ferris209 said:
hairy_hen said:
Then a great number of people were raised to believe it, completely failing to see that they'd incorporated hate and fear into a philosophy that was meant to promote loving your neighbour above all.Uh, do you really not understand that you can hate a sin and not the sinner?
I understand that it helps you feel better about yourself, but I've never bought it.
TV's Frink said:
ferris209 said:
hairy_hen said:
Then a great number of people were raised to believe it, completely failing to see that they'd incorporated hate and fear into a philosophy that was meant to promote loving your neighbour above all.Uh, do you really not understand that you can hate a sin and not the sinner?
I understand that it helps you feel better about yourself, but I've never bought it.
I don't get what's so hard about hating the sin and not the sinner. Don't you still love your kids even when they do something wrong? In some cases, the sin is greater, but the concept can still apply.
TV's Frink said:
Sorry Lord Asshole was my band's fifth album!
So, was this album in the vein of the Traveling Wilburys?
:)
Bingowings said:
Jetrell Fo said:
Bingowings said:
I am in another country (presumably I know we have one other Scot but I don't think Jet was) but it's no different from me suggesting that Ferris would be more comfortable in Russia or Warb might be more comfortable in the 1950's.
Look, I was trying to be helpful, have a normal conversation, if you don't want that then say so ...... don't pull everybody's chain.
I was actually putting your comments in that sort of context.
I do appreciate this.
RicOlie_2 said:
TV's Frink said:
ferris209 said:
hairy_hen said:
Then a great number of people were raised to believe it, completely failing to see that they'd incorporated hate and fear into a philosophy that was meant to promote loving your neighbour above all.Uh, do you really not understand that you can hate a sin and not the sinner?
I understand that it helps you feel better about yourself, but I've never bought it.
I don't get what's so hard about hating the sin and not the sinner. Don't you still love your kids even when they do something wrong? In some cases, the sin is greater, but the concept can still apply.
Now you are comparing homosexuality with the transgressions of infants.
The word sin in English derives from an archery term to miss the target.
If being a good Christian is your target, it misses the mark to have sex out of matrimony.
But if your target is the apple on top of Walter Tell's head you might be able to hit that and also squeeze Malteasers.
darth_ender said:
Quite honestly, I'm sick and tired of reading so many apologetic and conciliatory posts in the thread where we're supposed to be whining and backbiting! I expected more of you all.
Hey, I'm doin' my part, ya jerk!! ; )
TV's Frink said:
Sorry Lord Asshole was my band's fifth album!
I'm thinking of making it my stage name. I'll be sure to tell everyone I got if from an obscure Frink album!
bkev said:
ray_afraid said:
It's very annoying to me when I'm invited to watch a movie at a friends house on their new humongous super HD ultra plasma-whatever TV only to realize that all the money they spent on the TV and BD player is for nothing because the motion enhancements are turned on making the film look like a speed up soap opera. Even more annoying when I'm the only one in the room who even notices this and everyone else insists that it's better this way. Ugh...
It's even worse when people don't know the difference, IMO. I can at least see the appeal of high-refresh rates, and even appreciate them in video games/certain animation.
Yeah, that's the real kicker for me too. And you're right about video games. It often makes them look clearer, smoother and better. But it always makes films look artificial and cheap. At least from my experience.
Uh, do you really not understand that you can hate a sin and not the sinner?
I 'understand' that this is the most pathetic and laughable excuse for bigotry I've ever heard. If you can't hear the hypocrisy behind it, then you fail at life.
Take the judgemental bullsh!t somewhere else. People with actual intelligence and compassion have no use for this sort of garbage, which is completely antithetical to anything that remotely resembles what Christ ever really said, or meant.
I have no patience for this kind of rubbish, and am not interested in debating it as if it were a point of view worth granting any consideration to at all. Don't let the door hit your @$$ on the way out.
hairy_hen said:
Uh, do you really not understand that you can hate a sin and not the sinner?
I 'understand' that this is the most pathetic and laughable excuse for bigotry I've ever heard. If you can't hear the hypocrisy behind it, then you fail at life.
Ooh, he fails at life! Now that's a good strong argument. We need more of those. ;)
Take the judgemental bullsh!t somewhere else. People with actual intelligence and compassion have no use for this sort of garbage, which is completely antithetical to anything that remotely resembles what Christ ever really said, or meant.
And I suppose you're the really compassionate type even though you don't hesitate to insult someone for their point of view. A patient and reasoned out post would accomplish far more than a hate-filled rant like this.
