Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Twisted Word

February 20, 2007

Advertisement

To the editor:

Recent letters printed here quoting Scriptures denouncing homosexuality disturbed me. I strongly support one's right to opinion and beliefs, yet selecting specific verses justifying intolerance belies a religious double standard.

Anyone can use biblical cut-and-paste to support any position, while omitting contradictory verses. Deuteronomy 17:12 states anyone rejecting the words of a priest must be killed. Leviticus 20:9 says a child that curses their parents should be killed. Chronicles 15:12-13 orders the death of all who do not seek the Lord.

I don't infer that those opposed to same-sex partnerships advocate murdering homosexuals, subscribe to mass-murdering followers of other faiths, or believe in capital punishment for sassy kids. I'm saying that such narrow interpretations in such a manner have had dark and horrific consequences.

Selective use of religious writings is as old as the religions themselves. That practice led to the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Holocaust. Those of any faith, who twist the written Word in such a manner, do a disservice to their religion. It's a thinly veiled excuse for bigotry to quote Scriptures justifying such persecution, while absolving themselves of wrong because it is so written. No matter how you try to spin it, it's bigotry. It's discrimination, and it's wrong.

Then again, it's just my opinion.

Steve Craven,

Lawrence

Comments

Larry Miller 7 years, 1 month ago

Recent letters printed here about quoting "Scriptures denouncing homosexuality" seem to have missed the point.

God says in the Ten Commandments that you are not to have sex with anyone but your spouse. He also says that only a man and woman can get married.

Jesus repeats the same point.

So the real issue is not what sex the two people are, but are they married according to the way God designed? If not, they should not have sex. If they are, they should only have sex with each other.

Its not really very complicated.

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 1 month ago

Agnostick:

LOL!

Now there is a thought to send one screaming into the night!

;)

Good shot!

Lotsa' points to you!

TOO FUNNY!

Thanks.

Marion.

0

Agnostick 7 years, 1 month ago

Marion, if you want to marry a hundred or so faggots at the Replay Lounge with a live band, go for it! Heck, I'm amazed you have the libido to keep that many happy and satisfied!

Even the Arab sheiks usually stop at 10 or 20 wives... ;)

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

Das_Ubermime 7 years, 1 month ago

Kodiac,

I am sorry to hear that you agree with Sam Harris. You have earned my respect in your rational capacities and knowledge base, but I cannot see how you could be anything but wrong in this situation.

There is a world of difference between a person who sees the Bible as a book of parables on religion and a person who takes their Bible literally. There are few things which can be classified as being black and white in this world and organizations of people (be they religious, governmental or the San Fransisco Mime Troop) are never one of those.

jonas,

Have you ever tried explaining to an all-powerful entity that even though it may very well have created all of existence, it is not allowed to relieve itself on the carpet? Man, its like talking to a wall...

0

couranna1 7 years, 1 month ago

"Actually, unless you read Old Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, you haven't actually read the Bible anyway. As well, there are lots of apocryphal books that didn't make the various church council cuts, but were written during the same period by Biblical actors." sourpuss

That is very true and the reason is each version of the story has an agenda they push. All of the parables Jesus told are not original stories but taken from Greek drama and philosophical thought. Jesus was not born on Dec 25 that was a Pagan holiday In a philosophical drama book that covers so many topics you can pick out what you want to prove any point you want Does not make it true or ethical or the moral end all. Get a clue the bible is a story. christians think that ends any discussion by saying the bible says so what they are really trying to say is god says so they are not the same thing

0

jonas 7 years, 1 month ago

Posted by Das_Ubermime (anonymous) on February 21, 2007 at 7:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

By using words like 'dumb' and 'sad' you are not marginalizing those you criticize, you are marginalizing yourself. When you resort to using uncivil name-calling, the only result is to turn those in the middle off from your message."

Big words, Pica Boy. Especially coming from a bug-loving know it all who has the gall to kick out a divine entity due to potty training problems! For shame!

0

Kodiac 7 years, 1 month ago

"There are bounds on which "interpretations" are allowable, but as long as a person does not advocate hate, violence, or other morally incorrect behavior towards another person. Telling a person that they do not agree with their lifestyle is not morally incorrect behavior, it is voicing an opinion." -- Das

Das,

While I understand your point here, I disagree that this applies to Oldenuf. Oldenuf is not expressing an opinion, he is telling you that homosexuality is morally wrong and should be punishable. It is one thing to say that you disagree with a lifestyle but to claim that it is some kind perversion or disease based on a religion is no different than someone advocating hate, violence, or morally incorrect behavior toward another person. I agree with Sam Harris that there is no difference between "religious moderation" and fundamentalism.

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 1 month ago

I think that marrying a hundred or so faggots at the Replay Lounge with a live band and lots of $1.50 PBR would be just great!

Anyone want to help plan it?

Thanks.

Marion.

