‘Glee’ Serves Up Bible Mockery, Gay Propaganda for Valentine’s Day
The TV musical “Glee” has a long history of pushing the envelope on sexual matters and promoting the homosexual lifestyle. The Valentine’s Day episode of Glee, titled “Heart,” marked a new low in Glee’s campaign against traditional sexual morality, by mocking the Bible.
A lesbian student, Santana, asked a group of Christians called the “God Squad” to sing for her girlfriend as part of a “singing telegram” performance. The idea didn’t sit well with a new homeschooled student, who conveniently fit all the stereotypes liberals have of homeschoolers (the unsocialized, barefoot son of a Bible salesman who listens to talk radio but doesn’t own a TV). His reluctance sparked a conversation among the so-called “God Squad” about the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality.
Video below the jump.
The students of the “God Squad” claimed to respect his decision – and then mocked the Bible’s relevance on homosexuality.
The leader of the “God Squad,” Mercedes, declared: "They say one out of every 10 people are gay. And if that's true, that means one of the 12 apostles might have been gay. My guess is Simon, because that name's the gayest."
Mercedes’ statistics are as faulty as her Biblical knowledge (two apostles were named Simon: Simon Peter and Simon the Zealot). Even the Williams Institute, which has as its mission “advances sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy through rigorous, independent research and scholarship, and disseminates it to judges, legislators, policymakers, media and the public” disagrees with that figure, declaring that around 4% of the population is LGBT.
Not that the rest of the “God Squad’s” conversation was anything better than an atheist squad doing a shallow hit piece on the Bible.
One of them, Sam, chimed in: “The Bible says its an abomination for a man to lay with another man, but we shared tents in cub scouts and slept next to each other all the time – so that would make Cub Scouts an abomination.”
Another character said: “You know what else the Bible says is an abomination? Eating lobster, planting crops in the same field, giving someone a proud look – not an abomination? Slavery. Jesus never said anything about gay people. That’s a fact.”
Sam replied: “Well maybe he wanted to, but he didn’t want to hurt Simon’s feelings.”
Predictably, by the end of the episode, the homeschooled student saw the light, declaring “love is love” and singing for the lesbian cheerleaders.
The episode was full of “Glee’s” usual instances where the gay lifestyle was pushed on viewers, featuring lesbian kissing in the hallways and a student coming out that he was gay. Lesbian cheerleader Santana complained: “All I want to be able to do is kiss my girlfriend, but I guess no one can see that, because there’s such an insane double standard at this school.”
In a singularly ironic way, she’s right. There is an insane double standard at that school – in favor of the homosexual lifestyle.
By mocking the Bible, “Glee” has gone further down the rabbit hole in pushing homosexual propaganda on its viewers.
- Paul Wilson's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Gleefully...
Submitted by KyWriter on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 5:00pm.
...I never watch Glee.
What is this, year 3 or so?
Submitted by boilermaker on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 5:25pm.
I think it's safe to say Glee is no longer pushing anything on anyone. If you tune in you're going to see gay characters (gay theater kids, who woulda thunk it?) and if you don't know that ahead of time you're an idiot.
And people use the bible all the time to mock gays. I'd say it's fair game.
Totally agree. Not to
Submitted by ndorfman on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 7:16pm.
Totally agree. Not to mention the fact that these culture wars are a losing battle. People don't care about gays and lesbians. At least those under 30 don't care. Once the boomers die off this won't be much of an issue anymore. If conservatives want to run on a platform of anti contraceptives and anti gay they are going to give the democrats the white house for some time to come.
Most people under 30 don't
Submitted by ant on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 8:55pm.
Most people under 30 don't care about anything but themselves and their interests, Occupy being example #1.
Baby boomers, for your information, were the beginning of the culture war and the spearhead of the 'anything goes', 'do whatever feels good', 'abortion as birth-control', 'gay-rights' useful-idiots movement. Suggesting the 'baby-boomers' are the fuddy-duddy righty-extremists holding back your liberal, sodomite utopia reveals your ignorance. Lest you forget, conservatives are replaceable, liberals, on the other hand, abort their children and gays can't have 'em. Soooo...that sounds like a real problem of demographics endangering your theory.
In fairness to those under
Submitted by ndorfman on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 11:17pm.
In fairness to those under 30, the same statement could be said about virtually any age group. Baby boomers were not the beginning of the culture war. Some people of the baby boomer generation were a part of the beginning of the culture war. However to group the tens of millions of them under that label is silly. The fact is, people of what I would assume is your generation, are much more apt to be homophobic than younger generations. It's a fact.
As far as your state of liberals and abortion...I would like to see the stats that show that liberals are more likely to have abortions than conservatives. How many supposedly socially conservative politicians have either turned out to be gay or have cheated on their wives? I do believe one such politician who was the front runner for a short time this primary season cheated on multiple wives. Yet Newt still runs on a platform of family values. It is a total joke.
The joke is your reply. You
Submitted by ant on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 10:48am.
The joke is your reply. You reply that to group tens of millions under a label is silly and then immediately follow by grouping people of "my" generation as more homophobic (homophobic , itself, being a bogus claim). And then state your deluded opinion as a fact...sorry..wrong.
Your second paragraph is even dopier. How many conservatives do you suppose work for Planned Parenthood? How many liberals, by definition, march in pro-life gatherings? Stupid claim. Oh no, somebody conservative wasn't the perfect man?! How shall we go on? You libtards always miss this point because you hold conservatives to standards that you yourselves dismiss. Conservatives don't claim to be the perfect examples of 'values'...they just acknowledge that there ARE values. It's something liberals cannot seem to wrap their little heads around or refuse to because they feel it gives them some kind of concrete argument to stand on when somebody on the right turns out to not be Jesus.
Well hold on, you are making
Submitted by ndorfman on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 9:37pm.
Well hold on, you are making a totally different argument in your second paragraph. Yes, liberals are much more likely to be pro-choice. This does not equate to liberals having more abortions. Just as it is not more likely that conservatives are more likely to stay married and not get a divorce simply because the profess to believe in the sanctity of marriage. Claiming to have values and actually having them are two very different things.
Much like pretending to propound great thoughts and ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 9:44pm.
actually doing so, dorkman
MD
There is a difference,
Submitted by ndorfman on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 9:31pm.
There is a difference, extensive polls are my evidence. What's yours?
Have you linked those polls?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 9:50pm.
.
Baby boomers never cared
Submitted by redfish on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 9:38pm.
Baby boomers never cared about gays and lesbians, just like people under 30 don't.
But they did have different opinions on all sorts of cultural issues, and the conservatives were called anti-gay for disagreeing with same-sex marriage, just like they were called anti-black for disagreeing with affirmative action, and anti-woman for disagreeing with abortion, and anti-hispanic for being against illegal immigration, and so on and so on.
Somehow I think we're going to see the same thing with people under 30, who just like their parents, have different opinions on these matters. Especially as some people on the left keep pushing it. Young people don't like being called ignorant for thinking parents having their boys wear dresses is stupid, either.
You are anti-gay for
Submitted by ndorfman on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 11:11pm.
You are anti-gay for disagreeing with same-sex marriage. You aren't anti-black for disagreeing with affirmative action. You aren't anti-woman for disagreeing with abortion. You aren't anti-hispanic for being against illegal immigration. The fact of the mater is, the polls show that the public is split about 50-50 on the issue. This is a huge increase of acceptance on the side of gay marriage. The fact is, people are caring less and less about the issue. More and more states are going to legalize it and eventually it won't be an issue at all accept for a small faction of the population. When it comes to gay marriage, you are on the wrong side of history.
dorfman
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 11:25pm.
I'm sure Germans believed if they didn't support Hitler they would also be on the wrong side of history. I'm concerned with being on the right side of God.
