#homophobia

All about the Gay Agenda

Alex Jones #conspiracy #homophobia youtube.com

(Transscript of video)
In the interval [?] the Pentagon just tested a gay bomb on Iraq, they considered it, they didn’t [?] consider using it, they used it on our troops, in Vietnam, they sprayed PCP on our troops - Jacob’s Ladder - ha - you think PCP - some horse tranquilizers or something? They got some stuff that’ll whack your brain permanently.
[pause]
Brain chips in the troops. They give the troops special vaccines that really [?] nanotech that auto[?]-re-engineers their brains.
[pause]
Now there is the gay bomb.
[pause]
Look it up for yourself, this is what do you think tap water is, it’s a gay bomb, baby.
[pause]
And I’m not saying people didn’t naturally have homosexual feelings, I’m not even getting into it, quite frankly, give me a break. You think I… I’m, like, shocked by it [?] [incomprehensible] bashing it because I don’t like gay people. I DON’T LIKE THEM PUTTING CHEMICALS IN THE WATER! THEY TURN THE FRICKING FROGS GAY!
[pause]
Do you understand that?
Ungh! Ungh! Ungh! Ungh! [bangs paper on table]
Crap!
I’m sick of being socially engineered! It’s not funny!

Congregation for the Light #fundie #racist #homophobia #psycho nypost.com

It’s a secret society that claims its followers descended from a “master Aryan race” on Atlantis and that ­humans once lived on the moon. Homosexuality is banned, corporal punishment encouraged and members atone for bad karma in past lives. Young women, denied higher education, are often married off to older men in the group, former members say.

Some male devotees have ­undergone weapons training to prepare for the end of the world, which is coming soon. But this doomsday cult isn’t hidden away in some rural ­bunker — it operates out of a brownstone in Murray Hill.

Every Thursday evening, dozens of congregants line up on East 35th Street for the group’s weekly meeting. Their leader of the flock, Tom Baer, 73, preaches from the center of the room, reading from pieces of paper. Members don’t have religious texts to follow along and aren’t allowed to take notes. In official documents, the tax-exempt church is called Congregation for the Light. To members, it’s just “the Light.”

The group has about 200 members in New York, and there are congregations in Washington, DC, and Atlanta, Baer and ex-followers say.

“It’s the cult next door to every New Yorker, and no one even knows that it’s there,” said an ­exiled member.

The former worshiper, a Manhattan woman who spoke on the condition of ­anonymity because she fears retribution, joined the group in 2003 while dating a man who was raised in it. “I totally wanted to know what was going on,” she said, adding that her boyfriend assured her it was “nothing creepy .?.?. just the basic tenets of all religions.”

The deeper she got, the more skeptical she became. Baer spoke to her of battling evil people in lucid dreams and how cancer and other illnesses were the result of karma, not health habits, genetics or environment. She noted Baer’s repeated, odd mispronunciation of “awry” as ­“ow-ree.”

The Light dates back to at least the 1960s and has met in Murray Hill since the ’70s, though members are taught that the church dates to the 19th century. Much of what the group believes is shrouded in secrecy, though former members say it has a lot to do with karma, reincarnation and the end of the human race.

The former worshiper was shocked that attendance at weekly meetings was mandatory; absences for vacation or higher education were not excused. When she asked a fellow member if her teenage daughter would ­attend Harvard or Yale, the woman responded: “What are you talking about? She’ll go to a local community college. She has to attend Thursday night meetings.”

She was warned not to share the Light with others, and she kept her membership secret from her closest friends.

“Everything is ambiguous,” she said. “And if you ask, you’re told, ‘You just don’t remember. You’ll remember when you’re supposed to .?.?. Try to control your dreams, and tonight you’ll remember a symbol.’?”

But she wouldn’t stop asking questions.

During a meeting at the end of the year, ­everyone was handed a white ­envelope — except for her. The next day, she joined her boyfriend, who had since become her fiancé, and his parents for dinner.

The food wasn’t even served before her ­fiancé’s mother stood at the table and announced: “If you think you’re marrying him, you’re nuts. I remember you from 10,000 years ago, and you tried to bring down the Light. “We are launching a spiritual intervention to save his soul,” the would-be mother-in-law said.

Shattered, the young woman was driven home and told never to speak to her fiancé again. Two months later, he was married off to a fellow Light member. The white envelopes had been invitations to a special meeting to sabotage her engagement to the man who brought her into the Light in the first place. “I felt like I was in a movie,” she recalled. “I didn’t realize the kind of power Tom [Baer] had. That the Light had.”

Paul Arthur Miller was 18 when he found himself among a dozen young men in a secluded nook of the Adirondack Mountains. He had received instructions on what to pack for the three-day trip reserved only for elite members of the “Light Patrol.” The troop was led by two ­believers, ex-Army paratroopers who taught the youngsters how to track footprints, the basics of camping and other survival skills.

He didn’t realize the training would include firing M14 automatic rifles into an abandoned junk heap or training in hand-to-hand combat in preparation for the apocalypse. “The belief is that Planet Earth will be ending soon and we would have to defend our people and safeguard our food and supplies,” recalled Miller, now a ­58-year-old West Village writer.

“They changed the doomsday date at least twice,” he said. “We were told it was imminent, weeks or months. People in the cult wouldn’t have dental work done because they thought, ‘Why bother?’?”

Miller was born into the group and worked 17 years for Baer’s furniture company in Harrison, Westchester County, which employed many Light members. “I felt like a prisoner,” Miller said. “I felt like an indentured slave.” He stayed through the tenures of two Light leaders across 30 years — each with his own agendas and “personal beliefs.”

Morris Kates, chairman during the 1960s and ’70s, taught Miller that once the world ended, people would be reincarnated on ­another planet called “Nay.” There, they would be one gender — and have no stomachs. Joseph Denton, Kates’ successor and a former Southern Baptist, tried banning the Internet and some TV.

Baer took the reins when Denton died in 2001. He had married into the Light in the 1960s after hitching a ride with a West­chester-bound follower and meeting his future wife.

Miller said the three leaders had one thing in common — they tried to erase his homosexuality, which they considered “a hangover from the Roman Empire.” He was ordered to date women in the Light. After one meeting, Kates cornered him and said, “Who is this guy who comes to stay with you on weekends? Is he a faggot?”

Miller was ordered to dump his boyfriend and to begin dating a woman in the Light. He saw her on and off for five years to keep up appearances Despite this, Miller said he was a favorite of Kates, who used to announce during weekly lectures, “Paul and I have been friends for thousands and thousands of lives.”

The meetings would begin in the brownstone’s ground-floor auditorium around 7?p.m., when Kates announced, “Greetings, friends.” The teachings are rooted in 19th-century England, ex-followers and Baer say, where a husband and wife — known only as “the Wyeths” — woke from the same dream and wrote down the karmic tenets and symbols they remembered.

“They don’t give you any sources. There’s no dogma you can reference. It’s just word of mouth,” an ex-member said. “You just believe what you’re told.” The Light chairman instructs followers to obsessively look for symbols in dreams and their everyday lives.

Ex-members told The Post they couldn’t even have artwork or bric-a-brac in their homes unless it contained one of the signs, which include an “owl,” or watcher protecting Light members, and a cross with an “X,” the group’s greeting sign.

“They’re brainwashed. They’re obsessed,” said Miller, who is writing a screenplay on his experience in the Light. Members aren’t allowed to associate with “know-nots,” the term for people who aren’t in the Light.

“You were always told if you leave the Light, you’re subjected to evil .?.?. because you don’t have protection,” Miller said.

Miller finally worked up the courage to leave the group in the 1990s. The last straw was a member spying on him as he dined with a male suitor. “How dare you be seen in a restaurant frequented by the Light with that blatant homosexual?” the member seethed.

Miller left a letter in Denton’s mailbox notifying him he was done. His parents left six months later. “My dad [later] apologized for getting us into this thing,” he said. He is estranged from his three sisters, who are still in the group. “I didn’t start living until I left the Light,” Miller said. “I want people to know it’s OK to leave, to reclaim their independence of thought and pursue their own life dreams.”

Another ex-follower, who requested anonymity, said he was booted from his home at age 15 because he questioned the teachings and refused to throw away his Black Sabbath records. “They believe in a master Aryan race .?.?. that lived on Atlantis,” he said, adding that black, red and yellow races existed, but a blue race was wiped out. “Once you get to a certain level, they start to tell you these things.

“They think they are otherworldly,” he added. “They carry themselves like they’re robotic .?.?. they’re not of this Earth, everything else is filth and [they] don’t want to associate.” He endured brutal beatings by his parents, who he believes were instructed by Kates. “I had this reputation of being a bad kid when I wasn’t,” said the ex-member. “I was an abused kid.”

His mother was told she was Kates’ daughter on Atlantis 10,000 years ago and believed she was a high priestess of the Light. “Everybody is brainwashed in this thing,” he said. “They’re conditioned to think and behave in a certain way, and it starts in childhood. Children are taught to fear.” The Light also teaches that children aren’t human until they reach the age of 13, he said.

The Light’s solution to his sister’s rebelliousness was to marry her off to a church bachelor in his 40s. “She was a gorgeous 19-year-old, and they married her off to this schlub,” the ex-member said. He said he struggled with post-traumatic stress disorder because of his upbringing in the group.

“If they want to clear their name of suspicion, they need to start answering questions,” he said. “They should maybe have a sign out in front of their building if they’re listed as a church.”

Another ex-member said he and his mother were forced to put money in a wooden box by the entrance before they jumped ship in the late ’70s. He remembers Kates announcing the group would incorporate as a church to get tax breaks. Shortly after, the member was kicked out for marrying a Catholic woman who refused to join the Light.

“There was always so much turmoil when someone chose a partner from the outside world,” he said, adding that parents often married their children off to other members in the group. “It was not uncommon for girls as young as 18 marrying .?.?. men who were quite a bit older,” he said.

The exiled follower said it took many years for him to get over the experience and that he has never shared more than superficial details with his adult children. “It still stands out as the worst time of my entire life,” he said. “But I was — fortunate enough to have people still in my life that loved me and helped me through it.”

Baer, a charming and sharply dressed man who uses a cane and believes he was an Apache in a past life, denies the group is a “cult.” “We’re not a religion. We’re what a church should be,” said the Ohio native. “The principles are to have a decent, sane and healthy life and to be responsible for our own actions.

We’re not a religion. We’re what a church should be. “You can’t do that in one life,” he added. “It’s impossible.”

Baer denied that the group supports corporal punishment, but said, “If I want to spank my kids, it’s no one else’s business .?.?. Even Jesus said, ‘Spare the rod and spoil the child.’ But it’s not what you do first.” The preacher said children aren’t indoctrinated until they are teens and that if a child dies before age 13, it’s because they committed suicide in a previous life.

Congregation for the Light runs a nonprofit named after Kates, who died in the late 1970s. The foundation’s address is at a Brooklyn auto shop. The group’s revenues were $116,860 in 2012 and $338,429 in 2011, tax forms show. The documents reveal a vague accounting of expenses, which include $84,000 for “totally physically and mentally disabled, total care, assistance for nurses’ aides.”

Baer, who lives on an upper floor of the Light’s brownstone, said the nonprofit gets 10 percent of its funds from donations and the rest from estates when members die. The group pays for members who are down on their luck and for their home care. “It’s not a cult. It’s not a scam,” Baer said. “You can come 3,000 times and you’re not going to have to pay a dime.”

arcenciel-par-une-larme #fundie #homophobia arcenciel-par-une-larme.tumblr.com

Wow, even at trying to make Christianity sympathetic you suck. You honestly think someone who feels oppressed by LGBT having basic human treatment is on par with people facing true discrimination, suffering and death. How sociopathic do you have to be?

Wow, another cowardly christophobic anon who thinks that LGBT people are all cute innocent angels who do nothing wrong and only want “peace and equality”, and that they are oppressed by us EBUL KRISTIANZ because we don’t want to make cakes for their weddings, while ignoring the actual oppression that Christians (like every other group of people actually) face! How original. Colour me shocked.

For the umpteenth time, anon, read my lips.

1. Christians do NOT want to deprive LGBT people of their inalienable human rights. PERIOD. If there is any Christian out there who does, he is not following Christian principles OR the law.
2. There is, however, some OTHER major religion which views homosexuals and transsexuals in a VERY negative light and uses some really gruesome and inhumane methods against them, and in their countries homosexuals face REAL oppression, suffering and death, yet you SJWs miraculously want that religion protected—for the life of me, though, I never seem to remember what that religion is called! I think its name begins with an “i”—Independent Norse Rastafarianism, perhaps?
3. A wedding cake or flower services are not fundamental human rights.
4. Not feeling offended is not a fundamental human right.
5. Getting married according to the practices of a religion of which you are not a part is not a fundamental human right. Getting married according to the practices of a religion which considers any marriage but one man and one woman in a lifelong sacramental commitment ontologically impossible is not a fundamental human right.
6. ACTUAL human rights involve:
i. Freedom of speech
ii. Freedom of religion
iii. Freedom of association
7. Depriving others of their fundamental human rights or harassing them and doxxing them because they disagree with your lifestyle, or punishing them for exercising the aforementioned rights, is something in which YOUR side (modern secularist leftism) routinely engages and it is unconstitutional and immoral.
8. Surprisingly enough, the death threats and doxxing and punishment of dissenters ONLY (or overwhelmingly so) takes place when the latter are Christians. Dare to actually imply that imams should be forced to marry homosexual couples, or that Muslim bakers should be forced to bake cakes for gay pride events, and you may as well sit down for the next days and watch the swarm of “Islamophobia” accusations fly against you even from within the LGBT community itself.
9. If you search my recent feed (perhaps in a few days, the post might still be queued) you will find a news story about a homosexual baker who found himself in trouble because he refused to bake a cake with a pro-Nazism message. Can you guess what happened in the notes?
That’s right! Leftists suddenly remembered that freedom of association is a thing!
Ergo, they most blatantly proved that they only want basic human rights for their Precious Protected Victimhood Groups™️, whereas Christians and conservatives can sincerely go f*ck themselves.
If this is not the pinnacle of hypocrisy, then I don’t know what is. If ALL THIS doesn’t convince you of the hate that is peddled by YOUR side, trust me, that speaks VOLUMES about you.

