God Hates Fags?

[Easy Mac]

note: I disassociate myself from calling anyone "bible-thumpers" (my girlfriend is one).

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I sorry, but your comment is just as completely closed minded as what your suggest of him and others.

You may be correct that some people don't or aren't willing to read and try to understand what the scriptures say, I won't argue that point. but what you're perhaps ignoring or simply not understanding is that for many of those others, the scriptures are no more than an interesting fiction. And frankly, speaking for myself, trying to apply fiction as a guiding source to my reality is truly a fools errand.

Perhaps you too need to stop and honestly try and understand the other side of the discussion. Where your belief has a basis in that text, my beliefs are not based on such things. I CANNOT take what the scriptures say as having a real bearing on my life because to me, those scriptures are no more than ink on paper, they have no value beyond whatever my perceptions of those words become. Its not that I don't WANT to, its that based on my upringing and current belief system, the scriptures are simply a collection of neat stories. Nothing more.

This is where the split in opinions and this discussion stem from. Its not that one side is right and the other wrong, and its not that one side just doesn't get it, either way. Its the fact that believers have faith that those stories actually mean something, and for them its an important something and cannot be dismissed or disregarded. however for myself and many others, those stories hold no weight, so when you try and spout scripture to us, we look at you like your an idiot and think "dude, why are you telling me a fairy tale, when I'm trying to discuss reality with you?"

does that make any sense?

Because we had spent much time in the past here discussing this very issue, debating and discussing many points and counterpoints. You will notice that in every thread that someone brings up a "religious" issue, at least one believer dives in, read what the argument is and present alternatives. That is not being close-minded but rather being on the front line, sort of speak. If you notice just in this thread alone, we are addressing the issue the original poster brought up directly. In other words, we had to read the issue, acknowledge it, understand it and respond accordingly. In this case it was easy because not only had this been brought up before, but the response is simple. We do not agree with godhatefags but can also to present the points the Scriptures make about homosexuality. You certainly may not accept anything as God's Words but for those of us who do (and there have been and are many, many in this world), it is the foundation of our faith. Otherwise, we would just make up (and change) our belief system as we go along, as many do. One does not have to present actual Sciptures in order to answer everything (I rarely do) but any similar response would have the basis in Scriptures whether anyone realizes it or not. Otherwise, everything becomes meaningless.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Some of you people are really silly.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Having read the biblical argument against homosexuality, I'm not convinced it's considered all that bad. Certainly not worthy of the Big Ten of sins.

These people are definitely picking and choosing. Judging on their own when they should be leaving it up to some other power.

When these hypocrites start picketing divorce courts (a lot of coveting of neighbors and such) and razor companies (the same scripture that admonishes homosexuality apparently considers shaving sideburns an abomination), I'll listen.

The problem I have with religion in general goes back to Fritz's original point; it is rational to tell your seven-year-old daughter that her god hates fags, if that's what you genuinely believe.

Quite frankly, how people want to live, and exchange bodily fluids is their own business -- a matter of conscience. I consider the homosexual lifestyle sinful, but then it (and a lot of other sins) have been around for a long, long time now. Of course, if others want to throw the issue into the forum of public debate, I'll happily wade-in with my 2 cents.

I agree with you; many Christians (especially in western society) are very hypocritical. I find it sad that the divorce rate among Christians is almost as high as it is among non-Christians. Scripture teaches us that we will be judged by God using the same standards we judge others...which should be very sobering to any believer, especially since some of Jesus' harshest words were directed towards religious hypocrites.

[Sharpieman]

So many Christians, so few lions.
All kidding aside, I don't think its "rational" to teach hate if it has something to do with with religion or not. Hate breeds violence. Violence breeds death. As a Christian, I understand that homosexuality is a sin, as many other things. We have to remember that all sins are equal, so if you have ever stole anything in your life you committed a sin equal to that of homosexuality.
With that said, those people have the right to protest. Just as the KKK does or Sierra Club or Earth First does. The best thing to do with these kind of people isn't to fuel their cause by actively attacking them, just ignore them, thats what you do with ignorant people.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

especially since some of Jesus' harshest words were directed towards religious hypocrites.

