Human Rights --- Gay vs Religious Freedoms

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 2, 2003, 2:20 pm

Chidoro wrote:Yes he is a hypocrite. I didn't say the bible had to retract some crap that it's a sin, it's that in this day and age he can pick and choose which sins he feels against or not.

He decided that while other sins are acceptable in this day and age, the "sin" of homosexuality isn't. It's hypocritical. The ONLY way he isn't is if he lives a COMPLETELY sin-free life. Otherwise, he's just picking and choosing.

He defines hypocrite

What sins is he committing?
No one is without sin, however all are forgiven according to the new testament. If the sinner repents and commits that sin no more.

Brockie would be a hypocrite if he for example condoned adultery because he was in an adulterous relationship. You are very correct in your assumption that a Christian that walks the talk must walk a very careful line.

There is nothing in the case nor any of my posts that indicate he is picking and choosing the sins he thinks are ok. He is following his conscience as dictated by the book his religion considers above reproach as the inspired word of God.

But more to the point of this thread how do you feel about his rights versus the rights of the gay community in this context?

Cheers

masteen · Post by **masteen** » October 2, 2003, 2:35 pm

Chidoro wrote:Yes he is a hypocrite. I didn't say the bible had to retract some crap that it's a sin, it's that in this day and age he can pick and choose which sins he feels against or not.

He decided that while other sins are acceptable in this day and age, the "sin" of homosexuality isn't. It's hypocritical. The ONLY way he isn't is if he lives a COMPLETELY sin-free life. Otherwise, he's just picking and choosing.

He defines hypocrite

Well, it's not like there's an Adultery Advocates or Covetous Citizens Group pushing for their "rights."

He's also NOT casting stones. Refusing to support != condemnation.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 2, 2003, 2:37 pm

I've made my point on this thread numerous times already.

If he sins for whatever reason, even a little itty bitty sin, he's a hypocrite. I never said you feels he picks and chooses the sins he finds acceptable, I said it. Because he does, every day. There are a lot of unreasonable rules in the bible that have no bearing on modern day life. He chooses to ignore those while saying homosexuals are bad.

I've made the same post three times now, you just don't get it

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 2, 2003, 2:45 pm

No, you are the one who doesn't get it. The printer has done personal business for people who are gay. He did not agree with that person's lifestyle, but the jobs they wanted done were benign personal work. The job he refused was for someone that was for promoting something that is offensive to his very beliefs. He has done work for gay people in the past because he did not judge the person. He refused to do work for promoting the gay lifestyle. If you can't see this difference, then I pity you in your daily dealings with the world around you.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 2, 2003, 3:03 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:No, you are the one who doesn't get it. The printer has done personal business for people who are gay. He did not agree with that person's lifestyle, but the jobs they wanted done were benign personal work. The job he refused was for someone that was for promoting something that is offensive to his very beliefs. He has done work for gay people in the past because he did not judge the person. He refused to do work for promoting the gay lifestyle. If you can't see this difference, then I pity you in your daily dealings with the world around you.

Please follow along numbnuts.

I don't disagree however, you can accept the work from whomever you want to. Legally, the guy is in the right, even if he is a god-fearing, bible twisting, sack of shit.

They don't even need a reason. The business can be understaffed or backlogged, or conflict of interest.

I think people are getting hung up about the wrong issue and are using poor examples to prove it. Most people don't deny the owner is a putz, but he has no obligation to provide his service. End of story

Both made by me. We're past that already. The question now is whether he's a hypocritical asshole, in which case, I say yes.

I pity you and your utter lack on comprehension and inability to follow the point being made

masteen · Post by **masteen** » October 2, 2003, 3:19 pm

Chidoro wrote:Both made by me. We're past that already. The question now is whether he's a hypocritical asshole, in which case, I say yes.

I pity you and your utter lack on comprehension and inability to follow the point being made

Well, if you want to get technical, he's not a hypocrit unless he's cornholing menz on the weekends. In fact, if he's married, then he's not commiting any of the sexual sins covered in the Bible.

So where is his hypocricy? He isn't preaching a sin-free existance; he's refusing service to an organization promoting a lifestyle he neither condones nor practices.

By your very skewed definition, EVERYONE who makes a moral judgement is a fucking hypocrit, even if they don't commit that sin themselves. You're wrong.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 2, 2003, 3:40 pm

You can't quote bible verse to prove a point, there's usually a confliciting passage somewhere. FFS, quoting Leviticus.. if you want to follow his hard line then you're also advocating stoning for petty crime.