So, good day, my kind sir/madam, and I hope you can soon realise that the “you shouldn’t hate other people just because they’re different” moral imperative also applies to you. Oh and, by the way, given your side’s intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy and hatred, it’s REALLY rich for you to call us sociopaths.

J. Lee Grady #fundie #homophobia charismamag.com

davidjonathan
Some “theologians” today are perverting Bible stories to promote their agenda. We can’t let them hijack the gospel.

A few weeks ago when I addressed the topic of homosexuality, a reader posted a comment on our forum suggesting that the biblical King David and his friend Jonathan were gay lovers. After a few other readers questioned this interpretation, another reader repeated the claim. “The Bible is clear that David and Jonathan were physical, sexual, gay male homosexual lovers,” this person wrote authoritatively—without citing a chapter and verse.

Most evangelical Christians would drop their jaws in bewilderment if confronted with such an odd theory. Even people with minimal knowledge of the Old Testament know that (1) David was married to Jonathan’s sister, Michal—and he had a few other wives, and (2) David’s biggest blunder was his adulterous relationship with Bathsheba—a woman he saw bathing on a rooftop. God was not happy about David’s lust or with his decision to have Bathsheba’s husband killed so he could hide his sin.

It is illogical to read homosexuality into the story of David and Jonathan because neither Jewish nor early Christian tradition ever endorses sex outside the bounds of heterosexual marriage. If you read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, you will never see a depiction of a gay relationship, ever. Nor will you see homosexuality affirmed. You cannot get around the fact that the Bible says gay sex is flat-out wrong.

But that doesn’t mean people won’t try to change the meaning of Scripture. “Theologians” from both Catholic and Protestant backgrounds have written books claiming that various Bible characters were gay. They have suggested that Ruth and Naomi were lesbian lovers; that the Roman centurion in Matthew 8 had a gay relationship with his servant; and that the disciple John had a homoerotic relationship with Jesus.

Gay-affirming theologians also have pounced on the story of David and Jonathan. They point to David’s words in 2 Samuel 1:26 when he eulogized Jonathan and Saul: “I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; you have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women” (NASB).

So how do we interpret this verse? We need to keep these points in mind:

1. Old Testament morality has not changed. Our culture today is redefining sexuality. We’ve made killing babies a right, we celebrate fornication and we’re on a mad dash to legitimize gay marriage. But with all the bending, twisting and legal redefining, we cannot change what was written in the Bible thousands of years ago. It’s silly to make the Bible imply something it never said. And it’s laughable to suggest that David, the author of many of the psalms—and the biblical figure who best represents a true worshipper of the one true God—would be recast as being in a gay relationship.

Conservative Jews in our country agree. The Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), the nation’s largest body of Orthodox Jews, recently reaffirmed their commitment to Old Testament morality. The RCA recently stated, “The Torah and Jewish tradition, in the clearest of terms, prohibit the practice of homosexuality. Same-sex unions are against both the letter and the spirit of Jewish law, which sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony.” Jewish priests in the time of David and Jonathan held the same view.

2. David and Jonathan had a model friendship. Scripture says Jonathan loved David “as himself” (1 Sam. 18:3). Jonathan’s love was selfless and heroic. Even though he was in line to be the next king of Israel, he recognized David would step into that role—and Jonathan not only celebrated his friend as the rightful king but also protected him from his father’s spear-throwing tantrums.

Jonathan’s love was not lust. It was the ultimate in sacrifice. He laid down his rights so his friend could be promoted. He opposed his father’s self-willed ambition and instead affirmed that David should be the true king. Jonathan showed us all how to be a true friend. David’s comment that his friend’s love was “more wonderful than the love of women” was not sexual; he was praising Jonathan’s loyalty and brotherly devotion.

3. We should encourage healthy male friendships instead of sexualizing them. In our fatherless culture, men are starved for affirmation and encouragement. God wired men to need close friends, but few of us are willing to build those kinds of relationships because of insecurity, inferiority or pride. Many guys are lonely, isolated and afraid to admit they need help. Some may even struggle with sexual confusion, yet they could find healing through a combination of the Holy Spirit’s power and healthy male bonding. The church today should do everything possible to encourage male friendships.

It is incredibly perverse—not to mention blasphemous—to suggest that anything sexual was going on between David and Jonathan. Yet I suspect that leaders in the gay-affirming church movement will continue to come up with more bizarre examples of Scripture-twisting in order to promote their agenda. We can’t allow them to hijack the purity of the gospel.

Adam #fundie #homophobia realjewnews.com

On an unrelated but previously discussed issue, Australia votes!

We currently have our nation wide plebiscite underway, to see whether our laws will be changed to allow same sex couples to marry. Let’s hope there are enough people left in our nation that will stand up for traditional Christian values. ( I’m not holding my breath )

Of course the media promote perversion daily, and anyone who speaks against it are promptly attacked. Pray that we can set an example for the rest of the Western world and reject this notion.

I truly hope LGBTQs find happiness in rejecting perversion and embracing our Saviour.

Got Questions #fundie #homophobia gotquestions.org

Question: "What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?"

Answer: The biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah is recorded in Genesis chapters 18-19. Genesis chapter 18 records the Lord and two angels coming to speak with Abraham. The Lord informed Abraham that "the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous" (Genesis 18:20). Verses 22-33 record Abraham pleading with the Lord to have mercy on Sodom and Gomorrah because Abraham's nephew, Lot, and his family lived in Sodom.

Genesis chapter 19 records the two angels, disguised as human men, visiting Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them'" (Genesis 19:4–5). The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver. Lot and his family flee the city, and then "the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah — from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities..." (Genesis 19:24).

In light of the passage, the most common response to the question "What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?" is that it was homosexuality. That is how the term "sodomy" came to be used to refer to anal sex between two men, whether consensual or forced. Clearly, homosexuality was part of why God destroyed the two cities. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to perform homosexual gang rape on the two angels (who were disguised as men). At the same time, it is not biblical to say that homosexuality was the exclusive reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were definitely not exclusive in terms of the sins in which they indulged.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 declares, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me..." The Hebrew word translated "detestable" refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an "abomination." Similarly, Jude 7 declares, "...Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion." So, again, while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities.

Those who attempt to explain away the biblical condemnations of homosexuality claim that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were certainly being inhospitable. There is probably nothing more inhospitable than homosexual gang rape. But to say God completely destroyed two cities and all their inhabitants for being inhospitable clearly misses the point. While Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many other horrendous sins, homosexuality was the reason God poured fiery sulfur on the cities, completely destroying them and all of their inhabitants. To this day, the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were located remains a desolate wasteland. Sodom and Gomorrah serve as a powerful example of how God feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically.

Dick Hafer #fundie #homophobia ep.tc

image

Transcript
HOMOSEXUALITY: LEGITIMATE, ALTERNATE DEATHSTYLE
by dick hafer
[A gay man shouts "NO! IT'S ALL LIES! DON'T READ THIS BOOK!" as he is being carried away.]
Do you know what a "golden shower" is? Have you ever heard of "fisting"? What really happens in gay baths? What is the hidden political agenda of the "gay" community? Which organizations help to promote this agenda? Which national political figures have supported the "gay rights" drive? What are the facts about AIDS? What other diseases can you catch from the sodomites? What should the Christian's attitude be toward sodomites? Which lies do they want you to believe?
The answers to these and many more questions can be found in this primer on the immoral movement sweeping the U.S. They are answers you must have to discuss the issue - and join the battle.
These answers may turn your, and other's children from the siren call of the deathstyle of the homosexuals.

Old Man Montgomery #fundie #homophobia oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com

[=Authors Note: For the sake of trimming, some of the Bible verses in the original page have been removed=]

From the website of ‘johnshore.com’

These were published and dated December 16, 2010. I have only recently become aware of this ‘movement’ via Facebook. (One never knows what one will find there.) These are referred to as the “Sixteen Tenets of ‘unfundamentalist Christians’ , known also or previously known as ‘ThruWay Christians’. Being the old-fashioned, hard-nosed Bible thumper that I am, I disagree with some facets of this and the conclusions of the entirety.

Of course I have reasons and those reasons are published below. Just for convenience, I numbered the statements, replacing what appeared in my copy as a paragraph ‘dot’.

Just for the record, as the article was dated December 16, 2010, it is entirely possible Mr. Shore has completely changed his mind and recanted this whole document. On the other hand, I just checked Mr. Shore’s last blog entry and he’s still pitching the “UnFund” theme.

Caution: If the reader is not a Christian believer, much of this discussion will seem pointless. Feel free to read on, but if you’re confused, don’t worry, it happens to lots of folks.

Here beings the tenets:

1. Jesus Christ was God incarnate. He performed miracles; as a means of providing for the irrevocable reconciliation of humankind to God he sacrificed himself on the cross; he rose from the dead; he left behind for the benefit of all people the totality of himself in the form of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

So far, I’m in agreement. Jesus is God incarnate; the ‘Son’ who is God Himself. Jesus was executed and killed (no alternatives) on a Roman cross under Roman law. Jesus’ death was the final sacrifice needed to atone for the sin of all people who appeal to Him for forgiveness. Jesus rose from the dead on the third day showing Himself to be God and giving a promise to all of an Eternal life in Heaven with Him. He sent the Third Person of the Godhead, the ‘Holy Spirit’ to believers after His ascension.

2. Christ and Christianity are meant to be understood, appreciated, and experienced as galvanizing inspirations for living a life of love, compassion, fairness, peace, and humility. Period.

Now we’re disagreeing. The primary purpose and function of Christianity is to repair the breach between God and mankind due to mankind’s rebellion and disobedience. Being forgiven by Jesus and redeemed by His sacrifice, mankind can have a direct and proper relationship with God. The qualities of love, compassion, fairness, peace and humility are by-products of that proper relationship, not the primary aim.

Am I splitting hairs here? Not as much as one might think; the matter becomes clearer as we proceed.

3. The Bible is a collection of a great many separate documents written by different people in different languages over thousands of years. Properly understanding both the letter and spirit of the Bible necessarily entails taking into account the historical and cultural contexts that so greatly inform so much of its text. The size, density, history and complexity of the Bible render unfeasible the idea that not one of its words reflects more man’s will than God’s. The spirit of God is inerrant; people—even those impassioned by the conviction that God is speaking directly to or through them—are not.

The one starts out well and descends into heresy. The Bible was written over a period of approximately 1500 years. The Books of Moses, the Torah – sometimes Pentateuch, was written in the period between the Exodus from Egypt, around 1400 B. C. to the time of the Babylonian Captivity, around 600 to 530 B. C. (give or take a decade or so.) The book of Revelation, written by John the Apostle was written around 90 A. D. The rest was written somewhere in between, with the possible exception of Job. Job was one of the earliest sections written and may predate Moses. The Bible was assuredly written by at least forty different authors. (For instance, the books of Judges, Kings and Chronicles were written over periods of time and one author could not have written them all; they require accounts from events several hundred years apart. The Torah was more than likely written by a number of scribes with Moses or a later, Babylonian scholar as ‘editor’ and having final input. Genesis is obviously based on oral traditions of the Israelite nation.) The books reflect social conventions and cultural coloring of the times involved.

However, it is the message of Almighty God to humanity. No matter how much a human can foul up, the integrity of the message is based on God’s ability to ensure His message is properly passed on. No human can foul up or outright lie good enough to defeat God’s purpose. So as much as mankind wrote the words on paper (papyrus or whatever), the ‘Word’ (Greek ‘logos’, meaning idea, identity or concept) is that of God. As such, it is inerrant in message.

The idea of the Bible being ‘written by man and therefore possibly distorted’ is an old heresy. It was argued about in the earliest councils trying to settle on the ‘Bible’ and is the basis for several cults who claim to be Christian, but rely on teachings of extra Biblical origin. The heresy also finds much favor among those who wish to discredit any one particular facet of Christian doctrine. Under any version, the idea the Bible isn’t correct means either God really doesn’t care about the message or God is incapable of protecting His own plan. Christians cannot in good faith (no pun intended) accept either alternative.

4. Anyone seeking to mix church and state has failed to understand the nature and proper role of either. Belief that all people are created equal and are deserving of equal protection under the law is foundational to all modern democratic nations. To incorporate the inherently exclusionary imperatives of a particular religion into the determinedly inclusive system of democracy would be to undermine the very spirit of democracy by pushing it toward a theocracy.

This is a pretty silly statement and is highly ignorant of history. The ‘foundational’ belief of people being created equal and deserving equal protection under law is uniquely derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is not found in Islam, Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any of the other ‘religions’ of the world. It is Christianity that fostered Democracy, not Democracy that fostered Christianity.

Additionally, it was Christian believers and supporters who founded the United States as a nation with no state religion. The United States was not founded as a ‘Christian nation’, but was indeed begun as a ‘nation of Christians’. To pretend otherwise is to ignore history and to invite serious question as to the point of the discussion. One must also note that all movements to ‘remove’ the influence of Christianity from the United States and civil laws result in the promotion of either Secular Humanism or Islam.

