Religious bigot or oppressed minority?

Quote:

---

HOMOSEXUALITY is immoral and spreads disease, and civil partnerships are damaging to society, according to Britain’s most senior Muslim leader.

Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, said that same-sex relationships risked damaging the foundations of society, and scientific evidence showed that homosexuality carried high health risks.

---

here

So who's oppressing who? If you agree with Sacranie, then you're probably a homophobe bigot. If on the other hand you support Tatchell et al then you risk being arrested for (yet another) incitement to religious hatred.

Be interesting to watch the 'left' swing about wildly trying to square this circle.

:juggle2: :oops: :juggle2: :inquisitive: :laugh4:

Well on this issue, most muslims will tell you homosexuality is wrong.

I say live and let live.

This is the same man who said suicide bombing was wrong after the London bombs, except if it was directed against Israel. They gave him a knighthood. I wouldn't lend credence to anything he says and wish he would keep his medieval views to himself, yet the media give him a platform to spout his rubbish.

He is a religious fundamentalist just like any other, not in the blowing themselves up to prove a point fundamentalist, but a fundamentalist none the less.

I don't agree with him, but then again I don't normally agree with many religious chaps, he is speaking utter bigotry and hatred.

IA - the left doesn't have any problems standign against this type of hatred, probably less problems than the right.

Or maybe he's just expressing his views in a freedom of speech kind of way :idea2:

But according to some it's ok for people to say that homosexuality is ok but not ok for others to say it's not. Who are you to judge them when you criticise others for judging?

Pot and kettle :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

Or maybe he's just expressing his views in a freedom of speech kind of way :idea2:

But according to some it's ok for people to say that homosexuality is ok but not ok for others to say it's not. Who are you to judge them when you criticise others for judging?

Pot and kettle :shame:

---

I have no problem with people saying anything that they want.....

but people like this guy don´t just talk, try to limit the rights of others by ways of influencing legislation or by encoraging violent acts....

say anything you like....but when you start trying to push it on other people you´re crossing a line.

Quote:

---

IA - the left doesn't have any problems standign against this type of hatred, probably less problems than the right.

---

Is that so?

Isn't this character one of Bliars advisors on how the rest of the population should treat the Muslims?

Last time I looked Bliar was still a card carrying member of the Labour party. That by definition puts him on the left.

Funnily enough, I'm more inclined to support Tatchell on this. What the hell has it got to do with this particular 'Knight' of the Realm what anyone does in private?

Perhaps I find Sacranie and his predjudices offensive, wait!!! no I can't, I'm not allowed to in Bliars Britain, as I could be seen to be inciting religious (ha ha ha) hatred.

So let me get this clear.

Moslems are a 'special' minority group that must be protected by legislation. So are homosexuals. However if the Moslems want to decry homosexuals that's ok because they are a 'special' minority group and it's allowed because they are above the law, as they are a minority. If, however, I was to say that all puffs should have their rectums sutchered, then I would be breaking the law because I'm not in a minority (unless you count a Lancastrian residing in Yorkshire a 'special' minority :laugh4: )

Ahhh...now it all makes perfect sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

I have no problem with people saying anything that they want.....

but people like this guy don´t just talk, try to limit the rights of others by ways of influencing legislation or by encoraging violent acts....

say anything you like....but when you start trying to push it on other people you´re crossing a line.

---

Fair enough, and I agree, but it could be argued that he wasn't pushing anything as he was only replying to a question not volunteering the information.

To be fair, a homosexual life does carry a higher risk factor than a heterosexual one. Where he goes from there... he doesn't connect the logical dots very well.:book:

I heard syphilis was originally contracted from animals.

my question is how far they really are willing to go with this.

first off how do you personally feel about homosexuals, what do the masses have to say not the polititions.

personally i don't care, let em marry and adopt and live life, (just don't all homo wit me, don't need none o dat:no: ) but what do you feel in comparison to these big mouthed bigots. i'm just afraid that they could spark some terrible thing that might leed to someone getting hurt.

In reply to the title...

Both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

So who's oppressing who? If you agree with Sacranie, then you're probably a homophobe bigot. If on the other hand you support Tatchell et al then you risk being arrested for (yet another) incitement to religious hatred.

---

I don't particularly like any of the protection which is granted to any minority groups. The laws of the past half century (I think) should go as far as prohibiting employment discrimination : other discrimination was already prohibited -- violence, verbal abuse, miscellaneous discrimination (which was, I believe, outlawed in the 19th century).