No, many Germans supported
Submitted by ndorfman on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 9:30pm.
No, many Germans supported Hitler for fear that their families would be murdered if they didn't. Fair enough. Than I hope you never get divorced, never work on Sundays, have never lusted after another, have never lied, have never had premarital sex and so on and so forth.
Nobody is righteous, dorf.
Submitted by ant on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 1:38am.
Nobody is righteous, dorf. That is the point. We all fall short of living 'clean' lives. We all make mistakes. The left's ideology is that there are no mistakes to make..you can make your own reality, your own perfection, your own moral 'standard'. That is wrong. You make the point without realizing it.. the individual engaged in (and encouraged by the left) destructive behavior, in this case, gay sex, is the same as living a life based on lust, addiction, worldly pleasure, what have you. Nobody is condemning them. In fact, it is nobody's place to condemn it, it is within reason and expected, actually, to be intolerant of the behavior, but to encourage and glorify it is wrong in and of itself. I don't expect you to understand...because you can't, so many liberals just can't. If I was suffering now, involved in constant excursions to bars and prostitutes or hitting 'the pipe'...while I would be in need of some truth..some intervention. You idiots would be cheering me on. These age old 'morals' didn't just come out of the blue because some 1st century homophobe 'sure did hate himself some queers', but because it is a common sense instruction to live and not die..spiritually and physically. Again, I don't expect you to understand, most liberals (as I can gather from the actions and statements of their 'leaders'), have been given over to reprobate minds...and you will never meet a more closed or ignorant mind than the liberal's, especially when it comes to understanding the Christian faith, they'll never 'get it' and there is a reason for that ..that's a fact.
Dirt an
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 9:26am.
No many Germans supported Hitler because he made them feel good by blaming Jews for everything (among other things). Don't try to rewrite history and make Germans the victims.
As long as I repent my sins, ask forgiveness, and sincerely try not to sin again, I'll be ok. Thanks for you heartfelt concern.
Many Germans did support
Submitted by ndorfman on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 8:30pm.
Many Germans did support Hitler. However, there were plenty that were terrorized into supporting Hitler. Being openly against Hitler was dangerous. I am not rewriting history. This is the truth. Same thing under Stalin. Both dictators were ruthless and would just as easily kill their own people as they would their enemies.
Are you some kind of dickschädel ?
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 8:43pm.
Being openly against Hitler in Nazi Germany wasn't dangerous. It was downright suicidal.
Anti contraceptive?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 10:03pm.
Way to reframe the argument.
Women, and men, are welcome to all the contraceptives they can pay for. They are simply not welcome to ME paying for THEIR contraceptives by way of insurance.
Yet you probably have never
Submitted by ndorfman on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 11:06pm.
Yet you probably have never been up in arms about paying for people's Viagra. Perhaps you will now say that you don't want to pay for that either. Not the point. You haven't gone out of your way to be outraged by the fact that people are forced to pay for the blue pill. We are forced to pay for things we don't agree with on a regular basis. I am against the wars, yet I don't have an option as to whether or not my tax dollars will go towards the wars. I also would like to point out that if you aren't willing to pay for contraceptives then you are going to be forced to pay for more and more welfare as poor people that can't afford to have kids have more and more of them.
dorfman
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 11:23pm.
How very arrogant you are to assume that I have not been outraged by Viagra being on prescription plans. Dorfman not everyone waits for the White house talking points to research issues and form their own conclusions.
The Constitution charges the government with national defense, thus making paying for wars part of the function of government. No where does the Constitution instruct citizens to pay for the sexual life of other citizens. First of all, they can choose not to have sex, to use condoms (inexpensive), go to a clinic or PP. Here's a thought, if poor people weren't rewarded with more goodies from the government for each child, they would stop having kids pretty damn fast.
This is true, I live in area
Submitted by Sude23 on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 12:27pm.
This is true, I live in area where people have kids just so they can get the benifits or 'Goodies' as you put it and it makes me sick to see. I have to say we are not happy with that either which is why social programs need a desperate cut in spending and maybe people will end up being more productive and practice safer sex. The problem is people want to live in a place where there actions do not have consequences, like if I get pregnant because I have unprotected sex. These things happen for a reason and I think we need to take more resposibilities as an individual for our actions.
So were you up in arms when
Submitted by ndorfman on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 9:28pm.
So were you up in arms when Huckabee signed through the exact type of law that Obama just has when he was governor? It's the hypocrisy that gets me. Conservatives have supported this exact same sort of thing in the recent past. 28 states already have laws very similar to this. I am quite sure that while you may be aware that Romney supported such a thing, you had no idea that Huckabee did. Now, they are of course against it. This only became a controversy when a Democrat took office.
Sounds by your statement that you would have the kids of the poor starve. I would point out that most people are on food stamps for a very short while. Most poor people are white and down on their luck. For a Christian nation, you seem to represent the rule and not the exception. To hell with the poor. They are simply lazy and I will not have my tax dollars going to those that need help. So very Christian of you. You have judged and condemned a huge, growing portion of our population.
Sad angry little dorfman
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 9:37am.
I don't live in Arkansas or Massachustets so why should I be up in arms over what those states do?
Once again you make all kinds of assumptions proving your foolishness. I don't want poor children to starve, I simply don't believe government should do charitable work, they aren't good at it.
Quick example, where I live there is a shelter for the homeless. This shelter has a program for the homeless to gain their independence. It involves drug/alcohol rehab if necessary, job training, spirituality, and volunteerism. It's not picking up the snap card and heading out to buy food and get set of nails.
You're attacks on Christianity as a whole and my personal practice of it are weak and show a lack of maturity. Are you mad at mom and dad for making you go to church or something?
:) My parents are Jews.
Submitted by ndorfman on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 11:53am.
:) My parents are Jews. Stop making assumptions that I grew up in a Christian household.
As far as your first question is concerned, you are totally deflecting. I love it. You think religious freedom has been infringed upon by Obama. So you are essentially saying you are ok with individual states infringing on religious freedom but you are not ok when the federal government does it. Why should you be up in arms? Because you profess to care about religious freedom. You should care because just since the laws in those states don't effect you, they do effect your brothers and sisters. It is a typical response. I care about what directly effects me and could care less about what goes on in other states since I don't happen to live there. At least be consistent. You should have been just as up in arms about Huckabee passing evil laws as you are about Obama. Shouldn't matter if it is on the state or federal level.
So you know as little about
Submitted by ant on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 12:06pm.
So you know as little about the Constitution as you do about Christianity or morality.
⇒ Dorky's got the Soros thing going
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 12:17pm.
Notice how Dorky points to his parents and screams "Jew!" Jew!"
Materially, that tactic worked for Soros.
If you actually read the
Submitted by ndorfman on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 6:57pm.
If you actually read the posts you would see that it was assumed I went to church. I was just pointing out that I didn't.
⇒ It's OK, Dorky
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 02/19/2012 - 12:10am.
This is America. You can deny the ethnicity or religion of your parents even if you're not ashamed of them.
I know quite a bit and you
Submitted by ndorfman on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 2:59pm.
I know quite a bit and you are deflecting shockingly once again.
dorkman, you know fook all and are just---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 9:03pm.
flapping your gums via keyboard.
Despite believing yourself to be impressive, you are actually one of the more unimpressive trolls who has slimed its way through some of these threads.
Don't take that personally; it's just my opinion.
MD
oh ignorant dorfman
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 02/19/2012 - 12:04am.
Do you attend town hall meetings all over the country to tell them what laws and regulations they should or should not be instituting? I don't vote in Arkansas or Massachusets, so I have no standing to object to the laws they pass.
People use the Bible to mock
Submitted by ant on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 8:47pm.