There are no moral vacuums.

5. It’s not possible to read Paul’s New Testament writings and remain unmoved by his open heart, intellectual prowess, and staggering bravery. And yet Paul (who, after all, spent years zealously persecuting and having executed untold numbers of Christians) must remain to us a mortal man. More than reasonable, it is incumbent upon those who claim to seek the deepest knowledge of Christ to subject the words of Paul to the same kinds of objective analysis we would the words of any man daring to describe the qualities, purposes, and desires of God.

This is a gentle, lofty and seemingly reasonable attempt to undermine the message presented by God through Paul the Apostle. What this statement does is deny the Divine inspiration and authorship of the Bible as a whole. It returns to the fore in a moment with more of the ‘villify Paul’ agenda.

6. With regards to the written identity of God, the pronoun “he” is a necessity of the English language, not an actual anatomical designation. God is neither male nor female; God contains all of both.

Again, agreement. In Hebrew, just as in English, the male pronoun unless specifically intended refers to both male and female. Jesus says (John 4:23 and 24)“But a time is coming – and now is here – when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers. God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” Also one notes in Genesis (chapter one, verses 26 and 27)
“Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.

So, both male and female were (still are, more or less, being distorted from the original model by mankind’s disobedience) created in God’s image; which manifestly means not a physical image, but a mental and spiritual image.

7. The Biblical scholarship supporting the idea that Paul never wrote a word proscribing natural homosexuality is at least as credible and persuasive as the scholarship (if not typical Bible translations) claiming that he did. Any person who uses the words of Paul in the New Testament to “prove” that homosexuality is a sin against God has either never themselves researched the matter, or has simply chosen to believe one set of equal proofs over another. Though laziness is easily enough understood, we remain mystified as to why anyone who purports to follow Jesus would choose to condemn an entire population over choosing to obey Jesus’ self-proclaimed Greatest Commandment to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself.

Here’s the follow up to point 5. Once Paul is ‘questionable’, the condemnation of homosexuality can be dismissed as a personal quirk, or possibly an outright error on the part of Christianity (on the whole).

Here’s the premise of the tenet: Paul either really didn’t mean what he wrote about the practice of homosexuality despite what is clearly written in the original Greek manuscripts and all subsequent translations of the Bible, or Paul was mistaken and therefore not inspired by God. What an amazing statement.

Either God inspired and authored the Bible or not. If one chooses to deny God’s inspiration in part, then the whole becomes suspect. If God was lax in allowing Paul to write and publish errors, then what of the rest of the Bible is trustworthy? Conversely, if God did in fact inspire and author the Bible, then Paul’s writing is equally trustworthy.

Leviticus 18
This entire section (several chapters) deals with sexual sins and prohibitions. In part (I have inserted whole paragraphs to present an in context view):
19 You must not approach a woman in her menstrual impurity to have sexual intercourse with her. 20 You must not have sexual intercourse with the wife of your fellow citizen to become unclean with her. 21 You must not give any of your children as an offering to Molech, so that you do not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord! 22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act. 23 You must not have sexual intercourse with any animal to become defiled with it, and a woman must not stand before an animal to have sexual intercourse with it; it is a perversion.
Leviticus 20
9 “‘If anyone curses his father and mother he must be put to death. He has cursed his
father and mother; his blood guilt is on himself. 10 If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. 11 If a man has sexual intercourse with his father’s wife, he has exposed his father’s nakedness. Both of them must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 12 If a man has sexual intercourse with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. They have committed perversion; their blood guilt is on themselves. 13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 14 If a man has sexual intercourse with both a woman and her mother, it is lewdness. Both he and they must be burned to death, so there is no lewdness in your midst. 15 If a man has sexual intercourse with any animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal to have sexual intercourse with it, you must kill the woman, and the animal must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

These two passages are from the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. One can argue these are part of the Jewish or Mosaic Law and are therefore obsolete; in that case, general adultery, incest and bestiality are also permitted along with homosexual conduct. Or is that the point?

First Timothy 1 (written by that suspect Paul fellow)

8 But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately, 9 realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching. 11 This accords with the glorious gospel of the blessed God that was entrusted to me.

There is a note on the phrase ‘practicing homosexuals’ in verse 10 from the NET Bible: “—this term— ??se?????t?? states, “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9—of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. µa?a???—1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27.” L&N 88.280 states, “a male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’—It is possible that ??se?????t?? in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with µa?a???, the passive male partner” (cf. 1 Cor 6:9). Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification “practicing” was supplied in the translation—”

First Corinthians 6 (also written by that questionable Paul)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

This last passage strikes me an illuminating. Homosexuals are included in a list of sin categories which include heterosexual sexual sinners, idolaters, adulterers (distinct from ‘sexually immoral heterosexuals), thieves, greedy, drunkards, verbally abusive and swindlers. The phrase ‘verbally abusive’ is rather interesting. The NIV translates it as ‘slanderers’; I think ‘gossips’ might easily fit into the meaning. At any rate, people who say nasty things about others are lumped in with murderers, thieves and the sexually immoral (of any type).

The last verse in the paragraph implies a change of life in those reading the letter. “Some of you — lived— But you were washed— sanctified— justified—” So they were not just forgiven and allowed to continue; they changed their values and life-styles. The same implication applies to the sexually impure; they don’t do that sort of thing anymore; they avoid that sort of thing; they are ashamed of and denounce their own past behavior.

Therefore, the Old Testament writings prohibited homosexual conduct as does the writings of Paul, therefore the New Testament. The words used really do mean homosexual conduct and not just the generic ‘sexual misconduct’.

I’m really curious about the ‘equal scholarship’ which demonstrates what the Bible says isn’t what it means. I’d like to examine the line of thought and arguments.

The statement “—Jesus’ self-proclaimed Greatest Commandment to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself” is incorrect and sloppy scholarship.

Matthew 22:
35 And one of them, an expert in religious law, asked him a question to test him: 36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 Jesus 44 said to him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

This tenet goes past ‘unfundamentalism’ and is squarely non-Christian.

8. It is much more reasonable—and certainly more compassionate—to hold that throughout history God chose to introduce himself in different ways into different cultural streams than it is to believe that there is only one correct way to understand and worship God, and that the punishment for anyone who chooses any but that way is to spend all of eternity having the living flesh seared off of his or her bones.

More reasonable? By who’s standard? As a Christian, the only viewpoint that counts is God’s viewpoint. That ‘viewpoint’ is expressed in the Bible, which is – as noted prior – God’s message to humanity.

More compassionate? To whom? Not to mention under what definition of ‘compassion’? I find no compassion in patting someone in error on the head and say comforting words while allowing them to remain in error at the risk of Eternal Death.

So let’s go along with the idea of God introducing Himself into different cultural streams in different ways. Why would introduce Himself in a totally different manner if He’s the same, Eternal God? For instance, in the sub-continent which is now India, why would God decide not to be the Eternal God of Creation of the Jewish people, but instead be represented by a pantheon of conflicting gods which change over time? Why would Almighty God manifest Himself as the volcano god, demanding virgin sacrifices? Would God happily change Himself into the Great Green Arkleseizure of Viltvodle VI?

Is He still God? Is He bored and just experimenting? Can He not remember who He is, from epoch to epoch?

The idea appeals to the ‘open-minded’ who have no ideas about who God is, or what He should be or do. The concept flies in the face of the ultimate creator of the Universe and all things that exist, who is Eternal and changeless, who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. In other words, God.

Again, not just ‘unfundamentalist’, but not very good thinking and doctrinally non Christian.

9. “No one comes to the Father except through me” does not mean that in the afterlife only Christians can get into heaven. It means that Jesus/God decides who does and doesn’t make it in.

From this one is forced to believe Jesus will not judge between those who accept Him and those who don’t, but instead will judge by ad hoc rules of ‘good behavior’. I say ‘ad hoc’ because no such rules are outlined in the Bible.

All that stuff about believing in the Son and relying on Him in tenet 1 are out the window, then? It is good deeds that really make the difference?

This heresy is remarkably old as well. It predates Christianity, in fact.

Jesus mentioned this concept in Matthew Seven, starting with verse 15:
15 “Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will recognize them by their fruit.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven – only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!’
24 “Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them is like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, but it did not collapse because it had been founded on rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, and it collapsed; it was utterly destroyed!”
So then, what about “— the one who does the will of my Father in heaven—”? John 15, starting with verse nine makes it clear:
9 “Just as the Father has loved me, I have also loved you; remain in my love. 10 If you obey my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commandments and remain in his love. 11 I have told you these things so that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be complete.”

Nowhere in the Bible, nowhere in the quotations of Jesus, nowhere in the letters of the various apostles and elders in Jerusalem is any such doctrine mentioned or taught. In one setting (John 10:14-18), Jesus says,
14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me – 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father – and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me – because I lay down my life, so that I may take it back again. 18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”

Verse 16 is often used to ‘prove’ the heresy of various versions of God and or Jesus running about in human history, showing up in various forms and guises. One fellow seriously suggested it could indicate the existence of extra-terrestrial life. Actually, the statement simply indicates non-Jewish people were included. That’s all.

I personally don’t have any problem with extra-terrestrial life, or any of them being in Heaven. But it will be on the basis of an individual relationship with Jesus Christ.

I am also firmly convinced all the inhabitants of planet Earth will have adequate notice of the person and Deity of Jesus Christ. God is not the sort of being who looks for tiny excuses and ‘foot-faults’ to disqualify anyone from Heaven.

10. The question of whether or not hell is real is properly subsumed by the truth that a moment spent worrying if you’ll be with God in the afterlife is an opportunity missed to be with God in this life.

I agree. There is no point of wondering, let alone worrying, if Hell is real. Jesus talks about it too much to be in doubt. It isn’t pleasant, but it’s there. One is obliged to take note and do something to avoid residence.

11. God’s will and intention is to forgive and teach us, not to judge and punish us.

That is true, but only to a qualified extent. Jesus came to Earth as a mortal man to tell us what to do to avoid Eternal punishment and die in our place to pay the price for our sin. Obviously, God the Father was in on this plan as was the Holy Spirit.

God really does not want anyone to spend Eternity in Hell. However, since all mankind is in the default position of being in rebellion against God, mankind is by default condemned to Eternal Hell.

The words of Jesus in John, chapter three:
16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. 18 The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. 19 Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed. 21 But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God.
God is loving and concerned. God is simultaneously honest and just. God is God and that means – in a long list of other things – He will always conduct Himself as God and be true to His own nature.

There are also a number of references warning that when Jesus returns – ‘The Second Coming’ – He will in fact judge all people according to their alliances.

12. The only person who should be actively endeavoring to convert non-Christians into Christians is God. Jesus does not need our help drawing people towards him. He does need, or could certainly use, our help in making sure that people know that they are, just as they are, loved.

This statement directly contradicts the command of Jesus.

Matthew 28:16-20
16 So the eleven disciples went to Galilee to the mountain Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age

Acts 1
6 So when they had gathered together, they began to ask him, “Lord, is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He told them, “You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.” 9 After he had said this, while they were watching, he was lifted up and a cloud hid him from their sight.

First Peter 3
15 But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess. (“Hope” here meaning the expectation of Eternal life with God.)

So in this statement again, the concept is not ‘un-fundamentalist’ but ‘un-Christian’.

13. Getting a divorce is painful, and if at all possible should certainly be avoided. But ultimately the act in and of itself is not immoral.

This statement flatly contradicts Jesus’ teaching on the subject.

Matthew 5
31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a legal document.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19
3 Then some Pharisees came to him in order to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hard hearts, but from the beginning it was not this way. 9 Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the case of a husband with a wife, it is better not to marry!”11 He said to them, “Not everyone can accept this statement, except those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some eunuchs who were that way from birth, and some who were made eunuchs by others, and some who became eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this should accept it.”

So yes, Jesus said divorce is an immoral act, save for the cause of adultery. Even then, the divorced man or woman is limited in options.

14. God does not want any woman “submitting” to anyone.

Another direct contradiction of Biblical teaching.

Ephesians 5
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, 23 because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – he himself being the savior of the body. 24 But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her 26 to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, 27 so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Colossians 3
18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.

Oh, wait! That’s that questionable Paul again! Since Paul is so very questionable, we can ignore much of his writings – especially the parts about moral conduct, sexual misconduct and general carryings-on.

First Peter 3
1 In the same way, wives, be subject to your own husbands. Then, even if some are disobedient to the word, they will be won over without a word by the way you live, 2 when they see your pure and reverent conduct— like Sarah who obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. You become her children when you do what is good and have no fear in doing so. 7 Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as the weaker partners and show them honor as fellow heirs of the grace of life. In this way nothing will hinder your prayers.

That’s the summation of Peter the Apostle. He agrees with Paul the suspect.

15. There were no dinosaurs on Noah’s ark; Jesus didn’t have a pet stegosaurus. An all-powerful God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible.

Whooop! Whooop! Whooop! Strawman Alert!
So, just where do we find claims of dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark? Which gospel contains the story of Jesus and His pet stegosaurus? What kind of hairball ploy is this?

Okay, “An all-powerful God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible.” That part is reasonable enough. However, this isn’t a matter of doctrinal distinction; it’s a matter of textual examination.

Dinosaurs on the Ark? Sheesh.

16. The single most telling indicator of a person’s moral character has nothing to do with how they define or worship God, and everything to do with how they treat others.

So, a relationship with God isn’t important; what is important is ‘good deeds’.

