Originally Posted by Supreme

.....a small Jewish tribe facing persecution at the hands of every race in the Middle East

A cursory reading of the Old Testament reveals the Israelites of old to be an incredibly blood-thirsty lot who never left their neighbors alone, forever going into other people's territories and slaughtering everyone (except the little girls whom God suposedly told them to 'save for yourselves').

The tribe of Judah was actually just one tribe among many, and they turned their murderous hatred on each other as well.

Read your bible. Please.

Originally Posted by ummzayd

A cursory reading of the Old Testament reveals the Israelites of old to be an incredibly blood-thirsty lot who never left their neighbors alone, forever going into other people's territories and slaughtering everyone (except the little girls whom God suposedly told them to 'save for yourselves').

The tribe of Judah was actually just one tribe among many, and they turned their murderous hatred on each other as well.

Read your bible. Please.

well said ummzayd.

A sin any sin mentioned is a conscious act that the individual wills to happen, and is a transgression against God and his commandments. Thus, I can't be made to understand how being born with freckles for instance is akin to sodomizing and then advertising? can you draw any similarities? I think the problem with loss of morals is that there is no baseline .. no difference for instance between being a dignified human or a lawless animal, no difference between hard work or leeching off others by force because of power or a sense of entitlement, between a family unit and break association, between good or bad.. and that is what the new world order is after..skewed morals of why is this ok and this isn't..

I have no problems people committing sins on their private time, but the whole will not be made to suffer the debauchery of a few and their supporters!

[QUOTE=Supreme;1264041]

Jesus never mentions the subject, but seeing as Jesus is just about the most moral person in history, I can't see Him shouting in demonstrations with huge 'Kill all the Gays' banners.

So tell me You think that there is no problem that some protestant "churches" bless gay "marriages"?
The attitude of Creator about gays and lesbians is very clear, expressed many times in Bible, You think that Creator changed His mind?

Shoulda woulda coulda... mate, I don't want to live in the past, we develop as a human race, we evolve, it's social science.

Yeah, we developped, especially when I look at my own nation and western nations, with withh all those social ilnesses, its clear how we "developped".

Maybe in your church mate.

Not, but You can't deny that many christians see Jesus Christ as the hippie from "Jesus Christ Superstar" movie, with sign of anarchy, always smiling guy who plays a guitar.

Speak for yourself, and also, God punishes people... by not allowing Himself to be worshipped in church? Wait, what?

Some people too easily use the word "church". I am catholic and I dont think that every building used by "church" created last week by some John, Robert or Bill should be called as church.
Moreover, a "church" where gay or lesbian couples as blessed, where their sin is accepted, becomes rather a synagoga satanae.

The problem with today's christianity is the alliance with modern world and society. In past the Church changed people, now the people change churches. The people think that sodomy is ok, so the "church" changes its views not to be seen as medival fossil. The same with abortion, the feminists made some "churches" think that the kill of an unborn baby is the "right" of a woman. The radical ecology movement made some churches think that the biggest problem of nowadays world is global warming.

What are other medival fossils still defended by churches? Physical purity before marriage, one undivided marriage, marriage faithfulness.
What else we must change to be accepted as modern?

You say that it's no problem what two adults do in their bedrooms, but as a christian Your duty is to tell them - Your act is evil, bad for you people, it will destroy your lives.
You should say it not because of your homophobia, but because of Your love to the people.

The problem is that modern popculture (rather counter culture) lies to the homosexuals and lesbians that this kind of sex is alright. The popculture also says - Adultery is ok, our own needs are more important than faithfulness and family. The popculture says - Your own good is more important than anything, than our children. Human replaced God, human became new God.

The sad thing is that many modern "churches" say the same what popculture says, those "churches" change Creator's unchangeable and eternal opinions about human nature just to please modern people, who are controlled by their sexual desires.

(Quran 4:15):And those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.

Quran:4:16:If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for God is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.

Originally Posted by Wa7abiScientist

A nation, with a certain majority, has a right to shun what they deem inappropriate from the minority. Seems Ugandan majority decided that this minority view cannot be accepted. It does not mean that minority view must be given equal status as the majority view, that would take the whole meaning out of having majority and minority positions in the first place.

Such is the very definition of 'mob rule'. This is the reason the rule of law is so important. This is the reason many first-world nation-states have documents that specifically line out rights for all of its populace (and of which, cannot be repealed purely by popular momentum). It is the reason people take the UN's Declaration of Human Rights seriously - it is to prevent barbarism and rule by bigotry.

It is a foundation of democracy that the powers of the majority cannot destroy the freedoms of the minority. Such mantra is typically the foundation of elitist fascist states. This foundation is just as important as the importance of popular support.

Originally Posted by Wa7abiScientist

Gays have a place to live in Islamic environment as long as they keep it a secret and dont spread their ill practices and are not caught committing sodomy. A bit hard price to pay but that is how the majority of Muslims have decided to implement in their society.

Now sir, doesn't that just encourage hypocrisy? You set up a situation where homosexuals have to pretend their preferences in order for security guarantees.

