We read:
"Members of the Westboro Baptist Church showed up outside game three of the NBA finals between the Dallas Mavericks and the Miami Heat Sunday to protest the league’s stance on anti-gay slurs used by players.
'Now David Stern, the tyrant commissioner of the NBA is jamming a message down the throat of America that not only is it okay to be gay but you don’t even want to use the word gay in a negative connotation,' protester Steve Drain told KDAF-TV."
Source
I think Fred Phelps has a point here. People should be free to say what they like about homosexuals.
Christians have to learn to put up with the abuse hurled constantly at them by the Left. Why should homosexuals not learn to put up with abuse too?
35 comments:
Oh so it's a Christian act to hurl abuse at people. What happened to "turn the other cheek" and "judge not that ye may not be judged", "love your neighbor" etc., etc.
Never mind homosexuality being perverse, seems like Christ's message has been totally perverted.
"Turn the other cheek"? I prefer "an eye for an eye"!
Some of us are getting very tired of turning the other cheek only to get slapped again. I for one have run out of cheeks, so now i simply strike back in kind. Those of you on the left, including athesists, are not going to like what's coming. No, it's not a threat. It's a promise.
Time for the preist of the westboro babtists church to be excommunicated
I guess Jesus must have been a leftist hippy!
It seems to me that the point being made here is that people are told that homosexuals are a protected class, and others are not allowed to refer to them in a negative light at all.
The double standard that Jon refers to is that people can disparage Christians all day long (and twice on Sundays), and you don't hear the hue and cry from the media or the left.
However, if a school child of 10 says something like "that's so gay!", we see an entire week of coverage about how the schools have failed us, the parents are bigots, and Christianity is intolerant.
Jon is simply saying "grow a backbone" and stop taking every little disparaging remark (real or perceived) as an affront and/or an opening salvo in a war against homosexuality.
People have opinions, and are free to express them.
People are also free to respond in a civil manner to an opinion they don't agree with.
The government has neither the responsibility nor the right to legislate what opinions are acceptable.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."
So-called Christians declared war on homoes a long time ago and still do, calling them evil and sinful and destined for Hell, which goes against all the teachings of Jesus himself, rather they prefer to look to the later self-appointed apostles like Saul/Paul for neo-jewish doctines, or right back to the primitive tribal laws of Moses etc.
which goes against all the teachings of Jesus himself,
Really? Where is the teaching to which you're referring?
According to my copy(ies) of the Bible, every single human walking the planet has sinned and is going to hell (unless the price for those sins is paid by someone else). As far as I know, homosexuals are a subset of the "every single human" group, so they're not singled out by the Bible.
David Stern is simply trying to hide the fact that blacks, which make up the majority of the NBA, are notoriously anti-gay. Perhaps he's not aware that this is common knowledge.
Luke, I think you mean according to YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Bible every single person is going to Hell unless....etc.
Luke: if all people are sinners then why do Christians "cast stones" at homosexuals so much. That is one thing Jesus said you shouldn't do.
… YOUR INTERPRETATION…
as it is written,
“THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
— Romans 3:10
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
— Romans 3:23
For the wages of sin is death (hell), but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
— Romans 6:23
And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life*, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
— Revelation 20:12–15
It doesn't get much clearer than that. What's your "interpretation" of what these quotes say?
(*Note: The "book of life" is defined elsewhere in Revelation as a list of those who have accepted Jesus' salvation.)
why do Christians "cast stones" at homosexuals so much
It's a response to an aggressive assertion that there's nothing wrong with it.
“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
— Jesus, Matthew 5:18–19
If Jesus rejected attempts to overturn the teachings of the Old Testament, then how can you claim that He is okay with you attempting to overturn the teachings of the Old (and New) Testament?
Using mythological scribblings again, Luke?
It goes without saying that Islam is more extreme than modern-day Christianity or Judaism, but Islam takes a lot of its "theology" from the same Old Testament sources.
The Bible has of course been interpreted in so many ways on so many issues, that nobody has any real authority to pontificate like Luke (who for example likes to equate Hell with merely "death"), and who thinks spewing out biblical text from the likes of "St" Paul or Old Testament prophets is in any way convincing!!
Luke spews forth those great chunks of biblical text whenever threatened by a logical argument, like a toad exudes copious amounts of defensive slime.
Anon 3:26,
When the point of contention is "what does the Bible say?", it is irrational to NOT quote what the Bible actually says.
Luke's quoted Book of Revelations is clearly the work of a psychotic or someone under the influence of drugs, like other ancient mystics, soothsayers and oracles.
