SeVeR

Christ Bak, you seem to switch between talking to different people within one post, with no indication you've switched. It's hard to keep up, i've not posted any sources to Christian websites, who are you tlaking to now? NBV? TJ?

There is so much rubbish going around about how a "family-unit" is required for turning kids into civilised adults, citing data about how single-parent families don't do as well at raising kids. The only thing you can draw from those studies is that a child with one parent has a greater chance of having no parents who love him/her. They say absolutely nothing about any beneficial effects of having two parents. True, what's your point? Homosexual or heterosexual, the most important factor by far is whether the child is loved. So the sexuality of the parents matters incredibly little in my eyes. Unless you think the child will be "contaminated" with homosexuality, but being a homosexual doesn't make you a criminal, a re!@#$%^&*, or a street-walking druggie. Homosexuals are still loving people, they just love different people in different ways.

A child with one parent is one step closer to having no-one who cares.

You're naturally superior to animals too, and that was all God's work. You didn't do anything and you're not proud of being superior. You just realise that your quality of life is better, and you have a greater understanding of everything. In Christianity's case you believe you're important enough to get into heaven, you have a one-to-one hotline with God, and you have the answers to the questions of existence. You believe people who haven't found Jesus are "lost", a negative and inferior attribute. You believe they're going to !@#$%^&*, meaning in the eyes of the most perfect being (God) they are judged to be inferior. The very fact that you worship God means that you believe it to be the most worthwhile thing to be doing, and thus people who do not worship God are inferior to you on some level for being unknowledgeable, lost, or rebellious.

Nice post Astro. Chavez is doing alot for South America. He reclaimed the oil industry from the Western companies which were draining the region dry, and put the money back into social infra-structure. He has since established favourable trade-agreements with all the other countries in the region to make it easier for them to buy cheap oil for their growing economies. Of course America hates this idea, and will continue to paint him as some sort of terrorist leader from a "rogue" state and so on...

TJ: They read the same book, they belong to the same religion, some are even ministers for that religion (my last post), and all they need is to interpret a fraction of the holy book in a different way. It would be nice to dispel Christianity of blame, but without Christianity these people wouldn't exist in the way they do. I don't know why that's relevent. Once you believe in the Bible, and are acting on your interpretation of the Bible, then you are Christian. 'Getting away with it' was a poor way to explain what i meant. I understand that you regret your sins and don't intend to repeat them. However, due to the 'purity of heart' you possess, you are no longer equal in God's eyes with the un-forgiven sinner. You will go to heaven and the other guy will go to !@#$%^&*. Thus it is not equality from the moment you accept Jesus. You merely believe that you deserve a better after-life for accepting Jesus. It's not pride, it's a kind of religious racism, where Christians get special treatment in the after-life, and non-Christians do not. You give homosexuals the option to join your special group, but only if they renounce what they are. They are excluded, as are people like me who cannot have faith. What i've gathered from what you've said is: Homosexuals are proud sinners who reject Jesus and continue to sin. There need not be any pride in this. It's like saying you're superior to an animal. You and the animal may have sinned the same amount, you may not be proud to be better than the animal, but inevitably you believe your existence will be more fulfilled.