When it comes to "beliefs" it really don't matter what's in the bible, either testament, it's a matter of what the person believes; and if the courts choose to accept to uphold religious freedom or free speech this week.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 2, 2003, 3:45 pm

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

hypocrite

n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold

He would be a hypocrite if he printed the material that he did not agree with. Maybe you should learn the meanings of words before you spewed them out at random.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 2, 2003, 3:52 pm

I thought if you cornrolled anyone it was a sin, including your wife

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 2, 2003, 4:04 pm

Zaelath wrote:You can't quote bible verse to prove a point, there's usually a confliciting passage somewhere. FFS, quoting Leviticus.. if you want to follow his hard line then you're also advocating stoning for petty crime.

When it comes to "beliefs" it really don't matter what's in the bible, either testament, it's a matter of what the person believes; and if the courts choose to accept to uphold religious freedom or free speech this week.

Once again you must have a sound understanding of how the old and new testaments work together.

Christ did say "Let him without sin cast the first stone", when faced with an angry mob ready to kill a woman for adultery. In the old testament people lived under the LAW in the new testament people live under grace. In specific examples Christ overwrote the old law and where sinners are repentant they fall under grace. As to your second statement I totally agree. The references to the bible and the testaments were for Kyoukan as she seemed unable to make a factual statement on this thread

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 2, 2003, 4:20 pm

Nothing factual comes from the bible you dolt. Quoting the bible in a logical debate is like cooking dog shit in your lasagne. You can serve it, no one will eat it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 2, 2003, 4:30 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Kyo,

This particular case isn't about the bible.

It's about freedom being squeezed. It's about two opposing moral sets, lacking tolerance towards each other.

If you want to talk about beard shaving etc. I'm happy to oblidge you on another thread. There are straight-forward answers to those questions.

It's perfectly relevant to the thread. The bible says a lot of things are sins, yet most christian homophobic retards zero in on homosexuality as some kind of abomination that will send you to hell while they ignore a laundry list of other things that are outdated, ie. shearing your hair at the temples or shaving.

As far as the bible is concerned, there is literally no difference in sin between shearing your hair at the temples or sticking your dick in some dude's ass. The bible doesn't say one is worse than the other. If one is a sin than the other one is. If one is to be ignored now because it's stupid then the other one should be as well.

You are so steeped in your own hypocrisy that you don't even realize this. I think it's sad. You should be kept away from smart people in society in case you start corrupting them with your stupid hypocritical faith.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » October 2, 2003, 6:13 pm

Can someone run down for me exactly what passage(s) in the bible that condemn homsexuality, or are interpreted as such?

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » October 2, 2003, 7:00 pm

its funny how the "Jesus" preached about in the bible is the total opposite of some of his his fanatical right-wing followers with there condemptions of "sinners" where there jesus always preached understanding and forgiveness
that alone is being a hypocrite

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 2, 2003, 8:11 pm

Kyo,

Do you insist on derailing this thread towards beard shaving? I can answer those questions if you want, but it's off topic. Perhaps another thread for that?

What I see here with this issue is two groups not giving each other enough space.

Obviously the printer did what he could to tolerate people who might be gay. He did print materials that showed his tolerance.

What broke down is when the the second individual wanted the printer to make promotional materials that were in direct opposition to his beliefs.

To the printer the second guy just as easily could of been asking the printer to help him with a bank heist.

The failure in this instance is the second guy's lack of tolerance towards the printer. Perhaps the second guy just didn't understand what he was asking.

The second guy was in a large city. The proper thing to do was to give the printer a little room to be free and tolerate his decision. The second guy could easily go across the street at a neighboring print shop and get his pamphlets made.

If we're all going to live together under the same roof, we need to respect each other, despite our personal disagreements.

In short, people with differing morals needs to give each other some breathing room.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 2, 2003, 8:14 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

hypocrite

n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold

He would be a hypocrite if he printed the material that he did not agree with. Maybe you should learn the meanings of words before you spewed them out at random.

Ohh thanks sportex, it couldn't possibly mean that he holds beliefs in certain convictions but chooses to ignore some due to the time period they are now measured against.

Keep swinging though

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » October 3, 2003, 12:17 am

well this is going no where fast .. we will still have the i hate fags ... i hate fags but won't say it ... the i don't give a shit ... and the fags ... and it will never change ... god bless !

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 3, 2003, 12:27 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:Kyo,

Do you insist on derailing this thread towards beard shaving? I can answer those questions if you want, but it's off topic. Perhaps another thread for that?

just slap it in here no one cares. if you have a logical reason why something like that, that the bible says is a sin is now perfectly fine where something else the bible says is a sin in the exact same chapter 2 verses later is a horrible crime against humanity worthy of discrimminating your fellow human beings over, then spit it out.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 3, 2003, 12:55 am

Hehe what a preface Kyo.