I think people should be allowed to have their own sexual preferences, and others to have their own opinions about those sexual preferences. Yes, live and let live...

As a moderate leftie, I'll try to "square the circle". Whatever that means...

We have free speech, and free speech includes saying you don't like homosexuality or dissaprove of islamic fundamentalism. Wich can be done without problems until the point where the free speech of one group and the protection of another group collide, and where both have to be weighed against eachother.
If you're not only dissaproving homosexuality, but also inciting violence against gay people, you're unmistakenably out of line. But there's no thin line between merely expressing your (hateful) opinion and inciting violence. And you can ask yourself wether an imam, or in this case head of a muslim council, can be held against a sterner standard then others because of their leading position.

What to do about this specific case? I'm not sure. But I do think it should be an option to deport religious figures to their country of origin if they "cross the line".

Quote:

---

What to do about this specific case? I'm not sure. But I do think it should be an option to deport religious figures to their country of origin if they "cross the line".

---

Righto then....off back to Malawi from hence he came. One less idiot appointee of Bliars to worry about. *wonders if there's any chance of picking up a 'spare' knighthood* :no:

Quote:

---

Mr Sacranie was born in Malawi in 1951 and his family were among the many East African Asians who followed the British presence out of the continent at the end of the empire.

---

'Sir'Iqbal

:shame:

Something that strikes me as odd about this comment.

Quote:

---

Peter Tatchell, the founder of the gay rights group OutRage!, said: “It’s tragic for one minority to attack another minority.”

---

Mr Tatchell should define what a minority is? Is religion a minority and therefor a protected class? Is sexual behavior a minority and therefore a protected class? Can anyone prove beyond a reasonable doubt that homosexuality is a genetic condition someone is born with (which would provide a sound arguement for a minority classification of homosexuals), if such an arguement can be proven then it require that any law that might discriminate against sexual behavior be reviewed to insure that it does not violate an individuals rights. However at this point its really nothing but rethoric on multiple parties part.

Free Speech is a burdern when someone states that they don't believe in your opinion, and why they don't believe your in sacred cows. The counters in the article are weak in my opinion. They do not address Sir Iqbal Sacranie comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

Speaking about civil partnerships, the first of which took place in Britain last month, Sir Iqbal said: “It does not augur well in building the very foundations of society: stability, family relationships. And it is something we would certainly not in any form encourage the community to be involved in.”

Asked on the BBC Radio 4 PM programme if homosexuality was harmful to society, he replied: “Certainly it is a practice that in terms of health, in terms of the moral issues that comes along in a society, it is. It is not acceptable.

“Each of our faiths tells us that it is harmful and, I think, if you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the forms of various illnesses and diseases that are there, surely it points out that where homosexuality is practised there is a greater concern in that area.”

---

What we see is not arguements showing how he is wrong - but arguements such as the one from Mr Tatchell and this, from the same article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

Alan Duncan, the most prominent openly gay Conservative MP, said: “This is an absurd medieval view. One should separate the religious from the secular. Such general condemnation is no longer acceptable in a civilised modern world.”

---

So the view is absurd in one man's opinion - but can he prove the premise as being wrong?

But to answer the question of the thread

The answer is neither. Sir Iqbal Sacranie is speaking within the tenents of his faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Perhaps I find Sacranie and his predjudices offensive, wait!!! no I can't, I'm not allowed to in Bliars Britain, as I could be seen to be inciting religious (ha ha ha) hatred.

---

Of course you can say that you find his opinions offensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Article

His comments were condemned last night by gay rights groups and MPs from the three main political parties, who said that Sir Iqbal was swimming against the tide of public opinion.

---

These people certainly could.

I find his opinions horrible, but I do repect his freedom of speech, as long his comments don't harm anyone.

Quote:

---

IA - the left doesn't have any problems standign against this type of hatred, probably less problems than the right

---

yeah, right, that's why Peter Tatchell was elected to be Labour MP for Bermondsey, oh, wait, he wasn't, ooh, and look, it was those nice Liberals who got in on the anti gay vote just like they got in on the anti black vote in Cheltenham in 1992.

Redleg, Tatchell's comments should be seem in the light of a man who has made his entire career out of passive aggressive tactics on behalf of "minorities". He basically lives a dream in which everyone who isn't white, male and over 30 lines up to kick those who are.

