[blue storm 1337]

My friends, allow me to draw to your attention the idiocy of southerners with an amusing personal anecdote. I have visited the south a few times, I never much cared for it. But on my most recent trip, I went to my friend's Episcopal church for a sunday morning service. The lay reader, or whatever it's called, gave a little talk about how their church should break away from the Church of England, because of the gay issue. That was a bit strange, but what struck me was that he condemned the Archbishop of Canterbury of being openly gay! He went on to say that somebody who flaunts his homosexuality in such a way as Dr Williams should not be fit to preside over the church. Yes, that is what he said. Afterwards, when all of the people shuffled into some room to eat donuts and drink sprite, people were all chatty, and I overheard people expressing their outrage towards the morally bankrupt, homosexual libertine Rowan Williams.

It's amazing how, in the south, some guy can get up in front of a church and make up some ridiculous lie about how the archbishop is gay, and then the rest of the laity will believe it. All they have to do is say the word "gay" and the churchgoers are freaking out like a bunch of caged baboons that have just seen a snake. Unbelievable.

[Zimphire]

OMG, you mean someone in a CHURCH said a preacher that was practicing things against what the Book he is supposed to be teaches teaches, and does it openly, is being reprimanded?

WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO !?!?!??!?!?


OOOHZ NOOOZ!~!!

[von Wrangell]

Uh, got something that proves that he's a homosexual?

[Randman]

Why not get your panties in a bunch over the Scottish soccer fans who booed during the moment's silence for the pope over the weekend?

Stupidity, lack of tact and religious fervour know no geographic boundaries.

And for you to criticise "southerners" over such an act is akin to a kettle calling a pot black, isn't it?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
Uh, got something that proves that he's a homosexual?

It says he is openly gay?

Originally posted by Randman:
And for you to criticise "southerners" over such an act is akin to a kettle calling a pot black, isn't it?

Yes, but I doubt he realized it.

This is just more leftist "We are more smart than you all" silliness.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by Randman:
Why not get your panties in a bunch over the Scottish soccer fans who booed during the moment's silence for the pope over the weekend?

Not very respectful I agree.

But let me guess. Were Celtic or Rangers(can't remember which one) involved in the game?

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It says he is openly gay?

It meaning?

[Randman]

Fans at soccer game in Scotland jeer pope
GLASGOW, Scotland (AP) — Fans at a Scottish Cup soccer game jeered during a minute's silence for Pope John Paul II on Sunday, forcing the tribute to be cut short.

The booing by Hearts fans came before the semifinal against Celtic, which has mostly Catholic fans. Referee Stuart Dougal ended the memorial less than halfway through because of the noise. The game was televised in Britain and overseas.

Hearts chief executive Phil Anderton criticized the fans' conduct and apologized to Celtic and the Scottish Football Association.

"It is disturbing that some Hearts fans failed to see the significance of this occasion," he said. "There is no room for that sort of behavior in the game."

Hearts had appealed to fans on Friday to respect the minute's silence for the pope, who died April 2. The tribute also was disrupted during Saturday's semifinal, when Dundee United beat Hibernian 2-1.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It says he is openly gay?

What is "it"? I'd never heard anything claiming that the Archbishop of Canterbury was gay until I saw this article. In fact, last I checked he wasn't exactly pleased over the Americans appointing a gay bishop.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
This is just more leftist "We are more smart than you all" silliness.

A leftist would say enlightened, not "smart". To say "smart" would imply that you were stupid, which would inevitably offend you because that is the natural way of thinking about things.

Nevertheless, you have a point. For all their claims to be tolerant of other viewpoints, it only extends so far as these viewpoints are "enlightened", which seems to be defined as "not contradicting our epistemology or values".

[blue storm 1337]

OF course he's not gay, didn't you RTFA? Well it isn't really an article, since I wrote it, but read below, where I say:

It's amazing how, in the south, some guy can get up in front of a church and make up some ridiculous lie about how the archbishop is gay, and then the rest of the laity will believe it.

The Archbishop of C-bury is not gay!

[blue storm 1337]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
OMG, you mean someone in a CHURCH said a preacher that was practicing things against what the Book he is supposed to be teaches teaches, and does it openly, is being reprimanded?

Zimphire you crazy fool, the Archbishop of Canterbury is NOT gay, the point of this story is that southern protestants are so stupid that they will believe any lie you tell them. You would think that Episcopalians would know that the leader of THEIR church is not gay, and in fact he's married with kids.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
OMG, you mean someone in a CHURCH said a preacher that was practicing things against what the Book he is supposed to be teaches teaches, and does it openly, is being reprimanded?

WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO !?!?!??!?!?


OOOHZ NOOOZ!~!!