Ok let me get this lined up.

Remember that those laws in Leviticus were written down with a lot of things understood that wasn't written.

For instance, a good question to ask is *why* would someone shave their beard or cut their hair at the temples? (as in head, not building)

It just so happens that during that time period there was a competing religion. This was the worship of a weather god named Baal.

If you were a Baal worshiper, guess what you did to tell the world that you were grooving with Baal?

You cut your beard, and clipped the hair near your temples.

So what was God via Moses saying by prohibiting such a funky haircut?

God was basically saying, if you're going to be on my team, don't dress up like the competition.

Nowadays if I walk down the street with a clean shave, people don't gasp and claim "There goes one of those Baal worshippers!" So it's ok to whup out a razor on my chin.

However, if I'm a christain and decide dress up and pass myself off as a Buddist monk, God's not going to like it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 3, 2003, 1:38 am

so god just threw that puppy into the old testament on a temporary basis?

Truant · Post by **Truant** » October 3, 2003, 2:13 am

considering he's all knowing...wouldn't he have saved himself the effort of bestowing divine presence upon the bible writer to keep the part about hair trimming out of the bible, since in a couple hundred years it wouldn't be relevant anyways?

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 3, 2003, 2:17 am

Kyoukan I think a lot of the rules in the OT don't apply... those that do Jesus restated in the New Testament because the World had changed. The "laws", they had a LOT more than what is in the OT weren't really going to matter that much after the resurrection, he knew this and tried to start people down that road... of course many of us are still on that road while some jumped off on the way

Never going to be perfect, all you can do is forgive and try to do better each day yourself. Funny, heh, if people did that (who weren't even religious) I think...wait I know the world we be a better place.

Marb

PS - For example, in Leviticus it tells you to send your wife away while she was/is on her period... we don't do this at my house and don't plan on starting anytime soon

PS2 - Adex, while I don't agree 100% with you, as always I commend you for standing by what you believe.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 3, 2003, 2:45 am

Jesus said that being gay was a terrible sin? My copy of the bible must be the dirty fag version with that part edited out.. I wondered why it was pink.

And here all this time I thought only Leviticus said it, but obviously Jesus said it in the new testament too; and I can't wait for someone to find me chapter and verse where he does so I can pencil it in.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 3, 2003, 9:03 am

Marbus wrote:PS - For example, in Leviticus it tells you to send your wife away while she was/is on her period... we don't do this at my house and don't plan on starting anytime soon

PS2 - Adex, while I don't agree 100% with you, as always I commend you for standing by what you believe.

This is still such a great idea that I can't believe it is not the current practice!

BTW, I think Jesus saying being gay is not good is in Bruce 2:69. You are probably just missing a book or two.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 3, 2003, 9:18 am

No Kyo, he didn't throw the law in on a temporary basis.

I belive it still applies today.

If you are a christain, don't act, or present yourself in a manner that would make you out to be a non-christain.

The rule still holds.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 3, 2003, 9:25 am

Many of those laws were put in for community hygene purposes. To prevent disease etc.

Some of the laws were put in to establish a set of customs an rituals that would establish a "Hebrew" culture. Remember they just got out of Egypt and most likely picked up the cultural habits of the place. God wanted to create a new culture, that was unique in identity.

Other laws were put in as frontier justice. This was roaming tribe. If you screwed up you couldn't be put in jail persay, as they were roaming. This was also a group that depended on harmony to survive in the barren lands they were wandering through. Harsh penalities were delt out to those that might disrupt the community and put everyone at risk.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 3, 2003, 11:57 am

HAR HAR HAR!!!!!

Thanks Kyoukan for the new avatar title. If you find it in your heart to refrain from using caps the whole title might show up.

I changed my avatar to reflect the Hypocritical Fucking Nazi title.

Cheers

Post by **Sylvus** » October 3, 2003, 12:51 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Remember that those laws in Leviticus were written down with a lot of things understood that wasn't written.

For instance, a good question to ask is *why* would someone shave their beard or cut their hair at the temples? (as in head, not building)

It just so happens that during that time period there was a competing religion. This was the worship of a weather god named Baal.

If you were a Baal worshiper, guess what you did to tell the world that you were grooving with Baal?

You cut your beard, and clipped the hair near your temples.

So what was God via Moses saying by prohibiting such a funky haircut?

God was basically saying, if you're going to be on my team, don't dress up like the competition.

