"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[Brian37]

Some definitions do. Most do not. Is a Christian who believed that marriage was ordained by God and restated by Jesus wrong to oppose the changing of the definition? Yes or no: are the wrong?

Yes, because we don't live in a theocracy. You can disagree, but not oppose it just because your religious book says so. If you want to live in a theocracy, you can, but you'd better also believe in the same interpretation of the book as the ruling class, or you're still fucked.

BIGNO Chad32

Let me add as I have said many times, theists of all labels, not just Christians, but of all labels, point to antiquity and tradition, and fail to understand that the entire world of every nation in every religion lived in the age of ruling families. Thus the religions back then reflected the societies of those rulers. 

The west grew out of the age of the "divine right", although even with that, the majority still cling to the past.

Humans worldwide in antiquity stupidly mistook the success of their ruling family and the rulers themselves mistook their success as being coming from a super natural source.

Unfortunately even today, you have both left and right still invoking the same God while interpreting the same book.

[Amarok]

All valid points and are part of a civil discussion. Here's the question, who has the right to redefine an institution that predates history itself? 5 people? 

Christians never consulted anyone when they turned marriage into a business proposition.  I don't see why Gays and Lesbians should have to consult anyone when they want to add male/male and female/female relationships to it.

Or why the rest of us should give a fuck about Christian butt hurt that their regressive book does not define marriage anymore.Nor do we need to care about their internal logic on the matter.We also don't need their permission to extend the definition of marriage to gays and we every right to condemn their opposition as regressive ideological bigotry. .

[RoadRunner79]

First, I think that your substitution of “blacks” for sinners is nothing but  sophism. There is no reason for it  And it doesn’t make anything clearer.

Second, I don’t think that warning about the consequences of sin, or a judgement of sin that most Christians would use the word “promoting” I don’t think it’s anything to be happy about. I don’t think it’s appropiate anymore, than to say that you are promoting the actions of those in the account just before the destruction of the cities. I see atheists complain about God allowing evil, but then they also complain when he judges and removes it. They will complain no matter what, perhaps, because they think they should be God.

I don't see how your first point addresses the issue at all.  Don't like my substitution of words?  Fine. Graham still said the things that indicated God (and therefore Jesus) kills gay people as punishment.

He referenced the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah, in regards to God not promoting sin. As I stated before, where I might disagree with some, is that Sodom and Gomorrah was only about homosexuality. If the account before the destruction of these cities is in anyway indicative of the sins that where said to be rampant through these towns, then I think that it is difficult to disagree with God stopping this. Jesus warned that the time is coming when all sins will be judged. He said to repent or you too will parish.

Your second point makes no sense what so ever. Graham literally used the word "promote".  I didn't put it in there, he did. I said nothing about "most Christians", nor is this topic about that.  It is about what one particular Christian said and believes.

Graham used the word "promote" in regards to Jesus not promoting sin. My contention with the word was in the way that you used "promote". It's a matter of context. As I stated before, I wouldn't use that word, because I don't think that it is something to be excited or happy about (in the way you used it).

Also, we don't complain about god allowing evil, we point out that it is a logical flaw in the claim of his supposed all goodness that means either he isn't all good, or he does not exist.

I notice that despite your wordy quibbling, you still support what he said, though.  You right here equate the evil referenced in the problem of evil (the murder of babies, wars, the deaths of innocents in natural disasters, suffering and illness of all sorts) to gayness. 

You are the perfect example of the loving Christian.  Well done.

There isn't a logical flaw, and most philosophers don't argue the problem of evil from a standpoint of logic. That said, especially if one is suffering, it's not always that easy from an emotional standpoint. I'm not equating "gayness" to anything, other than to say that homosexual activity is a sin, and fits into the category of sexual immorality. And I agree with Graham, that Jesus never promoted sin as well that God will judge sin. I think that you are either confused or being intellectually dishonest here and trying to twist what I am saying. And being loving, doesn't mean that one promotes or calls sin good either.

[Amarok]

I don't see how your first point addresses the issue at all.  Don't like my substitution of words?  Fine. Graham still said the things that indicated God (and therefore Jesus) kills gay people as punishment.

He referenced the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah, in regards to God not promoting sin.  As I stated before, where I might disagree with some, is that Sodom and Gomorrah was only about homosexuality.  If the account before the destruction of these cities is in anyway indicative of the sins that where said to be rampant through these towns, then I think that it is difficult to disagree with God stopping this.  Jesus warned that the time is coming when all sins will be judged.  He said to repent or you too will parish.