In the gospels, Jesus exemplifies the "hate the sin but not the sinner" attitude. For instance, when Judas betrays him, rather than curse Judas or yell at him, he says "Friend, do what you have come to do" (I'm going by memory here, so excuse me if I added or missed a couple words). Do you think the gospels indicate that Jesus condoned adultery? Because he seemed pretty forgiving of that woman he saved from stoning. How about the "love your enemies" line? I'm sure he didn't mean "love what your enemies do to you and the hate they show you." No, he meant just that we should love our enemies.
I have no patience for this kind of rubbish, and am not interested in debating it as if it were a point of view worth granting any consideration to at all. Don't let the door hit your @$$ on the way out.
Bigotry:
1. stubborn and complete intolerance for a belief, creed, or opinion that disagrees with one's own; prejudice.
Now tell me, is it bigoted to love someone, even though you disagree with what they do? If so, is it more or less bigoted to call that idea "rubbish" , "judgemental bulls***", and not worthy of consideration, saying that such an idea is only held by those who lack intelligence and compassion and who are hypocrites? Think about that, hairy_hen, and why it is possible to love someone and disagree with what they do at the same time. It is certainly not hypocritical, and I am sure those you have loved have done things you consider wrong at some point or other.
The bottom line is Christians should follow Christ as He is supposed to be the first and final word on the whole creation thing.
He never mentioned homosexuality, (he mentioned taxes and the sabbath but never homosexuality) the only bits of the Bible that do, also come under the same banner as a lot of really bizarre and vile decrees apparently from His Father who is also Him.
Christ never said hate the sin. He said acknowledge and repent your own faults and leave the faults of others to themselves and their creator.
Christ defended the woman caught in adultery and defended her with a call for her accusers to see their own faults before hers.
So the whole campaigning against homosexuality schtick (and there is a lot of it about in the Christian world) is essentially antiChristian.
Pagans like myself are not prohibited in the same way as true Christians.
We can point the finger in either direction but if enough Christians were to live by the instruction of Jesus and try and straighten themselves out first you may take some us along by example.
That's right, 'hate the sin, love the sinner' is a MAN MADE saying. It's NOT in the bible.
And personally, Jesus having come from God to spread this message to me even more makes the theory that god evolves with the universe believable. Maybe he felt "guilty" about the things he'd said and had man do up to this point, and so he sent jesus. (Perhaps knowing nobody would accept the message any other way?)
But I also believe in a bigger picture where God and Jesus are but representations of other deity's, all real. (Well, mostly real. Perhaps. )
Bingowings said:
RicOlie_2 said:
TV's Frink said:
ferris209 said:
hairy_hen said:
Then a great number of people were raised to believe it, completely failing to see that they'd incorporated hate and fear into a philosophy that was meant to promote loving your neighbour above all.Uh, do you really not understand that you can hate a sin and not the sinner?
I understand that it helps you feel better about yourself, but I've never bought it.
I don't get what's so hard about hating the sin and not the sinner. Don't you still love your kids even when they do something wrong? In some cases, the sin is greater, but the concept can still apply.
Now you are comparing homosexuality with the transgressions of infants.
My girls are not infants!
OBI-WAN37 is an asshat.
Second shaker in a month. I won't be sleeping easy anytime soon.
Where were you in '77?
DuracellEnergizer said:
OBI-WAN37 is an asshat.
I love the term asshat .... it's so in your face, LMAO
Bingowings said:
The bottom line is Christians should follow Christ as He is supposed to be the first and final word on the whole creation thing.
Christians do believe that Paul was an apostle and messsenger of Jesus Christ, who did discuss homosexuality.
He never mentioned homosexuality, (he mentioned taxes and the sabbath but never homosexuality) the only bits of the Bible that do, also come under the same banner as a lot of really bizarre and vile decrees apparently from His Father who is also Him.
Paul is not God the Father.
Christ never said hate the sin. He said acknowledge and repent your own faults and leave the faults of others to themselves and their creator.
He said many things that seem to teach that we are commanded to hate sin and encourage others to do the same. John 7:24. John 2:13-16. Paul stated things more directly. Romans 12:9. 1 Thessalonians 5:22. How many times did Jesus pronounce woes upon scribes, Pharisees, and hypocrites? It was not out of hate for those individuals, but out of anger at their sins, including arrogance, self-righteousness, and lack of concern for others. Jesus' council not to throw a stone at the women did not mean her behavior was acceptable or none of their business. It was teaching a new, higher law that our love of the sinner outweighs the sin, but not that the sin is acceptable.
Christ defended the woman caught in adultery and defended her with a call for her accusers to see their own faults before hers.
So the whole campaigning against homosexuality schtick (and there is a lot of it about in the Christian world) is essentially antiChristian.
Pagans like myself are not prohibited in the same way as true Christians.
We can point the finger in either direction but if enough Christians were to live by the instruction of Jesus and try and straighten themselves out first you may take some us along by example.
