Ken Hutcherson #fundie

Ken Hutcherson #fundie christianpost.com

Your defense of homosexuality is without merit because it has destroyed every civilization it has touched and that is shameful.

89 comments

old comment by Passerby

PG, I'm exhausted and as a result tend to take things in the way most offensive to me right now but do you mean say political incompetence, rampant corruption, insanely aggressive foreign policy, chronic backstabbing in diplomatic relations, class war, peasant revolts, captured territories rebelling, and finally Norse raiders were merely symptoms of homosexuality rather than the root cause of the empire falling to ruin?

A social safety net is a far cry from bread and circuses, espescially when the circus was to distract people from their lack of bread. While the Roman senate partied every night on taxpayer dinar to forget how mad people were about being taxed without benefit the peasants weren't invited. The circuses were open to the public so far as I know, but were partially a veiled threat to dissenters as well as an ill conceived placation of their many grievances.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

History, how does it work?

@P-G

people who did the rise and fall of the roman empire etcetera simply chronicled social dynamic markers.
And yes, lazy, gluttons, greedy, corrupt and sex and food and celebrity cult obsessed featured as a cardinal sign of the imminent end.

Er, no it didn't. There were lazy, gluttonous, greedy, corrupt, lust-driven, fame-seeking and fame-impressed people throughout Roman society during the entire life of the Empire. The cardinal signs of the imminent end were the need for excessive taxation, chronic instability, internal rebellion, failure to find and keep allies, being militarily overstretched and unable to deal with great migrations. Gibbon also blames it on the adoption of Christianity as the state religion giving rise to loss of stability and resources in the state's frequent conflict with the church.

And while we're on the subject of those that fall by the moral wayside, where are my sixty dollars?

old comment by Xotan

"it has destroyed every civilization it has touched"

ORLY? Massive citations please.

Homosexuality was accepted in ancient Greece, and the Sacred Band of Thebes was not to be messed around with without serious consequences. These men and their male lovers fought better than most other armies. Greece was brought down by internal fighting for power after the death Alexander. Then Rome stepped in a took over...

There is hardly any evidence for homosexuality in ancient Egypt, but it fell eventually.

Rome's fall was mainly economic, with a help from the Christian Church..

No mention of homosexuality in Baylonia, Assyria, Sumer...and they all fell.

The Maya and other Meso American civilisations fell for climatic reasons.

The Incas and Aztecs fell from outside aggression (Spain) and internal rebellion (subject peoples).

So what were all these civilisation that fell because of the gays?

old comment by Canuovea

Even if that is so, what does that even mean? Besides, as we know, human belief and culture doesn't always align with biology (you could take that as an argument against homosexuality, but I mean it for the opposite).

I mean, back in Early Modern England, people used to think that both the man and woman had to orgasm for a child to be conceived. This proved problematic, but it persisted for some time.

I'll also say that humans love to go about labelling things. Like mad. We aren't satisfied until we've managed to order chaos. I mean, the concept of species! Aren't wolves and coyotes, by one definition, different species? But they can interbreed... so suddenly they aren't?

That said, I'm going to have to say I don't hold much value in a good deal of your biblical morality and the very concept of sin. The idea that evil is evil because it offends some powerful god is... icky to me. I'd like to think empathy provides a better basis for morality than someone just laying down rules.

Canuovea.

Empathy. I agree. What is it? Monty Python tested boundaries in lots of ways.
Their "sit on my face and tell me that you love me" is literally "tongue in cheek" or at least "tongue in someone elses"

Can an man with his hand up another man's anus deeply love him?

Honest to God, I mean the question. Is it sharing in someone else's humiliations at life or creating a new one? Sorry if this offends anyone. But the whole "moral equivalence" thing is already stretched elastically in the direction of bizarre.
Go back 150 years and ask anyone, one thousand out of one thousand people, can two men marry and they would think you entirely crazy. IMHO.

Social evolution, you suspect, means that everything progresses from good to better. It is the grand delusion to this entire debate.

I know I could be wrong about many things. But even the "jokers" here planting bestiality comments suggest these people just aren't entirely well. [But perhaps I'm wrong and dingos licking anuses is hilarious. How silly of me]

old comment by Canuovea

Empathy seems to have been a product of evolution and the fact that we're social animals. Plenty of other social animals demonstrate a degree of empathy. It might even be the source of a tendency towards that "golden rule" people love talking about.