0

Dambudzo 7 years, 1 month ago

Posted by Marion (Marion Lynn) on February 21, 2007 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way, I am registered Minister in the Universal Life Church and would like to set up a thing, preferably Downtown, maybe at the replay, in which I would marry Gays/Bi/Les/TGD people.

Wouldn't be "legal" but it would be a serious slap in the face of the Queer haters! +++++++++++++++

Get with Rundle, he can give you a list of the homosexuals that want to get married.

0

Agnostick 7 years, 1 month ago

No more The crap rolls out your mouth again Haven't changed, your brain is still gelatin Little whispers circle around your head Why don't you worry about yourself instead?

Who are you? Where ya been? Where ya from? Gossip burning on the tip of your tongue You lie so much you believe yourself Judge not lest ye be judged yourself

Holier than thou You are Holier than thou You are

You know not

Before you judge me, take a look at you Can't you find something better to do? Point the finger, slow to understand Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand

It's not who you are, it's who you know Others' lives are the basis of your own Burn your bridges and build them back with wealth Judge not lest ye be judged yourself

Holier than thou You are Holier than thou You are

You know not

Who the hell are you?

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Holier-Than-Thou-lyrics-Metallica/EF43D0A5495E497F4825688D003400E9

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

p95151 7 years, 1 month ago

Live and let live, folks...

0

redwaggoner 7 years, 1 month ago

Remember: "JUDGE NOT, LEST YE SHALL BE JUDGED"!

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 1 month ago

Hey, have you folks seen this?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA20dKc3kK8

FREAKING GREAT!

By the way, I am registered Minister in the Universal Life Church and would like to set up a thing, preferably Downtown, maybe at the replay, in which I would marry Gays/Bi/Les/TGD people.

Wouldn't be "legal" but it would be a serious slap in the face of the Queer haters!

As a registered Republican I support the civil rights of ALL!

Thanks.

Marion.

0

Das_Ubermime 7 years, 1 month ago

anxiousatheist,

You seem to be having difficulty trying to understand my message, so let me try one last time. By using words like 'dumb' and 'sad' you are not marginalizing those you criticize, you are marginalizing yourself. When you resort to using uncivil name-calling, the only result is to turn those in the middle off from your message. All you need to do to marginalize a person whose viewpoint you do not agree with is to exploit the holes in their argument. Let them defeat themselves instead of resorting to a level which defeats yourself.

logicsound04, You obviously missed my point on identification with the action. If you want my rebuttal of your last post, you should go to the second paragraph of my last response to you.

0

logicsound04 7 years, 1 month ago

I agree wholeheartedly Jamesaust. My point was that OldEnuf's opinion is only a shade better than someone like Mr. Phelps. The fact that he sees homosexuality is as a defect isn't outright hateful, it's a much more subtle kind of intolerance--the kind where you act as if you must save a person from themself.

0

Jamesaust 7 years, 1 month ago

"he claims that he does not condemn the person, only the lifestyle"

What exactly is the "lifestyle". What sort of mocking, arrogant word is this?

I would add - nature / nuture - makes no difference.

If no one is harmed by someone else's private life, its not your "bees-wax". Por favor, please get your snout out of everyone else's crotch, ok?

0

Jamesaust 7 years, 1 month ago

blackwalnut: "Stop using Jesus as an excuse to be a hypocritical, hateful bigot." 75x55: "Works both ways, blackwalnut."

Wow, 75, must have made the backalley winos spew the Colt 45 out of their noses with that rejoinder.

I'd leave Jesus to speak for himself if I were you. Listen close, you might learn something.

0

logicsound04 7 years, 1 month ago

" For instance, would it matter to you whether a person was voicing disapproval of homosexuality or voicing disapproval of atheism (or another religion if you happen to be it, but my impression is that you are an atheist)?"


Das,

You are correct that I am an atheist, and it would matter; I would not have a problem with someone voicing disapproval of atheism, as it is an idea of mine, rather than a trait inherent to me. There is an enormous difference in principle between condemning an idea and condemning a person's inherent characteristics. If you condemn my ideas, I feel that is your right; but if you condemn ME, I feel it is my right to take offense.

To OldEnuf's credit, he claims that he does not condemn the person, only the lifestyle, but MY point was that making a distinction between a person and their sexual orientation is like making a distinction between a person and their IQ. In our country people are allowed to criticize people--our freedom of speech is vital to our way of life--however, a right to do something does not make it decent, respectable, or tolerant. OldEnuf's view that homosexuals are victims of a disease is intolerant and contemptible. The fact that he says he does not hate gay people only makes it slightly less so.

0

75x55 7 years, 1 month ago

Works both ways, blackwalnut.

0

blackwalnut 7 years, 1 month ago

Stop using Jesus as an excuse to be a hypocritical, hateful bigot.