I would say that most of Jesus' harshest words were directed at the Pharisees (the religious hypocrites). It's funny (and shameful) to me to see many of the modern day Pharisees act the same way - but they don't realize it (which is probably why I am not religious or belong to any religious denominations). What these modern day Pharisees are, are not the hypocrites and sinners - for we all fall into those categories, but those acting on Scriptural authority for purpose of control, wealth and power. These would be the ones that enforce "religious rules" above all (some pulled from Scriptures, most made up), including above love, sacrifice and service.

But what we all have to stop doing is to broad brush. There is way too much emhpasis on the sins that we do but not nearly enough on the love, sacrifice and service throughout the world.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

... We do not agree with godhatefags but can also to present the points the Scriptures make about homosexuality. You certainly may not accept anything as God's Words but for those of us who do (and there have been and are many, many in this world), it is the foundation of our faith. Otherwise, we would just make up (and change) our belief system as we go along, as many do. One does not have to present actual Sciptures in order to answer everything (I rarely do) but any similar response would have the basis in Scriptures whether anyone realizes it or not. Otherwise, everything becomes meaningless.

I understand that many here agree with the initial statement, which was basically that teaching a 7 yr old to hate is wrong, but the post I replied to was a direct statement that others are unable or unwilling (in a very attacking tone) to even try to understand the scriptures for what THAT PERSON believed their value to be.

My response was an attempt, while apaprently a failed one, to explain why that persons post was in fact flawed and in effect, wrong. His comments were based on his own point of view, assuming that the target of his comments "should" in fact be at least willing to understand and accept the scriptures "as HE feels they should be" when it is entirely possible that the other person may not believe that the scriptures are meaningful at all.

this is where the problems arise in discussing religion, the non-believers (to use a label) can't accept arguements based on what they believe to be a fairy tale, or fiction, where the believers (another label) can't see life in any other terms, because of their belief system b eing based and grounded in specific scriptures they can't comprehend that what they say is so much nonsense to someone else, because its "real" to them.

thats all I was trying to explain. not disagreeing with the real topic, just seeing the arguemtn shift to a point where people aren't getting the basis of the lack of understanding.

[RendeR]

Dola, sorry, I also forgot a rather important point:

You bring up the fact that without the belief in what is written already you would be free to simply "make up" whatever worked in your best interest. Sadly, when it comes to Christianity, this is in fact what has been done over the centuries as revisionists and kings directed edits to what was the original messages in the scriptures.

The bible of today is so far seperated from the original writings of the many different books and writings that went into it in the beginning that its rather scary to think that so many millions of people put that much faith in it.

This is my personal main problem with all of the organized religions of the world, they've taken those old writings, and edited, revised and changed them so many times that no one will ever be able to be certain what the initial works ever said. Basing my faith on HUMAN mysticism and interpretation of God's will and words, to me, would be the single worst mistake I could ever make.

[nfg22]

Originally Posted by revrew

There's so much stupidity when false teachers start spewing off about God.

For the record:
1. God does NOT hate homosexuals. (Now, since these folks carried the name Baptist, I assume they're psuedo-Christian, claim-to-be Bible believers, so I'm referring to the biblical, Judeo-Christian "God")
2. No one "deserves" to go to hell for any individual action or decision. We don't "earn" hell by so many demerits. The protesters would be more accurate to hold up signs that say, "I deserve hell, too!"

Few things make me more upset than people who have no clue claiming to know my God. If Jesus came to do a temple-clearing kind of butt kickin' at this rally, he would have started with the protesters, not the actors.

Hey im a baptist and definetly not a psuedo Christian

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Dola, sorry, I also forgot a rather important point:

You bring up the fact that without the belief in what is written already you would be free to simply "make up" whatever worked in your best interest. Sadly, when it comes to Christianity, this is in fact what has been done over the centuries as revisionists and kings directed edits to what was the original messages in the scriptures.