Your second point makes no sense what so ever. Graham literally used the word "promote".  I didn't put it in there, he did. I said nothing about "most Christians", nor is this topic about that.  It is about what one particular Christian said and believes.

Graham used the word "promote"  in regards to Jesus not promoting sin.  My contention with the word was in the way that you used "promote".   It's a matter of context.  As I stated before, I wouldn't use that word, because I don't think that it is something to be excited or happy about (in the way you used it).

Also, we don't complain about god allowing evil, we point out that it is a logical flaw in the claim of his supposed all goodness that means either he isn't all good, or he does not exist.

I notice that despite your wordy quibbling, you still support what he said, though.  You right here equate the evil referenced in the problem of evil (the murder of babies, wars, the deaths of innocents in natural disasters, suffering and illness of all sorts) to gayness. 

You are the perfect example of the loving Christian.  Well done.

There isn't a logical flaw, and most philosophers don't argue the problem of evil from a standpoint of logic.   That said, especially  if one is suffering, it's not always that easy from an emotional standpoint.  I'm not equating "gayness" to anything, other than to say that homosexual activity is a sin, and fits into the category of sexual immorality.  And I agree with Graham, that Jesus never promoted sin as well that God will judge sin.  I think that you are either confused or being intellectually dishonest here and trying to twist what I am saying.  And being loving, doesn't mean that one promotes or calls sin good either.

Nothing here refutes Aroura  point  in fact you have reinforced it 

[Brian37]

I don't see how your first point addresses the issue at all.  Don't like my substitution of words?  Fine. Graham still said the things that indicated God (and therefore Jesus) kills gay people as punishment.

He referenced the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah, in regards to God not promoting sin.  As I stated before, where I might disagree with some, is that Sodom and Gomorrah was only about homosexuality.  If the account before the destruction of these cities is in anyway indicative of the sins that where said to be rampant through these towns, then I think that it is difficult to disagree with God stopping this.  Jesus warned that the time is coming when all sins will be judged.  He said to repent or you too will parish.

Your second point makes no sense what so ever. Graham literally used the word "promote".  I didn't put it in there, he did. I said nothing about "most Christians", nor is this topic about that.  It is about what one particular Christian said and believes.

Graham used the word "promote"  in regards to Jesus not promoting sin.  My contention with the word was in the way that you used "promote".   It's a matter of context.  As I stated before, I wouldn't use that word, because I don't think that it is something to be excited or happy about (in the way you used it).

Also, we don't complain about god allowing evil, we point out that it is a logical flaw in the claim of his supposed all goodness that means either he isn't all good, or he does not exist.

I notice that despite your wordy quibbling, you still support what he said, though.  You right here equate the evil referenced in the problem of evil (the murder of babies, wars, the deaths of innocents in natural disasters, suffering and illness of all sorts) to gayness. 

You are the perfect example of the loving Christian.  Well done.

There isn't a logical flaw, and most philosophers don't argue the problem of evil from a standpoint of logic.   That said, especially  if one is suffering, it's not always that easy from an emotional standpoint.  I'm not equating "gayness" to anything, other than to say that homosexual activity is a sin, and fits into the category of sexual immorality.  And I agree with Graham, that Jesus never promoted sin as well that God will judge sin.  I think that you are either confused or being intellectually dishonest here and trying to twist what I am saying.  And being loving, doesn't mean that one promotes or calls sin good either.

"Sin" is a bullshit word based on superstition and old mythology.

As I said to Steve, this isn't 2,000 years ago, actually 1700, because the first complete bible wasn't voted on until 329.

If an INDIVIDUAL harms you and you did not consent to it, that is one thing, but if they are consenting to the act as adults, THEN IT IS NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

This is not up for debate. You not getting everything you want all the time is your baggage. And I also don't care if you do say you support gay marriage. If you say you do, you defy yourself by calling it a bullshit word "sin".

You do NOT need a holy book to tell you right from wrong. Life isn't that hard to figure out. Don't physically harm others, and if you are not involved in it, stay out of it. We do not care what you or Steve think of gay marriage. If you are for it, but still call it a "sin" then you are simply a watered down bigot.

[RoadRunner79]

He referenced the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah, in regards to God not promoting sin.  As I stated before, where I might disagree with some, is that Sodom and Gomorrah was only about homosexuality.  If the account before the destruction of these cities is in anyway indicative of the sins that where said to be rampant through these towns, then I think that it is difficult to disagree with God stopping this.  Jesus warned that the time is coming when all sins will be judged.  He said to repent or you too will parish.