NBV: The difference exists in the Christian's ability to identify or prove sloth, adultery and greed. When is someone being greedy or lazy? The line is difficult to draw. Homosexuality is clear cut, you either engage in homosexual acts or you don't. However, I'll say one thing with certainty: If sloth or greed is identified and proven in someone, then i would fully expect the same levels of hatred to emerge within Christians as with homosexuality. Other than the Christian's ability to identify the sin (greed and sloth being hard to identify), there is another attribute that will affect the levels of hatred. Naturally, our hatred is directed at those who are different to ourselves. Thus pride, greed, gluttony and sloth are very human characteristics, and every man, woman and child could interpret themselves as having committed these sins. Sexuality is a mutually exclusive attribute for the most part: Gay or straight. So not only is hatred is based on how much one can !@#$%^&*ociate the topic of hatred with the person to be hated, but it's also based on how much it cannot be !@#$%^&*ociated with the self. If these criteria are met with sloth or greed as much as with homosexuality, then the level of hatred should be no different. That fact that the other "sins" you've mentioned do not meet these criteria as much as with homosexuality, is the reason we don't see Christian hate groups forming which oppose gluttony or greed. I tend to go by the fact that these groups are seen holding Christian-religious banners for my proof they have a religious affiliation. "Paul Hill, who is to be executed in two weeks for the shotgun slayings of an abortion doctor and his bodyguard in Pensacola, says he's at peace with himself and would probably kill again. Hill, a one-time Presbyterian minister, has said God led him to shoot Dr. John Britton, 69, and his driver, James Barrett, 74, as they arrived at a Pensacola abortion clinic in July 1994." Maybe God is a code-word for parental abuse or mental illness? Ok good. Firstly then, where do you think their parents got their homophobia from? Religion gets passed down by parents along with all the ideas that come with it. Secondly, all it takes is one priest-bigot, and you can get a significant percentage of a congregation following his ideals. Where other than a religion could you find such devoted followers of one man and his wayward interpretation of a religious book?

Hmm NBV, i answered the question at the end of your post in that post you didn't have time to reply to. I'll come back later to make a proper reply.

I'm glad you admit that homosexuality is a Christian sin. I'm not denying that gay people can change to straight, although this can go both ways and straight can become gay. It wasn't really my point anyway, sexuality is clear cut in that at any particular point in time you're gay or straight, i.e. you can never be both (for the most part). Again though, i don't really see the point of discussing this. Basically what you seem to be saying is: "I have sinned, but my faith in Jesus means i have gotten away with it. The homosexuals have also sinned, but they don't have faith in Jesus and are therefore going to !@#$%^&*". Secondly, "The homosexuals have sinned, but they have sinned far more than me. They are also proud of their sins, continue to sin, and even though they know about Jesus, they reject him, unlike me" Is this accurate? I don't see how you can get equality from this. So you admit that the Bible can be used and understood by Christians to create hate against homosexuals. It certainly is nice to reject people who accept this homophbic at!@#$%^&*ude as non-Christians. I'm sure you reject the abortion killers, or maybe even the Baptists, depending on how politically correct they are being. The sad point is, that you all worship from the same book, and therefore one interpretation cannot exist without all the others. Christianity is the cause, as without Christianity they wouldn't exist. Would you say that many adults have the mental capacity of children? Would you even go so far as to say that religion can sometimes be the cause of a lack of education? I've never seen such a poor grasp of the English language as i have with the Christians i've debated with over the years (obviously not universal, before someone bites my head off). You're dissociating homophobia from the justification for it. Homophobic at!@#$%^&*udes find a sanctuary in religion. It can fester and amplify within that sanctuary. Homosexuality, being a Christian sin, can undoubtedly be the initial cause aswell. All religions include people who seek to emulate God's perfection by persecuting sinners. Thus it is clear that Christianity will be the cause of hatred for homosexuals among some of it's followers. Do you think Christianity isn't the cause of the abortion doctor killers? It's a little specific don't you think? Religion is passed down by parents, and so are all the ideas that come with it. It's naive to think that these related ideas, such as homophobia, have nothing to do with the religion. They have to come from somewhere.

I'm saying the Bible teaches us that God persecutes homosexuals and sends them to !@#$%^&*. The Bible then teaches that God is perfect in every way. Thus Christianity, if interpretted in one of many possible ways , can lead to Christians wishing to persecute homosexuals in order to emulate God's perfection. I define this as hatred, albeit under a veil of righteousness. The church is not directly teaching people to hate homosexuals, it doesn't say "hate homos" anywhere. But the evidence from the Bible, the nature of religion itself, and a certain interpretation of the Bible certainly are a recipe for hatred, And? The only difference i see is with the ability to identify or prove sloth, adultery and greed. When is someone being greedy or lazy? The line is difficult to draw. Homosexuality is clear cut, you either engage in homosexual acts or you don't. However, let me say one thing with certainty: If sloth or greed is identified and proven in someone, then i would fully expect the same levels of hatred to emerge within Christians as with homosexuality. For clarity i will once again state that this is not the case for all Christians. Now you're getting it. Other than the Christian's ability to identify the sin (greed and sloth being hard to identify), there is another attribute that will affect the levels of hatred. Naturally, our hatred is directed at those who are different to ourselves. Thus pride, greed, gluttony and sloth are very human characteristics, and every man, woman and child could interpret themselves as having committed these sins. Sexuality is a mutually exclusive attribute for the most part: Gay or straight. So hatred is based on how much one can !@#$%^&*ociate the topic of hatred with the person to be hated, but it's also based on how much it cannot be !@#$%^&*ociated with the self. If these criteria are met with sloth or greed as much as with homosexuality, then the level of hatred should be no different.

