Rise of the "HomoCon"

[MelissaWV]

There it is again, excluding the God of all creation from the equation, then saying it is just a matter of two parties consenting. For it to be a consensual act, ALL parties relevant to the matter have to be consenting. God does not consent, so God is the victim here, and secondarily other people who will suffer from societal consequences of of state-legitimized sin/immorality.

If consideration for the third party here is excluded from what law is adopted, then yes, the codified law allows the behavior. This the crux of the difference between the two sides, not the smug and bogus pigeon holing of this as "using government force to stop consensual behavior." God is relevant in this matter, and the implication he is not is another religion that, as reflected in law, also imposes a view on others.

Not to belabor the point, but I don't remember God consenting to my heterosexual activities within marriage, either.

 

[Keller1967]

There it is again, excluding the God of all creation from the equation, then saying it is just a matter of two parties consenting. For it to be a consensual act, ALL parties relevant to the matter have to be consenting. God does not consent, so God is the victim here, and secondarily other people who will suffer from societal consequences of of state-legitimized sin/immorality.

If consideration for the third party here is excluded from what law is adopted, then yes, the codified law allows the behavior. This the crux of the difference between the two sides, not the smug and bogus pigeon holing of this as "using government force to stop consensual behavior." God is relevant in this matter, and the implication he is not is another religion that, as reflected in law, also imposes a view on others.

lol so let God be the one to press charges, otherwise drop it

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I think there oughta be a law that bugerers be rendered at Guantanamo to turn in all their sex partners, given a fair trial and boiled in oil.

There, now at least, we can have a few non-straw-man arguments from the pro-gay people.

Are you fucking serious? Do you, by any chance, know how totally FUCKED UP your statement is? What the fuck is wrong with letting people LIVE THEIR LIVES as they see fit as long as they do not commit aggression against others? Why is it you feel you have to control other people? If, by some bizarre chance, God punishes homosexuality with eternal damnation, that's up to HIM to decide (and I would just as soon spit in the eye of a douchebag Supreme Being that did such a thing).

 

[RedStripe]

There it is again, excluding the God of all creation from the equation, then saying it is just a matter of two parties consenting. For it to be a consensual act, ALL parties relevant to the matter have to be consenting. God does not consent, so God is the victim here, and secondarily other people who will suffer from societal consequences of of state-legitimized sin/immorality.

If consideration for the third party here is excluded from what law is adopted, then yes, the codified law allows the behavior. This the crux of the difference between the two sides, not the smug and bogus pigeon holing of this as "using government force to stop consensual behavior." God is relevant in this matter, and the implication he is not is another religion that, as reflected in law, also imposes a view on others.

You have no proof that your particular God exists.

You have no proof of what your particular god "wants."

There are thousands upon thousands of religious deities that we could possibly take into account in every single interaction between two or more people. But we don't. Because being ultra sensitive to thousands of individual fairy tales is almost as childish as believing in those fairy tales to begin with.

God doesn't exist. If he does and has a problem with something he can do something about it himself if he actually has any balls to act on all his hot air. Jesus Christ your views are just absurd!

 

[TheEvilDetector]

You have no proof that your particular God exists.

You have no proof of what your particular god "wants."

There are thousands upon thousands of religious deities that we could possibly take into account in every single interaction between two or more people. But we don't. Because being ultra sensitive to thousands of individual fairy tales is almost as childish as believing in those fairy tales to begin with.

God doesn't exist. If he does and has a problem with something he can do something about it himself if he actually has any balls to act on all his hot air. Jesus Christ your views are just absurd!

I think religion and superstition are strongly linked.

 

[dannno]

I think religion and superstition are strongly linked.

I dunno, I'm not religious.. I'm pretty superstitious I suppose. I don't see how either of those things are linked to tyranny.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The Almighty, the unapproachable Truth Himself, had nothing to say on the topic

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, perhaps? The 1st Amendment?

Not sure why it matters what people do in their bedrooms. Let their god sort it out if he/she has issues with it.

There is the Truth on one hand and then there is the cruel and necessary business, tyranny, and promescuity that is a deception on the other. In the end, a soldier dies not for God, for liberty, or for a woman, but he gives his life for the American cheeseburger (happiness).

 

[TheEvilDetector]

I dunno, I'm not religious.. I'm pretty superstitious I suppose. I don't see how either of those things are linked to tyranny.

I think religious beliefs and superstition have a lot in common.

The share common elements.

Tyranny to me is just one individual or group oppressing another individual or group using force.

Tyranny can come from all sorts of individuals or groups whether religious or not.

I know that the generally accepted definition of tyranny involves some kind of government authority.

However tyranny could exist in a pure anarchy as well or inside a family home or just about anywhere else for that matter.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Are you fucking serious? Do you, by any chance, know how totally FUCKED UP your statement is? What the fuck is wrong with letting people LIVE THEIR LIVES as they see fit as long as they do not commit aggression against others? Why is it you feel you have to control other people? If, by some bizarre chance, God punishes homosexuality with eternal damnation, that's up to HIM to decide (and I would just as soon spit in the eye of a douchebag Supreme Being that did such a thing).

