
He wouldn't have asked the question if he didn't believe that some sins are more damaging than others.
I think the impetus was that Romulus thought that some consider some worse than others. He seemed to suggest the idea was silly. I think we all agree that we view some sins as worse than others. We all agree that some sins do more damage to humanity than others.
Notice, I'm not saying that we can be "good enough" to get to heaven if we only commit minor ones.
And in that old thread a number of "christian" commentaries were quoted:
It was never God's intention to accept divorce in any instance. As all the old commentaries on these verses point out.
Quote:
He here shows that the reason why Moses' law allowed divorce, was such that they ought not to use the permission; it was only for the hardness of their hearts. God himself joined man and wife together; he has fitted them to be comforts and helps for each other. The bond which God has tied, is not to be lightly untied. Let those who are for putting away their wives consider what would become of themselves, if God should deal with them in like manner.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
Quote:
From the beginning God joined them in one indissoluble bend; but man's nature having become corrupt through sin, that sin changed and corrupted the institution, and so was the occasion of bills of divorcement, and polygamy. The Law of Moses put some restraint upon the freedom with which men had till then put away their wives; for thenceforth, a divorce could not take place until some legal steps had been taken, and a regular instrument had been drawn up; and this delay might often be the means of preventing a divorce which might otherwise have been effected in a moment of passion. Thus this legislation was adapted to the imperfect moral condition of the people, who were as yet quite unprepared for a higher moral code.
Pulpit Commentary
And in your church people remain unprepared after 2000 years for a higher code, eh?
Quote:
for the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept; it was, not because it was right in its own nature, or according to the original will of God; but, because the Jews were such cruel, and hard hearted men, that if this had not been permitted, some of them, that had wives not so agreeable to them, would have used them in a very inhuman manner, if not murdered them; and therefore to prevent further, and greater mischief, Moses indulged them with such a precept;
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And what did God Himself say about divorce:
God hates divorce and compares it to bloody violence:
Quote:
"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.
Malachi 2:16
Nowhere in Scripture does it say "God hates homosexuals," but the clear language of Malachi states He HATES divorce. Yet divorcees who have remarried for other than adultery ARE adulterers. If you are going to be a literalist be a literalist with the whole Bible and confess your church is full of people who have done what God HATES.
Divorce shows a weakness of character and lack of loyalty toward God. This should engage us to be faithful both to God and to all with whom we have to do, that God himself is a witness both to all our covenants and to all our covenant-breaches; and he is a witness against whom there is no exception. Now I have no problem with divorce and neither do you worshiping among all those divorcees and adulterers. But there are reasons not to hold to God's "word" in this, just as there are reasons not to hold to homosexuals being any less human, any less deserving of being welcomed in churches, any less deserving of having a wedding cake baked for them, or teaching Sunday School class, or having Friday night dinner with all the fatties and adulterers in your church.
That two guys get together and do whatever two guys do to find sexual enjoyment is not near as bad as a church that keeps these men from the love of Jesus by their rejection of them. That is a much more damaging sin to many, many more people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