People use the Bible to mock gays? Any examples?
"all the time"
Submitted by redfish on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 9:50pm.
"all the time"
Use the Bible to mock gays?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 10:01pm.
Wow, care to back that one up? We aren't in Obamaland or MSM land here where you can lie and we all just accept it as the truth. Oh, and your backup should be an example on television, you know, to make it comperable.
one can
Submitted by misterbee241 on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 2:27pm.
Make the Bible say anything, support anything. IF you don't care about context. Text taken out if context is pretext. And Glee is a pretext.
Mockery, eh?
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 5:14pm.
God gets mocked on that propaganda-laden show.
So does the Bible.
And so do those of us who are Christians.
As others have noted, either provide examples of where "people use the bible (sic) all the time to mock" homosexuals, or admit you have nothing constructive to offer. The Bible itself doesn't "mock" homosexuality--or any other sexual deviancy for that matter--but it does label the behavior as sinful.
Bit of a difference.
--Mike
You can also make the
Submitted by Sude23 on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 12:30pm.
You can also make the argument that the bible mocks murders as well. I mean it's not fair if they are born that way to be judged like that, am I right? (Que sarcasm).
I Dare You
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 5:37pm.
Try playing that in Libya.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
The writers of a show like that.
Submitted by wingnut55 on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 6:14pm.
Why would you think that the writer would have any Bible knowledge? The Bible, also, says "Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done." Romans 1:28 NIV. What can you expect?
Excellent
Submitted by misterbee241 on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 2:29pm.
Excellent.
Let Go of My Country...
Submitted by JRobertGiles on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 6:27pm.
Strip away the power of their arguments by making them unpopular. The left can't help themselves when it comes to chasing that which is popular or trending. Let's watch them short circuit as they realize they're chasing morality. Please read and share!
http://jrobertgiles.blogspot.com/2012/02/let-go-of-my-country.html
J Robert Giles
Glee is no longer relevant
Submitted by scottiesrule on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 6:45pm.
In the beginning, Glee was interesting. If you could get past the show tunes that dominated the song choices, it wasn't half bad (I'm mostly talking about Brittany's view on just about everything). But then came the LGBT agenda...and Glee was no longer worth an hour of time. It's become too preachy and much too leftie
1. Kurt....resident flaming gay guy. I know gay guys who think he is too gay.
2. Quinn...resident tart who had a baby when she cheated on her boyfriend with his best friend...giving baby up to a teacher. What happened to good old fashioned ostricization? But, since she elected to have the baby rather than do the normal lib thing and abort....I'll give her a few brownie points.
3. Santana....resident slut...who suddenly discovers she's really a lesbian. Good thing for the show that Santana is part of that 0.0001% of lesbians who happen to be "hot". Personally, I was waiting for Santana, Lauren (heavy chick) and Puck to do the 3-way...that would have been the trifecta.
The spouse and I used to watch every night...even though we had to suffer through the broadway numbers. But now that this show is apparently written and directed as if it were on LOGO TV...it's simply not worth the time. Why watch this crap when you can see a rerun of a really good Barclay's Premier League match? Heck, even Bolton v Wigan beats Glee.
You ever notice
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 11:53pm.
3. Santana....resident slut...who suddenly discovers she's really a lesbian.
Homosexuals see this as an enlightening of sorts. But for some reason, it is impossible for them to consider someone living as a homosexual and discovering that they weren't after all.
As to young people not being bothered by homosexuality, I'd say that has more to do with indoctrination by public schools. I'd say that if Glee wants to really celebrate homosexuality, they should have a graphic anal sex scene with two underage high school students and maybe shoving large objects into each other. Robert Mapplethorpe would approve.
Not only Glee
Submitted by ahusser on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 6:53pm.
I was watching TV saw that a show called "The Closer" was on (this is maybe Monday this week?). I knew it was a cop show but had never watched it. I turned the show on maybe the last 20 minutes. Here was the scenario. Christian Preacher found dead, supposed suicide by "auto-eroticism".
The preacher's full grown son is a Marine. The cops suspect murder as there was no "release" device to prevent asphyxiation in the auto-eroticism scenario. Come to find out preacher is also a cross dressing transvestite who uses the services of a high dollar prostitute. Wife knows preacher is a cross dresser and uses a prostitute and enables him to continue doing and using services. Don't know why guess she was either liberal or cheating on him but made to look evil also. Marine son confesses father ridiculed him because he was gay. Home on leave ( I guess) he discovers Dad all dressed up in women's clothes and goes berserk and strangles father and make it look like an accidental suicide. Now is this a crime drama or a military and Christian bashing session made to look like a crime drama. Please I am not much of a religious person but this was way over the top. The lefty writers don't even hide their lefty bias anymore just bash away. It is all fiction of course would be the retort. To top this off when I point this crud out to my spouse who was also watching she gives me a blank look that says that either she doesn't get it, or I am overreacting, or I am not in my right mind and am dreaming this stuff up. I have seen these over the top biases on many of the shows I used to watch like Law and Order.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Wow, they seem to have covered almost all the bases
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 7:32pm.
in one episode. The only thing missing was mom being a lesbian swinger, addicted to coke and Starbuck's latte's. Let's see, they managed to bash Christianity, the military, marriage, clergy, good thing the Marine or his family weren't registered Republicans.
I only caught the
Submitted by ahusser on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 8:11pm.
Last 20 minutes so all those other bashings could have been in there. I didn't watch long enough LOL.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
One question
Submitted by Ozconservative on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 7:42pm.
I have one question for the producers of this trash: Why don't you mock the koran and muslims in the same way you mock the Bible and Christians????
I do. I think all organized
Submitted by ndorfman on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 11:53am.
I do. I think all organized religion is ridiculous.
good grief...
Submitted by el_polacko on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 9:51pm.
it's not promoting "the homosexual lifestyle" (whatever that means) to portray the fact that gay people exist. people who flip out any time they see a gay character have "issues" of their own. as for the biblical conversation, what part of what was said isn't true? jesus never mentioned gay people and the old testament has admonitions against a whole laundry list of things, none of which any longer apply to modern society. had a haircut or a shave lately ? well then, i guess you better pack your bags for hell for the bible tells me so...sheesh.
There are more
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 10:01pm.
Gays on TV then there are in real life, least is sure seems that way. Are there any shows left that dont feature Gays?
What are the odds
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 10:03pm.
Thats why Hollyweird promotes the Gay lifestyle?
"..none of which any longer
Submitted by ant on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 10:33pm.
"..none of which any longer apply to modern society." Really? You sure you don't want to modify that statement? Or is it okay if someone covets your spouse, property, or your life? I suppose you think the Constitution is just too old and dated to matter too. Haircut? Are you Samson?
Actually, alot of what the dialogue of the show 'pushes' is indeed false or written out of ignorance, the Simons being one example (Simon's a gay name? Isn't that homo-phobic?).They left one glaring omission in their 'discussion' on sleeping in a tent with a male, as they put it. It's actually this...'You shall not lie with a male AS WITH A WOMAN,it is an abomination' Leviticus 18:22. Personally, I'm not against the gays, I hope they survive their lifestyle, the same way I would hope a heroin addict makes it through their ordeal, or a man who cheats on his wife. The human condition is a serious condition, and it is made even worse when we ignore the basic instructions given us and that have worked throughout time. The modern problem, it seems, is we have an 'establishment' that is hell-bent on promoting and glamourizing risky and negative behavior to a younger and younger audience.
maybe
Submitted by misterbee241 on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 2:38pm.
you should try actually reading the Bible, starting with the book of John. But first have somebody sit down with you and explain context.
Yes I know homosexuals exist. I am tired however, of having it crammed down my throat everytime I turn on Tv.