"Can an man with his hand up another man's anus deeply love him?"

Well, a few points. First off, it depends on if they consider that humiliating in those circumstances.

Second: Can a man brushing his hand over a woman's clitoris deeply love her?

Thirdly: To actually answer your question and not respond with a question, yes I think so. Given that the prostate gland (easily stimulated by going into the anus) is known to cause pleasure that can apparently bring a man to orgasm it is possible that the man with his hand up the other man's anus is doing that out of a sense of love and desire to cause pleasure to the person he loves.

After all, sex (most forms of it, anyway) as an expression of love often comes down to the one partner wanting to give pleasure to the other, or share that pleasure together. It is about caring for the other person and wanting to make them happy.

Of course, not all sex is an expression of love. Sometimes it is selfish where one party is simply using the other party for pleasure with very little care for their enjoyment... etc.

old comment by Canuovea

PG,

Regarding aesthetics... there are Lesbians who would agree with you. As well as straight people and possibly gay men. aesthetics are simply about what is pretty, not what triggers sexual attraction. I know a woman who thinks female shape is prettier than the male shape, but is attracted to men.

As a quick note, I think sicko's comment there was rather juvenile, so with your suspecting that homosexuality is a mental illness being for the same reason he/she posted as he/she did... well... it could be called relatively juvenile. I mean, is it kinda like young children thinking the opposite sex has cooties or something?

Anyway, mainstream science suggests that abiogenesis is the most likely explanation for how life began and evolution the best explanation for how life got to where it is and where it is going.

Though I suppose I could understand thinking abiogenesis unlikely if you believe the Earth is under 10 000 years old and the environment fairly unchanged since the beginning. But that in itself is pretty obviously, according to mainstream science, not the case.

And since I'm pretty sure I've just made clear that (whether or not your point about homosexuality being a mental illness is correct) in so far as regarding the definition of deep love, a man can love another man. I'll actually go out on a limb here and say that a gay man could love a woman that way, asexuals could love other people that way, straight people could love someone of the same sex the same way, etc. And in any case it could take a sexual form of expression.

So... what makes it so bad, really?

old comment by Canuovea

A separate post for this topic, since this seems to be the point and we've a chance to get right to it:

"God is logical, cogent, imperative, coherent, rational and gave special revelation."

Starting with imperative. How is that necessary? I mean, there could be perfectly reasonable other explanations for how the universe and life began that don't include God, and yet that does not mean God was not responsible. It only means that God did a good job at setting up a self governing universe.

Saying that God is the only way it all could have happened is... bordering on the fallacy argument from ignorance and can probably be outright dismissed.

Is God logically valid? As in, cogent/coherent? Depends, I think, on the attributes being attributed to God. One can't say that God is unchanging, but then claim that he changed his mind from the old to the new testaments. One cannot say that God does not discriminate between the righteous and the wicked when dispensing justice after saying that he does so.

And even if you do construct a cogent version of God, something I am not convinced Christianity does, this does not necessarily make it true, just logically valid. Sometimes, once reaching a point where God is logically valid God can sometimes become unfalsifiable in that comparison with the real world neither proves nor disproves God's existence.

Christianity on the other hand has the Bible, which is definitely not cogent in a logically valid sense simply because of all the contradictions. So it depends on if the Bible is to be taken as 100% correct/literal at all times. If it isn't, this raises its own set of problems for Christianity.

God can most certainly be defined as a logical and rational entity. Whether or not the existence of God is a logical conclusion, however, is much less clear and depends on things like the very fundamental concept of proof in logic.

Special revelation... okay. Even if all the other things you've said about God were true, this one would not necessarily follow. You've got to have some good proof for it, and frankly, I don't see it.

Sicko, I knee jerk out responses to things like "suck it" and "raped me" and "douchebag" because you are your very own metaphor for a butt plug.
Think this all "rattles my cage"? You could scream obscenities all day and I'd quietly point out to people you really don't look well, happy, to be fitting in.

When at high school I distinctly remember some lower grade dim wits, trying to stir some, an older teenage couple they'd come across having a bit of "pash". To this day the stupidity is stunning. People here have trouble understanding I really do think they are dumbed down. And then "a you" come at me with a "cock sucking jibe" and someone else thinks I obsess over butt plugs. Yeah right.

