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.
It does neither, since AGAIN there is no word for homosexuality in Hebrew - and most of the passages you guys use to justify your hate are misunderstood, mistranslated, and/or completely distorted. Now please stop butchering the text my people came up with first, mkay?
There's your answer, LOL.
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
let's just take this one example. The topic was supposed to be an anti-bully speech and/or seminar. But, the speaker Savage went straight (no pun intended) into homosexuality and the bible. Yes, I realize that he is gay, and that gays are often the victims of bullies. However, he abused his platform by going off-topic and demonizing all Christians. He intentionally divided the characters as Christian bullies vs gay victims. His speech was divisive which is counter-productive to the "anti-bully" theme.
How do you know he 'went straight into homosexuality and the Bible"?
Was that video the whole speech, or just the part about the hypocrisy of using the Bible to condemn gay people when the Bible clearly condones slavery etc?
His speech was right on the mark in my opinion. He could have avoiding using the word 'BS' however. And he should have been clearer that he was not referring to ALL Christians, just the bigoted ignorant ones who cherry-pick and abuse the Bible for their own prejudices.
Neither really. When taken in the contexts in which the texts were written.
It DOES however condone slavery and whole lot of other things which we find abhorrent in the 21st century.
It also condemns a whole lot of things that we in the 21st century find rather ridiculous and ignore - like eating shellfish, shaving sideburns and wearing mixed fibres.
Those particular Christians (certainly not all, or even the majority) who selectively misuse the Bible to condemn 21st century gays and lesbians, are usually rather ignorant of the historical cultures in which the Biblical verses were written and often have not even read the whole Bible. They are certainly hypocrites and bigots.
Savage is pointing out the hypocrisy and bigotry of these types of Christians.
You might have a point if these same Christians you are so quick to condemn for their disapproval of homosexuality didn't also disapprove of idolatry, drunkenness, adultery, fornication, slothfulness, lying, stealing, slander, gluttony, etc.
Funny how the bigots throw out that quote and stop short of offering what comes next:
Romans 2:1: ""Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.""
Actually, this comes next...
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
You're not being too careful since, according to you, someone who disagrees with the homosexual agenda is "hateful" and someone who disagrees with Christianity is "challenging Christian beliefs".
No, not quite. If the "antis" were simply questioning the validity of homosexuality and gay marriage, without resorting to calling them hateful names (in addition to the usual slurs, things like "perverts" "deviants" "unnatural freaks" etc), I would not call them hateful. But if you take a look at ANY discussion related to gay people, there will always be those who can't refrain from being vicious. Don't you see the difference there?
I also never hear any valid reasons to oppose these issues, as the only arguments are either Bible-based or "it's icky and I don't like it." If I ever question something related to Christianity, I'll usually do so by challenging the translations or interpretations of specific passages... I've never suggested they don't deserve equal rights, and my debating points never include being personally offended by them.
Quote:
You apparently support laws which would redefine marriage for Christians as well as everyone else. Don't they have the right to have the legal definition of the relationship they have built their lives around left unaltered?
How would such a right even be defined - as the right to not have your feelings hurt? I'm one of those "everyone else" of which you speak, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest to include gay unions as a part of marriage. As it has already been pointed out numerous times, marriage has been redefined more than once throughout history... and as a straight person who may one day marry, it really doesn't affect the validity of my marriage by allowing them to share. It's called being inclusive, and in no way would it cancel out your own relationship. This whole mindset seems like you guys are really insecure, or just being plain stubborn.
As a member of the straight population, don't I have the right to say it's okay? You don't speak for all of us, and I'm certainly not alone in my feelings here.
Using a poor translation (KJV) and cherry-picking out of the historical context and the context of the whole letter as usual...
This is about 1st century Roman citizens who had been converted to Paul's cult, then reverted back to worshipping their previous pagan fertility gods and goddesses.
Worshipping practices of fertility gods at that time included using ritual sex orgies and sacred prostitution in the pagan temples.
Also, Paul's own words indicate that these people would have had to have been heterosexual by nature, not homosexual.
The facts are on my side so I don't have to try to control the free speech of others.
That's what liberals do because they, unlike conservatives, are typically wrong on the facts.
So are you going to present any 'facts' any time soon?
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.