Jesus did say that one could offend the Son of man, including spitting in his eye, I suppose, and he or she would be forgiven, but that it would not be forgivable to offend the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit included Christ and the ignored multitudes around Him begging for salvation.
When Jesus healed the blind, He took that part of Himself which is the most offensive to a person, this being His spit, and mixed it with soul. He then covered the eyes of the blind so that they could see.
The paradox here is how Jesus ultimately performed only one miracle that had never been performed before in history with this including the raising from the dead. In contrast, Jesus was the only one to heal the blind. So, apparently life to the Almighty is more than just breathing but is "seeing" God.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

Jesus did say that one could offend the Son of man, including spitting in his eye, I suppose, and he or she would be forgiven, but that it would not be forgivable to offend the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit included Christ and the ignored multitudes around Him begging for salvation.
When Jesus healed the blind, He took that part of Himself which is the most offensive to a person, this being His spit, and mixed it with soul. He then covered the eyes of the blind so that they could see.
The paradox here is how Jesus ultimately performed only one miracle that had never been performed before in history with this including the raising from the dead. In contrast, Jesus was the only one to heal the blind. So, apparently life to the Almighty is more than just breathing but is "seeing" God.

If the whole Jesus thing was hypothetically all made up and it was hypothetically revealed somehow (beyond any shadow of a doubt) that this was the case,

would believers then get angry to the nth degree for being misled?

If on the other hand it is impossible to prove one way or another about whether the Jesus story is true or not (so the truthfulness of the story is simply assumed without evidence),
then would it have been possible back in time for someone to create a different story (say in this case the creature is called Secondsus) and have multitudes believe in it?

What does it take to have millions believe in a story (filled with miracles no less) without evidence?

Is having a book, buildings and some organised rituals enough?

I theorise that in the past, when people's understanding of the physical world around them was limited due primitive or non-existent scientific understandings and where superstition filled the gap, it
was not altogether difficult to recruit subscribers to a mythical belief system to help them make sense of the world around them. System that would over time grow and become self-sustaining.

During the establishment of this organisation and during its ascendancy non subscribers could not offer any substantial criticisms against the foundational assumptions because they had no material to do this,
and once the organisation reached a certain critical mass, it becomes self-sustaining and no criticism of the foundational assumptions however valid is to be admitted.

Also, I think back in those times, where respect for free speech was unheard of, speaking out would be dangerous indeed (particularly when outnumbered).

At some point in time it no longer mattered that the organisation's foundational assumptions rest on a body of solid supporting evidence but that it simply continues to exist.

However, it makes logical sense why any organisation whose core product is a belief in an imaginary being would not have the slightest interest in inquiries relating to the foundational assumptions (and evidence against thereof).

Seriously entertaining such queries would immeasurably hurt the product sales process.

 

[dannno]

Jesus did say that one could offend the Son of man, including spitting in his eye, I suppose, and he or she would be forgiven, but that it would not be forgivable to offend the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit included Christ and the ignored multitudes around Him begging for salvation.
When Jesus healed the blind, He took that part of Himself which is the most offensive to a person, this being His spit, and mixed it with soul. He then covered the eyes of the blind so that they could see.
The paradox here is how Jesus ultimately performed only one miracle that had never been performed before in history with this including the raising from the dead. In contrast, Jesus was the only one to heal the blind. So, apparently life to the Almighty is more than just breathing but is "seeing" God.

I'm pretty sure there was some cannabis oil in whatever he rubbed on their eyes and those people he healed simply had glaucoma ^^

There is biblical evidence for this, and I'm sure as a scholar of the bible you are able to cite it

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I think religious beliefs and superstition have a lot in common.

The share common elements.

Tyranny to me is just one individual or group oppressing another individual or group using force.

Tyranny can come from all sorts of individuals or groups whether religious or not.

I know that the generally accepted definition of tyranny involves some kind of government authority.

However tyranny could exist in a pure anarchy as well or inside a family home or just about anywhere else for that matter.

Simply put, tyranny was/is pimping and whoring. As soon as the tyrant father died, the tyrant son, having been properly trained, took his place. The offspring of the slaves could never learn to advance themselves, or so that is what was believed. The result was long standing dynasties.
Isn't it strange how it is always someone else who is the tyrant? I know Hitler had a big problem with tyranny. Didn't he write a book about it entitled "My struggle"?

 

[SelfTaught]

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I'm pretty sure there was some cannabis oil in whatever he rubbed on their eyes and those people he healed simply had glaucoma ^^

There is biblical evidence for this, and I'm sure as a scholar of the bible you are able to cite it

Yes. Jesus told the Disciples of John the Baptist to go tell John, who was in prison, that He, the Son of man, did indeed heal the blind. Prior to this miracle, the dead had been raised while the blind had never been healed. I don't know exactly which gospel this is in. I just consider it common knowledge.