Actually, this is a deceptive argument; somewhat strawman in nature. I’ll agree one’s ‘moral character’ is not always dependent on how one defines or worships God. However, one’s moral character has nothing to do with one’s Eternal estate, being in a proper relationship with God and spending Eternity with God in Heaven.

One can be a rotten skunk and be bound for Heaven, or a very decent, clean, honest and honorable person going to Hell.

I know for a fact that my moral character was – for that matter ‘is’ – not always as good and shining as it ought to be. After becoming a Christian, I have sinned grievously, often and cheerfully. But my eternal destination is already secure and in Jesus’ care. As far as God is concerned in Judgment, I am as pure as Jesus.

Which is not to say I’m content in my life that way, or at peace with God. I found I was a jittery, angry, depressed, unsettled maniac; at least some combination of two or three of those. I can hide it well, but it’s there and I am very aware of it.

What happens is this: God works on me to make me into who – the type of person – He wants me to be, fit for Heaven in Eternity.

To conclude:

“Un-fundamentalists” accept the Deity, Sacrifice, Resurrection and Redemptive nature and power of Jesus Christ. However, they also believe God has appeared in other forms and guises, seemingly revealing other versions of Himself. So Jesus really isn’t uniquely God at all.

“Un-fundamentalists” deny the Divinely Inspired nature of the Bible, strip Paul’s writing of authority and accept homosexual misconduct – and by inference, heterosexual misconduct – as both normal and moral.

“Un-fundamentalists” claim the goal of Christianity is to live a good life; ‘good’ being defined by not offending anyone, getting along with all and ignoring Biblical principles if adherence would cause a row.

“Un-fundamentalists” believe Christians should not vote in accordance with Biblical principles. Nor should laws follow the long held traditions of either Judaism or Christianity.

“Un-fundamentalists” do not assume responsibility for evangelism; in fact, evangelism is discouraged.

“Un-fundamentalists” believe God never criticizes or judges human conduct. They believe there is no Hell. After all, God isn’t going to punish anyone for anything anyway.

All things considered, “Un-fundamentalist Christian” is not a properly descriptive phrase. Citing the serious theological and doctrinal differences between this cult and mainstream Christianity, I would suggest perhaps “Nearly Christian” would be a better description. Since the first tenet does recognize Jesus as God, perhaps “Barely Christian” would do.

Now, I know some bright soul is going to jump on me with the Biblical injunction of “Judge not, lest ye be judged”. The statement comes in Matthew 7, starting with the beginning of the chapter. The whole paragraph reads as follows:

1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. 3 Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. 6 Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.

This whole speech is addressed at being judgmental of other people in regard to their fitness or standing before God. I am not ‘judging’ any person, but a set of beliefs and how they measure up to Christianity, I am not violating any injunction. Indeed, I am following a warning given by John the Revelator in First John 4:

1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now is already in the world.

So I am testing this ‘spirit’, this claim of revelation of God. I find interesting that tenet 1 claims to recognize Jesus as the Son of God in the Flesh, and then denies Jesus’ Deity in most of the subsequent tenets.

jaredpitts101 #homophobia reddit.com

Being born gay isn't reality. The Gay lobby lies and says your born gay. The gay lobby began saying they were born that way in the 80s and 90s up until now. They began saying this because the religious right said that being gay was a bad moral lifestyle choice. The Gay lobby looked at this and said that by their logic they are right so we need a new excuse.

They looked for an idea and said what if we can be like blacks, women, disabled people and just say we were born like this. So they invented this idea that some people were just born to be homosexual. The left, of course accepted this idea because they want to constantly be open minded and diverse. I'm not stated that those are bad things, only when these ideals are taken to the extreme is when things tend to be problematic.

Research conducted by the Northshore Research Institute found clear links between male sexual orientation and two specific regions of the human genome. The researchers never found a single gene that was common in gay males or anything that would effect male sexual orientation.

This led the researchers to confirm the notion that sexual orientation is a choice. Genes can contribute to help make a decision in someone's head about being gay or not, but not change your sexual orientation. The main factors in this lifestyle choice is environment and upbringing. The point I make is simple, every credible scientist says there is no evidence in genes that homosexuals are born the way they are.

It is based off of nurture and environmental upbringings. They gay lobby simply used this as an easy answer to avoid the fact they chose directly to be gay. Now today it's imbedded in culture and popular to defend the born this way theory when it's just a lie. People ignore the facts choosing to follow crowds nowadays and no matter how many people they believe or follow, the bottom line is a lie is a lie.

fwdude #fundie #homophobia freerepublic.com

Not only that, but Jewish cultural values clearly delineated the immorality of homosexuality. Queers are always trying to point out the scarcity of verses condemning homosexual conduct as some type of justification for their behavior (how many times does God need to proscribe a behavior before such a condemnation “takes?”). Well, the writers didn’t HAVE to, because their condemnation of homosexual behavior was well known.

kirkz2006@yahoo.com #homophobia groups.yahoo.com

(Responding to the question: “So, if people are not born gay, why would anyone choose so difficult a way to go?”)

Why would a pedophile choose to have desires for young children? Are pedophiles born the way they are?

I don’t believe most gays choose to be gay.

That being said, that doesn’t mean they were born the way they are or there is a biological reason for their condition.

Homosexuality has been linked to same-sex child abuse and rejection and fear of the opposite sex.

I have testimony of one former lesbian that grew up around abusive men. He began to hate men and develop sexual desires for other women.

The age old debate is nature vs. nurture.

Homosexual activists and leftists have tried to eliminate the debate to promote their political agena.

KZ

Lady Checkmate #wingnut #homophobia disqus.com

Lady Checkmate's headline: "Alt-Left Lies and Denies Facts That Homosexuals Who Rape Children of the Same Sex, Are "Homosexual Pedophiles"

As I type this OP, there is a sock troll currently spreading the lie that homosexuals don't rape children and CAN NOT be pedophiles (on another Christian Channel [edit: she means Christian News Network]). Here is one of the sock's intentional lies to condone homosexuals who rape children:

image

He blatantly ignores the many reports of homosexuals raping children; including a few stories of homosexual couples raping boys together (running trains on children). It's disgusting abuse! Last year, two homosexual men in a "committed union", i.e. secular "marriage" raped several boys - as a couple and then committed suicide to avoid answering for raping boys. Here are links to rebut the alt-left troll lies:

Stories Proving That Homosexual (bisexual) Men in Relationships/Secular "Marriages" Rape Boys (Including Boys They Adopt as Their Children)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gay-conn-couple-accused-rape-face-trial-article-1.1310010
http://therightscoop.com/married-gay-guys-molest-tons-of-kids-then-commit-suicide-when-cops-start-figuring-it-out/

Stories Proving That Homosexual (bisexual) Men Rape Boys, Some Literally To Death
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/north/2017/03/27/Keith-Lambing-charged-homicide-death-rape-boy-Bentley-Miller-Butler/stories/201703270144
http://nypost.com/2017/09/22/middle-school-teacher-arrested-for-having-sex-with-student-again/
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-ive-decided-to-talk-about-being-raped-by-another-man-a6730586.html
http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/man-repeatedly-raped-teacher-classroom-10371871
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4580272/Man-dressed-burka-rape-kill-boy-Abu-Dhabi.html
http://people.com/crime/tennessee-raped-10-year-old-boy/
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2017/08/11/accused-rapist-enters-pleas/558683001/
http://dailypost.ng/2017/08/11/45-year-old-man-rapes-boy-death-kebbi/
http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2017/07/26/13-year-old-mumbai-boy-allegedly-raped-by-four-men-dies-of-mul_a_23048407/
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/eldorado-park-man-in-court-for-allegedly-raping-boys-20170601

Clearly, I am very upset by the abuse those children suffer, but even moreso by the fact that the alt-left agenda trolls deny the abuse and defend homosexuals who rape children.

Saints, we must speak out about the wide-spread child abuse in the homosexual community. They SHOULD NOT be allowed to adopt children as many (not all) then molest the children they adopt. Some are just looking for live-in victims. God's word is clear on the issue AND He will judge them.

Please pray for their victims.

image

St. Mark's Orthodox Coptic Cathedral #fundie #homophobia egyptindependent.com

St. Mark’s Orthodox Coptic Cathedral, which represents Egypt’s Copts, recently declared that it will organize a conference entitled Volcano of Homosexuality, local media reported.

The conference aims to increase awareness on how to achieve a “speedy recovery” from homosexuality through number of lectures by the Cathedral’s priests.

No definite date has been set by the cathedral for the conference.

St.Mark’s Orthodox Coptic Cathedral has previously expressed that it is against homosexuality, justifying its intolerance by quoting verses from the Holy Bible that it says describes any type of homosexuality as filth.

In 2003, representatives from all Christian churches in Egypt held a meeting headed by the former late Pope of the Coptic Church Pope Shenouda III where they opposed attempts by other Christian churches outside of Egypt to legalize homosexuality and homosexual marriage.

Meanwhile, the current Pope of the Coptic Church Pope Tawadros II asserted that homosexuality violates natural instincts and the heavenly laws, saying that it may be either a disease that needs treatment or a sin that needs repentance.

Homosexuality is not illegal in Egypt. But in the late 1990s, the police stepped up the use of two old laws – a 1950 anti-prostitution law and a 1961 law against “debauchery” – to arrest and charge the practising LGBT community. The highest-profile action was a raid in Cairo in 2001 on the Queen Boat, a gay-friendly club on the Nile, where 52 men were arrested.

And on Monday this week, Egyptian police arrested seven people after they were seen raising a rainbow flag at a pop concert in Cairo.

John #fundie #homophobia patheos.com

The mental gymnastics here are truly stunning, particularly when all you have to do is examine the rest of the Bible for confirmation. Exegesis makes it all very clear. And you don't ever have to read a bunch of pagan homosexual heresy along the way. Let me help: "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them" Leviticus 20:13. Seems pretty clear to me. Although I'm sure there's pro homosexual literature out there that attempts to rationalize this away as well with pseudo intellectual pagan historical revisionism...or maybe just arguments about how eating non-kosher foods was also punishable by death so being gay is no worse than that...or that Sodom wasn't destroyed by God for sexual immorality (specifically the gay sexual immorality described in the Biblical account), it was just the result of an unfortunate natural disaster.

Amos Moses #fundie #homophobia christiannews.net

Amos Moses:
"And christian... btw
one was a preacher"

ummmm ..... no they were not... and no he was not ........... despite the label ........

Throatwobbler Mangrove:
No True Scotsman fallacy

Amos Moses:
does not apply to christianity ............ FAIL ...........

Throatwobbler Mangrove:
Absolutely applies to Christianity. Actually, to exclusionary Christians.

Amos Moses:
nope ... sorry .... christianity is not a "logic" problem ..... and while God is COMPLETELY and EMINENTLY logical ...... your only fallacy is that you try to apply that fallacy to christianity ..... christianity is specifically EXCLUDED because of what christianity is .... so all homosexuals are pedophiles .... right ....

Throatwobbler Mangrove:
No, sorry. There is nothing "magic" about Christianity that would exempt it from the No True Scotsman fallacy, given that the fallacy itself is based on simple reasoning.

Amos Moses:
nope ... FAIL .... NTS does not apply ........

Throatwobbler Mangrove:
No, that's nonsense. The internet is littered with Christian examples. And in fact telling someone else they're a false Christian is about the best example there is.

Amos Moses:
NTS is an application to a logic problem .... FAIL .... christianity is not a logic problem .... FAIL again .... the only problem you have is christianity is not logical to you .... because you do not understand it ..... you can litter wherever you please .... but that trash does not float here ..... so again ... all homosexuals are PEDOPHILES ... right ......

Throatwobbler Mangrove:
I don't know what "all homosexuals are pedophiles" is except a lie, but it's certainly not an example of No True Scotsman. It's not a logic problem, it's a logical fallacy when you try to discredit someone else when they don't follow the same belief in the exact same way you do. You're guilty of it all right.

Amos Moses:
"I don't know what "all homosexuals are pedophiles" is except a lie"
so No True Homosexual is a pedophile .... hmmmm ... shoe on other foot i see ........

Throatwobbler Mangrove:
That makes no sense, and isn't an example of No True Scotsman.
Here's an example you should be able to understand, and helpfully includes a Christian example similar to the one you've been using:
"The example this fallacy is named for goes like this: one Scotsman declares that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. Another points out that he's a Scotsman, and he puts sugar on his porridge. To that, the first replies that no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. The problem here is that whether or not those who put sugar on their porridge are "true" Scotsmen is a subjective claim, or just a statement of opinion. Opinions are weak evidence for an argument. The porridge example is a trivial one, but this fallacy shows up in all sorts of sinister ways. Often, it's used to exclude people from a group. How often have you heard that someone isn't a real man, a real American, or a true Christian for a "distasteful" quality they have or action they've taken?"

Amos Moses:
thats why it does not apply to christianity ....

Throatwobbler Mangrove:
Right, here's another random internet example of how it applies perfectly to Christianity.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/135/No-True-Scotsman

"In 2011, Christian broadcaster, Harold Camping, (once again) predicted the end of the world via Jesus, and managed to get many Christians to join his alarmist campaign. During this time, and especially after the Armageddon date had passed, many Christian groups publicly declared that Camping is not a “true Christian”. On a personal note, I think Camping was and is as much of a Christian as any other self-proclaimed Christian and religious/political/ethical beliefs aside, I admire him for having the cojones to make a falsifiable claim about his religious beliefs."