I still say that they decided the homosexuality thing was wrong because God wanted more people on his team and the easiest way to do that is to breed them in, not go door to door like the JW's. Since they knew people would stick their cocks in just about anything that felt good, they made a rule that would only allow people to use the baby-hole. Now that "His people" have successfully defeated Baal's people, I'd say the no-homos rule is probably outmoded as well.

A better comparison to use, in my opinion, is homosexuality to any other sexual act.

catholic.org, comparing mortal sins, wrote:- Adultery

- Fornication (intercourse prior to marriage)

- Masturbation or other impure acts with self

- Homosexual acts

- Using a contraceptive

- Dressing or acting in a manner intended to cause arousal in another (spouses excepted)

- Kissing or touching another passionately for the purpose of arousal (spouses excepted)

- Allowing another to kiss or touch you in a sexual manner (spouses excepted)

- Intentionally causing a sexual climax outside of intercourse

- Onanism, i.e. intentional withdrawal and non-vaginal ejaculation

- Flagrant immodesty in dress

- Bestiality (sexual acts with animals)

- Oral, anal or other degrading sex practices

- Prostitution

- Rape

- In-vitro fertilization or artificial insemination

In their eyes, all of those sins are equal. There is not a fucking man on this planet who hasn't masturbated, and according to the pope that's just as bad as being gay. I guarantee you that, on at least one cold night back in Poland, PJP II rubbed one out.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 3, 2003, 1:28 pm

Sylvus, interesting argument. I have often thought about this exact thing regarding homosexuality. That the rule was in place to fill the planet with people. However I still find no reference in the New Testament that contravenes homosexuality as being a sin.

Adex can take this one.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » October 3, 2003, 1:45 pm

This thread just sucks.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 3, 2003, 2:10 pm

Hrm, as I remember from church services 20 years ago, the idea that homosexuality is sinful comes fromt he fact that God ordered folk to "Go forth, be fruitful and multiply". Sex of any kind that precludes procreation was against the word of God and therefore sinful.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 3, 2003, 2:19 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Hrm, as I remember from church services 20 years ago, the idea that homosexuality is sinful comes fromt he fact that God ordered folk to "Go forth, be fruitful and multiply". Sex of any kind that precludes procreation was against the word of God and therefore sinful.

By that logic though wouldn't abstinance also be sinful? If so, where does that leave Monks, Nuns and some priests?

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » October 3, 2003, 2:31 pm

Chmee wrote:
Fallanthas wrote:Hrm, as I remember from church services 20 years ago, the idea that homosexuality is sinful comes fromt he fact that God ordered folk to "Go forth, be fruitful and multiply". Sex of any kind that precludes procreation was against the word of God and therefore sinful.
By that logic though wouldn't abstinance also be sinful? If so, where does that leave Monks, Nuns and some priests?

Excellent point.

...and damn you for pulling me in!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 3, 2003, 4:11 pm

Atokal wrote:HAR HAR HAR!!!!!

Thanks Kyoukan for the new avatar title. If you find it in your heart to refrain from using caps the whole title might show up.

I changed my avatar to reflect the Hypocritical Fucking Nazi title.

Cheers

Nope that was the title in it's entirety.

Watching you take less than a work week to melt down again into your previous mental state of replying to everything I post and deluding yourself into thinking you are "owning" me with another shitty MS paint job is utterly fucking hilarious though. You are so completely pathetic that baiting you into another temper tantrum would hardly even be worth it if it wasn't so goddam amusing watching you get all outraged and stomp around like anyone gives a crap about you. I give you another week until you're banned again and begging to come back by whining at the admins about how you've changed.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 3, 2003, 4:41 pm

When I read the Song of Solomon "in the bible", I find plenty of references to having sex for pleasure.

Because of this I disagree with the Catholic stance about contraceptives.

Sex is superglue that helps a husband and wife build a closeness between each other.

As far as that long list you mentioned, I define "out of bounds" as any form of sex that's done outside a husband and wife relationship.

As best I know, the bible supports this model. But hey I'm could be wrong. I'm an engineer not a preacher.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 3, 2003, 5:17 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Atokal wrote:HAR HAR HAR!!!!!

Thanks Kyoukan for the new avatar title. If you find it in your heart to refrain from using caps the whole title might show up.

I changed my avatar to reflect the Hypocritical Fucking Nazi title.

Cheers
Nope that was the title in it's entirety.

Watching you take less than a work week to melt down again into your previous mental state of replying to everything I post and deluding yourself into thinking you are "owning" me with another shitty MS paint job is utterly fucking hilarious though. You are so completely pathetic that baiting you into another temper tantrum would hardly even be worth it if it wasn't so goddam amusing watching you get all outraged and stomp around like anyone gives a crap about you. I give you another week until you're banned again and begging to come back by whining at the admins about how you've changed.