 

[TonySutton]

The paradox here is how Jesus ultimately performed only one miracle that had never been performed before in history with this including the raising from the dead. In contrast, Jesus was the only one to heal the blind. So, apparently life to the Almighty is more than just breathing but is "seeing" God.

Youtube or it didn't happen!

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

If the whole Jesus thing was hypothetically all made up and it was hypothetically revealed somehow (beyond any shadow of a doubt) that this was the case,

would believers then get angry to the nth degree for being misled?

If on the other hand it is impossible to prove one way or another about whether the Jesus story is true or not (so the truthfulness of the story is simply assumed without evidence),
then would it have been possible back in time for someone to create a different story (say in this case the creature is called Secondsus) and have multitudes believe in it?

What does it take to have millions believe in a story (filled with miracles no less) without evidence?

Is having a book, buildings and some organised rituals enough?

I theorise that in the past, when people's understanding of the physical world around them was limited due primitive or non-existent scientific understandings and where superstition filled the gap, it
was not altogether difficult to recruit subscribers to a mythical belief system to help them make sense of the world around them. System that would over time grow and become self-sustaining.

People could not offer any substantial criticisms against the foundational assumptions because they had no material to do this.

Furthermore, I think back in those times, where respect for free speech was unheard of, speaking out would be dangerous indeed.

A bit of atheism is necessary in narrowing down to the one God Christians believe in. Then again, Jesus had a lot of problems with the ungodly. I assume this means in the eyes of the Almighty, that a superstitious person believing in many gods is more worthwhile than someone who professess not to believe in any (the ungodly).

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Youtube or it didn't happen!

Okay. Let me look it up. Just a second. Mathew 11: 4-5

Coutesy of this webcite: http://keyboardsforchrist.com/Jesus 4.html
After John the Baptist was put in prison, he sent some of his disciples to Jesus to find out whether Jesus was really the Messiah. The reason John did this was that Jesus' ministry differed so much from his own. Even though the message that Jesus started to preach , "Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand," (Matt 3:2 and 4:17) was the same as that of John the Baptist, what Jesus DID was different from John. Jesus sums up his own ministry in his answer to John

Matt 11:4-5

Jesus replied, "Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.

The significance here being no one ever in the Old Testament had ever healed the blind with the paradox being that the dead had been raised.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

A bit of atheism is necessary in narrowing down to the one God Christians believe in. Then again, Jesus had a lot of problems with the ungodly. I assume this means in the eyes of the Almighty, that a superstitious person believing in many gods is more worthwhile than someone who professess not to believe in any (the ungodly).

I am proudly ungodly then.

I actually do not believe that Jesus did anything people say he did as far his magic activity is concerned, nor do I believe in imaginary friends.

But at the end of the day, Jesus can have his opinion and I can have mine and to me that liberty is worth more than unicorns and fairies in heaven.

PS. I remember when I was around 7 or 8 I believed without reservation in the existence of Santa Claus and just like the religious I would
ignore any suggestions that Santa was simply not real. One day however, I noticed Santa being given money for a present that was to be given to me.
That's when I realised that my fairytale had to come to an end.

It was my belief that no self-respecting giver of presents to children riding around the world in the sky with reindeer and climbing through chimneys could
possibly be an ordinary toy salesman.

 

[dannno]

Yes. Jesus told the Disciples of John the Baptist to go tell John, who was in prison, that He, the Son of man, did indeed heal the blind. Prior to this miracle, the dead had been raised while the blind had never been healed. I don't know exactly which gospel this is in. I just consider it common knowledge.

No, cannabis oil was used in the healings, re-read my post.

Now many Christians believe they have the authority to use government to tell people what they can or cannot put into their bodies..including the substance that Jesus used to heal people.. Doesn't matter whether it's a plant, food or someone else's genitals..etc..

The point is I hate that man thinks they can enforce the morality that they find in the Bible, rather than just letting God enforce it. Let man enforce what he knows: himself, property, etc..

 

[dannno]

God didn't send us into the world so we could all live under a tyrannical state that told us who we could have sexual activity with, what we can put in our bodies, etc... He sent us here to make those decisions on our own.

The reason why I think the Mormon religion is so important is that it preaches about the pre-existence, when we were born in the spirit world and how Satan's plan was to force everybody to be good so that all spirits could come back to heaven. Jesus' plan was to give everybody free will to decide for themselves how they wanted to live their lives. Satan lost and then waged war for power over the world. He lost and that is why he was sent to hell.


***Official LDS/Mormon Doctrine ends here***

Now Satan controls the world through the control of governments. That is why the Illuminati worship Satan.

Some believe (as I have read on this site) that the final temptation for Jesus was to rule governments so that they wouldn't wage wars and cause death and destruction, for Satan had this authority as he could not give it away if he did not already have it. Jesus knew that he needed to follow through with his plan so that man would be able to redeem themselves and thus Jesus forfeited the power unto Satan.