Obviously its a nasty surprise to him to find out that there a bigots in the muslim community, well hello Pete, welcome to the 21st century.

(Although he can be annoying, some of the things Tatchell does can be quite amusing, like trying to arrest Mugabe for being anti gay only to get beaten up by his bodyguards. I have to say though if I was gay I would not be too happy at all the coverage he gets, since he is definitely out of the oooh, help me help me, I'm being oppressed Penelope Pitstop school of activism. )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Redleg, Tatchell's comments should be seem in the light of a man who has made his entire career out of passive aggressive tactics on behalf of "minorities". He basically lives a dream in which everyone who isn't white, male and over 30 lines up to kick those who are.

---

Oh I figured it was just a political statement. I would like to see his definition of what a minority is though.
[/QUOTE]

I wonder if this man has never commited any sin in his life? God loves us all, whether it be someone living as a homosexual or a person the proclaims and lives a realatively "moral" life. During the Holidays I went to church a lot and had many conversations with my Pasture and a good friend of mine that is Muslim. We are all sinners, whether it be a murderer or someone who might tell a little lie. Instead of attacking homosexuals for what they do, why not show them love and compassion like God intended? That's what I've rededicated myself to this Holiday because Jesus would hold the homosexual just as close to his bussom as he would hold me. God bless you all.:book:

Someone's hacked Dev Dave's account again...

Anyway, DD, that's very Christian, did your muslim friend tell you if muslims are as big on forgiveness as christians though?

(Wow, I've just asked dave a serious question on muslim ethics, how weird does this feel)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Someone's hacked Dev Dave's account again...

Anyway, DD, that's very Christian, did your muslim friend tell you if muslims are as big on forgiveness as christians though?

(Wow, I've just asked dave a serious question on muslim ethics, how weird does this feel)

---

We were discussing the similarities in our Faiths and it was a great conversation. We did not get to the specifics of Redemption, but Allah is very forgiving and is a Loving Diety. We discussed tithing and charity work as well. The thing that really touched me was the many misconceptions I had with Islam. Much like how Christians are often viewed in Old Testament terms (killing of homosexuals and slavery) and how Muslims are all evil Jihadist (which Jihad is totally warped by extremists) bent on world domination. If only people of faiths could talk like we did this holiday. It was great. So now when i hear of terrorism that the perpitrator is muslim, I try my best not to just say, "There goes the religion of piece again", now i say, "What a piece of #### that has used a noble and moral faith for his own selfish purposes."
Jesus forgives us of our sins, no matter how "small" or "big" because they are al filthy rags before his eyes. But He shed His blood to wash us for our Salvation. And that is how people of Faith, in my opinion should approach every man because they are no more or less a sinner than I am. Well except for Liberals of course!!! LOL J/K:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

We were discussing the similarities in our Faiths and it was a great conversation. We did not get to the specifics of Redemption, but Allah is very forgiving and is a Loving Diety. We discussed tithing and charity work as well. The thing that really touched me was the many misconceptions I had with Islam. Much like how Christians are often viewed in Old Testament terms (killing of homosexuals and slavery) and how Muslims are all evil Jihadist (which Jihad is totally warped by extremists) bent on world domination. If only people of faiths could talk like we did this holiday. It was great. So now when i hear of terrorism that the perpitrator is muslim, I try my best not to just say, "There goes the religion of piece again", now i say, "What a piece of #### that has used a noble and moral faith for his own selfish purposes."
Jesus forgives us of our sins, no matter how "small" or "big" because they are al filthy rags before his eyes. But He shed His blood to wash us for our Salvation. And that is how people of Faith, in my opinion should approach every man because they are no more or less a sinner than I am. Well except for Liberals of course!!! LOL J/K:laugh4:

---

:bow:

Very well said, Dave (and I think the bold part of the quote could/should be applied to many situations)

My Pastor and i had a long talk as well and he rebuked me for many of the things that I believed and showed me in Scripture of my wrongs about Muslims, homosexuals, and many other "groups" that I've railed against a lot in the past. He didn't say anything about liberals (I didn't mention them because i was afraid of more reproach), so i guess they are open game!!! :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

He didn't say anything about liberals (I didn't mention them because i was afraid of more reproach), so i guess they are open game!!! :laugh4:

---

Hehe - might get a tad boring here otherwise... :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faisal

Well on this issue, most muslims will tell you homosexuality is wrong.