Amos Moses:
yeah ... proves nothing .... Camping was not acting in line with scripture and it was not the first time ..... so what .... christians decide who is a christian and who is not .... the christian is authorized by scripture to do so ... that nullifies any NTS .... and NTS applies to logical matters not spiritual matters .... misapplication of your "fallacy" is your problem ... not ours ........ FAIL ............

bitawareaustralia #homophobia reddit.com

No, I couldn't. I never said that gay people CHOOSE to be gay. Please stop putting words into my mouth. I said there is zero evidence that they are BORN gay. Decades of research have yielded nothing more than "Er, maybe it's something to do with hormones in the womb, 'cos we can't find a gay gene".

Meanwhile, there's an astonishing amount of correlation between homosexuality and being abused as a child or a young teen, which is never investigated because it's politically incorrect to investigate. I can't be forced to contract a mental illness, but if I get one I can be cured by a mental health practitioner. Same applies to homosexuality.

Doug Bristow #fundie #homophobia christiannews.net

Members of the LGBT, that includes homosexuals, are mentally and spiritually ill and their lives are extremely unstable. That would make them prone to the abuse of others including children.

They are living a lie and living in direct violation of God's Word engaging in sexual immorality and children in that environment will be either directly or indirectly indoctrinated to live a life of sexual sin and perversion also. Those who die unrepentant in their sins, including the sin of homosexuality, will spend eternity in the lake of fire.

hecticskeptic #homophobia #quack freerepublic.com

That's not generally what happens. There have been numerous studies that support the hypothesis that homosexuality is the result family dynamics... the most common being that male homosexuals were raised by a domineering mother and a weak father who never spent time with his boy whereas female homosexuals are the result of a dysfunctional mother-daughter relationship. If this backdrop is present when perverted circumstances arise during sexually formative years, the result of a sexually perverted individual can almost be predicted.

Over the years, I have met a number of women who claimed to be lesbians and heard their stories and it seemed that all had a common denominator of sexual abuse at a young age. One day I met a young lady who told me she was a lesbian to which I asked her "so at what age was it when your mother's boyfriend started sexually abusing you?" I knew nothing about this woman's history or her parent's marital status so my question was going way out on a limb... but she replied "I was 12."

The simple explanation here is that what is referred to as lesbianism was triggered by a disgust, hatred, fear, rejection of all men based on perhaps what just one person did... but in a sense going back further, the root of it all had to do with the fact that the absence of parents with a healthy relationship created the circumstances. Are there homosexuals who came from a family background which was ideal or as close to ideal as possible? Sure... but those are far and away a minute exception and it may just be that there were serious problems, they just happened to be hidden.

mom of young patriots #homophobia freerepublic.com

I have done quite a bit of research on the root cause of homosexuality over the last couple of years, mostly to satisfy my own need to refute the “born that way” claim because that just didn’t make sense to me. I have read exact cases of what you are talking about. There are also plenty of people who site situations of bullying when they were a child. Weak, late developing children are a prime target for this from classmates.

Without an adult role model who is aware of the danger and knows the signs to watch for, the kid has no one to turn to for guidance. Combine that with our destructive mainstream cultural attitude that being gay is somehow desirable and it is no wonder that we have confused people sliding into that dangerous lifestyle.

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi was an amazing, positive force for good in the area helping homosexuals who want to heal and live normal, heterosexual lives. He, unfortunately, passed this spring from the flu, but he had a team of therapists he’d personally trained who are carrying on his work.

I hope that one of them will pick up the torch of his research. If you aren’t aware of his work, his website is still active and there are many articles that he has written that give a clear picture of homosexuality as the disease it is.

Jumper #homophobia freerepublic.com

Imagine that we pass laws to prevent off spring of mothers/grand & great-grand mothers based on government available records that are electronically available. I am sure the major drug corporations kept records of those who took their medications.

Now that we know the consequences, we can have a stealth program giving the GM (God) drugs to reverse the homosexuality with hormones.

This article is personally interesting as my youngest sister is a militant homosexual who was on hormone treatments in 7-12th grades. After marrying and having two children, her antisocial tendencies and a lousy husband worked to turn her into a sterotypical female homosexual - ugly to the point no man would touch her thus driven into the confort of others of her ilk. Sorry for the crud annology but this article strikes a chord.

Steve D. Bates #fundie #homophobia facebook.com

Not only God but it has been proven by the secular world to also be an unhealthy relationship for or I should say and healthy home life for children to be first into. Of all the various types of Home environments for children to be in but where ever studied Williams was homosexual pairs are at the bottom.

The only thing I might have rated lower, if they checked it, but I really don't think they did, would be if the home was a place where both parents abused Alcohol and Other Drugs. I believe they did take the criteria that the involved adults were non habitual drug users which would include alcohol, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Clinton Smythers #wingnut #homophobia realjewnews.com

The way I see it, a monarchy can be good or bad depending on what the monarch’s priorities are.

Naturally, if its about divine right as he says, then the monarchs priorities are just to himself and the people serve him.

But if his priorities are to be moral and is determined to serve the people, then it is by definition superior to any other for of government because he can not be bought, he can not be corrupted, he will not give into pressure, which is essential for a long lasting stable society where bad things in the country are uprooted just as soon as they gain root.

You know, as an example the West complains and moans that “Russia has banned homosexuals,” but in reality you are allowed to be homosexual.

You are just not allowed to express it in public or promote it in any way shape or form, which makes perfect sense since homosexuality isnt natural and should never be promoted because no one should have to see it period.

What people do in their bed rooms in thier spare time, I could care less about; but when they push their way of life onto others away from what is natural then that’s what I take an issue with.

The part about homosexuals where I draw the line is No — they should not be allowed to adopt children; No — they should not be able to hold hands and kiss in public and do other things homosexuals do; No — they should not be allowed to get married; and No — they should not be allowed all the same rights as heterosexuals period.

Matt Parrott #wingnut #homophobia altright.com

My eternal instinct to empathize and attempt to be an altruist has pulled me over the years to try to find some way to excuse the homosexual nationalist. I ask myself, "What if I were a sexual queer? Would I not still be a sincere nationalist despite that?"

I've tried to construct this artifice of there being the "good ones" and the "bad ones."

Every time, I've been made an ass of as they repeatedly prove to be more of a self-amused and ambitious tightly wound clique of men who vehemently pursue a fixed anti-Christian, anti-family agenda than what I would like to imagine; decent men struggling with a specific incurable psychopathology. Part of it is perhaps on account of what draws homosexuals into nationalism and what that entails for their priorities.

For them, it's an attractive opportunity to gentrify their social and sexual circles, to revive implicitly white and rigorously elitist nineties buggery against a push for diversity, feminism, and social egalitarianism leveling gay subcultures.

I suppose that theoretically there could be some who genuinely belong in our movement. But most of them still belong in a bog.

JewishRighter #fundie #homophobia freerepublic.com

Why does G-d proscribe homosexuality?

Although one might say He does not give a reason, I believe homosexuality is referred to as To’eiva-an abomination. Other parts of the Torah clearly describe that G-d hates sexual immorality. So, it is fair to say that homosexuality is abominable to, and hated by G-d and he commanded us not to do abominable things.

On another level, it seems that G-d created the world with very conspicuous order, such as the complementary reproductive organs in men and women. In contrast, people of the same sex do not have this “compatibility” and can be said to be going against the order established in G-d’s creation. Perhaps the proscription is the consequence of defying G-d’s order.

Peter Hall #homophobia facebook.com

Homophobia, Lets break it down >> Phobia - A phobia is an irrational fear, a kind of anxiety disorder in which the individual has a relentless dread of a situation, living creature, place, or thing. Homo - 1 -Homo is the genus that comprises the species Homo sapiens, which includes modern humans 2- a contemptuous term used to refer to a homosexual, especially a male homosexual. Put it together and it should mean an irrational fear of 1- The Human race, 2 Homosexuals.

I have no irrational fear of eather i just dont agree to Homosexual ways. And i love the HomoSapiens (i just disagree with some other Homosapians) but im tolorant of them !

Don Madarang #fundie #homophobia facebook.com

Bible or nothing, it is wrong that we should be completely liberal with the idea of homosexuality. That is for the simple reason that it runs askew to how we have always lived as a community of people. But yes, things have evolved since then we should be moving along with the times.

That is why governments owe to listen. Essentially why the rights granted to common families and people are being considered to be granted to everyone including the LGBTs. But rights are quite different to asking how everyone should put a degree of acceptance towards homosexuality. The same reason for some who may have a totally diverse idea of the kind of world that they wish to live in.

We have prerogatives that gay people should try to consider and they cannot dictate upon us the kind of acceptance that we wanna give. We have been more tolerant of them and not really minding what they do altho they are potentially the type of people who exert a certain influence on the minds of the younger generation but yes, we still should allow that.

However to say the least, it's a totally different issue if they are to ask that we should accept them as normal people if that's not really how we see it. I couldnt teach my child to view or see them as normal while that is not really something that I want to teach my children.

Not that it is really wrong but I do not consider it to be the normal setup of the kind of society that i want my family to be molded in. So in going through the times, we have values that are not really very supportive of the idea of homosexuality and it is also a reality that gays just must learn to accept.

Toto Kalevi #homophobia facebook.com

Madness knows no bounds. Why have we accepted such weak leadership, do we not deserve something better? Mr Putin from Russia in my opinion has a common sense approach to homo/lesbian/xyz etc brigade. He allows them freedom but forbids them spreading their unnatural views to children.

YogicCowboy #homophobia freerepublic.com

It all begins with the compromising acceptance of a false premise: There is no such thing as homosexuality; it is homoeroticism. Sexuality must be inherently functional; that is where it begins. (Forget the Bible if you like; see real science on Sexual Reproduction.)

There is no functional form of sexuality that can occur between two persons of the same sex. Homoeroticism is a narcissistic fetish that happens to focus on another person rather than an inanimate object. I pity such persons, but they cannot make me call a pig a cow.

JewishRighter #fundie #homophobia freerepublic.com

I’m an Orthodox Jew. Haaretz writers would no doubt call me “Ultra Orthodox”. I can tell you the article is (shockingly) absurd. First of all, there is no brave new world of homosexual acceptance and understanding emerging among Ultra Orthodox Jews. Jews who follow the Torah have only one opinion about it: it’s wrong. Period. Full Stop. Second, they make it sound as if the topic of homosexuality itself is some kind of scary topic that Orthodox Jews never talk about.

Wrong. It is not discussed in the same way that the permissive popular/secular culture does: we don’t talk about individuals; we talk about issues. Gay marriage, like homosexuality, is wrong. Gay synagogues are wrong. Any measure of compromise with the Torah outlook on homosexuality is wrong.

Like every other aspect of human behavior, homosexuality is addressed in a candid and sober fashion in the Talmud and other works on Jewish law. There isn’t a whole lot to say about it, since the Torah perspective is fairly straightforward (pun intended).

It is also important to dispel any notion that Orthodox Jews eagerly wish gays were put to death as prescribed in the Torah. There is no judicial authority with the power to impose such a penalty and the actual procedure (like all capital cases in Jewish law) has so many protections in favor of a defendant that the penalty would almost be impossible to carry out. Moreover, the correct attitude of Orthodox Jews is that they would rather see people change their ways than suffer punishments.

Lady Checkmate #fundie #homophobia disqus.com

Lady Checkmate’s headline: “Alt-left Hypocrites: 13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message: ‘Gay Marriage Is Wrong’”

(The story below is from this link: http://orthochristian.com/76006.html)

Despite anti-discrimination laws in many states that require Christian bakery owners to bake cakes for same-sex weddings, 13 LGBT and gay-owned bakeries objected to one man’s request when he asked if they’d make a pro-traditional marriage cake that would read “gay marriage is wrong.” All refused to back the cake and one person even cursed at the Christian man for “hate speech” and said a cake supporting traditional marriage “went against their beliefs.”

Blogger Theodore Shoebat, of Shoebat.com, wanted to see if the same level of tolerance that Christian business owners who belive in traditional marriage are required to abide by is also being exemplified at bakeries that advocate for same-sex marriage.

Shoebat set off on a video experiment where he called 13 bakeries, which are all either known as gay-owned bakeries or bakeries that strongly support gay marriage, and told them that he was hosting a pro-traditional marriage celebration and that he needed a cake that says “gay marriage is wrong.”


He found that all of the bakeries refused to make him the cake with those words written on top. A few of the bakeries that he called said they’d make him the cake, but he would have to apply the words in icing himself. Other bakers were offended when they heard his request, while some simply said “no” or just hung up the phone.

“I hope you have luck with that, but we won’t be able to do that for you,” one baker told Shoebat. “I don’t believe in being bigoted like that.”

Shoebat even called a gay cookie shop called Hot Cookie in San Francisco and asked if they would make him a pizza-sized cookie with “gay marriage is wrong” written on it. The representative of Hot Cookie, who claimed to be a married lesbian, was the most outspoken of any of Shoebat’s respondents. After she told Shoebat that the bakery would not make the cookie, Shoebat told her that the bakery must not stand for equality if they’re refusing to make a cookie for a Christian who believes homosexuality is wrong.

“Why would we make something that is against what we are working toward?” the Hot Cookie representative asked. “I feel like that is hateful and we are not about that.”

Shoebat responded by telling her that although Christian bakers believe that gay marriage is morally wrong, they are still forced to make cakes for the same-sex weddings.

“All of the homosexual activists in California are working to force Christian businesses in California to acquiesce to homosexual opinion and things that they don’t agree with,” Shoebat asserted. “Technically, you are discriminating against people like me, when you refuse to make a cake that says ‘gay marriage is wrong.’ — By refusing to make a cake, it’s discrimination against those beliefs.”

