Christian Bumper Stickers

ok i'll give you the benefit of the doubt but you did say "This is a threat to our children". I don't really know how I can misintepret that.

I also didn't appreciate you trying to rationalize gay pedophilia vs. straight pedophilia. Both are equally horrible and unjustifiable.

 

A collection of books with short summaries on the bible and homosexuality:

 

India faced a great deal of violence at the hand of England. In a well documented case, almost 2000 Indians were killled after being mowed down by the military. Many more were injured. Gandhi overcame this. Then there was Muslim/Hindu civil war after independence. This was very violent...ready to break out at any time. Gandhi stopped this.

In fact, he even answered the Hitler question (of course a cipher such as Prager would not know this). He was fully confident that, while many lives would be lost, his way would prvail. Of course many lives were lost, anyway. He gave more detail, but I am trying to be succinct.

Actually, it might have been easier (I use this loosely) with the Hitler model because he wanted to invade everyone This only increases the number of civilians for civil disobedience. Hitler's army would have had to take over a great deal (military and infrastructure) if all citizens worked to shut down their countries.

Let's face it, from the beginning much if not all of homosexual behavior had to be predatory because there was no community of such people to get involved with. How else would a gay man or woman in the 16th century satisfy their longing? This is a threat to our children.

Hee hee. I guess Greece and Rome do not count? What we call homosexuality was simply a way of life -- it was a part of natural living. Most was male-male, but you also have Sappho writing about lesbianism.

In the Middle Ages, homosexuality was still there. It was only in the thirteenth century that condemnation of homosexual activity became a major theme. With this Jews, lepers, heretics and homosexuals were treated equally and burnings began when the secular lawmakers took up the ecclesiastical themes.

However, there were many homosexual type "clusters" of acceptance throughout. From writings of the time, old Norse society seems to have been one where it was acceptable for most men to express homoerotic desire, especially with slaves. In Spain, Jews used an Arabic (who had their own, more graphic homoerotic writings) form of poetry to express their desires...things such as talking of a man's lovely eyes, hair, and having been "slain like Uriah by someone. There are numerous references to homosexual activity in literature in twelfth-century Christian France as well. Additionally, early medieval Irish confessors, as reflected in their penitentials, were not worried by acts of homosexuality and made no great distinction between active and passive activity (sometimes, it was allright if the man was active...really bad if passive). They do distinguish between men and boys and talk about sexual acts that are mutual, though. Of course, the largest pre-1500 examples we have of a homosexual subculture is in renaissance Italy.

Even our concept of beauty comes from a homosexual stance. What was ideal beauty in Greece (and then perpetuated by Winkelmann in the early 18th century) was the hairless boy/youth. Even today, "ideal" women can be described as boys with breasts, as far as body structure goes. That is why there can now be a whole "queer theory" movement in regard to literature and art.

There is so much more to this but I am already wasting my time...too much typing! There were plenty of outlets throughout history. Indeed, there are underlying homosexual tendencies woven into the very fabric of society throughout history. Seems homosexuals have had more to fear, anyway. Burning? Concentration camps? Modern lynching?

Damn, outlaw, why would you choose such a life?

 

What a crazy, funny thread. Where was I? heh.

I really think the direction (if there is a direction) of this particular thread is pointless. No amount of words will force someone to change their minds if they choose not to believe you.

That's the beauty of being human, the ability to make choices in life. If I could force you to believe something you don't want to, it wouldn't be a choice anymore.

Choices breed freedom. Freedom breeds peace. Peace breeds enlightenment.

So the secret is making the right choices to start the chain effect.
(obviously there are wrong choices) Do your choices make you free? Free from what? Is it at the expense of something else?
Is it worth it?

Let's take the step toward peace and choose to end this thread. No winners or losers, just brothers (and sisters?). (Human , Rocket fanatics, right?)

Kumbayah my Lord, Kumbayah! (j/k)

(Note to Christian contributors to this thread - Arguments without biblical basis have no merit. Your ideals cannot be justified unless your life is accountable to those you are debating with. That is very hard over the internet. Your intentions may be good, but you may have the opposite effect without "spiritual" support. Your goal is spiritual after all, not self-glorification.)