I say live and let live.

---

1. Don´t forget Christians.

2. Agreed.

Quote:

---

So who's oppressing who? If you agree with Sacranie, then you're probably a homophobe bigot. If on the other hand you support Tatchell et al then you risk being arrested for (yet another) incitement to religious hatred.

Be interesting to watch the 'left' swing about wildly trying to square this circle.

---

Well, I'm definitely about as Left as you can get without getting Stalinist or some other dodgy -ist (and the serious ultra-leftists, eg. the aforementioned, have IMHO actually dropped off the slider entirely into the same mental limbo as the swastika-waving ultra-rightists - just from the opposite door, and of course neither would ever admit it), and I'll say this - Sacranie's being a reactionary, spiteful, scripture-thumping jerk who really should get on with the times. Alas, the assorted clergies of different religions seem to have a curious tendency to act as one of the refuges of the reactionary and narrow-minded (or, as one columnist described our national church's stance on the recent debate over gay family-related issues, "an open-air museum of harmful and oppressive ideas"). Personally I suspect it has something to do with the idea of having Ultimate Truths written down in the Scriptures, but anyway.

If Tatchell et all have a beef with that, splendid - there can never be enough people telling the reactionaries to stop meddling in other peoples' private lives. And anyone who has issues about criticizing a disagreeable bigot who happends to be a member of a minority is obviously missing the point - I for one firmly believe in the equal right, ability and predisposition of people regardless of age, ethnicity, gender or favourite sports team to be hateful little idiots altogether too certain their own sorry selves are an ideal everyone else should conform to. Even if said people are quite sensible most of the time.

Whatever the (apparently considerable) faults in Tatchell and the rest may be neither interests me or is very relevant. Even blind hens find seeds every now and then when it comes down to that, and if they happen to be whiny buggers at least they'd be whining about something worthwhile this time.

As a side note, I understand Blair tends to be considered to be about as Right (at least as far as about anything related to economy goes) as the nominally Left head of a nominally Left political party now can be. We had at least one here in Finland too only recently. Waittasec, he was the Prime Minister too...

It seems to me Sacranie is expressing two opinions. He believes that homosexuality is immoral, but he does not, in this interview call for it to be illegal. Surely he is entitled to that view amd to express it. He also believes that civil partnerships are damaging to society. This is a political rather than moral view, and in a democracy he is entitled to express this view. He is not oppressing anyone, just expressing opinions.

He'd have to be a pretty stupid sort of short-sighted reactionary to cry after making it illegal, you know. Doesn't make his opinion any less stuck-up and discriminatory, nevermind rather unbecoming of a man in his position, and in any case when you voice your opinion others, obviously, have every right to express their opinions about it. And draw conclusions about you...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

here

So who's oppressing who? If you agree with Sacranie, then you're probably a homophobe bigot. If on the other hand you support Tatchell et al then you risk being arrested for (yet another) incitement to religious hatred.

---

My answer to your original question: Religious bigot. Very simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Be interesting to watch the 'left' swing about wildly trying to square this circle.

:juggle2: :oops: :juggle2: :inquisitive: :laugh4:

---

I'm more interested in seeing the right try to square the circle on this one. Good God! This might just make them realize that muslim bigotry against homosexuals is no different from their own Christian bigotry toward homosexuals. But this would mean they might actually have to agree with a Muslim, who we all know are responsible for (among other things) most of the rapes in the world, all of the terrorism in the world, etc...

Egads! What's a good, God-fearing Christian to do!?!?

:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

We are all sinners, whether it be a murderer or someone who might tell a little lie. Instead of attacking homosexuals for what they do, why not show them love and compassion like God intended? That's what I've rededicated myself to this Holiday because Jesus would hold the homosexual just as close to his bussom as he would hold me. God bless you all.:book:

---

Holy crap.

I go and make an anti-Christian post and here comes a Christian talking some sense.

Dave I agree entirely with everything you said there, and if all Christians actually practiced the views you just talked about, guys like me would have nothing to attack them about because there would be no hypocricy there anymore.

Well done Dave.

(Unless you are just taking the piss out of all of us with this "Kinder, Gentler Dave" routine, in which case I would invite you to take a flying **** at a rolling donut...)