I don't say this to condemn. I'm sure I'll be cast as a "hater" as well, and everything that I say and do is utter hatred (even if my views are far more tolerant of different behaviors and opinions than those who may call me such), but I wish to point out that your definition of Christianity is not exactly accurate, or at the very least is simply another of many interpretations with evidence that counters it.
Possessed said:
That's right, 'hate the sin, love the sinner' is a MAN MADE saying. It's NOT in the bible.
And "separation of church and state" is not found in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence or any other founding document. But the message is clearly implied. As is the "hate the sin, love the sinner" phrase.
hairy_hen said:
Uh, do you really not understand that you can hate a sin and not the sinner?
I 'understand' that this is the most pathetic and laughable excuse for bigotry I've ever heard. If you can't hear the hypocrisy behind it, then you fail at life.
Take the judgemental bullsh!t somewhere else. People with actual intelligence and compassion have no use for this sort of garbage, which is completely antithetical to anything that remotely resembles what Christ ever really said, or meant.
I have no patience for this kind of rubbish, and am not interested in debating it as if it were a point of view worth granting any consideration to at all. Don't let the door hit your @$$ on the way out.
I have no patience for rubbish that addresses nothing except others' unwillingness to hear another POV. You are free to disagree with anyone who opposes homosexuality. You may make your point with force. But I am sick to death of myself and others being called hateful for often doing more loving things than the peace-loving hippies. I have dear friends who are gay. Nothing has broken my heart more than learning of the mistreatment of gays throughout history and how social stigma even in our present world has led to suicides. I hug gay friends and have discussions about their significant others. And yet, for religious reasons, I believe homosexual behavior to be wrong. Guess what? I find nearly everyone on this board to be sinful, openly engaging in sexual acts outside of marriage. I believe it is wrong. Guess what else? I don't judge you all for it. I don't condemn you for it. I don't hate you for it. I would never do it and believe you shouldn't either, but you know, that's life. Labeling someone as hateful over this sort of thing is the true hypocrisy. Yes, there are many people who are hateful, far too many, maybe even a majority of those who oppose homosexuality. But there are many good, kind-hearted people, perhaps people who simply don't understand, people who lack perspective. And there are people who try to do as Christ did. "Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more." Clearly loving the sinner, while in the same breath, renouncing the sin.
Okay, so I'm a hateful douche, because I defend the rights of gays against judgemental pricks who put them down by condescendingly claiming to have absolute moral authority on their side.
Yep. This thread is officially hilarious.
"Oh no, we don't hate you, dear. We just loathe and abhor everything about your inner self that makes you behave the way you do, but we don't hate you, we promise!"
Yeah, excuse me while I don't believe a word of this nonsense.
Bottom line: being gay isn't a sin. God never said it was, because it's only an outdated superstition that got mixed up with a bunch of other unrelated writings. Folks who believe every literal word of such things really need to take a step back and get with the times, because that kind of thinking is seriously outmoded and has no place in any modern society claiming to be civilized. It's what gives religion a bad name, when if it actually followed the true spirit of Christ's message, it would be very wonderful indeed.
Now, if God actually had said that being gay was a sin, then I would say that God was a worthless sh!tbag, completely unworthy of being paid attention to in any way. But he didn't. I will, however, say that there is no such thing as Christianity, nor has there ever been, since hardly anyone in the history of the world has ever really tried to live life in accordance with his philosophies. 'Judge not', he said, and yet judging others for their differences is practically the only thing many so-called 'Christians' know how to do. 'Live and let live, and don't be a douchebag' is how it might be put in modern terms, but I guess that's just too complicated for some to figure out.
When you're more concerned about whether someone with a cock wants to get with someone else who also has a cock than you are with treating people decently, you're doing exactly the opposite of what Christ wanted. When you condescendingly look down on someone for doing something you consider wrong or shameful, but which, in fact, informs the entire essence of their being and could no more be changed than the colour of their skin, all the while claiming only to want what's best for them, then you have a serious prejudice you don't want to acknowledge. It is entirely necessary for such hypocrisy to be exposed for what it really is.
Try this example on for size:
"I don't hate you for being black. It's so unfortunate you were born into a black family, because God says that all black people will go to Hell when they die, and you're really quite wonderful, dear, despite your disadvantage. Have you tried being white instead? It's the only way you could ever be saved, I'm sad to say, and I would really hate for you to have to burn . . ."
Needless to say, this doesn't fly AT ALL. And all the anti-gay arguments I've ever heard have exactly this same sort of ridiculously skewed perspective behind them. You can claim it's not the same thing all you want, but you're only fooling yourself if you try. People with sense can see right through it, and we don't like what we see. The world is moving on from this kind of thing, and thank goodness for that. You should move on from it, too. Trust me, it feels a lot better.