you both got here insanely fast... editted previous posts with "name-tags"

TJ: I'm sorry you wasted your time. I meant it's unsupported factually, given that the Bible is devoid of facts. So basically you're telling me that homosexuals have deviated from God's plan, are proud to do so, are in sin, and that this gives God reason to destroy them. So biblically speaking what can i say other than: i agree. Thus i still don't see how you've made a counter-argument here. So you're comparing homosexuals to flawed toys that should be destroyed or fixed? I really don't see your point.

NBV: Oh for Christ sake... you don't even deserve a response. It seems that every post i have to defend my position by saying "i don't think all Christians are homophobes, i don't think the Church teaches people to hate gays". Until you acknowledge this simple premise, i'm going to put off replying to the rest of your post.

Great points [/sarcasm], pity i need to quote myself now: The reason i put "among other things" is because i knew you'd use the irrelevent argument that there are other sins that may have made a bigger impact on God's wrath. The reason it's irrelevent is because it's enough that homosexuality is one of the sins. My simple goal was to establish homosexuality as a Christian sin, and i did that. Thanks for pointing out something that i obviously already knew when i considered Sodom and Gamorra (read the quoted text again if you're confused). You are both truly inane and inept. In case you're wondering, the numbers i placed into your text are to follow certain points that are uncertain and without proof. I cannot argue with someone who makes so many !@#$%^&*umptions. Even from a biblical perspective, what you've said appears to be meaningless to this argument. Sinners go to !@#$%^&*, God sends them there, what's your point? I've established that homosexuality is a sin, God sends them to !@#$%^&*. If you can't see how worshipping a God that sends homosexuals to !@#$%^&* is going to breed hatred for homosexuals among followers of that God, then this discussion is already over. I'm not saying that all Christians are homophobes, i'm not even saying Christians are taught to hate homosexuals, i'm saying it's more than easy to intepret the Bible in a way where homosexuals are killed over and over again in the firery depths of !@#$%^&* thanks to a homophobic God.

Incredible, you accuse me of 'jumping' to the conclusion that God hates homosexuals, when you flat out ignored my reason for why people might think God hates homosexuals. God destroyed all the people in Sodom and Gamorra, and the popularly held belief is that this was for homosexual acts (among other things). Therefore it is a sin to be homosexual. Can't you see how some people would interpret this as a bloody good reason to hate homosexuals? The fact that THEIR GOD saw fit to wipe them out? Any revelations coming your way? Ignoring someones reason for coming to a conclusion and then accusing them of jumping to that conclusion isn't the best way to prove what you've been trying to prove in your last few posts.