The bible of today is so far seperated from the original writings of the many different books and writings that went into it in the beginning that its rather scary to think that so many millions of people put that much faith in it.

This is my personal main problem with all of the organized religions of the world, they've taken those old writings, and edited, revised and changed them so many times that no one will ever be able to be certain what the initial works ever said. Basing my faith on HUMAN mysticism and interpretation of God's will and words, to me, would be the single worst mistake I could ever make.

One can make the argument that the central theme of the Scriptures of God's love, Christ's salvation and our redemption from sin have never been altered.

The bible of today is so far seperated from the original writings of the many different books

Not true at all. I would ask you to prove your statement. Just because we have bibles written in thousands of languages, like modern English, does not mean that the meanings have changed. We can point out word emphasis changes but those are mostly minor theological points. The reason that the central messages have not changed is that they are emphasized and re-emphasized in every single book of the bible - so that despite the passage of years, none of us would ever miss those points.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by McSweeny

someone famous said something along these lines:

"The problem isn't communism, it's the communists just as the problem isn't with christianity, it's the christians"

not sure who, but i'm sure someone around here does...

i wonder who said it, because it is familiar. And i would like to know if i am being compared to someone i would like or not......

.......and i do tend to agree with the line, not fully though, because i am not laying this line on everyone. But this can be said about many ideas, theories, theologies, religions and the such. Something can sound good on paper, but when put into action by a certain group of people it gets FUBAR.

[sabotai]

"The trouble with Communism is the Communists, just as the trouble with Christianity is the Christians"

H.L. Mencken

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Because of your personal life, you (and a few others) only see one side and refuse to even attempt to understand what Scriptures say about issues such as this. Folks like revrew, SkyDog, Bubba, nfg22 and myself can talk until we're blue in the face but you and some others will still bring up issues such as this (and condemn or namecall all believers) as if you had all of us on ignore. What revrew said earlier is correct but that won't stop you and others from hating us for what we believe.

This is without the question the most ridiculous thing you have ever posted here Bucc. One of those classic UIC moments I talked about earlier.

[Fritz]

A little side trip here:

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I find it sad that the divorce rate among Christians is almost as high as it is among non-Christians.

Evidently, divorce is a-okay.

[Noop]

Who is getting gangbanged? *Grabs cam*

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Fritz

If you think that God hates homosexuals, I don't see the problem teaching that to you kids. Isn't one of the jobs of a parent to teach their children a value system?

If you think God hates, you should not be teaching your children anything about religion.

[QuikSand]

I'm not much for bumper stickers, but I saw one this morning that made me smile, and think of this thread (a pretty unlikely exacta):

GOD BLESS THE WHOLE WORLD
NO EXCEPTIONS

[WSUCougar]

Love one another.

Treat others as you wish to be treated.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Fritz

If you think that God hates homosexuals, I don't see the problem teaching that to you kids. Isn't one of the jobs of a parent to teach their children a value system?

The idea is that God doesn't hate anyone - he hates some of the things that they do (that goes for everyone) but loves them anyway.

Normal Christian explanation is along the lines of a father/son relationship - eg. Your kids might drive you nuts by doing things you know are bad for them, but it doesn't stop you loving them.

[portnoise]

www.godhatesshrimp.com

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Not true at all. I would ask you to prove your statement. Just because we have bibles written in thousands of languages, like modern English, does not mean that the meanings have changed. We can point out word emphasis changes but those are mostly minor theological points. The reason that the central messages have not changed is that they are emphasized and re-emphasized in every single book of the bible - so that despite the passage of years, none of us would ever miss those points.