Islam takes a lot of its "theology" from the same Old Testament sources.
And distorts them almost beyond recognition.
who for example likes to equate Hell with merely "death"
It's stuff like this which makes me truly question your reading comprehension and honesty. Go back and read the section from Revelation. Look for the words "This is the second death."
psychotic or someone under the influence of drugs
Aaaand the old standby comes out. When you can't make a rational argument, resort to name calling.
I pity you.
Luke's been snacking on the local mushrooms again. LOL.
Luke, no matter where you go there are going to be the non-believers and those who only know the distorted truth.
Keep on saying what you are saying, there are millions of us out here who believe the same as you.
kowdung
It is not name-calling to suggest that the hermit who had the "revelations" that were only put in the Biblical Canon after some debate about its suitablility, could well have been the result of chemically induced visions, as The Oracle at Delphi used plant chemicals or were affected by natural radon to induce their prophecies. The Sibyl prophetesses likewise, ditto the shamans of other religions with their magic mushrooms, and no doubt some of the Old Testament prophets too. But if the credulous masses prefer to belive they all had devine revelations, so be it, but a natural explanation is the more likely.
Hermits and ascetics also subjected themselves to extreme diets and semi-starvation, which together with isolation and intense meditation/praying, along with other physical deprivation and masochistic practices can and did result in "visions" and "voices".
It is not name-calling to suggest…
It is when it's assumed, and contrary to all the available evidence and history.
Luke: you also assume a lot with your interpretation of the Bible and history. Sorry if you think that's also "name-calling". But natural real-life explanations are better than supernatural ones, and more likely, at least to sane people.
It never ceases to amaze me how my use of "evidence" doesn't even register, nor do you produce evidence, yet you claim to be the sane, rational one.
But natural real-life explanations are better than supernatural ones
Cosmologists are now convinced that the universe (including time, space, and matter; in other words, everything "natural") came into being at some point in time. What caused the universe to come into being? By definition, that cause is supernatural, as in "beyond nature."
You are mis-using the word "supernatural" to mean what caused the universe. The universe is "natural" and so is what caused it. And your definition of "God" is not an explanation with "evidence". You can have no evidence for the origin of the universe or of any supernatural cause, much less one based on folk-religions.
" that cause is supernatural"
Prove it.
You can have no evidence for the origin of the universe or of any supernatural cause
::: Sigh :::
We've been over this dozens of times in the past. You're refusal to look at the evidence is not the same thing as "no" evidence. Can't you come up with an argument that actually makes sense?
But just for the record:
http://amzn.to/mKZMmQ
http://amzn.to/jNQ4Ed
Those two are just for starters.
" that cause is supernatural"
Prove it.
su·per·nat·u·ral
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
http://bit.ly/kIUhN4
So Luke is saying whatever cannot be explained yet is, by definition, "super-natural"; yet he thinks he can already explain the origin of the universe with evidence. It cannot be scientific evidence as nobody has it yet. He will no doubt use specious theological or "philosophical" argumentation.
So it seems that god is everything that we do not understand. Given that, god is getting smaller every day.
Geez, I guess I have to spell it out.
Can something cause itself? No. It's simply not possible.
Therefore, the universe was caused to come into existence by something outside the universe.
Natural, by definition, is something within the universe and subject to the laws of the universe. Because something outside the universe had to cause the universe to come into being, that cause is "beyond what is natural."
Oh, and for the record, logic, reasoning, and establishing how we know something to be true (called epistemology) are all examples of philosophical skills. Or as one philosopher put it, "Philosophy is just thinking hard about something." If you want to throw away philosophy, you're also throwing away logic, knowledge and thinking skills.
"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world....the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same. Consider the enormousness of the problem : Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: 'What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe?' And science cannot answer these questions.
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
—Robert Jastrow, Astronomer, Physicist, Cosmologist, Agnostic
God and the Astronomers, 1978
Luke: you are defining what is "natural" as inside our known universe and what is outside or beyond it as "supernatural". Some would disagree about that definition. You also say it's impossible for something to cause itself - I thought God caused itself???
Human logic and reasoning has its limits as we have only a mammalian brain to work with. The origin of the known universe is a scientific question primarily. Research can only go so far back in time to when matter and energy were in a super-condenced form and then some instability caused it to rapidly expand spacially and in time, as though a dimension was "unrolling" itself. There may be many "curled up" dimensions. The more science discovers the more mysteries there seem to be. Traditional religions only have a primitive anthropological picture of reality.
Post a Comment