Asian chicks are hawt

The church isn't spreading hate, it's simply making it easier for people to hate by their own accord. The church by definition is corrupt. Humans can believe or disbelieve God as they see fit, but the church and any person of religious authority will take some small slice of the reverence reserved for God by the believer. Whether the church wants to be held up as an intermediary to God is irrelevent. The nature of religion makes it unavoidable as believers for the most part are followers. If the church disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle then the wholly unreligious, but un-repressable urge of any human is to ask why. I can theorise the thought process goes something like this: 1. The church disagrees with the homosexual life-style. Why? 2. Because the Bible says it's unnatural. Why? 3. Because God doesn't like homosexuals. Why? 4. Because he hates them? Can we believe this? 5. Well God is wrathful and destroyed all the people in Sodom and Gamorra. 6. I guess I could interpret the Bible in a way where God hates homosexuals. And thus, for some, the Bible gives every reason to hate homosexuals. I'm not going to tell you the Bible is the only reason, and i believe there are varying degrees of influence that religion takes. Some may have parents who dislike homosexuals (whatever their reasons may be....), but undoubtedly religion can be a cause and/or a justification for hatred towards homosexuals. Christians are taught to respect everyone, and they side-step that teaching in the same way they side-step the questions of existence, by having faith. If they believe they're not har!@#$%^&*ing and disrespecting non-believers by posting leaflets through doors that warn of "eternal !@#$%^&*ation", then that makes it ok. If they believe they're not destroying a culture in South America or Indonesia by bringing them Bibles and instilling a religion that brings about centuries of witch-hunts and executions for sorcery, then that makes it ok. If they believe they're not doing anything wrong by preaching within schools, then that makes it ok. Respect, except in cases of ignorance or divine permission.

You people with your all or nothing arguments... I would say that religions teaching their followers to disagree with a belief, would be the cause of at least some of their followers hating the people that hold that belief. I never said all Christians are homophobes, yet you seem to be telling me what i've said and believe. You're not going to succeed in creating an opponent as flawed as you are.

No, we jump to the conclusion that Christianity is a religion that can be the cause of homophobic at!@#$%^&*udes among it's followers. A conclusion we're right to jump to. Nothing about what i've just said means i think all Christians are homophobes.

I think Astro's post makes things clear.

I know exactly what you mean, the fact you've repeated it means you don't know what i mean. Christian women dress modestly because of the Bible trend to prohibit showing flesh, jewellry, elaborate hair etc. Where else do you think the idea of dressing modestly comes from? The word "modestly" is even in the bible quote (Timothy). Which gives the impression that women are possessions.

I think what JDS is trying to say is: These women choose to wear their islamic dress even when they don't have to. Yet some people on this thread would have us believe they are forced at gun-point to do something they don't want to do, because Islam is so evil etc etc. Thus, you should leave this culture alone.

You just can't get away from saying that we "Hate" homosexuals can you? It's just engraved in your mind and no matter what every Christian on here tells you, you still think you know our feeling better then we do. Do you think i believe all Christians want to kill abortion doctors too? Can you see how you've taken my comment out of context, again? Well i'm not criticising dressing modestly. I'm merely saying that both Christianity and Islam have holy books that tell women how to dress. I'm saying this because Aileron was trying to criticise Islam for telling women to cover up. Islamic society follows their holy book much more than our Western society follows the Bible, but both holy books essentially have the same opinion on women as inferior, tempters of men. You cannot criticise one without criticising the other. I think you'll find there's a reason why more Christian women are humble than non-Christians, and it stems from the Biblical idea that women are the tempters of men. Not wearing jewellery is simply a bi-product of that underlying trend in the Bible. I mean, for heavens sake, do i really have to tell you about the trends in the Bible? I'm the non-believer here!

Will the real Emblazon please stand up!

If Christianity is the justification for hateful acts, then Christianity must take a large amount of the blame. This is especially so when ideas such as killing abortion doctors, hating homosexuals and treating women with inferiority can be immediately derived from interpreting the Bible in a particular way. We say communism and fascism are flawed based on the people who lived by the rules of those political setups. We don't say "fascism is ok, but it's been used by too many evil guys doing evil things in it's name". They did more than say "fascism made me do it", they read the ideology, agreed with it, and acted on it. In the same way a Christian will read the Bible and interpret it in a way that brings about hatred and violence. You don't need to go far in a history book to see how total-Christianity shapes society into an amalgam of fear, hate, prejudice and violence. Only with the reduction of Christian influence has humanity entered into this modern age of tolerance and technology. Ail: I'm sure it does say that. TJ: I guess i should have expected you'd take this out of context. It's obvious not all Christian women follow the Bible to the word, just like it was fairly obvious i didn't mean all Christian women don't wear jewellery. The point was that some/many choose not to wear jewellery, revealing clothes, or elaborate hair-styles. It's a choice in the same way most Muslim women visitting my university will choose to wear head-scarves even though they don't have to. In some cases they will file law-suits to make sure they can!