 

To me an interesting historical tidbit:

Venice (around 1400 if I recall) was a thriving shipping and naval state, and full of sailors with dull days home from the seas. The Venetian's (who had a mayor/lord with strong ties w/the clergy) repealed a law that had made prostitution illegal AND mandated that women prostitutes must appear bare-breasted in small windows to attract men. WHY would they pass such a law? If there was 1 thing less threatening to the mayor/clergy than prostitution, it was they plague of men having "relations" with other men that was going on. I guess they were hoping to sway much of the public. A clergy-lead drive to legalize prostitution and sponsor bare-breasts flying all over the place, go figure. Also worth noting, at this time the penalty for sodomy in Venice was death.

Personally, I find the best METHOD of proselytizing is by Mormon missionaries. I am not Mormon nor will be one, but have cordial and interesting talks with them. If many other fundamentalist Protestant proselytizers approached their faith the same way there would be a whole lot less negative reactions to them.

I agree it is odd you don't see much fundamentalist Protestant proselytizing directed at used car dealerships or directed at many of our society institutions built on greed, materialism and exploiting others. If I were a fundamentalist Christian I would take on those far more profound and far-reaching institutions--ones that impact myself and more of my friends and family members every day--than a few gay bars, distateful art exhibits, or abortion clinics sprinkled in a few large urban cities. I may not agree with the Pope on a lot of issues, but I respect him insomuch as he seems to diligently try to be consistent on his societal critiques.

 

RichRocket,

Being a homosexual and being a pedophile are two different things. A heterosexual can (and is statistically more likely to) be a pedophile, just as a homosexual can (but is statistically less likely to) be a pedophile

Why would pedophilia for homosexuals be any different for pedophilia for heterosexuals? Is rape among homosexuals different than heterosexual rape?

I understand what you're trying to say about the origins of homosexuality being "predatory", but I think you're wrong. Is today's or any time's version of heterosexuality any less "predatory" than how you're trying to imagine homosexuality began?

Well, Hitler was a sinner and I am a sinner, so are you, so is everyone. The difference (in God's eyes) is that I'm a Christian, and Hitler most likely wasn't.

What you're trying to get at with "levels" or "degrees" of sin is how they affect society, i.e. murder versus a dirty thought. But, that is an Earthly concern, not a spiritual one. Besides, like I already said, "sin doesn't keep you out of Heaven, only a lack of a relationship with Jesus, does".

-----------------
mr_gootan,

What if you choose not to be peaceful nor enlightened?

I'm not sure I understand this statement.....

 

Over a long enough time-frame the odds of survival of any given civilization are reduced to zero.

Greece and Rome both held positions of hegemony for longer than America shall, in all likliehood.

 

Ancient Greece lasted from 1200 B.C. to 322 B.C.
Ancient Rome lasted from 509 B.C. to 27 B.C.

America has only been around 225 years. If we survive as long as either one, we'd be fortunate.

If you want to believe acceptance of homosexuality contributed to their demise and the possibility of ours, then go ahead but don't pretend that civilizations are supposed to last forever.

 

where's the evidence that God favors or disfavors nations based on their societies' sins?

the U.S. slave trade was pretty sinful, yet we became the prosperous and powerful nation that we are today.

In many Third World ****hole nations like Afghanistan, homosexuality is forbidden and punishable by death.

So does God really care about the collective morality of a country or just that of individuals?

 

Rich,

In my post, I (albeit briefly) traced homosexual trends throughout the history of all western civilization (did not even get into eastern).

Also, your conclusions about Greece and Rome are off...there was a great deal of innovation and change. Most of it was philisophical/religious/political/physics/astronomy...followed by technological. Our modern history has been more about technological. Keep in mind that with the burning of the great librairies, thousands of years of learning were lost. Who invented monotheism? Who invented the republic? Aesthetics, democracy, theater, countless arhcitectural devices, war machinery, sewage, roads systems, etc, etc...