After Shoebat told the woman that it was a form of discrimination not to make his requested cookie, the lady replied sarcastically, saying that the bakery would make the cookie, but her statement lost all sincerity when she said she’d also put a huge phallus design on it.

Two bakeries justified their rejection of Shoebat’s request by saying that a cake of that nature would be similar to making erotic cakes, which those bakeries say they do not make.

Most of the other bakeries that Shoebat called replied in a politically correct manner by saying that they could not make the cake that Shoebat was requesting. Although every time Shoebat was denied and tried to start a debate about why the bakery was not standing for equality, most of the representatives just hung up on his pointed ethical questioning.

The majority of short responses that Shoebat recevied from bakery workers noted that his request went against their “belief” in gay marriage.

Some Christian business owners have felt the costly impact of violating their state’s anti-discrimination laws after they denied service based on their biblical “belief” in the traditional definition of marriage, which states that marriage is only between one man and one woman.

A Christian bakery in Oregon was fined $150,000 in October after being found guilty of discrimination after refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.

In August, a New York Christian couple was fined $13,000 by the state for refusing to let a same-sex couple use their farmhouse wedding venue for their ceremony, basing their rejection on their religious belief.

And a photography company in California announced that it will no longer photograph wedding ceremonies after receiving swift backlash from LGBT activists after it was posted on Facebook how they refused to shoot a same-sex wedding based on their beliefs.

“I am a man who believes gay marriage is wrong. Is there no equality for me?” Shoebat asks.

Derryck Green #wingnut #homophobia nationalcenter.org

May was a game-changer for the national conversation on homosexual marriage.

On May 8, North Carolinans overwhelmingly voted in favor of Amendment 1. The ballot measure changed the state's constitution to define marriage as a union existing solely between a man and a woman. The approximately 61 percent to 39 percent vote in favor of the Amendment 1 makes North Carolina the 30th state to vote against homosexual marriage.

The very next day, to the surprise of exactly no one, President Barack Obama finally stated this belief: "At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me — personally — it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Of course, both of these incidents revved up the debate over the legalization of homosexual marriage and its consequences. But there are several issues regarding homosexual marriage that have yet to be given the proper discussion they deserve.

The first is the notion of "rights." Homosexual marriage advocates argue that marriage is a basic right. Denying this right to homosexuals would therefore be illegal. That's not true. There's no right to marry contained in the U.S. Constitution.

Every person who claims that the denial of the ability to marry is unconstitutional is misguided.

Getting married isn't a right. Marriage is a civil institution that all societies in history have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections.

Second, the North Carolina law doesn't unfairly deny anyone of the ability to marry. The law — and others like it — defines and recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It doesn't exclude anyone from marrying. The law treats a heterosexual person the exact same way it treats a homosexual person, with both prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex.

Traditional marriage laws simply define what constitutes a married couple. The laws are extended equally — regardless of sexual preference.

So the right that homosexual marriage proponents claim exists really does not. There is no right to marry someone of the same sex. The ability for a person to marry someone of the same sex is equally denied to everyone.

Another claim that is offered in defense of homosexual marriage is that consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they love. But at what point is it alright to arbitrarily move the discriminatory lines of demarcation, and how is it justified?

If it's acceptable for homosexuals to marry each other because of love and consent, then why is polygamy illegal when the parties involved are similarly in love and consenting? What about aunts and nephews or uncles and nieces when the same standards are present? If it is discrimination against homosexuals, why would it not be discrimination against these other parties?

Lastly, homosexual marriage advocates claim that legalizing homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue — equating it with the struggle to legalize interracial marriages of the past. The attempt to correlate race with sexual preferences doesn't hold up when properly scrutinized.

Legalizing interracial marriages fulfilled the legal requirement of marriage between a man and a woman because there's no difference between a white man and a black man or a white woman and a black woman. But there are enormous differences between a man and a woman, which is why there are separate bathrooms for men and women.

It's why there is an NBA and an WNBA and an PGA and an LPGA. In all the aforementioned sporting leagues, there is a logical separation by gender while races and ethnicities are not classified.

Race doesn't matter. Gender does.

The emotional desire to legalize homosexual marriage is understandable, but to do so would be to change the law for a specific group of people. That's really discrimination.

Waldemar Claudio de Carvalho and Rozangela Justino #quack #homophobia pinknews.co.uk

Brazil has re-legalised so-called “gay cure therapy” as a judge deemed homosexuality to be a “disease”.

Judge Waldemar Claudio de Carvalho overruled a 1999 resolution by the Federal Council of Psychology which prohibited the treatment of homosexuality by psychologists.

The federal judge in Brasília ruled in favour of a psychologist whose license was revoked for practising “conversion therapy”.

Evangelical Christian Rozangela Justino had her license stripped in 2016 after she advised patients to seek religious guidance to “cure” their homosexuality, which Justino considered to be a “disease”.

The ruling has been met with backlash.

The Federal Council of Psychology said that it “opens the dangerous possibility of the use of sexual reversion therapies”.

The Council pledged to contest the ruling, with president Rogério Giannini insisting they would be successful, having fought off numerous legal challenges in the past.

“There is no way to cure what is not a disease,” Giannini told the Guardian. “It is not a serious, academic debate, it is a debate connected to religious or conservative positions.”

David Miranda, one of the few openly gay politicians in the country, added that the decision was a “big regression to the progressive conquests that the LGBT community had in recent decades”.

“Like various countries in the world, Brazil is suffering a conservative wave,” he added.

Some of Brazil’s biggest celebrities have condemned the ruling including pop star Larissa Machado.

Machado, who is also known by her stage name Anitta, said that the country should be focusing on worse issues it has at hand.

“That’s what happens in my country. People dying, hungry, the government killing the country with corruption, no education, no hospitals, no opportunities — and the authorities are wasting their time to announce that homosexuality is a sickness,” she wrote on Instagram.

Ivete Sangalo, another huge music influence in the country, said: “The sick ones are those who believe in this grand absurdity”.

I want the USA back #homophobia freerepublic.com

There is a floor named “Spectrum LGBTQIA and Ally Floor”?????

Why is there a floor named for non-normal sexual activity? Colleges are in the business of changing minds. They force the students to accept the new vocabulary, which leads them to change their opinions.

It’s about destroying the value system that the students acquired from their parents and church.

Jeff Mateer #fundie #homophobia rawstory.com

Jeff Mateer, who has been nominated by President Donald Trump for a federal judgeship, advocated debunked “conversion therapy” for LGBT people and called transgender children part of “Satan’s plan.”

A CNN investigation found that Mateer came under fire from LGBT groups while working as general counsel for a conservative organization known as the Liberty Institute.

According to CNN, the attorney discussed transgender children in a 2015 speech titled “The Church and Homosexuality.”

“In Colorado, a public school has been sued because a first grader and I forget the sex, she’s a girl who thinks she’s a boy or a boy who thinks she’s a girl, it’s probably that, a boy who thinks she’s a girl,” Mateer was quoted as saying. “And the school said, ‘Well, she’s not using the girl’s restroom.’ And so she has now sued to have a right to go in. Now, I submit to you, a parent of three children who are now young adults, a first grader really knows what their sexual identity? I mean it just really shows you how Satan’s plan is working and the destruction that’s going on.”

Mateer went on to call same-sex marriage “disgusting.”

“I’ve learned words I didn’t know. I mean, other than my assistants here, have you ever heard the word ‘throuple’?” he opined. ‘Throuple’ so that’s three people coming together of different sexes, maybe mixed sexes. Them coming together. There are people who marry themselves. Somebody wanted to marry a tree. People marrying their pets. It’s just like … you know, you read the New Testament and you read about all the things and you think, ‘Oh, that’s not going on in our community.’ Oh yes it is. We’re back to that time where debauchery rules.”

That same year, Mateer complained about states banning so-called conversion therapy for LGBT people.

“[T]hat’s been outlawed in at least two states and then in some local areas. So they’re invading that area,” he lamented.

A. J. #homophobia #fundie realjewnews.com

I used to find “Will and Grace” funny and as a sitcom it was often entertaining. But the show clearly had an agenda and its premise was ridiculous.

Although the show’s main character was an openly gay man I don’t believe he ever had a boyfriend for most if not all of the show. It’s because making the show about the gay lifestyle would alienate too many viewers.

He lived with his best friend who was a young, 30-something who for a bizarre reason would rather spend all her time with a gay man then date men and get married.

There was also another flamboyant gay character in the show but both gay characters are heterosexual in real life.

Here’s the bottom line: Gays have embraced the frivolity and inanity of the culture they’ve created, not just in shows but in real life also.

They have been deceived, but deep down in their hearts most know their lifestyle will never be completely accepted. Hence they’ve created this fantasy world rather than face the truth. Most gays are messed up people psychologically when you get to know them.

Kirill had it right—”“Any sin kills the human soul and destroys people’s life. This sin [homosexuality] is one of the gravest sins because it changes people’s mental state, makes the creation of a normal family impossible, and corrupts the younger generation.”

We ought to have the greatest compassion for homosexuals and try to lead them back to Christ and away from the sin of homosexuality.

TheThirdHelix #fundie #homophobia disqus.com

TSawesome: That’s the kind of “gay stuff” that I usually do... Do I really need to “spell it out for you”?

Heteros are all about sex. You know, that’s how we define people -- by what we imagine they *might* so in the privacy of their own homes.

TheThirdHelix: I don’t know about the people you talk to, but I’ve never met any Christians who are particularly eager to discuss homosexuality, homosexual sex acts or anything related. The only reason any of us talk about this at all is because we’re constantly bombarded with it and demanded to explain ourselves for our refusal to change our religion to be more accommodating of it.

Most of us would rather talk about almost anything else, but when we’re met with lies and propaganda about what the Bible supposedly does or does not condone, we’re forced to clarify, which entails explaining precisely what the Bible condemns, which entails naming the specific sin.

Then, when we do, people like you have the audacity to accuse us of being “obsessed” or “preoccupied” with the subject, when no -- it’s not us. It’s you.

TSawesome: Not from our perspective -- the ones “bombarding” and obsessing over our lives are the fear-mongering Fundamentalists. Tell *them* to knock it off.

TheThirdHelix: How are fundamentalists interfering with you at all, much less “obsessing” over your life?

TSawesome: Let’s see... Passing legislation against LGBT in states such as NC, MS and TX, wanting to overturn marriage equality and obsessing by spending their energy arguing about bathrooms for my transgender friends.

All this things are obsessions generated by a fearful group of politicians and pastors afraid of losing power and influence to “others”.

It’s sad, really, that those people confuse holiness with persecution of some of the smallest and most vulnerable minorities in society.

TheThirdHelix: First of all, it’s everybody’s business if we’re talking about giving grown men legally-mandated access to little girls’ restrooms. I really couldn’t give two craps about any of your sanctimonious indignation over our refusal to expose little girls to predators in order to enable people with a delusion. So get over it. Nobody’s buying it. That you’re attributing it to “fearful politicians” and “pastors afraid of losing power” without any regard for the other side of the argument tells me you are totally oblivious to any reality outside of your own precious echo chamber of identity politics and victimhood mongering.

Second, the government historically recognizes marriage because there is a specific public benefit to doing so. It is not because it’s the proper role of government to endorse our romantic choices or to validate our sexual preferences. The government is in the marriage game because they know men and women are likely to have sex, sex makes babies, babies thrive with two parents who can divide up and cooperate in nurturing and material support duties, and when they don’t have that, they’re at a disadvantage later in life -- people who come into the world as bastards in the literal sense tend to grow up into bastards in the pejorative sense. High out-of-wedlock birthrates always lead to increased poverty and crime, which strains social services and public school systems, leading to societal economic hardship, so it’s in the public interest for the government to incentivize marriage with tax benefits.

But gay “sex” doesn’t make babies. There is no public benefit whatsoever to incentivizing gay “marriage.”

And, if it were really about “equality,” rather than gay supremacy, the LGBT lobby would have jumped at the compromise offered years ago in the form of civil unions, which would have bestowed all of the same legal benefits and protections as marriage, without calling it “marriage.” But, the LGBT lobby, being typical Leftists, thinks the federal government can bestow moral and spiritual legitimacy, and it wanted to use the government as a cudgel against anyone who dares oppose their dogma. And, it’s succeeding.

So stop with the persecution complex. You got your way.

I realize victimhood has been a staggeringly effective political weapon for the past 30 years and you don’t want to stop using it, so you’re still playing the persecution card whenever you possibly can, but you’re in danger of overplaying your hand. When athletes are publicly hailed as “heroes” for announcing their gayness and every TV show has one or two gay subplots, giving gays representation in media vastly out of proportion with your actual numbers, and a nearly 70-year-old man wins a “woman of the year” award just for putting on a skirt, AND, on TOP of all that, Christians are losing our businesses and livelihoods because we don’t want to participate in your subversion of western civilization ... it’s pretty absurd for you to still be playing up the “oppressed and persecuted minority” farce. It’s played out. You should quit while you’re ahead.

CitizenUSA #fundie #homophobia #racist #wingnut freerepublic.com

This is why many of us opposed homosexual “marriage” in the first place. It wasn’t about what consenting adults do in private or even who people spend their lives with. It was about the normalization/legitimization of homosexuality and the subsequent and ongoing war against opposing views. When government says two homoesexuals can marry, for example, that marriage has to be treated as entirely normal in all aspects.

We already surrendered religious freedom, free speech, and freedom of association in the civil rights era (for an arguably worthy cause—elimination of institutionalized racism), and legal homosexual “marriage” allows the homosexualists to use those same mechanisms to drive opposing thought/speech from the public sphere. In other words, the legal framework to oppress Christians was already in place.