Originally Posted by tango92

i think the modern philosophy is "if it doesnt hurt anyone then its acceptable", i guess so far it seems to be working for them... but dont be fooled, this curtain of liberty is needed to hide their true evil.

What exactly do you mean by this? Who's "true evil"?

Originally Posted by Amadeus85

I dont think that they should be killed, but there should be some punishment for that act, just like it was in Europe even 50 years ago.But of course now its impossible, for christians Jesus Christ was a hippie, gay activist and supporter of abortion and euthanasia.
No wonder why european and american churches stay empty, its a just God's punishment for violating His laws.

This statement is a disgrace. Why should people not of your faith be held accountable to it? The above is an absolute green light to totalitarianism. It is impossible now because of the well-battled importance of secularism.

Originally Posted by Fedos

Well, the United States Constitution is built around Biblical principles, and all of the founding fathers were pretty much Christians.

No it wasn't.

Have you read the Treaty Of Tripoli? Can you tell me what beliefs Thomas Jefferson had? In fact, can you even name me anything in the Constitution that is wholly based on Biblical principles?

Originally Posted by Amadeus85

The problem with today's christianity is the alliance with modern world and society. In past the Church changed people, now the people change churches. The people think that sodomy is ok, so the "church" changes its views not to be seen as medival fossil. The same with abortion, the feminists made some "churches" think that the kill of an unborn baby is the "right" of a woman. The radical ecology movement made some churches think that the biggest problem of nowadays world is global warming.

Why does this surprise you? It does not surprise me in the slightest. It is simply how what I will call 'divine bigotry' is not compatible in modern life.

Originally Posted by Amadeus85

You say that it's no problem what two adults do in their bedrooms, but as a christian Your duty is to tell them - Your act is evil, bad for you people, it will destroy your lives.
You should say it not because of your homophobia, but because of Your love to the people.

The problem is that modern popculture (rather counter culture) lies to the homosexuals and lesbians that this kind of sex is alright. The popculture also says - Adultery is ok, our own needs are more important than faithfulness and family. The popculture says - Your own good is more important than anything, than our children. Human replaced God, human became new God.

It absolutely is none of your business what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom. You are free to consider homosexuality reprehensible and choose your company in accordance with this. You are free to hold contempt for adultery and do likewise. You are not free to prohibit others on this basis.

Do you live in a Western secular state, might I inquire? You seem awfully contemptible about it if so. Can I ask where you might prefer to live?

Originally Posted by Skavau

No it wasn't.

Have you read the Treaty Of Tripoli? Can you tell me what beliefs Thomas Jefferson had? In fact, can you even name me anything in the Constitution that is wholly based on Biblical principles?

No I haven't read the Treaty of Tripoli. What I know, is that in the founding fathers letters many of their quotes were taken from the Bible, that the Bible was the most quoted book, that they were God fearing men.

[QUOTE=Skavau;1265367]

This statement is a disgrace. Why should people not of your faith be held accountable to it? The above is an absolute green light to totalitarianism. It is impossible now because of the well-battled importance of secularism.

For the common good, catholic values are good not only for catholics but also for atheists and agnostics.

Have you read the Treaty Of Tripoli? Can you tell me what beliefs Thomas Jefferson had? In fact, can you even name me anything in the Constitution that is wholly based on Biblical principles?

USA was built on enlightment, protestant and masonic fundaments. I dont know how for other but for me catholic, american stand for religion is an anarchy.

Why does this surprise you? It does not surprise me in the slightest. It is simply how what I will call 'divine bigotry' is not compatible in modern life

.

If modern life mean killing unborn children, killing ill born children (in Holland for example), killing old people by euthanasia, allowing the existence of paedophile political party (in Holland), men and women controlled by their sexual desires like animals, so I prefer to stay with my Medival values.

It absolutely is none of your business what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom. You are free to consider homosexuality reprehensible and choose your company in accordance with this. You are free to hold contempt for adultery and do likewise. You are not free to prohibit others on this basis.

Oh really, so what if I wanted to keep a slave, would it also be my own buisness? Why You want to force the abolition of slavery on me?
Like it or not, but christian, jewish and islamic values are fundaments of human rights.

Do you live in a Western secular state, might I inquire? You seem awfully contemptible about it if so. Can I ask where you might prefer to live?

Unfortunately I live in secular state, but with God's will not for long. We conservatives count time in centuries.
The ideal state is the social reign of Christ the King.

Originally Posted by Amadeus85

For the common good, catholic values are good not only for catholics but also for atheists and agnostics.

Sorry, I don't want a part of it. Feel free to be sanctimonious about your values and their importance in your life. Don't tell me I have to observe them or recognise them. And kindly do not tell homosexuals that they have to change their lifestyle to accommodate this creed.

Originally Posted by Amadeus85

USA was built on enlightment, protestant and masonic fundaments. I dont know how for other but for me catholic, american stand for religion is an anarchy.

The Enlightenment was a wholly leaning secular revolution. America is a secular state. It does not stand for any religion and indeed that ought to remain.