Jesus and Homosexuals
Submitted by Gothampc on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 3:56pm.
In Matthew 19, Jesus echoed the Old Testament belief that humans were made male and female and a man shall leave his family and cleave to his wife and the two shall be one flesh. He didn't mention homosexuals because he was speaking to Jews who already knew homosexuality was wrong.
The Old Testament also states
Submitted by ndorfman on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 9:20pm.
The Old Testament also states that a man who rapes a woman will be punished by being forced to marry her. Is this where you are getting your morals from?
Ya see here folks?
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 10:19pm.
Completely clueless to the Bible is this one, yet he attempts to school us on its words.
Is this what you're blathering on about?
I find this the be relevant:
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
dorfman done run 'way
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 10:22pm.
We wasn't playin' nice. We didn' let dorfman win so he took his toys and ran back down to the basement.
I guess Rad
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 10:31pm.
Typical troll. Craps on the carpet and leaves others to clean it up.
Gotta love when some "intellectual" that professes not to believe in "fairy tales" tries to pass himself off as some sort of Biblical scholar.
I love these conversations.
Submitted by ndorfman on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 11:45am.
I love these conversations. Just because I am not on this site 24/7 does not mean I am leaving the conversation.
FYI...Ted Nugent's music totally sucks.
FYI...
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 3:57pm.
I don't give a flying f*ck about your opinion of anything.
28If a man find a damsel that
Submitted by ndorfman on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 11:44am.
28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
"and lay hold on her" is the key phrase. This is a description of rape.
No it's not moron
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 3:56pm.
Who told you that, those Christian scholar, Jew parents you have? These two verses are talking about consensual sex, hence the little wench not screaming out.
If you can't read the whole Chapter and figure out the difference, then you have no business discussing the Bible with a nine year old, much less full fledged adults.
⇒ Forgive him Restless
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 4:43pm.
Dorkman was already locking himself in the bathroom at the word "virgin".
Might explain his frequent
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 5:11pm.
Absences from the debate(s) at hand.
Probably getting some inspiration from the "Atheists are Us" website talking points.
Funny that he is so well versed in the Bible, and yet, can't discern that verses 28 and 29 are describing the Biblical version of a shotgun wedding.
I have read the chapter.
Submitted by ndorfman on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 6:54pm.
I have read the chapter.
Really?
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 7:33pm.
Then how did you miss the difference between forced and consensual?
Let's leave the Bible out of this
Submitted by locomotivebreath1901 on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 10:16pm.
"....mocked the Bible’s relevance on homosexuality."
Ok. Fine. Then let's leave the Bible out of this discussion and include the Center of Disease Control's relevance on homosexuality:
1) Homosexuals use tobacco at twice the rate as heterosexuals.
2) Homosexuals abuse illegal drugs at three times the rate as heterosexuals.
3) Homosexuals seek treatment for alcohol abuse at four times the rate as heterosexuals.
4) Homosexuals suffer from domestic abuse at three times the rate as heterosexuals (the gay community's dirty lil secret).
5)Homosexuals contract STDs at ten times the rate as heterosexuals.
6) Homosexuals are afflicted with depression at four times the rate as heterosexuals.
7) Homosexuals commit suicide at four times the rate as heterosexuals.
Homosexuals are frequently tragic, self-loathing people engaged in very dysfunctional, destructive behavior. They need our compassion and professional help. We should not be encouraging or facilitating this disturbing disorder - nor glamorizing that behavior to children!
Amen
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 10:26pm.
!
Agree. Who is being more compasionate?
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 02/15/2012 - 11:40pm.
The person who says have fun, don't worry, experiment, find yourself and be happy! Or the person who points out that the homosexual life is a rebellious, destructive life style. It is contrary to Biblical advise, which has shown to provide proven positive outcomes for both individuals and society. This is if you CHOOSE to respect and implement Biblical morals and principals. To turn and say, no I don't know it all. Who would want to learn what works? Crazy talk I know! Maybe we don't know it all! Then step into the wisdom of God. As shown through the ages, it IS very helpful and important. Who would have thought!
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Have you had premarital sex?
Submitted by ndorfman on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 9:19pm.
Have you had premarital sex? Have you lusted after another person's spouse? Have you lied? Have you worked on a Sunday? Have you publicly worshiped in a church? Have you judged others? Obviously I could go on and on and on. Don't act like you live up to what the bible advises. It's impossible. 50% of married couples end up getting a divorce. You are in no position to judge others. You are in no position to preach the word to others when I am quite confident that you only follow the word when convenient.
dorfman
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 9:31pm.
Why do you assume you things about other people you could not possibly know?
I will tell you, everyone on this site has sinned, is a sinner, and will sin again. None of us walk on water or claim to. The difference is, we try to avoid sin, sin, repent, and try not sin again.
So be as confident as you like about others, you only show that you are an arrogant fool.
Ok dorfman*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 9:42pm.
For the sake of discussion, lets remove the God particle. The tenets of most religions believe in certain rules of behavior. Thou shalt not steal, etc...
The issues of a church are basically values and morals in order to guide "the primitives" in a difficult society. The basic tenet is the value of human life, avoiding sinful behavior. The purpose of all of these ideas, even without the religion, is to offer boundaries and order to society.
So tell me dorfman, how are the basic tenets of religion dangerous to society? We live for the order, care of others, respect for human life, avoiding sinful behavior,.we put others before us rather than live narcissistic lives for the purpose of fulfilling our own pleasures first. What is wrong with that dorfman? How do those beliefs endanger your adolescent view of the world? You may live in sin, destroy your life. We have no intention of stopping you. We ask only that you do not interact your sinful existence with ours. We then pray for you.
Tell me again dorfman how our beliefs are such a threat to you?
Cajun
Submitted by ndorfman on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 11:39am.
When have I ever stated that your beliefs are a threat to me?
As far as how they are dangerous to society...that one is easy. When people are positive that their convictions are right, they are able to commit horrific acts in the name of God. Yes, people will point to the likes of Stalin or Hitler and say that people who don't believe are much worse. I will then point to early American settlers who ended up being responsible for killing at least as many Native Americans as Hitler killed Jews. The settlers did so in the name of God. I will point to the millions of Christians who support the death penalty or the wars that we were involved with in the Middle East. When you are positive that God is on your side, there is no room for compromise. You also have certain people that believe the rapture will come in their lifetime. These people want this to happen. They want the Middle East to explode into WWIII because this is where the rapture will take place. In fact, I could name Christian atrocity after Christian atrocity that has been carried out in the name of God throughout history. I find organized religion actually kind of scary.
That being said, I have no issue with your beliefs as long as laws aren't forced down my throat. Don't force creationism in schools. Don't ask the government to get involved with marriage. If a church wants to marry a gay couple, they should be able to. If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, I am ok with that as well. I have been accused of making assumptions. Don't assume I am this great sinner. You know nothing about me except for the fact that I clearly don't believe in God and I am ok with two adults that want to marry each other regardless if they are gay or straight.
"Don't ask government to get involved in marriage."
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 11:48am.
Tell that to the LGTB lobby/activists.
Hypocrite.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
dorman*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 12:14pm.
You just made my point. You described liberals. Who else wants to jam gay marriage? Who wants taxpayers to pay for abortion? Who passes legislation that puts our "grandchildren" in debt to appease those who believe in entitlements? Who spends time and money demeaning a minority in this country with movies and art that depict Christians as violent? You know very well that Christians, unlike other religions, believe in forgiveness and "turn the other cheek". The atrocities by Christians you throw around were acts of war in their own "defense". The real hateful theocracy throughout history were the muslims.