Who discovered the earth was round? Indeed, even though the medieval Christians new it was round (from the Romans) they had a distorted concept of it which the Greeks and Romans did not.

This, of course, doesn't even include Egypt (which also had known homosexual behavioral outlets).

Are you saying that specific documents from periods all throughout history that deal with homosexuality in religious and civic contexts are not good enough...are too "academic" (I love how that is a bad word)? Since you keep bringing up the 16th century...did you know that there were, included in arrest records of prostitution in general, arrests for male prostitutes for other men?

In regards to children...I think you are confusing the modern concept with how it really was. Not until recently did we get our modern concept of "children." Before that, they were literally just seen as little adults. It wasn't until the 17th century that ideas of family even started to emerge. This, not coincidentally was when the middle class started exppanding as well. From there, it took some time for concepts of nurturing, caring for, loving, etc. became common. Therefore, these relationships would not be predatory. This was not something where adult males couldn't get anyone their own age...it often was just that the yonger boys were often the prostitutes (the poor), apprentices, etc...so they were around, were established and, with apprentices, were needed to be taught how to love. Also, there was no issue with "receiving" for youths. If the Church had not established that doctrine with adult males, it would have been different...probably closer t the ancient civilizations where men would be with men and boys.

Keep in mind that heterosexuals were pretty oppressed sexually in the M.A. as well. There are all sorts of documents describing the sin of any sex that was not procreative and missionary-position only. Yes, there are even references to the sin of "doggy style" (in this sense I mean positionally only, not anally,...although that was bad - and heavily practiced - too).

Egypt, Greece, and Rome lasted a very long time. Their demises can mostly be seen as over-expansion, anyway. Christian history has lasted a long time. Homosexuality has existed and been accepted on various levels in all cases. Note that the Norse homosexuality "included" slaves...but was not restricted. Again, it was because of Church doctrine, etc.

In regards to Prager/Gandhi. Prager is a cipher (I should have been more clear because I mean "intellectual cipher") because I am very familiar with hi and find him to be another talking head media w**** idiot (hehe, descritive overload). Getting information/support/teaching from him is as impressive as getting it from Rush, Maher, Leno, Howie Long, etc. They are cheap entertainment and nothing else. Our culture depends on them too much for their current events, politics, etc. I would doubt if Orager has read enough about Gandhi to know what he said about Hitler...it is buried in a very vast expanse of literature on the man. Anyway, his comment, "What would..." implies no knowledge. If did know, why would it be so rhetorical sounding?

Anyway, the 2000 at once was just an example (the only time that many Americans were killed at once, for no reason and in such a short time was Sep 11, by the way)...there were many more incidents. Adittionally, there was an established (for very long time) mindset about Indians being lesser, etc. To the point where many Indians agreed. Hitler's Jew craze was new. Besides, Gandhi's way would have included all of the population refusing cooperation with allowing Jews to be taken away. Anyway, this was a side issue..my point was he did address it and outline a strategy. That is all. Well, I guess that he also was going against horrible odds. He would have been killed except for fear of the ramifications/symbolism of that action.

 

Well, what's great is that people can hold fundamentally different points of view in this country and for the most part, manage to live together without problems.

This is why I think those who favor massive government intervention should rethink their positiion....the more that government is intertwined in your life, the easier it is for others to impose their values on you.

The law is force. The law is great when it protects our rights to live as we see fit so long as we do not infringe on the rights of others to do so.

But...when the law goes beyond that and seeks to 'improve' our lives, then that is when problems arise.

Personal freedom cannot be separated from economic freedom.

If two (or more) individuals want to engage in whatever behavior they want to, go right ahead so long as I am not required to support it, or recognize it if i don't want to.

The genius of American civilization lies in the Constitution. Perhaps the US is the last, best, hope for mankind, or is just another empire on the way to the dustbin of history. All I know is that it is quite extraordinary for such a large and diverse nation to be relatively free of the ethnic strife and problems that plague other nations.