You may be allowed to practice your faith in private—maybe.

Denny Burk #fundie #homophobia dennyburk.com

[[=A Response on the historical and cultural possobility that Jesus was a witness to a same sex Union that he blessed. See the story of the centurion and his Pias=]]

A friend sent me a news story today about a set of billboards in Dallas, Texas that cite the Bible in support of homosexual relationships. Because you can find all kinds of crazy things on billboards, I initially didn’t think much of this report. But I was really intrigued by the picture of one billboard that was included in the story (see it at right).

The message reads simply, “Jesus affirmed a gay couple. Would Jesus Discriminate?” What caught my attention was not the suggestion that Jesus affirmed homosexual conduct. This is standard fare among religious progressives, and I have heard this many times before. What caught my attention was the single Bible text quoted in support of the message— Matthew 8:5-13.

I am very familiar with the biblical texts that progressives usually cite in support of homosexual behavior, and this is not one of them. At least it was not one that I was aware of. R. T. France’s 2007 commentary doesn’t mention such an interpretation of that text. Neither Robert Gagnon (2001) nor James DeYoung (2000) respond to any such interpretation in their books debunking pro-homosexual interpretations of key biblical texts. So I had to do some digging. Where was this interpretation of Matthew 8:5-13 coming from?

It turns out that the billboard reflects an obscure interpretation of the text that first appeared in 1978 but that was most recently defended in a 2004 article in The Journal of Biblical Literature: “Mistaken Identities but Model Faith: Rereading the Centurion, the Chap, and the Christ in Matthew 8:5-13” by Theodore Jennings and Tat-Siong Liew (pp. 467-94). But what I found in this article does not support the message contained on this billboard. The billboard suggests that Jesus affirms gay relationships—presumably between consenting adults—and that an example of his approval appears in Matthew 8:5-13. But this is not at all what Jennings and Liew argue.

In the article, the “gay couple” that Jesus affirmed was a Roman soldier and his young boy sex-slave. In short, Jennings and Liew argue that the Greek word pais—usually rendered as “servant” in verse 6—is actually a mistranslation. Jesus didn’t heal the centurion’s “servant.” Rather, Jesus healed the centurion’s “boy-love” (p. 468). The paralytic is a young boy who was the sexual plaything of a Roman centurion. The authors contend that such “forced pederastic relations” between Roman soldiers and young boys were both “legally permissible and socially prevalent” during Jesus’ time (p. 486). They argue further that the centurion is worried that Jesus will steal away the paralytic as his own “boy-love,” and that is why the centurion doesn’t want Jesus actually to come to his house (vs. 8, “I am not worthy for You to come under my roof”). Because Jesus “marvels” at the “great faith” of the centurion in verse 10, the authors conclude:

“The way Matthew’s Jesus seems to affirm the centurion’s pederastic relationship with his pai/j, we contend, may also be consistent with Matthew’s affirmation of many sexual dissidents in her Gospel” (p. 492).

The other sexually dissident behavior that Jesus affirms includes adultery, prostitution, and perhaps lesbianism (p. 493).

The problems with this article and with the billboard are manifold. First, it’s blasphemous and outrageous to suggest that Jesus supported this kind of behavior. In the Sermon on the Mount alone (a favorite text among progressives), Jesus unambiguously condemns sexual immorality (Matthew 5:28) while affirming the sanctity of the marital union (Matthew 5:32). Are these authors seriously going to suggest that Jesus goes against the Old Testament and his own teaching to affirm the alleged homosexual conduct of the centurion and his sex-slave? The whole suggestion strains credulity at every level.

Second, I’m not alone in finding this reading to be completely implausible. Jennings’ and Liew’s novel interpretation of Matthew 8:5-13 has not been widely received in scholarship and was subsequently debunked in the same journal on historical grounds (see Saddington, pp. 140-42). There was a reason that I couldn’t find the interpretation mentioned in France’s commentary. It is so out of the mainstream that it didn’t even bear mentioning.

Third, even if Jennings’ and Liew’s interpretation were correct, it would prove more than what this billboard probably intends to prove. Do the authors of this billboard really wish to suggest that Jesus supports forced sexual predation of older men upon underage boys? I certainly hope not.

In any case, it is very clear that the message of this billboard is absurd, and its supposed biblical basis is a farce. For any of you readers who may come upon a message such as this one, be assured that the claim is absolutely baseless. This is the kind of revisionist historicism that supports progressive interpretations of key texts. It’s not serious, though it is seriously damning, and people should pay no heed to it.

Dilbert San Diego #wingnut #homophobia freerepublic.com

The moving of the goal posts is a key problem, in my opinion.

Some snarky liberals have said, to paraphrase, life goes on, nothing changed in your lives, as homosexual marriage was imposed on America. We’re going to look back and say what was the big deal, etc. to paraphrase.

The big deal is that it sets the stage for more and more “normalization” if you will, of more extreme behaviors and ideas.

for example, I’ve heard that some homosexual oriented political activists have said, that they eventually want to see group marriage, with any number of partners, any sex of partners. But before they could push for that, they had to establish and normalize monogamous homosexual marriage first.

One thing leads to another. One thing sets the stage for another.

And off topic, but what’s with these “Gay Straight Alliance” clubs in schools nowadays? My God, such would not have been permitted back in my day. Why do we need clubs in school which revolve around sexual identity type issues in the first place? And are the adults who run these “gay straight” alliances clubs merely seeking to “educate” young people about sexual identity, as opposed to “recruitment”?

But even if it’s all about education, it still begs the questions as to why schools allow anything to do with sexuality in the first place.

Dilbert San Diego #homophobia #transphobia freerepublic.com

This puff piece sounds as if these Australian politicos are taking some “courageous” stand for homosexual marriage.

In today’s world, the true courage is being against homosexual marriage.

See what happens to any prominent public figure in this day and age, who would stand for traditional marriage. It doesn’t happen.

Sadly to me, the liberals have won the battle over homosexual marriage. Now they have moved the goal posts, and we get to move on to transgender bathroom and baking gay wedding cakes as major issues.

Unlearner #fundie #homophobia freerepublic.com

I have an in-law who has been almost entirely disowned by his family for being unwilling to support homosexual couples within the family. One particular woman, who claims to be a Christian and sings in a church choir, made it a point to attack him viciously on social media.

Yet she showed her supposed tolerance by taking her children and attending a so-called homosexual wedding. This woman claims she disagrees with homosexual marriage but is supposedly showing her Christian love and compassion by being part of this.

This is the ultimate hypocrisy. Tolerance for sodomites but not for fellow Christians who are taking the vile hatred of the left for standing up for traditional Christianity and morality in general.

Instead of criticizing those who take such a public stand for Biblical morality, maybe this guy can just show us how he is doing such a great job fulfilling the “Great Commission” apparently without including a strong call to repentance.

System Resistance Network #homophobia #conspiracy thelionrises.org

Homosexuality, faggotry, sodomy, whatever you want to call it, has been a blight on mankind for millenia.

There are 3 types of faggots;

Those who are born that way due to hormone fluctuations in the womb; therefore, a deformity.
Those who are turned that way due to abuse as a child; therefore, a mental illness.
Those who pursue it as fetish; therefore, a sexual degeneracy.
All are simply degenerate and must be purged from society for the greater good. Let us look at the statistics. These will shock and horrify you.

Children in the care of gay men are three (3) times as likely to be molested, and children in the care of lesbians are ten (10) times as likely to be molested by their carers compared to children with normal parents.

This is clearly the most disgusting aspect of the homosexual lifestyle, with incestuous paedophilic tendencies being at a horrifyingly high level when compared to the normal population.

Children under the age of 16 are far more likely to turn out homosexual when sexually abused, showing how the rate of homosexuality has increased with the societal acceptance of faggotry allowing for these disgusting people to be near children. By stamping out paedophilia, we can cut down on the rate of homosexuality as one of the pathways to homosexuality is removed.

Children in the care of gay men are three (3) times more likely to identify with something other than the norm of heterosexuality, while children in the care of lesbians are four (4) times as likely. Continuing with the latter, children in the care of lesbians are 75% more likely to currently be in a same-sex relationship, while gay men result in the children being three (3) times as likely.

This is extremely concerning. This is all self-reported data specifically on children in the care of homosexual parents. This is not covering the data of homosexuals abusing children not in their care, and the influence the abuse will have on the mental health of the child.

By pushing for “equal rights”, which is a disgusting concept no matter the topic it is pushed upon, you are condemning countless children to a life of misery. The creation of homosexuals through child abuse by homosexuals will create more homosexuals due to knock-on effect of the abused becoming the abuser. Stamp out paedophilia, turn them into tree ornaments, put bullets through their skulls. Whatever it takes to protect our children and ensure they live happy lives.

As for those who are born “naturally” a.k.a. a birth defect, it is up to science and society to treat this. By shunning homosexuality and making them run from the streets and sodomy venues back into their homes, they will do less damage on the surface. But they must still be eradicated entirely. Hormone therapy corresponding with their sex, e.g. testosterone for male homosexuals, could be an option to treat their deformity.

Then finally, for the fetishists, they are nothing but purely hedonistic degenerates. Society must reform to shun this ill-minded lot. Bring back shame into society, for shame is a powerful force to ensure the conformation to society’s standards and preventing moral decay.

As we all know, HIV/AIDS is rife among the homosexual community, especially involving gay men.

There is a sickening fetish known as “bugchasing” where gay men willingly become “pozzed” by a HIV-infected partner, or the HIV-infected deliberately infects an unwitting partner to give them the “gift” of HIV. Degeneracy knows no bounds with the faggot. Some of you may think “Well it’s their life, if they want to destroy it, so be it” but you are forgetting that in this nation of ours, our taxes go to the NHS which provides free treatment for these degenerates to continue living and infecting further sodomites. You are paying so these utterly degenerate scumbags can continue on with their disgusting fetishes, further destroying this already broken society.

The dominant exposure to HIV is among gay men, with 50% of the cases being from this category. 82% of HIV cases in Rossendale are a result of homosexuality, with 61% and 58% in Lancashire and Cheshire.

1.5% of the UK population identifies as homosexual, with 1.1% being gay men. 1.1% of the population is responsible for 50% of the HIV cases in the UK. This means that gay men are 90 times more likely to have HIV than a normal person.

Gay men are three (3) times more likely to use drugs, and six (6) times more likely to inject drugs compared to normal men.

Reported use of stimulants is approximately five (5) times higher among gay and bisexual men, with methamphetamine usage at fifteen (15) times higher.

Drug use among lesbians is four (4) times higher than among normal women, with a higher usage rate of cocaine, ecstasy (MDMA), amphetamines and ketamine.

These are just three sickening factors due to society’s acceptance of homosexuality. But we must not forget those who are pushing homosexuality upon Western nations. It is the System and the Jew that inhabits said System. Homosexuality is a symptom of the cause.

The Rabbis praise homosexual acceptance within White countries, but not within their own faith or within Israel.

The System appeals to this tiny percentage of the population, such as with the cash-strapped police force painting and decaling their vehicles with rainbow flags paid for through the “diversity fund”. Never forget that the System is infested with paedophiles in all parties. They protect each other to continue pursuing their abhorrent fantasies. The people shall never forget the betrayal to the nation and its children committed by these degenerates.

Bob434 #wingnut #homophobia freerepublic.com

if enough conservatives were to boycott fox for this- they would back down- but sadly most people will still tune in- It worked with J.C Penny back in the day- enough people got together to boycott them for supporting gay agenda- and J.C Penny took a huge financial hit from which they never truly recovered- even to this day people refuse to buy anything from them-

This is where we NEED a tea party- to organize massive boycotts like this and get the word out that fox is financially and apparently enthusiastically supporting the gay agenda

so_real #fundie #homophobia freerepublic.com

Simple ... muslims and homosexuals have the same ambition : attack Judaism and Christianity. Certainly the muslims will turn against the homosexuals in due course. (The homosexuals are their "useful idiots" and will eventually outlive their usefulness.) But for now, the muslims consider "the enemy of my enemy is my fair-weather friend".

Stephen A. Coston, Sr #fundie #homophobia jesus-is-savior.com

"Royalty, Rumors and Racists"

BY STEPHEN A. COSTON, SR.

AUTHOR OF THE NEW BOOK:

KING JAMES
The VI Of Scotland & I Of England
Unjustly Accused?

The character assassination of His Majesty King James VI & I is an ongoing evolving process that has matured in this present day to a sort of "open season" of differing opinions variously setting forth different theories and hypotheses on the whys, hows, and ifs of the alleged "homosexuality" of King James VI & I. Part of the reason for so many differing opinions is that many historians and would-be historians have forsaken fact for fictional accounts on the life of King James VI & I. Without facts to restrain the imagination the investigative process turns into a rumor mill and as such is an aberration of the historical process. Often these highly speculative accounts, contemporary or modern, are based not on the actual life and words of King James VI & I but on what these individuals THINK what King James VI & I said and did meant. Honest professional historians are beginning to admit this and this is most welcome; however, King James VI & I still has his ardent critics.

More often than not even when actual facts of King James VI & I are presented they are subjected to interpretive twists designed to give the reader the impression that the words and deeds of King James VI & I support the allegations commonly leveled against him. Case in point, it is a known fact King James VI & I was handicapped from birth with weak limbs and injured himself many times. This caused him to have an unsteady gait. To compensate for this King James VI & I often leaned on his most trusted councilors and friends which also happened to be members of his personal staff, individuals critics freely term "favorites." It is often stated that "James was fond of leaning all over his beautiful young favorites" giving the reader the impression King James VI & I did so not because of a physical handicap but because of sexual attraction to same. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Further, it is also freely alleged that King James VI & I "passionately kissed" his "favorites" in public.