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Instead of attacking homosexuals for what they do, why not show them love and compassion like God intended? That's what I've rededicated myself to this Holiday because Jesus would hold the homosexual just as close to his bussom as he would hold me. God bless you all.:book:

---

Oh really?
Try readin some Leviticus and some St.Paul, and then tell me again how the stance of the church doctrine really is. There are liberal priests that will probably tell you otherwise, but the facts are in the "Good Book". Need I remind you that in order to be a good christian you are supposed to kill homosexuals?


BTW, mods there is evidence for this in Leviticus, so don't take it as a flame.

Here's some gems:
Leviticus 20:9
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death

Psalm 137:9
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones

There is tons more where that came from :grin:

There is tons more where that came from
Have you been visiting Pat Robertsons or Jerry Falwells sites by any chance BP ?~;)

To square the circle... to find a square with equal area of a circle.

For mockers it is considered to be an expression of attempting the impossible. This dates back to the earliest attempts at finding the solution to the problem.

For thinkers the term is considered in general to be a hard puzzle that may or may not be solvable. Much mathematical progress was made by those who tried to solve the problem of squaring the circle, and their attitudes to attempt to solve the problem sum up the best in philosophy and science.

The world has progressed due to the thinkers while the mockers still grind their teeth at change and call every new thing attempted To square the circle. To be such a mocker is to belong to the flat earth, man will never fly, space travel is impossible brigade.

It is interesting to note the people who were interested in the attempt to solve the squaring of the circle:

Ahmes
Hippocrates
Aristotle
Archimedes
al-Haytham
Leonardo
Johann Bernoulli (one of the few scientists known by his first and last name, as he belonged to such an extensive family of scholars)
Ramanujan (Interesting story behind this guy, absolutely amazing)

Hey, I've wathced a panel discussion where a Jehova's Witness came across as more tolerant about homosexuals than the representative of our national, severely secularized Evengelic Lutheran church (which is pretty laid-back usually; one high-ranker caused quite a stir with a book titled Everyone Goes To Heaven some time ago...). It takes all kinds.

The funny thing about the Scriptures and the words of Truth therein is, IMHO, that it very much seems that with enough creative (and selective) reading and interpretation you can find just about any truth and theological justification therein. And that's not just the acutely schizophrenic ones like the New Testament either...

I think I lost what very little faith I ever had in Ultimate Truths when it dawned to me they were all artifacts. Ultimately the Word of God is as the believer reads it, or rather wants to read it. Basta.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Need I remind you that in order to be a good christian you are supposed to kill homosexuals?

---

Wrong on so many accounts - for one Jesus did not state that in order to follow him I must kill a homosexual. Quote the chapter and verse of the New Testiment that states to be a follower of Jesus Christ one must kill a homosexual.

Quote:

---

BTW, mods there is evidence for this in Leviticus, so don't take it as a flame.

Here's some gems:
Leviticus 20:9
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death

Psalm 137:9
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones


There is tons more where that came from :grin:

---

All of that is Old Testiment - now find the chapter and verse in the New Testiment that states to be a good Christian one must kill a homosexual.

There is more Bigotary being displayed in your post here then what was stated by Sacranie in his comments when asked.

So, uh, I'm not a Christian (never been baptized either, for that matter), and I spent every occasion involving said faith in school preoccupied with active resentement, so I don't really know about these things... but isn't the Old Testament a fairly central text of the faith too ? Mind you, I personally prefer the "hippie love" approach of Jesus (who IMHO had a lot of good ideas) to the blood-and-guts wrathfulness of the Old Testament, but then again I never really comprehended how the two are supposed to fit together. It just doesn't quite sound like the same God, you know ?

Mind you, although I haven't exactly delved deep on the subject, it is my understanding that the New Testament is seriously internally inconsistent in many questions - but then again given how many peoples' writings got put into it that ought not to be a great surprise.

One day a religious loon pushing pmphlets on the street told me the Bible was written by Jesus, though. I must be an extremely kind and considerate person, for I did not laugh my lungs out on the spot...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

So, uh, I'm not a Christian (never been baptized either, for that matter), and I spent every occasion involving said faith in school preoccupied with active resentement, so I don't really know about these things... but isn't the Old Testament a fairly central text of the faith too ? Mind you, I personally prefer the "hippie love" approach of Jesus (who IMHO had a lot of good ideas) to the blood-and-guts wrathfulness of the Old Testament, but then again I never really comprehended how the two are supposed to fit together. It just doesn't quite sound like the same God, you know ?

