God Hates Gays...

Remove all ads!

Quite. Shame that the homophobic minority is so vocal about it.

 

Without checking the site for myself, I can still contradict most of it. First, God loves all of his children, but doesn't always agree with what they do. Secondly, if they confess and forsake their sins, and call upon the Lord for forgiveness, they can, and will be forgiven. Further, it is not the place of man to preach hatred of others, only the truth.

 

Way can't some christians just pray silently in their room, asking God to give gays strength with their struggles, iso shouting BS?
God doesn't hate gays, he just doesn't like it when 2 people of the same sex share a bed. That is something different. People can't help being gay.

 

Luckily for us christians Late-Night Thinker does not exist, so we don't have to worry about what he writes...

Seriously, guys from that site are not quite normal, I guess.

 

I always wonder how this god feels about having words put in his mouth. How will this god of love feel about being turned into a god of occasional love. If he is anything as I would imagine him, he feels a perversion is going on. Not unlike when people kill in his name. Pretty much like when people claim his will as the reason for their pettiness.

Would he feel saddened, lonely, even rejected? I guess so.

 

Would He also support abortion rights? But yeah, some people go too far.

 

This is a question to any person whom supports their homophobia with religious dogma...

Have you ever looked a homosexual in the eye and told them you believe they are an abomination and a pervert? Have you ever looked a homosexual in the eye and told them you believe they will spend eternity weeping and gnashing their teeth?

I doubt that you have; rather, you cloak your conscious behind the written word.

Shame on you!

Stop using the degradation of the minority sexuality to supplement the meager confidence you place in your own personal sexuality.

 

First is untrue, second even if true, is not a nice way of calling people.

I suppose I should ask you if you have ever looked a Christian straight in the face and asked him if he believes that gay people will spend eternity weeping and gnashing their teeth. You have some strange views, you know.

As for shame, I suppose you're bringing more on yourself, especially with the last paragraph, although the opening did a nice job, too. After reading the previous posts carefully, you might wish to resume polite discussion.

[ September 11, 2005, 23:37: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

And chevalier goes on the defensive why?!? He could hardly have thought that this was directed at him:

I sincerely doubt that LNT was attacking anyone on this board, most especially not chev, seeing as he himself personally debunked these wackos' use of "religious dogma". It sounds a lot more like LNT was asking these things of the makers of that despicable website.

 

No, LNT has made it clear he's on some sort of crusade against my vileness at the moment and I also wanted to show some basic parallel between his style of speech and the "godhatesfags" style. You know, just switch the names around and you're there. That way, we aren't going anywhere and this is something I wanted to show in my previous post: in whatever way we think our moral ground is superior to other people's, we will still end up in the same flood of mud if we start throwing mud around. It works pretty well for the guys on the other side, too, because they also think their moral ground is superior to ours. So mud flies, the world keeps rolling and no problem ever gets solved.

 

Where???

 

After reading a post of his in a different thread, I was upset by his intolerance of homosexuals. He said they had a "disorder" and "need help". I sent him a PM. It was short and to the point.

I wrote: "Sir, you are a bigot. Have you no shame for the feelings you have hurt?"

I suppose that is my "crusade against his vileness"...

This should all have been kept in PM's.


So back to the public discussion....

It greatly upsets me how people use religion to justify their own hatred of other human beings. It creates a fundamental flaw in the ability of a sepatate human being to show them the flaw in their arguement. In order to show those protestors that they were wrong, you would have to disprove the Bible. That is, of course, quite easy. Snakes do not talk, flaming bushes crackle, but do not speak, etc, etc... But to someone who has chosen to take this book as fact, you cannot show them they are wrong, because you must use reason to show them that. And reason is not adequate to such a person. How can you form an arguement without reason? A new Bible is the only solution, and that is not going to happen anytime soon...

It is quite sad that a significant number of human beings have to be continually on guard against emotional, financial, and even physical harm; while I am sure homosexuals will always face a little torment from those too immature to respect those different from themselves, when the torment comes from religious folks, homosexuals are incapable of argueing for their innate equivalency as human beings.