Wait, what sexual acts outside of marriage are most of us engaging in?
I like to sodomize unmarried lamp posts, myself, but I can't speak for anyone else.
Some Christians give Paul a great deal of importance as a Saint and tent pole of the early church, others just see him as anything from an early Christian commentator/leader to a misogynist embarrassment.
Either way he commented on Christians having sex outside of matrimony (including same gender sex). Not everyone is a Christian.
Paul isn't God the Father he is a man (and presumably a sinner). Jesus according to most Christians is God incarnate and he doesn't mention the topic at all and yet a lot of Christians just can't get enough of talking about it and campaigning against it outside the Christian sphere while not really making so much of a noise about idolatry for example.
Perhaps they don't want to upset Hindus, who didn't really have a big stance against homosexuality until the British introduced their Christian attitudes into the region where it is most practiced.
Jesus never endorsed the actions of the woman caught in adultery. he didn't admonish her either (he forgave her and told her not to do it again) he did admonish the men with rocks about to painfully execute her when they were all guilty of something themselves.
Now if only the blameless can throw stones and the only blameless adult being chose not to, where does that leave the sanctions in Leviticus?
And yet Christians keep referring to Leviticus to justify their judgement on and lobbying against others including people who don't share their beliefs.
The new message wasn't love the sinner hate the sin. It was love your neighbour and repent your sin.
The loudest Christian voices seem to be saying to get the outsider to be repentant we need your cash.
hairy_hen said:
Okay, so I'm a hateful douche, because I defend the rights of gays against judgemental pricks who put them down by condescendingly claiming to have absolute moral authority on their side.
Yep. This thread is officially hilarious.
"Oh no, we don't hate you, dear. We just loathe and abhor everything about your inner self that makes you behave the way you do, but we don't hate you, we promise!"
Yeah, excuse me while I don't believe a word of this nonsense.
Bottom line: being gay isn't a sin. God never said it was, because it's only an outdated superstition that got mixed up with a bunch of other unrelated writings. Folks who believe every literal word of such things really need to take a step back and get with the times, because that kind of thinking is seriously outmoded and has no place in any modern society claiming to be civilized. It's what gives religion a bad name, when if it actually followed the true spirit of Christ's message, it would be very wonderful indeed.
Now, if God actually had said that being gay was a sin, then I would say that God was a worthless sh!tbag, completely unworthy of being paid attention to in any way. But he didn't. I will, however, say that there is no such thing as Christianity, nor has there ever been, since hardly anyone in the history of the world has ever really tried to live life in accordance with his philosophies. 'Judge not', he said, and yet judging others for their differences is practically the only thing many so-called 'Christians' know how to do. 'Live and let live, and don't be a douchebag' is how it might be put in modern terms, but I guess that's just too complicated for some to figure out.
When you're more concerned about whether someone with a cock wants to get with someone else who also has a cock than you are with treating people decently, you're doing exactly the opposite of what Christ wanted. When you condescendingly look down on someone for doing something you consider wrong or shameful, but which, in fact, informs the entire essence of their being and could no more be changed than the colour of their skin, all the while claiming only to want what's best for them, then you have a serious prejudice you don't want to acknowledge. It is entirely necessary for such hypocrisy to be exposed for what it really is.
Try this example on for size:
"I don't hate you for being black. It's so unfortunate you were born into a black family, because God says that all black people will go to Hell when they die, and you're really quite wonderful, dear, despite your disadvantage. Have you tried being white instead? It's the only way you could ever be saved, I'm sad to say, and I would really hate for you to have to burn . . ."
Needless to say, this doesn't fly AT ALL. And all the anti-gay arguments I've ever heard have exactly this same sort of ridiculously skewed perspective behind them. You can claim it's not the same thing all you want, but you're only fooling yourself if you try. People with sense can see right through it, and we don't like what we see. The world is moving on from this kind of thing, and thank goodness for that. You should move on from it, too. Trust me, it feels a lot better.
Good job missing the point. Pretty common in this sort of discussion I fear. At least you addressed the why and didn't simply say you're sick of it so it's wrong.
TV's Frink said:
Wait, what sexual acts outside of marriage are most of us engaging in?
Most who talk about their sex lives also talk about being with girlfriends, not wives. Thus, they are sexually involved outside of marriage. But I guess I'm a horribly condescending person (according to hairy_hen) for disagreeing with the moral choices of those people as well. In fact, if you ever speak up for your values and believe that others who don't share the same standards are wrong about something, you are in fact hateful and holier than thou.
Here's the problem: you are judging how others choose to live their lives. It's why I think Olie's "love your children despite the wrong they do" analogy fails.
Religions should try a little more "live and let live," then perhaps they wouldn't piss so many people off.