I'm afraid to say I agree with the original quote to a certain degree, my basis for this is from several formats:

- The Bible as it stands today was drawn together from a number of disparate writings, some being discarded some being taken into the bible as we know it today.
This was undertaken many years ago and can be said to have been 'divinely inspired' (or similar) if you want to take that tact, but it still stands true that the Bible is an incomplete amalgamation of the transcripts from the time (for whatever reason).
- When translating between languages the meanings of words will often change subtly* and also over time meanings of particular terms within a language may also alter over time. This means that the Bible as read today is an interpretation of the original.

That being said I'd also agree with Buccaneer in that the central message of the Bible is unlikely to have changed as that would have been something that indivudal translators would have known about and noticed during transcription.


*One version of our game had the slang phrase 'over the moon' in the commentary (meaning 'very pleased'/'happy') it was translated litterally in one foreign version to something along the lines of 'situated above the moon' ... not quite the same meaning at all.

[Ksyrup]

"...We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver's and Red Lobster. Yea, even Popeye's shall be cleansed..."


Now really, who can argue against this?

[Maple Leafs]

Without getting into the religion vs. gays debate... I really hate seeing kids involved in protests of any kind. Whenever I see some six-year-old holding a sign that they probably can't even read let alone understand, I want to find their parents and smack them.

[druez]

God Hates Fags?

Hey in England Marc, isn't a fag a ciggerate?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by druez

God Hates Fags?

Hey in England Marc, isn't a fag a ciggerate?

Originally Posted by JeeberD

I thought this was going to be an anti-smoking thread...

You were about 70 posts too late.

A thread titled "God Hates Fags?" and seeing a druez post, I was expecting a little more...something.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by druez

God Hates Fags?
Hey in England Marc, isn't a fag a ciggerate?

Yes, something which caused me a certain amount of embarressment initially when I first worked in America ...

Standing in a bar asking where you can get some 'fags' (cigarettes) in America has a somewhat different effect than in England

Geek Note on english slang:
Fag = Ciggarette
I believe the fag slang for cigarrettes came about as an abbreviation from 'faggot' (A bundle of twigs, sticks, or branches bound together - ie. close approximation to the early cigarettes which were somewhat cruder than today).

[revrew]

Originally Posted by nfg22

Hey im a baptist and definetly not a psuedo Christian

Sorry for the misunderstanding there, nfg. I happen to attend a Baptist church myself (though I hesitate to call myself a "Baptist." I'm still getting used to it. And there are as many kinds of Baptists as there are chemical elements. You practically need a periodic table to keep track of them all. I can think of at least 6 different types/denominations within 50 miles of here.)

My point was simply that by claiming to be Baptists, this group would thereby claim at least to be Judeo-Christian and consider Scripture a form of authority. Therefore, I could appeal to their authority source to show how they're off-target.

Didn't mean to take a dig at Baptists. Not at all.

[Fritz]

That is not the point. My point is one of the responsibilities of parenthood is providing moral/belief/behavioral/etc guidance. You can take issue with what the patents think, but I don't see where you can fault them for passing what they think on to their kids.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The idea is that God doesn't hate anyone - he hates some of the things that they do (that goes for everyone) but loves them anyway.

Normal Christian explanation is along the lines of a father/son relationship - eg. Your kids might drive you nuts by doing things you know are bad for them, but it doesn't stop you loving them.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Fritz

That is not the point. My point is one of the responsibilities of parenthood is providing moral/belief/behavioral/etc guidance. You can take issue with what the parents think, but I don't see where you can fault them for passing what they think on to their kids.

I agree with Fritz, but really only to the extent that it's a sound logical argument.

I would probably reframe it in a fashion like this:

-Ordinarily, parents have a responsibilty to instill values for their children

-Some parents have values I'd consider reprehensible

-If those parents instilled those values, those children would be potentially harmed

-Therefore, it would be better than some parents eschew the general responsibility of instilling values for their children


..and then, it's a matter of debate whether a given set of views held by the parent is sufficient to trigger the logical exception above. Is "God hates fags" enough? How about "God hates Jews?" Or "God hates Americans?"

[Fritz]

What would be the test I wonder?