And that sucks for homosexuals.

 

You are seeking hatred where there's none instead of reading posts for what they are. Anyway, you're very quick to tell a major religion to rewrite its holy book. Perhaps you'd like to be the one asked to write the new version? You're also quite quick in assuming that reason is what you believe, while other people's beliefs are blind to reason. Have you ever though that, perhaps, it might look the same from the other side, when the guys on the other side of the fence are looking at you?

You seem to be quite an authority, morally, spiritually and scientifically. You know the Bible should be rewritten ("hey, it's all made up, so we can make it up again"). You also know seem to know what reason truly is. You have disproven the Bible. Wonder why you even bother with such things as debate with us lowly mortals.

Thing is, things don't look the same on the other side. "Hey, it's all made up, so we can make it up again" may look to you like a perfectly logical thought that any Christian cleric should have in his head. But it doesn't look the same from the perspective of the believer because he doesn't share your fundamental belief that it's all invented stuff. If he did, the whole of religion would be scam. You don't seem to have a high opinion of believers' abilities in the area of logical thinking, but believing in things they know they have made up themselves from the beginning to the end is not exactly what they do. Religion would make no sense that way. Next, what point having a religion and believing in an almighty deity if snakes or bushes don't talk? Shouldn't an almighty creator deity be more difficult to grasp than the idea of a talking bush? Not quite logical there.

Even if I do appreciate the notion to defend the unfortunate people who have to suffer the babble of guys like godhatefags authors (and such "flowers" are on both sides of the dispute; I assure your own writing isn't oh so very much easier on a "homophobe" than theirs is on a fag), I do think you see a couple of things from quite a peculiar perspective.

 

He did. After my "Where???" he PMed me to tell me that the two of you had been having a private discussion via PM, and even went so far as to refrain from mentioning anything specific. At first I thought it was just because it was a private discussion, but now I see it's likely because of the invective involved on your part.

While I agree that it's terrible that some homosexuals must bear much undeserved "torment" (a good word for it, IMO), it's rather hard to make the leap that someone who believes in the Bible is impervious to reason. Rather, I think that it's funny that someone would hold a religious text up as "proof" of an opinion about something that was not an issue in the time the text was written. Such an action, combined with the ... unique interpretation of unrelated passages, speaks of an already troubled mind. Add to that how vocal these people are to others who don't even regard their text as trust-worthy in the first place, and you've got a bag of , my friend.

 

If their arguement is based upon a religious belief, what reasoning can penetrate that belief? If my statement came across as an absolute, that is not what I intended. I meant reasoning specifically related to the particular religious dogma.

That is just ridiculous. While I can be quite abrasive, I never claim that the creator of everything has given me authority to torment others, whether it be emotional, financial or physical.

 

*Sigh* Yet another subtle insult. Let me put it this way: you seem particularly oblivious to what negative load your own speech carries when you are debating someone or a group of people whom you accuse of hate, hate speech and the like. What I'm trying to show you is that it looks like an "I'm right, so everything goes" kind of reasoning and that's exactly how some religious extremes think. You *know* you are right, they *know* they are right, insults fly both ways and nothing is achieved.

You say the Bible or dogmatic beliefs make people impervious to reason (if not absolutely) and reasoning doesn't reach them, but yourself, you fall for the convenient excuse of hate. Once a view is classified as hate this way, there is no further need to consider anything, debate with the arguments, seek solutions... No, it's *hate*. Case solved. It looks a bit like a secular religion with all the attributes you'd like to ascribe to it.

 

Well, according to the Bible, homosexual relations are a sin. At least if they are between men - apparently lesbians are given a freer rein. Go figure. Perhaps God likes women more?
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." - Leviticus.
Then again, there are a lot of sins in the Bible, and I would be surprised if anyone on this forum has not felt lust, avarice, wrath, etc. on quite a few occasions. However, unlike what Mr. Phelps says (abortion and sodomy should be punishable by death), the part about "put to the Death" might mean that they would be punished by God (as per all other sins). Anyway, my 2 cents on religion is that no one is perfect, yet we must keep track of which actions are wrong and right, and try to compensate the wrong ones as they come. God loves people as his children - and those of you who are parents hopefully love their children even when they are completely exasperated. Then again, maybe Mr. Phelps was not as lucky with his parents.