Graham used the word "promote"  in regards to Jesus not promoting sin.  My contention with the word was in the way that you used "promote".   It's a matter of context.  As I stated before, I wouldn't use that word, because I don't think that it is something to be excited or happy about (in the way you used it).



There isn't a logical flaw, and most philosophers don't argue the problem of evil from a standpoint of logic.   That said, especially  if one is suffering, it's not always that easy from an emotional standpoint.  I'm not equating "gayness" to anything, other than to say that homosexual activity is a sin, and fits into the category of sexual immorality.  And I agree with Graham, that Jesus never promoted sin as well that God will judge sin.  I think that you are either confused or being intellectually dishonest here and trying to twist what I am saying.  And being loving, doesn't mean that one promotes or calls sin good either.

"Sin" is a bullshit word based on superstition and old mythology.

As I said to Steve, this isn't 2,000 years ago, actually 1700, because the first complete bible wasn't voted on until 329.

If an INDIVIDUAL harms you and you did not consent to it, that is one thing, but if they are consenting to the act as adults, THEN IT IS NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

This is not up for debate. You not getting everything you want all the time is your baggage. And I also don't care if you do say you support gay marriage. If you say you do, you defy yourself by calling it a bullshit word "sin".

You do NOT need a holy book to tell you right from wrong. Life isn't that hard to figure out. Don't physically harm others, and if you are not involved in it, stay out of it. We do not care what you or Steve think of gay marriage. If you are for it, but still call it a "sin" then you are simply a watered down bigot.

I am against same sex unions, and redefining of the word "marriage";  I haven't said otherwise.  Although I would condemn some who call themselves Christian, and show hate towards homosexuals, or overemphasize that sin above others. I also have a problem with those who come out after a disaster, and try to pin it on homosexuality.  I think that this is likely taking the Lord's name in vein and speaking for God, when he did not.  

It  seems that you do care, in that you feel the need to post, and call people names.  Citing that this comes from 2000+ years ago, is not a logical argument, but a logical fallacy.   It also seems hypocritical for you to say that "if you are not involved with it, then to stay out of it".  I also think that the straw men, and mis-characterization (as well as the uncalled for personal attacks) are somewhat telling. It's an emotional issue for calling sin "sin".  And you want to ignore sin.

[Amarok]

am against same sex unions, and redefining of the word "marriage";  

Which says it all and renders everything past this moot .

It  seems that you do care, in that you feel the need to post, and call people names.  Citing that this comes from 2000+ years ago, is not a logical argument, but a logical fallacy.   It also seems hypocritical for you to say that "if you are not involved with it, then to stay out of it".  I also think that the straw men, and mis-characterization (as well as the uncalled for personal attacks) are somewhat telling. It's an emotional issue for calling sin "sin".  And you want to ignore sin.

No we don't care what you consider marriage aside the bigotry of you calling it a sin . And no calling your bigotry what it is is neither uncalled for and totally valid . And yes the fact it comes from an outdated collection of stories is a logical argument .And yes if you not involved in gay marriage mind your own business and no there is nothing hypocritical for calling you out . You have made our case for us with this comment .

---

He referenced the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah, in regards to God not promoting sin.  As I stated before, where I might disagree with some, is that Sodom and Gomorrah was only about homosexuality.  If the account before the destruction of these cities is in anyway indicative of the sins that where said to be rampant through these towns, then I think that it is difficult to disagree with God stopping this.  Jesus warned that the time is coming when all sins will be judged.  He said to repent or you too will parish.


Graham used the word "promote"  in regards to Jesus not promoting sin.  My contention with the word was in the way that you used "promote".   It's a matter of context.  As I stated before, I wouldn't use that word, because I don't think that it is something to be excited or happy about (in the way you used it).



There isn't a logical flaw, and most philosophers don't argue the problem of evil from a standpoint of logic.   That said, especially  if one is suffering, it's not always that easy from an emotional standpoint.  I'm not equating "gayness" to anything, other than to say that homosexual activity is a sin, and fits into the category of sexual immorality.  And I agree with Graham, that Jesus never promoted sin as well that God will judge sin.  I think that you are either confused or being intellectually dishonest here and trying to twist what I am saying.  And being loving, doesn't mean that one promotes or calls sin good either.

"Sin" is a bullshit word based on superstition and old mythology.

As I said to Steve, this isn't 2,000 years ago, actually 1700, because the first complete bible wasn't voted on until 329.