Anon-e-moose has to constantly give us "retarded" slurs.

But then point out what Gay really might mean and they then scream homophobe. Well sicko, get your story straight. Do you want to stun me with accusations of "cock sucker" or "homophobe" or "closet just like you".

I vacillate here [look it up] between rolling laughter and mid range anger. But then am reminded people like you would have been cheering clapping and grinning at the guillotine when the executioner held up the head for their amusement. And any other day of the week it might have been you 'compelled' to be Luka Magnotta's next customer.

Magnotta and Gosnell are your dance partners in this "intellectual" space you've created. Setting the dogs on your dead gay "partner" is just entertainment like a "cock sucking" joke. But here, at your defense, is a stranger, Canuovea, to say, double fisted anus rupturing love really can be true love, because it all "evolved" that way [I think that's a fair paraphrase]

All the dirty sex jokes in the world would wear thin even in your own hearing sooner or later "sicko".

And the tormented baby can't be a well adjusted look anywhere. You guess these anonymous entries remain anonymous, and I guess agencies that run things like echelon can instantly cut and paste posts like yours onto a file they'd mark 'sociopath'. Man who pisses on public toilet seats. Likely suspect for future crime investigation. Track all mobile phone movements to coincide with estimated event times of cold cases.

HA HA HA, someone has the technology to match your posts here and drop an email with them to some possible future employer. HA HA HA.
Laughing sicko, sicko, but not so much with you. The whole anonymity gag here is one of the biggest jokes of them all. People think they aren't being watched, statistics established, profiles developed, and management plans put in place.

"maketh my day" sicko, blow me away with your intellect and insight into the 'gay' real man's mind.
Oh and a crutches laugh, oh how I need crutches. Man in a wheel chair, giggles get louder and deeper; you could let his tyres down while 'no-one' was watching and run away laughing.

There you go anon-e-moose, comfort him with manly comfort

[bottom line- even without proofing it's practice at prose, cheers]

old comment by Canuovea

PG, except for the fact that those Progressive Nordic Countries are doing fairly well, and they're pretty fine with homosexuality.

And don't tell me that the US is doing all that much better... well, okay, it has been getting better... But it was hit pretty hard by the depression too despite all the gay hatred. Also, Spain and Italy, two very religious European countries, were the ones taking a lot of the damage. Germany and France are doing fairly well.

Besides, their woes are more likely to be economic than homosexual...

Also, I wouldn't say I've been defending Sicko. I called his insults rather infantile. Ironically, PG, I've been defending you.

"double fisted anus rupturing love really can be true love, because it all "evolved" that way [I think that's a fair paraphrase]"

Pretty fair paraphrase. I'd say it can be an "act" of true love. The action itself isn't love and isn't necessarily an act of love. Also, it can be an act of love in the same way as other sexual, uh, techniques can be acts of love. That includes straight couples.

Your aversion to it seems to just be "gross, I don't get it! It seems disgusting." But that is the same attitude children often have about kissing.

Also, feel free to address my points about your statement of: "God is logical, cogent, imperative, coherent, rational and gave special revelation."

old comment by Canuovea

PG,

Ah, but that is just the possibilities we can think of. Even if you've eliminated all the other possibilities anyone can think of (and I don't think that is so), saying "therefore God did it" is a fallacy called argument from ignorance. Basically, logic doesn't work that way.

"With someone serious I want to have it explained how a man who is being raped in prison can be a "poof/ fag/ gay" but the rapist isn't."

Well... the man being raped isn't necessarily gay because he is being raped. That is ridiculous! I don't see who could say that. The man who does the raping may be gay, or extremely desperate/lusty and lacking in self control.

As far as taking control of slurs and using them in a positive/harmless way amongst themselves... well... didn't you know that only another ginger can call a ginger, ginger? It's odd, but it is what some people do.

sicko, even if you placed me at the front of the queue I still don't think I'd feel the sides. People who've seen me think I'm some sort of cloning experiment with a horse, but still, I don't think its enough.

Know anyone not so used up?