Christians do not hate nor impose our beliefs on others. We simply do not want YOUR sinful and hedonistic lifestyles rammed down our throats. Notice Christians do not hate the sinner but the sin. We even pray for sinners but we do not have to tolerate their behavior being thrown at us. I believe this is the basis of your dismissal of Christianity. It is a personal issue for you. Don't let your personal feelings distort the truth. And I am not going to make it more difficult for you,I do have some compassion. But those personal feelings have clouded your interpretation of real events.
Of course there has been awful events in history. Not just the American Indians, but worldwide practice of slavery, which lives today in certain parts of the world. Tyranny by communism has killed over 100 million people. Does Stalin, Lenin, Mao ring a bell? Were they Christians? Their ideology, so grandiose, was forced upon an unsuspecting citizenry. Those that had the courage and wisdom tried to fight back.
Christians are being attacked from every front including this website. Call us primitives if you like. I have been called worse, ignorant, backward, racists among a few. Does not bother me. My particular religious beliefs are really none of your business. I adhere to the tenets of my religion best I can because I know the damage done to a chaotic society. Having been a social worker, hedonistic lifestyles with no values or goals other than pleasure seeking is destructive to an orderly society. It s the behavior we cannot tolerate not the sinner.
Why should I pay for those who are drug addicted, which is a "choice"? Why should I work hard so my taxes will
be used to commit a sin totally against my beliefs, like abortion? The right to kill a human infant is a law, I cannot change that on my own but I certainly dont want to PAY for it from MY hard work. That is tyranny.
I don't hate homosexuals, since there are several of them in my family. But ones sexual activities should not define that person. We expect the person to be motivated to accomplish, to live a responsible life. Why should I have to endure raunchy Gay Pride Parades, its bad enough to see New Orleans at Mardi Gras with the debauchery of straight people.
All of your examples noted in your post are all atrocities by liberals who believe their ideals are more worthy than those of us who are primitives The arrogance of those who believe they can tell me what to eat, command me to buy certain kind of insurance, certain kind of lightbulbs, what I can plant in my garden, some callous uncaring bureaucrat will decide if I am worth a certain medical procedure. And You are afraid of Christians!!!
This argument isn't about Christians, this is about the slow and deliberate theft of our rights and freedoms, one at a time. If you fail to see that, I am sorry and I will pray for you.
First off, I have never
Submitted by ndorfman on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 2:56pm.
First off, I have never called you names and never would. Do I think your beliefs are primitive? Absolutely. Just as you think my beliefs are sinful. That is fine. Doesn't mean we can't have a civil discussion.
"Who else wants to jam gay marriage?"
Not liberals. They want people to have the opportunity to get married whether they are gay or not. If it goes against the beliefs of a church, they don't have to marry gay couples. We aren't forcing you to condone gay marriage. Don't belong to a church that condones it. Your ideals will be saved and in this scenario the gay lifestyle won't be jammed down your throat and the Christian lifestyle won't be crammed down mine.
"Who wants taxpayers to pay for abortion?"
By law, tax dollars can't go towards abortion. Though they can go towards wars that kill hundreds of thousands of civilians or towards the death penalty. Things that I am totally against and I have no say as to whether or not my tax dollars goes towards these murders.
"Who passes legislation that puts our "grandchildren" in debt to appease those who believe in entitlements? "
Name me the last conservative in the White House that didn't add to the debt. Were you up in arms when Bush signed the free prescription program which has cost us billions upon billions of dollars? Yeah, this isn't exactly a liberal vs conservative issue. Both sides have drastically added to the debt.
"Who spends time and money demeaning a minority in this country with movies and art that depict Christians as violent?"
Huh?
"You know very well that Christians, unlike other religions, believe in forgiveness and "turn the other cheek".
Again, Huh? I could name you quite a few religions that preach forgiveness.
"The atrocities by Christians you throw around were acts of war in their own "defense".
Right. The millions of Native Americans killed by Christians asked for it. Come on. You need to be honest with the history of your religion.
"The right to kill a human infant is a law, I cannot change that on my own but I certainly dont want to PAY for it from MY hard work."
Again you don't. But I am forced to pay for wars that go against my conscious and to subsidize religious groups that I totally disagree with. I would also point out that nowhere in the bible does it talk about life beginning at conception. It does say however, "He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being." Genesis 2:7. This would suggest that life begins when the baby is actually born.
"Why should I pay for those who are drug addicted, which is a "choice"?"
Wow. You are going to be hard pressed to find a priest that agrees with this sentiment. Drug addiction is a disease. The world is also round in case you didn't know.
"I don't hate homosexuals, since there are several of them in my family."
Several huh? :) You must have an enormous family.
"Why should I have to endure raunchy Gay Pride Parades"
It's called freedom of speech. Though I would point out that if you truly don't like Gay Pride Parades that attendance isn't mandatory. You don't have to go.
dorfman*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 4:35pm.
Again you distort history. First, Christians were the ones trying to protect the Native Americans. Take a look at some of the early settlers and you will see the Catholic Church was very involved in Native American affairs. Trying to convert them yes, but also provided them with sanctuary. Something the Church continues for the illegal immigrants in this country.
And as a member of a Jewish Family, you should have a better view of History. Yes we have been in wars, but not until we had to. We were "invited" into WWI and WWII. We were "invited" into Korea and Kuwait. Vietnam and Iraq were stupid I agree. But dont lump America's history all in one cliche'. Members of my family fought in many of these conflicts. A waste of money, yes, but, rather spend the money on soldiers properly outfitted in order to survive war than send out a bunch of traffic cops like the United Nations does.
Insulting in your posts but lets try. Three members of my very large family, ( I have 9 siblings) are gay. We do not hate them, isolate them, nor punish them. They are loved and respected, except for the one who is a perpetually unemployed lil pot head.
Drug addiction is not a "choice", it is the result of a choice. The abuse of drugs over a long period results in addiction. The addiction has been determined to be an illness. Typical liberal not willing to accept the negative consequences of ones behavior.
Freedom of speech is a protection you seem to have condemned repeatedly on this thread without realizing it. You want to be heard but how dare anyone disagree with you. Be it from the pulpit, a website, or in the streets. You probably, I will guess, dissed the TEA Party rallies but just love the "FREE SPEECH" of the Occupiers. Catch the hypocrisy? That is the tone of all your posts that you seem to have missed.
Liberals believe that you have the right to live your life as you choose regardless of the consequences to one's self or society. But how dare any group disagree with you. In doing so, they are "primitives" With such arrogance, don't be surprised when you are called names.
You dont want to pay for wars and I dont want to pay for others hedonistic and sinful behavior, but both of us being forced to do so and told to shut up is a denial of free speech. We have many liberties in this country unlike others in this great "round" world. Let's say America has 100 major issues to deal with immediately. You concentrate on # 92 and #94 only because they have immediate effect on your life. As long as it doesn't affect me ... the typical liberal solution.
There is no purpose for me to continue a discussion with someone with a closed mind. You seem like a young man and somewhat naive. Send me a pm in about 4 or 5 years and let me know how that socialistic crap is working out.
Please, the U.S. has a bleak
Submitted by ndorfman on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 6:53pm.
Please, the U.S. has a bleak history of supporting ruthless dictators.
Do you believe those three members were born gay or chose to be gay?
You aren't totally right about choice. Drug addiction has been proven to be hereditary. An alcoholic can have one drink and essentially be an alcoholic from that point forward. Drug addiction runs in my family. Just as homosexuality runs in your family, drug addiction runs in mine. It is sad and these people need our help...not our contempt for using your tax dollars.
I could argue that you have the exact same mindset. How dare anyone disagree with your religious beliefs. On the contrary, I enjoy disagreement. What a boring world it would be if we all agreed.