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I would probably reframe it in a fashion like this:

-Ordinarily, parents have a responsibilty to instill values for their children

-Some parents have values I'd consider reprehensible

-If those parents instilled those values, those children would be potentially harmed

-Therefore, it would be better than some parents eschew the general responsibility of instilling values for their children


..and then, it's a matter of debate whether a given set of views held by the parent is sufficient to trigger the logical exception above. Is "God hates fags" enough? How about "God hates Jews?" Or "God hates Americans?"

[Fritz]

dola - I think this part of the initial post is the more interesting bit, since we have already beaten religion and homosexuality to death.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Fritz

What would be the test I wonder?

I reckon that becomes purely subjective - not a matter of correct or incorrect.

Personally, I might come to the conclusion that a pretty wide range of people would be better off just letting someone else teach their kids right and wrong and so forth... I'd start with all the people who smoke while the kids are in the car.

You might say that the parents' rights are so important that this line should only be crossed in the case of physical harm or somesuch.

Doesn't make either of us right or wrong... but we're at least operating within the same logical context.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I'd start with all the people who smoke while the kids are in the car.

No kidding. Or how about this one...yesterday, on the way to a local car dealership that was hosting a free child car seat check, we drove past a woman driving a car with two kids under the age of 6 in the backseat (one of which couldn't have been more than 3), and neither was restrained in any manner at all. And here we were, going to have a car seat checked for a baby that hadn't even been born yet.

If I had the power...I'm not sure I'd allow people like that to have kids, let alone allow them to teach values to kids.

[Fritz]

I abhor the child seat laws.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Personally, I might come to the conclusion that a pretty wide range of people would be better off just letting someone else teach their kids right and wrong and so forth.

I agree with you overall, but I think this is where the reasoning hits a snag. Are the estalished norms of a culture really better than one person's thinking? In some cases, certainly, but it is kind of relative. If someone in this country is teaching their kid that "God hates Jews, but you still need to tolerate them" a worse person than one in Palestine who teaches their kid the same exact message? They're teaching the exact same thing, but one is in a culture where it is too lenient and the other in a culture where it too harsh, so the argument could be made that the Palestinian is a better person because of that.

I don't think there is one litmus test, but in general saying something that starts with "God Hates" probably isn't what you should be passing along, IMO.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

If I had the power...I'm not sure I'd allow people like that to have kids, let alone allow them to teach values to kids.

Reminds me of a Greg Giraldo joke. "I only agree with abortion in cases where the woman's life is in danger, there is rape or incest, or you can tell from the parents that the kid is going to turn into a real jackass."

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Fritz

I abhor the child seat laws.

OK, I'll bite. Why?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

One can make the argument that the central theme of the Scriptures of God's love, Christ's salvation and our redemption from sin have never been altered.


Not true at all. I would ask you to prove your statement. Just because we have bibles written in thousands of languages, like modern English, does not mean that the meanings have changed. We can point out word emphasis changes but those are mostly minor theological points. The reason that the central messages have not changed is that they are emphasized and re-emphasized in every single book of the bible - so that despite the passage of years, none of us would ever miss those points.

While someone else has already noted the response to this I'd like to add that simply translating the original text is inherintly editing/paraphrasing, since any given word of line of text in the original, depending on the language translated too, could give you a completely different meaning.

I won't argue that they INTENDED to maintain the original meanings, however, since the entire manuscript is, quite literally, open to interpretation, the change of any single word COULD inf act change the overall interpretation. There are a few tens of thousands of verses within the two testements, allowing for some support for keeping meanings correct during translation that is still a huge chance of mis-interpretation across the board.

My wife has a book which describes the extent to which it has been edited and changed, I'll try to post the name and author this evening. I understand also that this is just one book, but as I sit through documentaries giving statements from the mouth of holy men of many different sects of christianity all of which admit to the extensive revisionism that has taken place on the works of the bible, I have no problem asserting my earlier statement.

the easiest example would be the "king james" version of the new testement, do you really think its got his name on it because they felt he was a really great guy? No, it was a commissioned version of the bible set to his requests and standards.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

OK, I'll bite. Why?