---

Depends on the faith of the individual. The New Testiment is the main tenent of the Christian Faith. Claiming that to be a Christian one must kill homosexuals is not in line with the teachings of the Christian Faith. Its an arguement based upon the Old Testiment - which some of the more extremist groups like to spout, but does not fall in line with what is stated in the New Testiment. To be a Christian one must follow the New Testiment.

Quote:

---

Mind you, although I haven't exactly delved deep on the subject, it is my understanding that the New Testament is seriously internally inconsistent in many questions - but then again given how many peoples' writings got put into it that ought not to be a great surprise.

---

Yes indeed the new testiment as a written text has some fundmental flaws in its lessons and arguements. Multiple writers over several centuries with multiple re-writes to fit the politics of the age have something to do with the inconsistent messages in the New Testiment. That is why there are so many different viewpoints on what makes a person a Christian. Well all but one point - that one accepts Jesus as his personal savior that is pretty consistent with all Christian Religions.

Quote:

---

One day a religious loon pushing pmphlets on the street told me the Bible was written by Jesus, though. I must be an extremely kind and considerate person, for I did not laugh my lungs out on the spot...

---

Well that is better then many people do. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Wrong on so many accounts - for one Jesus did not state that in order to follow him I must kill a homosexual. Quote the chapter and verse of the New Testiment that states to be a follower of Jesus Christ one must kill a homosexual.



All of that is Old Testiment - now find the chapter and verse in the New Testiment that states to be a good Christian one must kill a homosexual.

There is more Bigotary being displayed in your post here then what was stated by Sacranie in his comments when asked.

---

Quite so Redleg. In fact I cannot even see the relevance of those quotations.

The Muslim Council is forever tying itself in knots trying to be the modern face of British Islam while at the same time maintaining its standing in eyes of the more fundalmentalist Muslims. Given that some members lean more to the latter way of thinking this poses some interesting political problems.

I just hope they can get through their particular version of the Reformation without the century of bloodbaths and religious wars, nevermind all the hardline fundamentalism developing on both sides, that Christians managed to whip up...
*looks at the news*
...
...yeah, well, they seem to be off on a pretty good start actually. But at least it's more like Muslim reactionaries butting heads with Christian reactionaries and everyone else just getting caught in the blast radius, which I guess is a bit of an improvement. :sweatdrop:

To be a Christian one must follow the New Testiment.

Does that mean that to be a Christian one must reject the old testament , or only reject those parts that contradict the new one ?

But then ...
indeed the new testiment as a written text has some fundmental flaws in its lessons and arguements.
So reject the book altogether then ?

So it boils down to.....
that one accepts Jesus as his personal savior
Christianity made simple .:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Wrong on so many accounts - for one Jesus did not state that in order to follow him I must kill a homosexual. Quote the chapter and verse of the New Testiment that states to be a follower of Jesus Christ one must kill a homosexual.

All of that is Old Testiment - now find the chapter and verse in the New Testiment that states to be a good Christian one must kill a homosexual.

---

I see no reason to go through the New Testament to find such a quote because in order to be Christian you must accept both Old and New Testaments. What is important is that both these compilations are full of incosistences not only with eachother but also within themselves, and also within the books of the same authors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

There is more Bigotary being displayed in your post here then what was stated by Sacranie in his comments when asked.

---

Thank you.

IMHO so long a person has developed an agreeable, wholesome set of morals ("live and let live" is a good starting point in my books) it's quite the same if he cites a burning shrubbery as their origin.

Well, I might smirk a little when he's not looking...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

I see no reason to go through the New Testament to find such a quote because in order to be Christian you must accept both Old and New Testaments.

---

Then you don't know much about being a Christian.

I beg your pardon Redleg, I don't know about being in every type of christian community, after all I only belonged to the ORIGINAL one. In case you didn't know that the Greek Orthodox Church. In order to be a part of the Catholic or orthodox church, which used to be one at the beggining, you must accept both testaments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

I beg your pardon Redleg, I don't know about being in every type of christian community, after all I only belonged to the ORIGINAL one. In case you didn't know that the Greek Orthodox Church. In order to be a part of the Catholic or orthodox church, which used to be one at the beggining, you must accept both testaments.

---

And there in lies your problem - your basing your opinion on a segment not the whole picture. By the way the Greek Orthodox Church is not the orginial church either. You might want to read the passages in the New Testiment that speak of the orginial church of Christ.