You are doing the same thing I have been accused of. You assume I ridiculed the tea party movement. I have actually come to their defense. Just as the rallies in Madison were misconstrued by the right, the tea party movement was misconstrued by the left. You had a handful of knuckleheads on each side and those are the people the media decided to focus on because that is what gets ratings.
Someone truly close to god would pity me and pray for me. They would not call me names.
We aren't denied free speech as far as the wars I am against and the "bad" behavior you are against. We are free to vocalize our disgust.
"You concentrate on # 92 and #94 only because they have immediate effect on your life. As long as it doesn't affect me ... the typical liberal solution."
Not sure I get this. I am sticking to one topic in this thread because that is what the thread is about. Also, bleeding heart liberals typically aren't often accused of thinking only of themselves. they are accused of being naive, but not self-centered.
Where would anything I have written suggest to you I am a socialist? Oh, that's right...any person on the left must be a pinko...just as anyone on the right must be a fascist. When you talk in such black and white terms you close all discussions. Which is obviously what you are doing since you have just dismissed me for the next 4 years.
Okay
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 7:19pm.
Please, the U.S. has a bleak history of supporting ruthless dictators.
Um, yeah, and that would be the fault of the right and the left. Don't act like you side is innocent in this.
Do you believe those three members were born gay or chose to be gay?
I think most are born that way, but so are schizoprhenics and Down's Syndrome babies. Doesn't make them normal or equal to the ideal. Should we cease searching for causes and cures every condition that people are born with?
She isn't totally wrong about choice either. Even if one is born with the disposition toward addiction, they must still take an action to put into motion. Then again, by your reasoning on the gay issue, they are born with it, so what's the problem?
I could argue that you have the exact same mindset. How dare anyone disagree with your religious beliefs.
We don't mind you or anyone else disagreeing with our religious beliefs. It is the hatred and intolerance of our beliefs that we take issue with.
Someone truly close to god would pity me and pray for me. They would not call me names.
Believe me, I both prayed for you and called you names. Feel better now?
Also, bleeding heart liberals typically aren't often accused of thinking only of themselves. they are accused of being naive, but not self-centered.
You are absolutely considered self centered. How else could the "if it feels good do it" mentality be construed? It's always about you and your feelings, (not you specifically, I wouldn't know, but that is how the left is percieved).
"Um, yeah, and that would be
Submitted by ndorfman on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 8:39pm.
"Um, yeah, and that would be the fault of the right and the left. Don't act like you side is innocent in this."
Never once claimed it was the fault of the right. Both sides are totally to blame. For example, I am just as disgusted by Obama's policies in the Middle East as I was by Bush's policies.
"I think most are born that way, but so are schizoprhenics and Down's Syndrome babies. Doesn't make them normal or equal to the ideal. Should we cease searching for causes and cures every condition that people are born with?
She isn't totally wrong about choice either. Even if one is born with the disposition toward addiction, they must still take an action to put into motion. Then again, by your reasoning on the gay issue, they are born with it, so what's the problem?"
By the definition of normal, you are right. Most people aren't gay so being gay is abnormal. Though comparing it to a disease is a bit much. It certainly hasn't been compared to a disease by any medical journal that I have read.
"We don't mind you or anyone else disagreeing with our religious beliefs. It is the hatred and intolerance of our beliefs that we take issue with."
I have no hatred towards you.
"You are absolutely considered self centered. How else could the "if it feels good do it" mentality be construed? It's always about you and your feelings, (not you specifically, I wouldn't know, but that is how the left is percieved)."
Not sure where you get this from. Again, I haven't seen the stats that show conservatives being less likely to do drugs or to have multiple sexual partners. I was referring to the fact that liberals want to look out for each other as opposed to a survival of the fittest mentality.
Homosexuality
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 02/21/2012 - 9:10am.
Used to be listed by the American Phsychiatric Association as a mental illness. They were pressured to remove it.
We as a society strive to find the root cause for everything from obesity to addiction to predisposal to violence, yet we don't do this for homosexuality. Why?
Too funny
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 9:38pm.
The guy so up in arms about assumptions is doing a awful lot of assuming.
Thanks for the laugh.
mr ndorfman... Have you had
Submitted by TruthMonger on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 11:09pm.
mr ndorfman...
Have you had premarital sex? Have you lusted after another person's spouse? Have you lied? Have you worked on a Sunday? Have you publicly worshiped in a church? Have you judged others? Obviously I could go on and on and on. Don't act like you live up to what the bible advises. It's impossible. 50% of married couples end up getting a divorce. You are in no position to judge others. You are in no position to preach the word to others when I am quite confident that you only follow the word when convenient.
This makes the Christians point - we are all sinful and do these things - God pardons our sins through Jesus - he does not pardon your sins as you're crowd does the same things you listed but you are not Christian...
If you want your sins pardoned and accept the gift of eternal life then check out your local church for very helpful information...
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
TruthMonger
Submitted by ndorfman on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 2:30pm.
So it is essentially your contention, TruthMonger, that God had decided to condemn literally billions of people simply for being born in an area where Christianity is not prevalent? It is your contention that if you are simply unlucky and were born into a Muslim family in the Middle East that you are going to be condemned to hell? What type of god would create a situation in which he/she is forced to torture billions of people for eternity for simply being born into the wrong family? You have to remember there was a time when people in Africa had never heard of Christianity. You are saying that way back when, even if you were totally unaware that Christianity existed (because it was contained on a different continent at the time) that you are automatically destined for hell? That you could be an 8 year old, totally blameless for his/her ignorance and still wind up being tortured for eternity? I mean what type of sadistic religion is that?
⇒ Right, Dorky
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 2:51pm.
You really know how to disregard Scripture to the contrary of your argument, don't you.
Believe what you will. The answers you don't seek are available when you're ready. But having heard the Word, and denying it, you have chosen your own fate.
This is not a game. You can't refuse to play. You will serve somebody.
"What kind of sadistic religion is that"? Simple to answer.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 6:17pm.
It's the fantasized, fabricated, unreal "Christianity" that atheists and agnostics, ignorant of the real belief system, parade around as justification for their hatred.
Hell is not torture, but torment--there's a difference. Torment, as one finds in hell, is self-inflicted; when people know they rejected God, the agony of being in a place where there is no chance of fellowship with Him is the ultimate agony--and yet the one most easily avoided.
And the Bible is more than clear about the disposition of people who have never heard the Gospel message. However, it's not the simplest theological truth to grasp, particularly for someone who is not only non-Christian, but anti-Christian; if you'd like to discuss the particulars, though, I'm at your disposal.
--Mike
Mike
Submitted by ndorfman on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 6:35pm.
Honestly and sincerely, please. What does the Bible say about people who have never heard the Gospel message so have obviously been unable to accept Jesus into their lives? I have always been under the impression that the only way to be saved is to accept Jesus Christ since we are all born with sin.
If that's an honest question, here's your answer.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Mon, 02/20/2012 - 10:43am.
The Bible says they will be judged by the light they have received--and more precisely, by the light they have rejected.
Some Scripture references from Romans: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse".
Also: "For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law".
Your impression was an incorrect one. And as it stands, your main concern should not be for those who have never heard the Gospel message, but for your own self--someone who has heard the Gospel message of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and chosen to reject it, and Him. Jesus is, indeed, the only way to salvation; for those who have not heard of Him, God can speak to their hearts in such a way as to illuminate them with the message of Christ. Remember, we're talking about the same God who spoke the universe into existence. He's interested in you, wherever you are, and wants nothing more than for you to be interested in Him.