Using a child seat is a good idea but I don't think there needs to be a law.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Using a child seat is a good idea but I don't think there needs to be a law.

You don't think there's any value in providing protection for citizens who are unable to choose to provide themselves with that protection? To me, this goes way beyond general seat belt laws, which can be argued as laws that only protect people from their own stupidity.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

You don't think there's any value in providing protection for citizens who are unable to choose to provide themselves with that protection? To me, this goes way beyond general seat belt laws, which can be argued as laws that only protect people from their own stupidity.

I hate seat belt laws as well.

[Ksyrup]

I don't doubt that you do, given your stance on child car seats. You don't see the difference?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I understand that many here agree with the initial statement, which was basically that teaching a 7 yr old to hate is wrong, but the post I replied to was a direct statement that others are unable or unwilling (in a very attacking tone) to even try to understand the scriptures for what THAT PERSON believed their value to be.

My response was an attempt, while apaprently a failed one, to explain why that persons post was in fact flawed and in effect, wrong. His comments were based on his own point of view, assuming that the target of his comments "should" in fact be at least willing to understand and accept the scriptures "as HE feels they should be" when it is entirely possible that the other person may not believe that the scriptures are meaningful at all.

this is where the problems arise in discussing religion, the non-believers (to use a label) can't accept arguements based on what they believe to be a fairy tale, or fiction, where the believers (another label) can't see life in any other terms, because of their belief system b eing based and grounded in specific scriptures they can't comprehend that what they say is so much nonsense to someone else, because its "real" to them.

thats all I was trying to explain. not disagreeing with the real topic, just seeing the arguemtn shift to a point where people aren't getting the basis of the lack of understanding.

Any attempt to think in the three-dimensional (spiritual) is going to be dismissed as a matter of course (too complicated for the unbeliever to grasp) but it is admirable never-the-less. Remember what the Bible states "Professing themselves wise, they became as fools."

The most bogus argument of all is that all scripture is man-made and should be dismissed out of hand as 'fairey-tales' and 'myths.' Anyone stating this should be discredited automatically because too much evidence shows otherwise, and these arguments are really nothing more than a lazy-man's attempt to have things his own way without researching, studying or acknowledging the other point of view.

Fact: The Bible interprets itself. Take any word/concept and do a little Biblical research and you will begin to see the intricate, consistant and ultimate Devine nature displayed. The fact that so many people over so many years did write all these scriptures with such consistant content really shows the exact opposite of what the unbeliever would purport, that the inspiration of these texts could be nothing more than Devine in source.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Remember what the Bible states "Professing themselves wise, they became as fools."

So you're a fool? Finally something I can agree with you on.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't doubt that you do, given your stance on child car seats. You don't see the difference?

From my point of view the laws are so similar as to be the same. I do understand one calls into question a person's ability to protect themselves while the other assumes you need guidance in protecting your children.

edit: if this is going to go much further perhaps it should its own thread

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Any attempt to think in the three-dimensional (spiritual)

I thought 3 dimentional was height width depth.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Fritz

I thought 3 dimentional was height width depth.

Also body (physical) soul (mind) spirit (self-explanitory)

[Fritz]

that brings new meaning to "3D shooter"

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Fritz

From my point of view the laws are so similar as to be the same. I do understand one calls into question a person's ability to protect themselves while the other assumes you need guidance in protecting your children.

I am with Fritz on this whole issue. I think I'm old enough to decide what's safe and healthy for my own family without the government hassling me about it.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Drake

I am with Fritz on this whole issue. I think I'm old enough to decide what's safe and healthy for my own family without the government hassling me about it.

Leaving aside the "I know what's best for my kids" angle, how about the fact that mandatory seat belt laws, child safety seat laws, and for that matter, speed limits, save thousands of lives every year while causing no undue burden on America's citizenry?