OMFG hahaha yep complete meltdown here.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 3, 2003, 5:49 pm

By that logic though wouldn't abstinance also be sinful? If so, where does that leave Monks, Nuns and some priests?

You are surely not asking me to defend the christian religion as logical?

Truant · Post by **Truant** » October 3, 2003, 10:57 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:If you are a christain, don't act, or present yourself in a manner that would make you out to be a non-christian.
The rule still holds.

Considering non-christians come in all shapes, sizes, and anything else. It's pretty much impossible to dress/wear your hair in a way that makes you stand out as a christian. Or on the other hand, to wear clothes, hairstyles, makeup, whatever in any way that some heathen doesn't.

So if this rule still holds, are you then sinning adex?

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 3, 2003, 10:59 pm

Truant wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:If you are a christain, don't act, or present yourself in a manner that would make you out to be a non-christian.
The rule still holds.
Considering non-christians come in all shapes, sizes, and anything else. It's pretty much impossible to dress/wear your hair in a way that makes you stand out as a christian. Or on the other hand, to wear clothes, hairstyles, makeup, whatever in any way that some heathen doesn't.

So if this rule still holds, are you then sinning adex?

I doubt Adex is sporting any upside down crosses or frequenting any peeler joints.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 4, 2003, 1:24 am

The dress depends on the culture Truant, but the theme remains consistant.

The New Testament echos the Levitical law in this case. Paul basically said don't act (or dress) in a manner that might prevent people from considering Jesus.

So, I'm probably not going to spook anyone in a large city if I wore an earring. But if I went some part of West Texas and if my wearing an earring spooked an onlooker away from a life knowing Jesus, I screwed up.

With all things, a healthy dose of courtesy and common sense is helpful.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » October 4, 2003, 1:38 am

i forgot, what does the upside down cross stand for again?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 4, 2003, 3:38 am

it doenst stand for anything but an inverted cross is an abomination to christian beliefs.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » October 4, 2003, 10:23 am

i think christian mythology said judas crucified himself upside down, if that means anything

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 4, 2003, 11:05 am

Good site on all kinds of satanic symbolism.. A-Z of Satanism

The Inverted Cross
The inverted cross was not invented or first used by Satanists. It is the cross that St Peter was crucified on because he didn't feel himself worthy to be crucified on the same form of cross as his "messiah", Jesus Christ, was.
It was a symbol for unworthiness and deep respect of ones superiors: representing folly, hardship, failure and reverence for Christ. That's what it used to mean. Since the advent of the B-Movie and limited public intelligence the inverted cross became a reversed Christian symbol - a symbol of Anti-Christian sentiment. Let us not forget that The Cross is just a symbol, used and misused over the millennium for a multitude of reasons.

The Baphomet is the official symbol of the Church Of Satan, but many Satanists use the inverted cross to symbolize their dislike of Christianity. It's modern meaning has came to mean "anti-Christian" and it is used and recognized as such in today's world, but not in history.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » October 4, 2003, 1:19 pm

Atokal wrote:
Truant wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:If you are a christain, don't act, or present yourself in a manner that would make you out to be a non-christian.
The rule still holds.
Considering non-christians come in all shapes, sizes, and anything else. It's pretty much impossible to dress/wear your hair in a way that makes you stand out as a christian. Or on the other hand, to wear clothes, hairstyles, makeup, whatever in any way that some heathen doesn't.

So if this rule still holds, are you then sinning adex?
I doubt Adex is sporting any upside down crosses or frequenting any peeler joints.

In today's world he doesn't have to do anything that drastic.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » October 4, 2003, 4:15 pm

I can see St. Paul and Christ right now in heaven laughing their fucking asses off saying, "Fuck man, we sure did fuck with their heads, hahahahaha!"

When is it going to hit you that the bible was written by men trying to control you and all those around you and that it is for the most part, discounting the actual historical accounts, fiction! It was WRITTEN by MAN for MAN. A book written by MAN for MAN != divine law, divine word, divine anything, nor does it define the way in which human beings are to live their lives; it only defines the way in which human beings with smaller brains are supposed to live their lives

As for homosexuality in the greatest fictional book to ever be written here is my response: That's nice, want a fucking cookie? Do you honestly think most gay men and women give a flying fuck what the bible says? I sure don't and any gay man or woman that does care needs to go see a doctor. Straight bible thumping idiots are the only ones worried about what's in their holy book, the rest of us don't - get a fucking clue

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » October 4, 2003, 8:50 pm

I hope Zeus hits you all with lighting bolts.