Oooh, sounds like a knee-jerk response to a supposed knee-jerk response from someone else.

The whole point of his tirade--and, regardless of the veracity of the post, it is just that, a tirade--is to criticize people who instinctively respond to anything they find offensive with reprobation and disgust WITHOUT determining for themselves whether said criticism is in fact true. What the original poster is criticizing is the herd mentality of individuals who can't, or won't, think for themselves.

I mean, come on, they should know whether or not the First Among Equals of their religious order is homosexual. Was no one paying attention when he was selected a few years back and there were interviews with him showing pictures of him with his family? If not, shame on them for being uninformed. Don't you think his homosexuality would have come up during the controversy over Gene Robinson?

What we have here is appropriate and deserved criticism of a group of people who are ignorant of the larger religious sphere in which they travel and acted on that ignorance to their own disadvantage.

What we also have here is an in-appropriate and un-deserved indictment of all southerners based on the actions of a few specific individuals. Remember, the specific doesn't extrapolate to the general in a logical argument.

[Randman]

How do you know he's not gay? Lots of gay men are married to women and have children.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by Randman:
How do you know he's not gay? Lots of gay men are married to women and have children.

FFS. Before you start accusing a married man with children of being a homosexual it would be a minimum requirement to prove at least some shred of evidence.

[Randman]

Who's accusing?

I'm just asking a "straight" question. Do you know from him personally that he's not gay? Or do you take it at face value that he because he's an archbishop and is married to a chick and has kids?

[von Wrangell]

Been reading Karl Rove's memos again?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Who would have ever guessed that Zimph would be the first to reply to either a Church or gay thread

At any rate, when have any Church or anyone in the south ever been logical?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Millennium:
What is "it"? I'd never heard anything claiming that the Archbishop of Canterbury was gay until I saw this article. In fact, last I checked he wasn't exactly pleased over the Americans appointing a gay bishop.

Meaning the article.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by blue storm 1337:
Zimphire you crazy fool, the Archbishop of Canterbury is NOT gay, the point of this story is that southern protestants are so stupid that they will believe any lie you tell them. You would think that Episcopalians would know that the leader of THEIR church is not gay, and in fact he's married with kids.

Hey I had no prior knowledge about it either way. So that would hardly make me a fool you silly goose.


And stop being a bigot.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Who would have ever guessed that Zimph would be the first to reply to either a Church or gay thread

Maybe because I had JUST logged in when he posted that?

Fanboy

At any rate, when have any Church or anyone in the south ever been logical?

Ahhh the hypocricy.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Meaning the article.

Do you realise you basically proved(or at least supported) the original posters point?

[von Wrangell]

Just one question for the Christians on here.

Should you follow everything in the Bible regarding homosexuality? Just wondering.

[blue storm 1337]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

And stop being a bigot.

I'm sorry Zimphire but I have no time to waste on gays. Every time I turn on the goddamn TV there's a gay character whining about how confused he is. The ONLY TV program that doesn't have gays running all over the place is the Apprentice, but that has Donald Trump in it so I'd rather just get raped by a giraffe than watch him talk.

As if that's not bad enough, too many girls are visiting gay nightclubs now, so girls have all sorts of unrealistic expectations for their boyfriends. "Gay people know how to dance, gay people get brush their teeth, gay people kiss other boys, bla bla bla". It's time to put a stop to it! To wipe out the gay gene, I propose a radical homophobic plan that would essentially allow gay people to marry each other and then have them adopt other peoples' children. (/sarcasm)

[Randman]

Originally posted by blue storm 1337:
I'm sorry Zimphire but I have no time to waste on gays. Every time I turn on the goddamn TV there's a gay character whining about how confused he is. The ONLY TV program that doesn't have gays running all over the place is the Apprentice, but that has Donald Trump in it so I'd rather just get raped by a giraffe than watch him talk.

As if that's not bad enough, too many girls are visiting gay nightclubs now, so girls have all sorts of unrealistic expectations for their boyfriends. "Gay people know how to dance, gay people get brush their teeth, gay people kiss other boys, bla bla bla". It's time to put a stop to it! To wipe out the gay gene, I propose a radical homophobic plan that would essentially allow gay people to marry each other and then have them adopt other peoples' children.

Is this Ca$h?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:


Do you realise you basically proved(or at least supported) the original posters point?

The point wasn't against me. I was asked if it was said he was gay. And I said IT did say.

I never claimed it was factual.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
Just one question for the Christians on here.

Should you follow everything in the Bible regarding homosexuality? Just wondering.

Should we pick and choose only the things we think are cool, and throw the rest out?

It's not a popularity contest.