Anyway, here is an interesting threatise:

------------------------------------------------

Just what does the Bible say about gays?
November 1, 2004

We can cherry-pick biblical references to homosexuality, ignoring the message of love, writes Nicholas Kristof.

So when God made homosexuals who fall deeply, achingly in love with each other, did he goof? That seems implicit in US legislative efforts to oppose gay marriage.

Over the past few months, I've been researching the question of how the Bible regards homosexuality. Social liberals tend to be uncomfortable with religious arguments, but that is the ground on which political battles are often decided.

I think it's presumptuous of conservatives to assume that God is on their side. But I also think it's stupid of liberals to forfeit the religious field.

Some scholars, such as Daniel Helminiak, author of What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, argue that the Bible is not anti-gay. I don't really buy that.

It's true that the story of Sodom is treated by both modern scholars and by ancient Ezekiel as about hospitality, rather than homosexuality. In Sodom, Lot puts up two male strangers for the night. When a lustful mob demands they be handed over, Lot offers his two virgin daughters instead. After some further unpleasantness, God destroys Sodom. As Mark Jordan notes in The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology, it was only in the 11th century that theologians began to condemn homosexuality as sodomy.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

In fact, the most obvious lesson from Sodom is that when you're attacked by an angry mob, the holy thing to do is to offer up your virgin daughters.

Still, the traditionalists seem to me basically correct that the Old Testament does condemn at least male anal sex (scholars disagree about whether the Hebrew phrasing encompasses other sexual contact). A plain reading of the Book of Leviticus is that male anal sex is every bit as bad as other practices that the text condemns, like wearing a polyester-and-cotton shirt (Leviticus 19:19).

As for the New Testament, Jesus never said a word about gays, while he explicitly advised a wealthy man to give away all his assets and arguably warned against bank accounts ("do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth"). Likewise, Jesus praises those who make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, but conservative Christians rarely lead the way with self-castration.

Theologians point out that that the Bible is big enough to encompass gay relationships and tolerance - as well as episodic condemnations of gays. For example, 1 Samuel can be read as describing gay affairs between David and Jonathan.

In the New Testament, Matthew and Luke describe how Jesus cured the beloved servant of a centurion - and some scholars argue that the wording suggests that the pair were lovers, yet Jesus didn't blanch.

The religious right cites one part of the New Testament that clearly does condemn male homosexuality - not in Jesus' words, but in Paul's. The right has a tougher time explaining why lesbians shouldn't marry because the Bible has no unequivocal condemnation of lesbian sex.

A passage in Romans 1 objects to women engaging in "unnatural" sex, and this probably does mean lesbian sex, according to Bernadette Brooten, the author of a fascinating study of early Christian attitudes toward lesbians. But it's also possible that Paul was referring to sex during menstruation or to women who are aggressive during sex.

In any case, do we really want to make Paul our lawgiver? Will we enforce Paul's instruction that women veil themselves and keep their hair long? (Note to President Bush: If you want to obey Paul, why don't you start by veiling Laura and keeping her hair long, and only then bar gay marriages.)

Given these ambiguities, is there any solution? One would be to emphasise the sentiment in Genesis that "it is not good for the human to be alone", and allow gay lovers to marry.

Or there's another solution. Paul disapproves of marriage except for the sex-obsessed, saying that it is best "to remain unmarried as I am".

So if we're going to cherry-pick biblical phrases and ignore the central message of love, then perhaps we should just ban marriage?

 

Not any more so than married women are free to covet other women's husbands just because the 9th mentions only coveting wives.