Jesus would have a problem with many of the organized churches who attempt to spread his message.

Quote:

---

...after all I only belonged to the ORIGINAL one. In case you didn't know that the Greek Orthodox Church.

---

R-i-i-i-ght. Here's my other leg, want to pull that one too ?

I know enough about the early history of Christianity to know the claims of either of the "big two" lines of 'originality' are about as valid as a baboon telling a chimpanzee he's the more original primate... And with about as much point.

Oh look lets see how many times Church is mentioned in the New Testiment.

Mat16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 5:11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and [with] our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 8:3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed [them] to prison.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 11:22 Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth [his] hands to vex certain of the church.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 12:5 Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 14:27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 15:3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and [of] the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 18:22 And when he had landed at Caesarea, and gone up, and saluted the church, he went down to Antioch.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rom 16:5 Likewise [greet] the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rom 16:23 Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you, and Quartus a brother.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rom 16:27 To God only wise, [be] glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. [[[Written to the Romans from Corinthus, [and sent] by Phebe servant of the church at Cenchrea.]]]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1Cr 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:


And there is three more pages in a simple search using the word church at this site.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...6040-8203.html

If you haven't figured it out BP I don't belong to the Catholic Church either.

Regardless religion, he is a religious bigot.....

I don't think you need a religion to be a bigot, actually. But The Faith tends to make a neat blunt instrument to those who combine the two.

As the public figure and speaker for his religion in the country of England - he must provide statements that are in line with his religion.

His downfall in this issue was that he attempted to use a secular arguement along with his religous one.

But nevertheless - if the people of England voted in the law for Civil Union the will of the people shows that they are willing to accept it, which is what democracy is all about.

However we can not stomp on his right to speech to voice his dissatifcation and the group he represents consensus because we find it not pleasant for us to hear dis-stafication with the current governmental policy.

Careful on labeling others a bigot least you fall into the trap your calling them.

The "intolerance of intolerance" line of argument was always way too loopy for my tastes.

I like the 'bigot of bigot' idea myself...

Jesus still loves you BP and so do I my friend. Judge not lest ye be judged my Brother and I will try to do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

But nevertheless - if the people of England voted in the law for Civil Union the will of the people shows that they are willing to accept it, which is what democracy is all about.

However we can not stomp on his right to speech to voice his dissatifcation and the group he represents consensus because we find it not pleasant for us to hear dis-stafication with the current governmental policy.

Careful on labeling others a bigot least you fall into the trap your calling them.

---

Ah but that's the thing isn't it? You never actually get to vote on this kind of thing, it's all just rolled into a parties policies and you have to choose the one with the least amount of un-appealing policies.

I do agree with your last point though, I did try to say it earlier, everyone is entitled to their opinions and as it stands all he did was give his opinions WHEN ASKED, he's not persecuting anyone.

So, if you call someone a bigot for stating their views does that make you a bigot? Or just intolerant of others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

Ah but that's the thing isn't it? You never actually get to vote on this kind of thing, it's all just rolled into a parties policies and you have to choose the one with the least amount of un-appealing policies.

---

Unfortunately sometimes that is how it works, and the converse is true also, fortunely sometimes that is how it works. In our representive democracies we the voter only can impact the government by who we vote into office.

As for me - I don't have a problem with voting in an individual into office that supports same-sex civil unions, if a majority of his other stated policy goals are within my own expectations of a elected representive.

Quote:

---

I do agree with your last point though, I did try to say it earlier, everyone is entitled to their opinions and as it stands all he did was give his opinions WHEN ASKED, he's not persecuting anyone.

So, if you call someone a bigot for stating their views does that make you a bigot? Or just intolerant of others?

---

Depends on your outlook I would image.

Sometimes it seems like the really religious people are a bit afraid of what God thinks about them. What Dave here says changes this and he assumes that God is good so therefore he should be good as well.
With a closer thought, this would be one of the major problems in Islam. Many muslims are actually afraid of God and what he thinks of them. This is used to "convice" them in to nutty tasks like jihad and hate.

It would be interesting to have a beer or two with God and actually get his point of view on the subject..... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Sometimes it seems like the really religious people are a bit afraid of what God thinks about them. What Dave here says changes this and he assumes that God is good so therefore he should be good as well.
With a closer thought, this would be one of the major problems in Islam. Many muslims are actually afraid of God and what he thinks of them. This is used to "convice" them in to nutty tasks like jihad and hate.