--Mike
well said...and furthermore -
Submitted by TruthMonger on Mon, 02/20/2012 - 11:04am.
well said...and furthermore - libs may feel as though God is sadistic but He has ordered the slaughter of women and children - including those at Sodom and Gamorah and before the great flood referenced in the account of Noah's Ark - He also chose the Jews out all the other nations on earth and so God does forsake people - from earthly existence - but not necessarily in the after life. This may seem sadistic but God is completely just and reconciles it all fairly - from a divine perspective - not our limited earthly perspective...
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Dork: "You are in no position
Submitted by celator on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 11:43am.
Dork: "You are in no position to judge others".
Which is, of course, exactly what you are doing and what others are trying to point out to you.
I can make a list too: 1)
Submitted by ndorfman on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 9:15pm.
I can make a list too:
1) heterosexuals are 5 times as likely to commit murder
2) heterosexuals are 25 times as likely to commit hate crimes
3) heterosexuals are 15 times more likely to cheat on their life mates
4) heterosexuals are 18 times more likely to kill a person in a drunk and driving accident
5) heterosexuals are 8 times more likely to beat up their significant other
6) heterosexuals are 45 times more likely to find themselves on welfare...thus sucking dry the resources provided by the homosexual community.
love numbers dorfman*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 9:46pm.
Since numbers can be used to portray any false ideology, here is one for you. Heterosexuals are 95% of the population here in the US. Of course, there are no homosexuals in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt,....So what's your point?
Now the username makes sense, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 10:00pm.
as it is an acronym for:
national defender of really flaming men and nancy-boys.
MD
Actually 90% of people living
Submitted by ndorfman on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 11:23am.
Actually 90% of people living the Middle East are gay.
25% of all of the popes have committed at least one gay act in their lifetime.
62% of all priests are pedophiles.
My point is just that. Anybody can list percentages. Does not make them true. Such as your statement that 95% of the U.S. population is heterosexual.
Compared to whom?
Submitted by locomotivebreath1901 on Fri, 02/24/2012 - 12:06pm.
X times as likely - compared to whom?
1 Peter 5:8 Be
Submitted by prove it on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 2:27am.
1 Peter 5:8 Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour
Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. Ephesians 6:11
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
it is good
Submitted by misterbee241 on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 2:43pm.
that you post scripture. The problem is there are one or two on here who couldn't care less about what scripture says because it conflicts with their worldview. And on top of that, they cant understand it anyway. Casting pearls before swine, as Jesus put it.
One or two? How about
Submitted by ndorfman on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 9:11pm.
One or two? How about virtually everyone. Virtually every person who believes, picks and chooses what parts of the bible they will follow and which parts they will ignore. For example, virtually every person on here who is married, probably weren't virgins before they got married. Very easy to cast stones at the homosexual community than to look in the mirror and say, "You know what, I'm as sinful as the next person and am in no position to judge another person's lifestyle." Nor does it list in the bible the worst sin vs sins that aren't so bad. For all you know, premarital sex or getting a divorce will be frowned upon much more than the gay lifestyle.
On that note, the whole idea of there being a god is silly and primitive.
Truly moronic comment
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 9:34pm.
You don't believe, yet you propose to allege that those that do pick and choose. In doing so, you conveniently forget your picking and choosing of Bible quotes to back your absurd assumptions in another thread. And you quote it wrong to boot. "Covetous" is not the same as "lovers of money".
We are told to judge another's lifestyle. We are to interpret good and evil deeds of a person. We are told not to judge their heart. See the difference?
Of course you don't. Kindly quit acting like you know the Bible. You clearly don't.
dorfman
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 9:48pm.
So we can't judge anything? What's the point of having any laws whatsoever then? You're saying since no one is perfect no one can judge someone else. What are you twelve?
Great question. Of course
Submitted by ndorfman on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 11:03pm.
Great question. Of course you can judge others. However, the bible specifically says to not cast stones unless you, yourself are without sin.
However, more than that, what I am really saying is that people who are religious love to condemn others for lifestyles they don't agree with. They point to scripture and say it goes against God's will. Yet these same people cheat on significant others, have sex before marriage and get divorces. Who are these people to say the gay lifestyle goes against the will of God when they themselves are committing sins arguably just as bad. I personally believe a person is born gay or straight. I never chose to be straight. I couldn't force myself to be attracted to men. I'm simply not. When I first started noticing girls at 9 or 10 or whenever, it wasn't a conscious choice. However, people do choose to have premarital sex or choose to get a divorce or choose to work on Sunday. I would argue those people that choose to ignore what the bible has to say about those issues are the true sinners.
dorfman
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 11:14pm.
So we can judge but not pass sentence unless we are sinless?
As I've said, I freely admit I'm a sinner. I've done it in the past and unfortunately I'm sure I'll sin again. But I try not to.
There are a lot of men who might say they're natural inclination is to sleep with as many women as possible, even if they are married. Just because it's their natural inclination doesn't mean it's not a sin. Sin is an inclination that we rise above.
But we're not putting gays in jail, or killing them. We just don't appreciate that they are trying to "normalize" it and make us all happy with it.
Good post Rad
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 11:30pm.
I would just add that our Biblical scholar here has once again misinterpreted scripture.
The people were about to kill the "whore". Jesus stopped them, but he did tell the "whore" to "go and sin no more", which is what the stoners should have done. Address the sin of the prostitute, within reason.
radical
Submitted by ndorfman on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 11:19am.
I don't want to put words in your mouth so rather than assuming, I will ask you...Would you support a law that would outlaw homosexuality? Would you outlaw the right of gay couples to adopt children?
I also wonder if you are more inclined to talk about this subject than about adultery or lying. How often are you on boards talking about the evils of lying or adultery? How often do you talk about the sins of premarital sex (something, by percentages, you have probably engaged in)? How often do you turn those sins into a discussion about religion? My guess is you are much more likely to bring up religion when talking about homosexuality than when talking about the others. I feel confident by saying that this is what most people do because this is what the Church does. There are two issues that have been popularized by the Church (abortion and homosexuality) and many of the other issues have been essentially pushed under the rug. Much easier to talk about the evils that most people don't partake in than to talk about the sins that virtually every person partakes in.
I don't think people are trying to make you happy with it. I would guess the average homosexual could care less what you think about his or her lifestyle. They simply ask to have the same rights as you do.
mr ndorfmanyou list some
Submitted by TruthMonger on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 11:31pm.
mr ndorfman
you list some common misunderstandings of Christianity. let me try to clarify - all
Christians - in fact everyone are sinners - that is to say we fail to live up to our ideals. you fail to live up to your ideals as well and cerainly do not live up to God's ideals whether you believe in Him or not...
this does not make us hypocrites or in no position to judge others failure to live up to their ideals as well. For example it is helpful to keep a check on your fellow man (or women) to help us all live better lives - such as judging a person to be too drunk to drive - we attempt to stop them for noble reasons - but we don't always accomplish that - we may be drunk ourselves and not notice or care at that point
does this help you understand why Christians can judge the actions of others? we are not capable of judging souls, just visable actions of people
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
You drunk TM, or typing on a smart phone?
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 12:08am.
You used to have better grammar. :)
i must be drunk on something
Submitted by TruthMonger on Mon, 02/20/2012 - 11:12am.
i must be drunk on something as i keep responding to this guy:) hardy har har
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Totally agree with all of
Submitted by ndorfman on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 11:04am.
Totally agree with all of that. And I do appreciate you remaining respectful. That being said, it would seem that people in general (not just Christians) are more likely to point fingers at people that do things that they would never do and then ignore the sins that they do commit. This is where I get annoyed. This is where I see the hypocrisy. I venture to guess that most Christians are much more likely to forgive someone who is known to have cheated on their wife/wives than someone who is gay. Hence, the large minority of Christians who became excited about Newt. Or the popularity of Bill Clinton once he left office. I am not including you in this number. You may or may not be one of these people.