"Could be read" is key. "Beloved disciple" could be read as "gay lover", travelling with 12 men as something suggestive too -- as the gay bishop from the US suggested. People who read the Bible in such a way as to find pro-gay-sex material, forget one thing: the Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman and condemns pre-marital sex. How could and why would the Bible make an exception for gay sex and allow gay people to do what heterosexual people are forbidden to do (having sex with someone not your spouse)? That's quite far-fetched.

Even if that were true (which isn't likely), why would Jesus not heal a gay person?

The problem with male homosexual sex is not that it's between males but that it's between people of the same gender, whereas humans were created man and woman, in God's image (complementing and completing each other for a fuller image), to be fruitful and multiply. Of course, there are differences between male and female homosexual sex. Lesbian sex can't really be described as sex much. Foreplay, petting, whatever. Male homosexuals can go a bit further, but this doesn't mean it's OK for lesbians.

Those were sort of ceremonial rules and prudential commands, geared towards the social realia of that time. Dress may change, who you can sleep with or not can't really be made right by passing time or changing fashions any more than e.g. pre- or extramarital sex could be made right.

The same way, "carnally" could be added after "love thy neighbour".

The message of love is not a message of do as you please and it'll be OK anyway. Jesus said, "who loves me, obeys my commandments" and the OT isn't much different on this.

In essence, the current stance of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and other churches that think the same, doesn't need any cherry-picking. The pro-gay interpretation not only needs much cherry-picking but it also needs lots and lots of very special interpretation against the litteral meaning of the Biblical passages in question and against the meaning of other passages, as well.

 

It wasn't my opinion in the article, although at times it came close. Still, the current interpretation of the Bible is one of the possible ones, although dislike for homosexuality is deeply ingrained in religion today, the author makes a good point that it might not have been as strong in the original texts.

"Not any more so than married women are free to covet other women's husbands just because the 9th mentions only coveting wives. [Wink]"

Sure, but there is a lot mentioned about adulteresses throughout the Bible. Mostly in conjunction with stones, iirc. At any rate, homosexuality is not encouraged - but it is not the incredible abomination some present it as today.

" In the New Testament, Matthew and Luke describe how Jesus cured the beloved servant of a centurion - and some scholars argue that the wording suggests that the pair were lovers, yet Jesus didn't blanch.

Even if that were true (which isn't likely), why would Jesus not heal a gay person?"

Well, I don't know for certain, but could be the same reason he scattered the merchants in the temple - as sinners against God's law. At any rate, if it were so and he knew, he would be quite more tolerant than many people today portray him as.

"Those were sort of ceremonial rules and prudential commands, geared towards the social realia of that time. Dress may change, who you can sleep with or not can't really be made right by passing time or changing fashions any more than e.g. pre- or extramarital sex could be made right."

If the mention "thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman" is indeed a prescription for religious purity, it would be no more valid than dress code. In dresses, there is the symbolic importance of not mixing different materials, in homosexual relations there is mixing of different gender roles. At least, that's how I understand the text. In this light, only lesbian sex involving any substite for a phallus could sinful. Just my interpretation, not opinion.

"The same way, "carnally" could be added after "love thy neighbour"."

Depends on the neighbor, I'd say Besides, it was said "go forth, and populate the Earth." Again, this is a possible understanding.

"The pro-gay interpretation not only needs much cherry-picking but it also needs lots and lots of very special interpretation against the litteral meaning of the Biblical passages in question and against the meaning of other passages, as well."

Well, not exactly literal. As the whole article tries to point, there are other interpretations of this phrase from Leviticus, so every side does its own "cherry-picking".

At any point: Homosexuality is condemned a few times, and very often obliquely. Greed, inhospitality, and wrath are condemned many more times. So when people proselytize we should be more concerned with how they treat those topics than what they talk of about gay people. This is what has always irked me about the so-called "religious right" in the US - politicians have no problem to embezzle, discredit their opponents, to weaken the social solidarity system, but it's all well and good - because they are against abortion and gay marriage, so they are good Christians! I am not very religious, but for me they corrupt the best parts of Christianity and have the nerve to say they are doing it for purity and their opponents are apostates!

[ September 12, 2005, 16:56: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

...and I hate Fred Phelps