If an INDIVIDUAL harms you and you did not consent to it, that is one thing, but if they are consenting to the act as adults, THEN IT IS NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

This is not up for debate. You not getting everything you want all the time is your baggage. And I also don't care if you do say you support gay marriage. If you say you do, you defy yourself by calling it a bullshit word "sin".

You do NOT need a holy book to tell you right from wrong. Life isn't that hard to figure out. Don't physically harm others, and if you are not involved in it, stay out of it. We do not care what you or Steve think of gay marriage. If you are for it, but still call it a "sin" then you are simply a watered down bigot.

But Brian your being "emotional " (as if that's an objection as we have every right to have strong feelings in the face of bigoted bullshit)

[Brian37]

"Sin" is a bullshit word based on superstition and old mythology.

As I said to Steve, this isn't 2,000 years ago, actually 1700, because the first complete bible wasn't voted on until 329.

If an INDIVIDUAL harms you and you did not consent to it, that is one thing, but if they are consenting to the act as adults, THEN IT IS NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

This is not up for debate. You not getting everything you want all the time is your baggage. And I also don't care if you do say you support gay marriage. If you say you do, you defy yourself by calling it a bullshit word "sin".

You do NOT need a holy book to tell you right from wrong. Life isn't that hard to figure out. Don't physically harm others, and if you are not involved in it, stay out of it. We do not care what you or Steve think of gay marriage. If you are for it, but still call it a "sin" then you are simply a watered down bigot.

I am against same sex unions, and redefining of the word "marriage";  I haven't said otherwise.  Although I would condemn  some who call themselves Christian, and show hate towards homosexuals, or overemphasize that sin above others. I also have a problem with those who come out after a disaster, and try to pin it on homosexuality.  I think that this is likely taking the Lord's name in vein and speaking for God, when he did not.  

It  seems that you do care, in that you feel the need to post, and call people names.  Citing that this comes from 2000+ years ago, is not a logical argument, but a logical fallacy.   It also seems hypocritical for you to say that "if you are not involved with it, then to stay out of it".  I also think that the straw men, and mis-characterization (as well as the uncalled for personal attacks) are somewhat telling. It's an emotional issue for calling sin "sin".  And you want to ignore sin.

Too bad. Again, there is nothing to debate. 

You don't like what gays do, TOO FUCKING BAD!

Unless someone is assaulting you, even for your money, outside of sex, without your consent, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING SAY.

Please tell me the English language is something you understand. Two people having sex of the same sex with consent, is none of your business.

They do not owe you submission and especially not based on an old book of mythology.

Yes, I do call people names. Talk like a bigot, act like a bully, I will fucking call you one.

Who died and left you boss? 

How about you TRY to understand LGBT, get to know them, accept them instead of fearing them? Basing your objection on an old book is merely your way of using "yucky" as an argument. It is not valid, it is just you clinging to the past.

[Amarok]

I am against same sex unions, and redefining of the word "marriage";  I haven't said otherwise.  Although I would condemn  some who call themselves Christian, and show hate towards homosexuals, or overemphasize that sin above others. I also have a problem with those who come out after a disaster, and try to pin it on homosexuality.  I think that this is likely taking the Lord's name in vein and speaking for God, when he did not.  

It  seems that you do care, in that you feel the need to post, and call people names.  Citing that this comes from 2000+ years ago, is not a logical argument, but a logical fallacy.   It also seems hypocritical for you to say that "if you are not involved with it, then to stay out of it".  I also think that the straw men, and mis-characterization (as well as the uncalled for personal attacks) are somewhat telling. It's an emotional issue for calling sin "sin".  And you want to ignore sin.

Too bad. Again, there is nothing to debate. 

You don't like what gays do, TOO FUCKING BAD!

Unless someone is assaulting you, even for your money, outside of sex, without your consent, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING SAY.

Please tell me the English language is something you understand. Two people having sex of the same sex with consent, is none of your business.

They do not owe you submission and especially not based on an old book of mythology.

Yes, I do call people names. Talk like a bigot, act like a bully, I will fucking call you one.

Who died and left you boss? 

How about you TRY to understand LGBT, get to know them, accept them instead of fearing them?

Here here 

There is nothing to debate( as their position has no merit) only something to condemn Steve and Roads ideological bigotry

[Cecelia]

Personally, I'm against Christians redefining the word 'love'. Yet they constantly insist on doing it. Saying that they LOVE gay people, despite calling them 'homosexuals' when that's not what they want to be called. Despite saying they don't want them to have the right to get married. Saying that it's God's love that will cause them to burn in hell. If Christians can redefine love, then we get to redefine whatever we want to and they don't get to bitch and moan about it.