Here is a good summary of judging:
"To sum up, judging the actions of a person as being sinful is NOT condemning a person and passing judgment. It would be wrong to say to a person, “You are an adulterer, and you are going to hell”. It would not be wrong to tell a person “You are committing adultery, and that is sinful. You need to repent of it, go to confession, and never do it again, because it breaks one of the Ten Commandments”. The former is passing judgment; the latter admonishes the sinner. Big difference. A judge passes sentence; discernment of people’s sinful actions does not. A good rule of thumb to follow is that we humans do all of the praying, and we let God do all of the judging of people. That in no way stops us from discerning that a person's actions are wrong and sinful."
http://www.catholicbible101.com/judgenot.htm
So yes, saying someone is doing something wrong is not judging. However, saying that someone who is gay is evil and is going to hell, is. Most people fall in the latter category. I would also say that people seem to judge for themselves which are the bad sins and which are the understandable ones. Someone cheating on their wife or, in your example, drunk driving is given much more leeway by the bulk of Christians I have talked to than someone who is gay. Who are they to determine what sins are forgivable and which ones are not?
All of that being said, I don't believe you choose whether you are gay or straight. You are born that way. While you can say that you disagree with a person's lifestyle, as long as that lifestyle doesn't hurt others, you have to let them live that lifestyle. It's all about free will. Hence churches that would marry gay couples should be allowed to. You can say it's sinful and warn them of the dangers, but it is up to God to condemn them to an eternity of torture. They will get to hang out with the likes of Newt. Oooops, I was just being judgemental. :)
"..it would seem that people
Submitted by ant on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 11:46am.
"..it would seem that people in general..are more likely to point fingers..and then ignore the sins that they commit." How do you know that? How do you know what's in someone's heart? Your whole 'argument' of people saying "..you're going to hell.." seems to be built on some stereotype of the intolerant, Bible-thumper you have in your own mind. I've met many Christians and have yet to hear that phrase ever uttered. Now don't forget, of course, as cajun has stated, if someone wants to throw themselves into darkness or despair that is their perogative.The issue here is a policy of indoctrination, encouraging others, especially the easily misguided young, to go ahead and embrace a cornucopia of 'earthly pleasures' guided by misinformation which never seem to lead to a good and happy life.
Yes, Newt has caused himself rather 'complicated' affairs, the difference you don't seem to grasp is that if Newt became part of a larger movement to promote and encourage the 'wonderfulness' of divorce and adultery on TV, schools, etc....then we have a problem. But, of course, even in this he would be late because numerous lefty articles have already been trumpeting how 'old-fashioned' fidelity is and a little oral sex here and there with someone else isn't actually 'cheating'.
Ant, all you have to do is
Submitted by ndorfman on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 2:20pm.
Ant, all you have to do is read many of the hate filled posts on this forum and other forums to understand where I am coming from as far as my belief that many so called religious people are also some of the most hate filled intolerant people I have ever conversed with. Furthermore, stereotypes usually come about based on some truth. Jews as bankers is a perfect example. So yes, I do believe a significant portion of religious people are intolerant. You are so positive that the good book is the real deal and everyone else is wrong that you are intolerant to other lifestyles or beliefs. That's fine. We are all intolerant to some degree. I am intolerant of adulterers because I see it as being basically the most dishonest act a person can make towards another. Especially if you are doing it while your wife has cancer at the time. Newt and Edwards are complete scum in my opinion.
"The issue here is a policy of indoctrination, encouraging others, especially the easily misguided young, to go ahead and embrace a cornucopia of 'earthly pleasures' guided by misinformation which never seem to lead to a good and happy life."
Policy of indoctrination? A bit dramatic here. Asking others to be tolerant is hardly asking them to join the gay lifestyle. Also, who are you to say that the "earthly pleasures" lifestyle leads to an unhappy life? I am sure you will be shocked to learn I have several gay and lesbian friends. Granted, this is a small sample size (as is your sample size of not knowing a single intolerant religious person)...but each one of them is extremely happy and extremely fulfilled in their long term relationships. Which works out well for them since they were born that way.
Would love to see these lefty articles that promote oral sex with random people. I can show you articles coming from famous, extremely religious figures that claim such nonsense as Katrina being caused by God as a punishment for homosexuality.
So you would essentially have an issue with any show promoting anything that goes against your Christian beliefs? You can't be saved unless you accept Jesus into your life. Hence, if there was a show that followed a Jewish couple or a Muslim couple (there is a show about a Muslim couple and people have had issues with it) would you say that that show should not be on television because they promote religions that will lead to an eternity of damnation? You must absolutely hate Modern Family or virtually any television drama since premarital sex always happens on those shows. Why aren't you flipping out about bones or CSI or any other show that indoctrinates our youth to the "earthly pleasures" of premarital sex?
I guess that depends on what
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 7:01pm.
Your definition of tolerance is. If tolerance means to you that we must redefine marriage, then you are asking too much.
If tolerance means to you that homosexual couples have the legal rights of married couples, then we agree.
tolerance means that one
Submitted by TruthMonger on Mon, 02/20/2012 - 11:19am.
tolerance means that one bears the displeasures that are wrought upon them by another group. Which means it is Christians that are probably the most tolerant group in our culture. It also means that if the left 'tolerates' gays that would mean that gays actually bother them but they 'tolerate' them anyway.
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Ryan Murphy Is A Professional Propagandist
Submitted by rammingspeed on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 12:07pm.
Ryan Murphy is a propagandist, using Glee to indoctrinate young people. And it's about politics, not sexuality. Homosexuality is a wedge issue used by extreme leftists to instill moral relativism - the notion that EVERYTHING is okay. (He's exploiting homosexuals, the majority of whom just want to live nonpublic lives.) When you get the people to believe that "everything is okay," chaos ensues, and by definition, everything is destroyed. That's when the left can move in with their agenda. Ya gotta knock down the old building before you can build the new one.
Kids, just give sodomy an honest chance.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 5:39pm.
Sure, Mommy and Daddy taught you that your anus was dirty, but being Neanderthals, they don't realize that is actually a magical pleasure center full of unseen delights.
Who in Congress votes for sodomy?
Submitted by lrgon on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 6:03pm.
One of the biggest loser departments that promotes the queer life style is the Dept of Education. The National Endowment for the Arts has never been in real danger of having their funds cut by conservatives little alone liberals! http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10549-santorum-voted-to-subsid...
We do like our candidates and we try to believe them when they speak of lofty goals and traditional marriage and love of children but they do vote for bully agencies that send down edicts forcing our kids to treat perversities as if they were anything but something Jesus would condemn. Go figure!
"Go and sin no more" was the exhortation our Lord gave to the woman about to be stoned. Commiting adultery was a very bad thing to be accused of and stoning to death was no mere light sentence! He looked upon the accusers of the woman and asked if any of them was without sin. He did not condone the sin but forgave the sinner and advised to drop the adultery. Go and seek another cleaner life.
While it does little good to debate these moronic "Gleesters" it would help tremendously if our elected officials (congressmen) would defund the government sources from which emanate so much of these erroneous concepts.
While local and state governments have been hamstrung by court decisions offered by pro-homosexual judges, the congress has been lax in checking the court's appellate jurisdiction. At one time states did regulate porn and sodomy and generally outlawed so-called "gay bars" and kept the schools free of the homosexual propaganda.
Newt Gingrich in one of the GOP debates brought this power congress has under article III,section 2 to a national audience. He talked at some length about judicial activism and how to check its near totalitarian edicts. Take the 9th circuits decision to call Californians' ban on "gai marriage" unconstitutional! But so far only Ron Paul has introduced any bill to cut the judicial activists off at the knees. Go figure?
They should try that with the
Submitted by mattm on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 8:50pm.
They should try that with the quran...