[budster101]

hmmm.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by blue storm 1337:
I'm sorry Zimphire but I have no time to waste on gays. Every time I turn on the goddamn TV there's a gay character whining about how confused he is. The ONLY TV program that doesn't have gays running all over the place is the Apprentice, but that has Donald Trump in it so I'd rather just get raped by a giraffe than watch him talk.

As if that's not bad enough, too many girls are visiting gay nightclubs now, so girls have all sorts of unrealistic expectations for their boyfriends. "Gay people know how to dance, gay people get brush their teeth, gay people kiss other boys, bla bla bla". It's time to put a stop to it! To wipe out the gay gene, I propose a radical homophobic plan that would essentially allow gay people to marry each other and then have them adopt other peoples' children. (/sarcasm)

OK that was funny

[blue storm 1337]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And I said IT did say.

I never claimed it was factual.

You're starting to sound like your old buddy,


That depends on the definition of "IT"

[budster101]

Originally posted by blue storm 1337:
Zimphire you crazy fool, the Archbishop of Canterbury is NOT gay, the point of this story is that southern protestants are so stupid that they will believe any lie you tell them. You would think that Episcopalians would know that the leader of THEIR church is not gay, and in fact he's married with kids.

You do realize that married men with children actually are gay in some cases don't you? They realize they have been living a lie, and then come out of the closet.

Your logic is based on a false premise and your insulting attitude in every post you seem to confirm your initial reasoning for creating this thread is to argue and insult people's responses to it. I think you are just trolling.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Should we pick and choose only the things we think are cool, and throw the rest out?

It's not a popularity contest.

So you think homosexuals should be killed?

Lev 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

[budster101]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
So you think homosexuals should be killed?

Lev 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Like, murder is, like a crime, man. Duh.

"Thou Shall not Kill", etc. etc. etc.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
So you think homosexuals should be killed?

Lev 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Their blood is upon them, meaning they have killed themselves. No need for anybody else to do it; they bring about their own destruction in due time.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Their blood is upon them, meaning they have killed themselves. No need for anybody else to do it; they bring about their own destruction in due time.

they shall be put to death

I thought this said that they should be put to death and the part you focus on means that they brought that on to themselves.

[deomacius]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
At any rate, when have any herd minded people or anyone on the entire planet ever been completely logical?

FIXED. Now THAT seems more accurate.

(edited spelling)

[BoomStick]

Originally posted by blue storm 1337:
idiocy of southerners .....I have visited the south a few times, I never much cared for it.......It's amazing how, in the south,

Just replace southerner with stupidass yankee and you'd be spot on.


Here just for you...click me

[Macrobat]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
they shall be put to death

I thought this said that they should be put to death and the part you focus on means that they brought that on to themselves.

However, it does not say "you shall put them to death."

Judging the entire South from the expereince at one church is ridiculous. However, earlier in your post you had already established your complete bigotry toward the South before you had even attended the church.

It's arrogant, elitist attitudes such as yours that contribute to the division of the country.

Funny thing is, you can't see that you are even worse than the churchgoers you are attempting to castigate. They are only guilty of disparaging one man, you are guilty of disparaging millions.

[budster101]

Originally quoted by deomacius

Quote:
Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
At any rate, when have any herd minded people or anyone on the entire plane ever been completely logical?


FIXED. Now THAT seems more accurate.

Does your fixination apply to a herd of atheistic homosexuals?

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by Macrobat:
However, it does not say "you shall put them to death."

Judging the entire South from the expereince at one church is ridiculous. However, earlier in your post you had already established your complete bigotry toward the South before you had even attended the church.

It's arrogant, elitist attitudes such as yours that contribute to the division of the country.

Funny thing is, you can't see that you are even worse than the churchgoers you are attempting to castigate. They are only guilty of disparaging one man, you are guilty of disparaging millions.

Was that post directed at me(the first line was but I'm not so sure about the rest)?

[deomacius]

Originally posted by budster101:
Does your fixination apply to a herd of atheistic homosexuals?

I'm not sure where that came from (especially since I wasn't attempting to attack anyone). The fact is that NOBODY is 100% logical we are all prone to illogical ideas and feelings. That's kind of what makes us human.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally posted by Randman:
Is this Ca$h?

Doesn't sound anything like him to me.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Oooh, sounds like a knee-jerk response to a supposed knee-jerk response from someone else.

The whole point of his tirade--and, regardless of the veracity of the post, it is just that, a tirade--is to criticize people who instinctively respond to anything they find offensive with reprobation and disgust WITHOUT determining for themselves whether said criticism is in fact true. What the original poster is criticizing is the herd mentality of individuals who can't, or won't, think for themselves.

I mean, come on, they should know whether or not the First Among Equals of their religious order is homosexual. Was no one paying attention when he was selected a few years back and there were interviews with him showing pictures of him with his family? If not, shame on them for being uninformed. Don't you think his homosexuality would have come up during the controversy over Gene Robinson?