Canuovea

I've been looking at alternatives for twenty plus years. Not to belittle any of the contributors here but most people really don't grasp abiogenesis at all. Others things its impossible to explain is the very detailed existence of Christianity. When cosmology is added to biology, simple flood evidence, what the fossils really say, how many testimonies for OBEs NDEs that are consistent with life beyond the body it really does make a case.

Of course I am unaware of things about which I am unaware. But what I have seen inside of genuine sciences is enough for me to know. God is real, and has, in part, revealed a little bit of who He Is.

old comment by Canuovea

PG,

Genuine sciences? Be careful, if that means the "science" that agrees with your preconceived notions then maybe be careful in your assertions.

Still, I'm aware that that statement can be thrown right back at me. But most scientists with the peer reviewed and tested ideas seem to not be needing supernatural or godly explanations.

Flood? Worldwide flood? Even the Catholic Church thinks that is allegorical. The archaeological consensus, and especially those without ulterior motives, seems to be that there wasn't a worldwide flood where someone put all the animals in a boat (that isn't possible).

Fossils really say? Again, consensus seems pretty clear. Also, so does radiological dating.

As for OBEs and NDEs, well, those seem to be most likely explained by the brain being flooded with certain hormones when stressed.

Still, even given all that, it doesn't point to Christianity specifically. I don't know what you mean by "very detailed existence of Christianity", because I can say, from a historical perspective the Gospels can tell us a few good things... but they aren't exactly trustworthy sources.

old comment by Canuovea

Well, as I'm not a scientist, I don't really know how to evaluate these things. I do know how the scientific community works though, and if something overturning the current paradigm is sufficiently strong, the scientists run about testing it with a nearly sadistic glee. This is simply because whoever disproves a paradigm gets money and recognition, but only if done to actual rigorous standards...

As for newly formed rocks dating back millions of years... I'd imagine, if this is radiometric dating, that this is so because the volcanic rock is made from cool magma. So while the form the rock is in, solid, is new, the material itself is pretty darn old and had probably been in molten liquid form for some time. I dunno for certain though, that is just a thought.

I've read a good deal of religious literature. One from the Jehovah's Witnesses was particularly interesting. I think it was the Jehovah's Witnesses... anyway, apparently they believe that Jesus (Joshua being what his name is supposed to be, apparently) is actually the Archangel Michael who in turn is the Son of God. That really mucks up Milton's Paradise Lost, of course...

So... as I said... even if all this evidence is correct (I'm not saying it is), how are you sure it points to Christianity? Not, say Islam? Or better yet, why your specific Christianity? Why are the Catholics wrong?

old comment by LJ

You know, the Romans had actually outlawed homosexuality at the time it started to collapse... Just saying...
Now that I think about it, every society that's collapsed has had heterosexuality... ee gads, surely there must be a link.

Also, am I the only on thinking it's a bit odd PG is randomly talking about fisting - double-fisting at that - is blatantly fixated on Sicko's sex life and seems to have some odd thoughts on horses (a pony-play fetish, perhaps?)

Also, @PG - "With someone serious I want to have it explained how a man who is being raped in prison can be a "poof/ fag/ gay" but the rapist isn't."
Rape has nothing to do with sexual attraction, it's about power. In most cases of prison rape both victim and rapist are heterosexual, though gay men are actually more at risk due to, you know, homophobia, but this is not relevant to you question. Ultimately, gay and straight mean nothing in this situation. The roles are simply a case of who does and who doesn't wield power. I read a very interesting paper on the topic of prison rape some time ago, I'll make sure to post a link if I find it.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@LJ

"You know, the Romans had actually outlawed homosexuality at the time it started to collapse... Just saying...
Now that I think about it, every society that's collapsed has had heterosexuality... ee gads, surely there must be a link."

image

'The ancient Romans believed that Buggery caused earthquakes'

-John Sessions (l), "QI"

"Also, am I the only on thinking it's a bit odd PG is randomly talking about fisting - double-fisting at that - is blatantly fixated on Sicko's sex life and seems to have some odd thoughts on horses (a pony-play fetish, perhaps?)"

You don't know the half of it...:

image

http://www.sexinchrist.com/submission.html

...and as per P-G here, take it away, Al...:

image

'You're obsessed, you are!'

-Al Murray (Pub Landlord)

Ken Hutcherson #fundie christianpost.com

89 comments

Confused?