Critics of King James VI & I are fond of inferring from the above that King James VI & I engaged in the "French kissing" of his "favorites." They then use this assumption as yet another "proof" to support their contention that King James VI & I was indeed truly a "homosexual."

What the detractors of King James VI & I utterly fail to realize; however, (to their detriment) is the fact that the accounts responsible for popularizing this characterization were penned by individuals who hated not only King James VI & I as a Scot, but the whole country of Scotland as well. They were some of the most militant racists of the time of the most vicious type. Some of their contemporaries knew this and railed against them and defended King James VI & I and it is quite the mystery why modern critics seem not to know this.

Another point that critics of King James VI & I fail to recognize relative to this issue of kissing is that King James VI & I "slobbered" when he ate his food, consumed his drink, or even when he "kissed" someone's hand or cheek. Are we to infer then that King James VI & I passionately kissed inanimate objects, foods and drinks and bodily extremities? What about the widely accepted practice of a monarch's kiss at court to show the King's favor upon an individual? Besides that what of the British acceptance of public kissing for all kinds of events and circumstances. Are we then to infer that the whole island of Great Britain was a hot bed of homosexuality?

It is also inferred that because some individuals rejoiced to have King James VI & I's "legs soon in their arms" upon their return to court that this is somehow indicative of a reference to a sexual position. However, there exist many woodcuts depicting just this position of many noble and common men in with King James VI & I at court. It was customary to prostrate oneself at the feet of the monarch when allowed so close to His Majesty's person to receive a welcome, greeting or honor. King James VI & I's own son, the future King Charles I, himself was in just this position at the feet of his father when he returned from Spain. It is amazing that such shallow reasoning can be allowed to be pawned off as legitimate historical analysis.

Finally, much is made of King James VI & I articulating in his writing that he "loved" someone of the same gender giving the reader the mistaken belief that "love" stood for a sexual attraction and thus yet another "proof" of the "homosexuality" of King James VI & I. Also, it is alleged that King James VI & I "justified homosexuality many times" in his writings.

The most common offered "proof" of this mistaken assertion is a quotation from King James VI & I's speech to Parliament which is violently ripped from its intended meaning and context. For an in- depth refutation of this form of argument the diligent reader is referred to my book King James VI Of Scotland & I Of England - Unjustly Accused.

The Reverend Barrie Williams sums up the desperation of this reasoning:

"... there must be many besides myself for whom nine short words of the King are sufficient: 'Jesus had His John, and I have my George.' King James was in every estimate a devout protestant, and anyone who can believe that he would cast aspersions on the moral integrity of Our Saviour would have no difficulty in believing that the world is flat."

The sheer etymological ignorance of this type of argument is astounding! In my book King James VI Of Scotland & I Of England - Unjustly Accused I examine the widespread and commonly accepted practice of men and women writing to each other in loving terms and expressing their "love" for one another. Such Jacobean stylistic expressions of this kind were in no way indicative of sexual attraction or homosexuality.

I believe Lucius Annaeus Seneca said it best when he wrote:

"... they refute their case by means of the very passages which lead them to infer it."

Certain revisionist historians would have you believe otherwise and advocate the use this method to prove Biblical characters were likewise "homosexuals" to include Jesus Christ, David and Jonathan. These types of evidences, if you can call them that, are the types of things that critics of King James VI & I use to validate their claims. When they can't force King James VI & I to say what they want they simply make him "mean" what they want. Or, in other words, what they can't find stated they simply infer is there and place between the lines even though it is not "in the lines." However, if King James VI & I did not mean what he wrote then who is anyone to tell us what he actually meant?

As far as "witnesses" go, critics can only cite a handful of contemporaries of King James VI & I and most of these were men fired from office (sour grapes), or were political or religious enemies of the King, or they were otherwise disgruntled courtiers with an ax to grind and none ever were eye witness to any overt sexual acts on the part of King James VI & I.

Not only this but I have not found one yet that ever formally accused King James VI & I of directly being a homosexual and brought his case before any legal or religious body not to mention attempting to obey the precepts of Scripture in making such outlandish claims. For an in- depth examination of the charges commonly leveled at King James VI & I the careful reader is referred to my book mentioned previously.

It is obvious that myriad are the claims leveled at James Charles Stuart's (King James VI & I) moral character or lack thereof. However, out of this great sea of negative opinion the tide is fortunately turning away from the shores of libel and gossip and heading towards the calm home port of objectivity and evidentiary concerns.

Historians like the rest of our society are not immune from the influences of modern faddish trends and regrettably King James VI & I has suffered more than his share of diatribes that are directly due to a falling away from classical objective interpretive methods that were long indicative of the traditional historical method. Recent trends have captivated modern historians and led them to experiment with eisegetical techniques and to put it colloquially "tabloid style journalism." Therefore, much that has been written regarding His Majesty King James VI & I has not been the result of a balanced exegetical method.

Further complicating the situation and making matters worse has been the regrettable over reliance by historians on certain scurrilous sources that were produced in an era when libels of the Stuarts and the Monarchy were at a premium in general and whose opinions were motivated by a distrust and outright hostility to the noble Scots as a nation and King James VI & I in particular. King James VI & I being the first Scot to sit on the English throne and the natural father of the last Stuart King to reign in England before the regicide of The Royal Martyr, King Charles I, King James VI & I was naturally a prime target for abuse.

Making an easy target for his pursuit of peace and his many physical handicaps, King James VI & I was and is ill treated by many who venture to put pen to paper with a view to ruminating on the character of this much misunderstood Monarch. Like all of us in the course of King James VI & I's life he made enemies, and as king he had more than his share. Not only this but King James VI & I had to deal and overcome outright racism against his home of birth, Scotland. It is a sad fact that most of King James VI & I's contemporary critics were either disgruntled courtiers who were removed from office by King James VI & I himself or otherwise suffered loss of political or peerage advancement under King James VI & I or were haters of the whole Scottish nation!

Much indeed has been written on King James VI & I and because of this plethora of information a few researchers when doing analysis on King James VI & I simply refer back to past popular and easily obtainable sources rather than expending time and effort in obtaining rare and difficult to find first hand accounts of either the critical or ameliorative sources. Most indeed who have written about King James VI & I have never actually sat down to read what he actually wrote. This environment has created a prime climate for the kind of slanders and libels King James VI & I has been subjected to.

In my years of research on the life and character of King James VI & I, I have found that there is a great reluctance on the part of some of the more militant and bellicose of modern day critics of King James VI & I who claim to have facts to prove (beyond what they assert in their books) King James VI & I was a homosexual.

They seem unwilling to stand up to investigative criticism of their conclusions. They speak of research but balk at detailing the fruits thereof. They are fond of citing whole volumes of books and articles which they claim validate their assertions but refuse to justify any conclusions or data found therein. Some of the more extreme "Christian" critics of King James VI & I are extremely reticent about applying Biblical injunctions against gossip and rumor to their sources or even allow King James VI & I the protection of Scripture as found in Deut. 19:15 or I Tim. 5:19. Further, some are found to deny King James VI & I even professed to be a Christian! I find this extremely curious that such individuals who claim to be "Christians" would ignore Biblical injunctions on falsely accusing a brother and the evidentiary requirements to sustain charges of the type they advocate.

Thankfully, modern secular critical opinion on King James VI & I is reevaluating the negative assertions of his moral character and moderate critics of King James VI & I are now admitting that these charges are basically OPINION not historical facts! As noted above, only a few extremist and militant and the most ardent of King James VI & I's critics are espousing some of the most vociferous and invectively rancorous libels of King James VI & I.

I have also found in the course of my research a most curious phenomenon, that there is almost a total vacuum of consideration of what King James VI & I actually wrote or what he believed outside of a few brief excerpts of his writings which are more often than not stripped from their context or misinterpreted almost beyond recognition. Great weight almost to the point of complete dependence is attached to the writings of a few disgruntled courtiers, racists and bigots (Sir Anthony Weldon, Francis Osborne and Sir Edward Peyton and a few others).

The writings of Peter Heylyn, Sir William Sanderson, Bishop Godfrey Goodman and Anthony A. Wood and others (not to mention King James VI & I himself) are almost totally forsaken thus creating an unbalanced view of King James VI & I as viewed from contemporary accounts. Similarly, most modern works which discount the critical view of King James VI & I are also almost completely ignored by those who wish to paint King James VI & I as a homosexual.

When authors are unduly influenced by the scandal value of such poor sources they tend to rely on them in extreme and thus forsake detailed historical research and ignore the principles of evidentiary preponderance of evidence and thus sacrifice this for the propensity of our frail human nature in its attraction for dirt and scandal. Contradictory applications of principles and imbalanced research techniques can only result from a defective research method. Unfortunately this type of phenomenon has run rampant and caused many such evaluations to run amuck of the facts concerning King James VI & I.

I have not found any persons yet who libel King James VI & I as being a homosexual who are willing to allow themselves to be judged based on the same lines of evidence and principles upon which they unjustly convict King James VI & I .

All these factors coupled with the cultural and etymological ignorance prevailing in our day and the outright historical bias of some against King James VI & I have produced a situation where King James VI & I's accusers have played free with the actual historical facts and in some cases invented more ingenious eisegetical interpretations than any stretching of the imagination could ever produce. Thus the facts of history have been traded for the inventions of the imagination and regrettably there has of yet been no limitation to the unbridled attacks on the ever blessed memory and reputation of His Majesty, King James VI & I. When such pseudo-history is accepted for the real thing and we refuse to be bound to actual historical facts and opinions are masqueraded in place of reality then no valid conclusions can ever be reached.

In my attempts to request evidence that is commonly purported to exist by the sternest critics of King James VI & I sadly I have found that this evidence is often elusive and at best highly speculative. Instead what I have been offered in place of hard data from King James VI & I's militant and extremist critics is sarcasm, evasion, ridicule, rudeness and outright refusal to provide the requested information.

From King James VI & I's more mild critics they are at least recognizing the fact that their opinions have led to incorrect assumptions that accusations of homosexuality leveled at King James VI & I are factual, which they are not, and are based on speculation and opinion. Many are even willing to entertain the belief that King James VI & I might not have been homosexual at all. This is something that King James VI & I's hard line critics have yet to do and seem dead set against.

The personal slanders and racially motivated innuendoes and epithets were indicative more of the declarant's anti-Scottish bias and resultant dislike of King James VI & I than they were etiologically the result of actual facts. Thus, the scandalous artifacts which have been so carefully exhumed setting forth the "dirt" of the matter are in need not of study but of burial. These slurs are only allegorically and vaguely implying misdeeds on the part of King James VI & I in the most indirect manner and should be highly suspect. Often by their own account imagination played a key role in their assertions and this was based on their own particular interpretation (not provable facts) of the actions of King James VI & I. It is highly coincidental that the promoters of the charges were those who either bore no good will to the Scots or otherwise had a grudge to bear against their King. So, like irreverent grave robbers having no respect for the dead they attempt to steal that which does not belong to them and not content with desecrating the memory and honor of King James VI & I they also trample under foot his blessed memory. This ought not be so!

There seems to be a divergence of opinion amongst King James VI & I's critics. This is indicative of the fact that modern attitudes on King James VI & I are changing and the hard liners are refusing to budge. So far factual rebuttals of the hard line opponents of King James VI & I have had little effect as the pugnacious critics are refusing to yield to the actual evidence and are holding on to the rumors of the past. Such is the decline and decay of our society when we will allow the least of us, those who cannot defend themselves, to be thrown to the wolves if you will and be unjustly accused. In our passive acceptance of this injustice I see the fate of us all in that one day we may all find ourselves the target of false accusers. Where have moral and historical ethics gone!

The sheer bankruptcy of the critical case should be evident to any sincere lover of history. To those who will convict King James VI & I on the scantiest of evidence it must be seen that these individuals will thus embody the demise of all true history. The plethora of moral indictments and claims against King James VI & I's character are not historical facts but rather in all actuality primarily unjust criticisms which are commonly mistaken for facts.

Serious dialogue seems to have been relegated to the museum of ancient history and fallen into disuse. However, the criticisms of King James VI & I actually reveal more about our society's preoccupation with scandal and dirt than they do about the life and character of King James VI & I . We can no longer allow lopsided research to overpower the facts of history.

The best advise and observation on this sad situation ironically comes from King James VI & I himself. As His Majesty King James VI & I noted almost prophetically long ago:

"And principally exercise true wisdom in discerning wisely between true and false reports. First concerning the nature of the person reporter; next, what effect he can have in the well or evil of him whom of he maketh the report; thirdly, the likelihood of the purpose itself, and the last the nature and past life of the delated person ... "

And:

"They quarrel me (not for any evil or vice in me) but because I was a king, which they thought the highest evil, and because they were ashamed to profess this quarrel they were busy to look narrowly in all my actions, and I warrant you a moat in my eye, yes a false report was matter enough for them to work upon."

His Majesty King James VI & I,

Basilicon Doron

Reason2012 #fundie #homophobia christiannews.net

Adults continue to permanently turn away from homosexuality, even after decades of believing the lie they were “born that way”, proving it’s not genetic, but the product of indoctrination, confusion, mental instability and/or abuse.

Homosexual behavior is most literally pointed out as a sin, and God has not changed on that regard. But if a person has those inclinations but does not act upon them, does not dwell in lust upon others, but is instead struggling against them to avoid them, then it's not a sin. It's just like sinful inclinations of any kind: it's acting upon it when it becomes a sin.

Next page