What this has to do with Christian bumper stickers and homosexual Vikings, I do not know, so take it for the $0.02 it is worth.

 

That's funny, it is my understanding that in America we are less tolerant and more abusive toward Gay people than most Western democracies, many of such countries also have the lower murder rates, lower crime rates, better safety nets for the poor and disabled (which would seem most Christ-like to me), more society mandated family time (another Christian value right?) and cleaner environments. We are also less tolerant than many other countries and cultures, even some that have stronger ties to Catholicism (e.g., Brazil, Philippines). Maybe its me, but I find America's willingness to sell arms to unstable warring groups, our efforts to micromanage and exploit other countries' political and economic systems, and even more so, our violence directed at one another, as far more threatening to American's well-being than a few more laws directed toward homosexual rights. I also find that in this time that while the ME is splintering in a large part due to indoctrination that peoples of a different faiths or sects than you are sub-human, the fact that our government and entertainment sources increasingly quote writings and text reflective of primarily one religion to be very disturbing. RR, isn’t it also interesting that the supposed enemy of hate--the Taliban and other extreme sects--are brutally cracking down on any semblance of women rights, gay rights, or religious freedom—many of things you seem to feel is most threatening to America. RR, based on any historical analysis or understanding of the current state of world affairs, I am a pretty sure the prescription for demise is not the prescription you think it is, it may even be close to the opposite of what you seem to hold dear.

 

I did not mean to suggest that you are against women's rights, I meant to say the Taliban was, along with them being against other rights associated with more progressive nations. From your implication that "homosexual integration" and the demise of our nation go together I assumed you were against same sex marriages and societal acceptance of gays, for instance. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant. I assume integration meant things like sanctioning same sex marriages and policies aimed at facilitating the acceptance of gay people--the primary aims of the gay rights movement as I understand it, I am not sure what other kinds of "integration" you are referring to. The US in addition to having more violence directed at gays on a local-societal level (whether you want to call it political or criminal it is violence directed at people because they are gay), has governmental policies not as accepting as for instance those in the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, France, GB, Switzerland, Germany, etc. Thus those countries have gays more integrated in their society IMO. I would think thus in your view these countries would be farther on your "slippery slope of demise", yet by many social indicators that I pointed out--including those expressing quite Christian values like more family leave and a better safety net for the poor and ill--are healthier societies.

Also Rich, I am not saying you are against religious freedom, though the Taliban clearly is. Another point I was making is that often nations are that are against gay rights are also against women’s rights and religions freedoms. I was also trying to point out though as fundamentalism in many forms is splintering the ME and create sub-groups dehumanized by other sub-groups, I am concerned about our government's and public other societal institutions' (sports, media) increasing use of quotes and references from one particular religious source. This rhetoric which may have the effect of endorsing one faith over another, as well as much of the nationalist rhetoric in our nation often guise of unbalanced patriotism, are some of the slippery slopes I am concerned about when I look around the world and break down sources of violence. Because such (nationalist, fundamentalist) rhetoric can so easily be used to justify feelings of superiority and dehumanizing other groups who look, act or worship differently--it is to me one of humanities most basic problems.

 

What about our nation's poverty? crime? greed?

If your theory were correct, then the Vatican/Italy would be the most powerful, or at least the most pleasant place to live on the planet. And, while I won't argue that there are place in Italy that might seem like heaven-on-Earth, I think that has to do more with their landscape than God making it a nice place to live.

 

Fair enough RR, we can agree to disagree about the degree this is true (boy that was wordy). Anyway, it just bugs me that the Christian Right doesn't do a full court press on increasing socially sanctioned time for the family (we have the worst family vacation situation and parental/sick leave policies of any 1st world democracy) as well as pressing for better safety nets for the poor and disabled. Based on my understanding of Jesus's life I would think those would be his first bones to pick in our wealthy society (or however that expression goes), rather than many of the political fights the CR end up picking that often mainly effect individuals own private pursuits and that far less impact and permeate throughout our society.