It would be interesting to have a beer or two with God and actually get his point of view on the subject..... ~;)

---

I suppose this is why to Muslims, God attributes to himself that he is most Gracious/Compassionate/Benevolent/Merciful/Kind/Loving...you name your word of choice for translation...

I also suppose this is why Muslims think of him like this when they do things "in the name of God"

My sister converted to Islam for two reasons:

1) She was absolutely conviced of the existence of God, and she could never rationalize any doubt, though she did try...

2) She was deeply moved by the love of God.

And by the way, my sister suscribes to a particularly traditional view of Sunni Islam as well, and is studying it in Amman, but whenever she calls me, she always speaks of the sweet love and mercy of God...

But she's not like the "many muslims" right?

I'd imagine that Mr B.M. "I'm a Muslim in a mostly Muslim part of the world" Olsson would have a good grasp of how many Muslims feel.

Just to stick my nose in where iot doesn't belong. :2thumbsup:

Another day, another idiot to fill the papers, while there's lot of people doing real work and improving this harsh world. I wonder if in the first world there's also news with titles like "The New Panda has born in the Zoo".

At any rate...I'll remain with the unanimous opinion that HE REALLY DID HIS WORK, he's just a product of religious doctrine. Take an average christian (regarding study of the doctrine) and you'll see a balanced man, a man who has not penetrated enough in the teachings of the One. But now take the learned Christian (or Muslim or whatever), he who puts his face in the Old Book every day and every night, the mental unbalance in such a subject will be notorious, as anyone who studies one book for the rest of their lives (wheter it's "Il Principi" or "Thus spoke Zaratrusta").

So I think that the best way to describe this man is as follows: not a bigot, but an honorable man who remains in his faith at the expense of his reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

here

So who's oppressing who? If you agree with Sacranie, then you're probably a homophobe bigot. If on the other hand you support Tatchell et al then you risk being arrested for (yet another) incitement to religious hatred.

---

I agree with some of what Sacranie said. I feel that homosexual culture is not broadly conducive to creating stable family units. Hell, that might change with time though. Homosexuals haven't had legitimate status within our society for very long. Maybe they're still finding their feet...

I don't agree that gay culture is necessarily more diease-ridden than hetero society, though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Be interesting to watch the 'left' swing about wildly trying to square this circle.

---

Hmm, I thought it was right-wingers who had problems with things like basic shapes... Square holes and round pegs and whatnot... ;-)

Quote:

---

I agree with some of what Sacranie said. I feel that homosexual culture is not broadly conducive to creating stable family units.

---

This is a new one on me. What exactley is homosexual culture?

Pink shirts, camp actions, openly flamboyant, promoting of homosexuality, and sodomy.

camp actions are?

Damn, I need to get rid of my tent and not build a fire to cook sausages/marshmallows etc. over. I won't even be able to use the ashes to cook bananas and chocolate in foil.

Is nothing sacred?

@ KM

you mean like...

Ohhh, shut that door!!! Everard!!! Everard!!! where are you?

I have worked with effete and effeminate men. Some were gay. Most weren't. In my teenage years, as a Bowie/Roxy Music aficionado , I frequented 'gay' clubs as that's where the best music and beer was. I can tell you this much, I would'n't want to have a fight with some of these guys, some, not all, were as hard as nails.

If you ever get the chance, watch 'Layer Cake' then tell that guy he's a 'mincer' and wears pink shirts. I promise to attend your funeral. :sweatdrop:

nvm, don't really care

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

@ KM

you mean like...

Ohhh, shut that door!!! Everard!!! Everard!!! where are you?

I have worked with effete and effeminate men. Some were gay. Most weren't. In my teenage years, as a Bowie/Roxy Music aficionado , I frequented 'gay' clubs as that's where the best music and beer was. I can tell you this much, I would'n't want to have a fight with some of these guys, some, not all, were as hard as nails.

If you ever get the chance, watch 'Layer Cake' then tell that guy he's a 'mincer' and wears pink shirts. I promise to attend your funeral. :sweatdrop:

---

I realised the pink shirt one was a mistake when I went to Tesco's right after posting. I saw several... ah... neds wearing pink shirts and they were most likely not gay, and if I told them they were gay would book me a nice bed in Ninewells Hospital with a knife through my stomach...