What we have here is appropriate and deserved criticism of a group of people who are ignorant of the larger religious sphere in which they travel and acted on that ignorance to their own disadvantage.

What we also have here is an in-appropriate and un-deserved indictment of all southerners based on the actions of a few specific individuals. Remember, the specific doesn't extrapolate to the general in a logical argument.

Does anyone feel like debating the merits, and criticisms, of the original post or do you want to just keep on flaming one another?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
they shall be put to death

I thought this said that they should be put to death and the part you focus on means that they brought that on to themselves.

Shall, not must (or shalt, which is actually an older form of must). In a book full of commandments with wording such as I described, this one sticks out. It is not the only such worded phrase, but it is one of a only a small number. Are we to believe that it was worded differently for no reason at all, or are we instead to look at it and think more closely?

Most fundamentalists, for all their literalism, don't bother reading closely enough to do a truly literal interpretation at all; they do the barest skimming and base everything on that. This is as true of their opponents, however, as it is of them.

[Randman]

Christians should follow the New Testament over the Old Testament if there's a conflict, right? And Jesus said love thy neighbor. And the 10 Commandments (which are the most important part of the OT say Thou Shall Not Kill. Nothing about sexuality.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by blue storm 1337:
You're starting to sound like your old buddy,

That depends on the definition of "IT"

Not even close.

Man that was weak.

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
So you think homosexuals should be killed?

Lev 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

I said we should take the Bible as a whole of it's parts. That is also within context.

But you knew that right?

Stop trolling. It's been explained time and time again what that means.

Originally posted by Macrobat:

It's arrogant, elitist attitudes such as yours that contribute to the division of the country.

It's also what lost the Democrats the election. Well that and Kerry just plain out sucking.

Originally posted by Randman:
Christians should follow the New Testament over the Old Testament if there's a conflict, right? And Jesus said love thy neighbor. And the 10 Commandments (which are the most important part of the OT say Thou Shall Not Kill. Nothing about sexuality.

Certain things were replaced, certain ones were not. Jesus said he didn't come to replace God's spiritual laws or commandments. Just the outcome of such doings.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Shall, not must (or shalt, which is actually an older form of must). In a book full of commandments with wording such as I described, this one sticks out. It is not the only such worded phrase, but it is one of a only a small number. Are we to believe that it was worded differently for no reason at all, or are we instead to look at it and think more closely?

Most fundamentalists, for all their literalism, don't bother reading closely enough to do a truly literal interpretation at all; they do the barest skimming and base everything on that. This is as true of their opponents, however, as it is of them.

I mostly agree with what you say here so lets say your version is the correct one.

Does this mean that God will kill homosexuals? If so, do Christian support God killing homosexuals for no other reason than that they are homosexuals?

Or does it mean that their lifestyle means that they will die? What especially kills homosexuals that doesn't kill heterosexuals? What is it that differentiates their death from those who are heterosexual? Because if there is no difference between them(something special for homosexuals that doesn't affect heterosexuals) doesn't that mean that the Bible is wrong?

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I said we should take the Bible as a whole of it's parts. That is also within context.

But you knew that right?

Stop trolling. It's been explained time and time again what that means.

Context you say. Well to keep the context I'll post the whole chapter.

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

Leviticus 20


Punishments for Sin
___1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives [a] any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. 3 I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. 4 If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, 5 I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech.

___ 6 " 'I will set my face against the person who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute himself by following them, and I will cut him off from his people.

___ 7 " 'Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the LORD your God. 8 Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the LORD , who makes you holy. [b]

___ 9 " 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

___ 10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

___ 11 " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

___ 12 " 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

___ 13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

___ 14 " 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.

___ 15 " 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

___ 16 " 'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

___ 17 " 'If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.

___ 18 " 'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.

___ 19 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.

___ 20 " 'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.

___ 21 " 'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.

___ 22 " 'Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. 23 You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. 24 But I said to you, "You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am the LORD your God, who has set you apart from the nations.

___ 25 " 'You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground-those which I have set apart as unclean for you. 26 You are to be holy to me [c] because I, the LORD , am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

___ 27 " 'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.' "

So does all this still apply?

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
So you think homosexuals should be killed?

Lev 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

and why are you pointing to the OT and asking a Christian a question? You are smart enough to realize the basis of their faith is in the NT? Right?

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
and why are you pointing to the OT and asking a Christian a question? You are smart enough to realize the basis of their faith is in the NT? Right?

Of course. It just seems that some Christian "sects" put a bit too much faith in the OT instead of the NT. For instance when it comes to homosexuals. Their message towards homosexuals is IMO a bit too much against the spirit of Jesus and the message he brought.