Originally Posted by Amadeus85

If modern life mean killing unborn children, killing ill born children (in Holland for example), killing old people by euthanasia, allowing the existence of paedophile political party (in Holland), men and women controlled by their sexual desires like animals, so I prefer to stay with my Medival values.

Proudly marching back into the 19th century. That statement stands entirely true.

Irrespectively of assisted suicide, please do not smear the reasoning and held and invoked by those who 'advocate' it. Euthanasia proponents advocate it based on compassion and empathy for those who suffer from long drawn out terminal illnesses and a respect for their desire to end their life on their own terms, with as limited suffering as possible. The same is of abortion.

Who exactly is controlled by their sexual desires? And when has this ever been otherwise if argued so?

Originally Posted by Amadeus85

Oh really, so what if I wanted to keep a slave, would it also be my own buisness? Why You want to force the abolition of slavery on me?

Do you know nothing of human rights? Keeping a slave is the slave's business. You are intruding on another human being's freedom. This has absolutely nothing to do with homosexual intercourse or adultery where all participants are consensual. If you want to make your analogy work, then you would have to ask if there was a problem with you having a servant that consensually assists you for free? The answer in that instance indeed would be no.

Originally Posted by Amadeus85

Like it or not, but christian, jewish and islamic values are fundaments of human rights.

Give me some examples of human rights that can only be affirmed as a Jew, Muslim or a Christian.

Originally Posted by Amadeus85

Unfortunately I live in secular state, but with God's will not for long. We conservatives count time in centuries.
The ideal state is the social reign of Christ the King.

You believe that the population of nation-states have no specific right to anything and that some divine arbiter ought to reign supreme over all. This is fascism and one of a theocratic leaning. You believe that you, based on divine 'obligation' have the right to interfere in the personal lives of others and tell them that they must appreciate and observe your standards.

It is abhorrent, disgraceful and inhumane. I suspect you would not appreciate living under Islamic rule yourself.

Originally Posted by Skavau

The Enlightenment was a wholly leaning secular revolution. America is a secular state. It does not stand for any religion and indeed that ought to remain.

Why not? This is democracy, people are allowed to express their views whether you like it or not. If one day the majority voted for a religious state, I wonder how some secularists would react.

Originally Posted by Guestfellow

Why not? This is democracy, people are allowed to express their views whether you like it or not. If one day the majority voted for a religious state, I wonder how some secularists would react.

Why not what?

I never said people were not allowed to express their views.

Irrespectively, I would probably react by making plans to leave the state immediately if it became religious in nature.

secularists own the words ''abhorrent, disgraceful and inhumane''..

it isn't disgraceful, abhorrent and inhumane to sodomize and publicly advertise it seeking 'equal rights' equal rights for what exactly? does everyone put their debauched sexual venues in a day parade in front of children?

Disgusting!

this shouldn't even be a topic for conversation.. no one would know of your sexual escapades if you weren't advertising it to the world. And if you are advertising it then be prepared come what may!

Originally Posted by Gossamer skye

secularists own the words ''abhorrent, disgraceful and inhumane''..

Hello, long time no see..

Anyway, no Secularists don't. Anyone can use those words.

it isn't disgraceful, abhorrent and inhumane to sodomize and publicly advertise it seeking 'equal rights' equal rights for what exactly? does everyone put their debauched sexual venues in a day parade in front of children?

Disgusting!

What does this have to do with anything? Advertisement is byproduct of rampant commercialism.

this shouldn't even be a topic for conversation.. no one would know of your sexual escapades if you weren't advertising it to the world. And if you are advertising it then be prepared come what may!

We're not talking about 'advertising' anything concerning that.

Originally Posted by Skavau

Hello, long time no see..

Anyway, no Secularists don't. Anyone can use those words.

Ah, we can't make them into bread and butter the way you can!

What does this have to do with anything? Advertisement is byproduct of rampant commercialism.

It has everything to do with it. No one would know what you are doing in your boudoir, if you weren't expressing it in a lewd fashion every chance you get. Expressing sexual lewdness is unacceptable unless you are an animal and don't know any better. Laws are meant to safeguard all citizens not favor a few because they really can't help but get bent!

We're not talking about 'advertising' anything concerning that.

See previous paragraph, Again, no one would know you are a homo or a pederast or a necrophile etc. unless you were caught in the act in some form..


all the best

Originally Posted by Gossamer skye

Ah, we can't make them into bread and butter the way you can!

I think I'll take that as a compliment.

It has everything to do with it. No one would know what you are doing in your boudoir, if you weren't expressing it in a lewd fashion every chance you get. Expressing sexual lewdness is unacceptable unless you are an animal and don't know any better. Laws are meant to safeguard all citizens not favor a few because they really can't help but get bent!

See previous paragraph, Again, no one would know you are a homo or a pederast or a necrophile etc. unless you were caught in the act in some form..
all the best

Right... you're operating from the assumption that homosexuals ought to be expected to conceal their desires from all public life. Why? I know several people who are homosexual openly. Nice people.

And what does this have to do with the frankly revolting proposition that they ought to be terminated for it?

Originally Posted by Skavau

Irrespectively, I would probably react by making plans to leave the state immediately if it became religious in nature.

Oh great. ;)