0

Clint Gentry 7 years, 1 month ago

First, Ubermime, I blame nothing but the individuals for their actions. My point is that you can't say whatever you want. and then evoke "christianity" to deflect the real inconsistencies in your thought. In fact, shouldn't we label/treat those that attempt to use this shield as "incomprehensible"? It is the only way to weed out those whose thought processes are a running circular argument... Second, I understand the logical implication of saying "I don't tolerate the intolerate", but there is meaning there. If you tolerate them, then they will continue in their ignorance, this is obviously not what one wants, so to marginalize those that seek to marginalize others, (for less heinous "crimes", AKA skin color, sexuality, etc.) seems to be the only answer. Trying to understand the un-understandable, (as defined concerning "unjustified beliefs"), is a lesson in futility, ignoring their ramblings is the only option.

0

Jamesaust 7 years, 1 month ago

oldenuf -

in#1 expresses what some might call an "Amish" approach - believe what you believe, persuade through example, never force others to live as you do.

in #2, I don't think Old is trying hard enough - you call homosexuality a perversion, which is difficult to do seeing the word was invented in the 19th century. I believe the new covenant focuses on temple prostitution and pederasty. But hey, if you follow #1, it doesn't matter whether we agree on #2 or not - in our secular society, if you can't show direct harm, then you have no business forcing others to live according to whatever scheme you dream up. I might think crustacean-eaters deserve death but for reasons unknown to me no one else seems willing "to follow the Bible."

Too bad there are so many people who "believe in" Jesus but so few who "believe" Jesus.

0

Das_Ubermime 7 years, 1 month ago

I think, anxiousatheist, that your argument bears quite a large amount of similarity to that of one of Richard Dawkins' positions. I have two main points of contention with Dawkins' position: first, he blames the organization for the faults of the individuals, and second, he uses a difference of views as a basis for scorn.

On the first point, it is highly hypocritical to blame the religious system for the actions of the individual. There will always be unsavory people no matter what beliefs they hold and to use this to decry the religious system is to engage in mass stereotyping and the fallacy of guilt by association. It is a flaw of humanity to take a concept to a irrational extreme, not a flaw of the concept. There are plenty of people who have committed attrocities in the name of dispelling religion.

Second, his approach of an eye for an eye will surely leave everyone blind. While you expouse the ideals of Christians having respect for everybody, you seem to turn a blind eye to the lack of respect which you personally hold for them. This double standard does nothing for your message or really even humanity in general.

0

Tychoman 7 years, 1 month ago

Great letter. Kansas and humanity in general needs more people like the LTE writer.

0

Das_Ubermime 7 years, 1 month ago

logicsound04,

I don't really think that it matters whether the behavior is inherent or not. For instance, would it matter to you whether a person was voicing disapproval of homosexuality or voicing disapproval of atheism (or another religion if you happen to be it, but my impression is that you are an atheist)? Does you ability to honestly change your actions change the feelings elicited by such statements? For myself I cannot honestly agree that it does.

Instead, I would posit that the emotional nature of the subject is due to the amount of personal identification with the action in question. Unfortunately, if one pays heed to such emotions, it renders a person emotionally inflexible and decreases that person's capability of growth as a human. How would the world look if nobody could freely make a statement about any action for fear of speaking negatively on an issue a person identifies with? I would imagine it to be a place lacking in civility, compromise, and understanding.

If I were to say that I am always understanding and accepting of all statements made against issues I identify with, I would (hopefully) be among the first to label myself a liar. But I do strive for this and I do think that it is important.

0

Clint Gentry 7 years, 1 month ago

Like I said "ubermime", I understand the cry for civility, but there is truth out there. If we give everyone "equal time" to express opinions you eventually arrive at Fred Phelps. You get Fred Phelps from "faith" or what I like to call "unjustified beliefs". These are beliefs that have no rationale behind them, that is to say a premise in their argument isn't based on anything but their opinion or feelings. This "unjustified belief" is the basis for religion. From the "immaculate conception" to the existence of "sin", the use of "faith" as a sheild against scrutiny is to be deplored in all rational conversation, this is why I suggest "oldenuf" change his name. At the basis of what he is saying is an empty pit of nihilism in which he can base nothing of what he believes. Do I sound terse? Of course, but that of course has nothing to do with the truth of what I say.

0

Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho 7 years, 1 month ago

OldEnuf was correct in his statement about old and new covenant. I don't think the letter writer understands that matter. Whether OldEnuf hates black people or not is another issue altogether, but I didn't see any reference to race in his comments so it may be unlikely.

0

logicsound04 7 years, 1 month ago

"Telling a person that they do not agree with their lifestyle is not morally incorrect behavior, it is voicing an opinion."


Yes, you are correct; however OldEnuf is doing more than simply voicing his disapproval. He is voicing his disapproval of something that is inherent to many people. Would you be civil toward someone who expressed skin color as a disease or defect? How would you respond if someone were to use the Bible to say they don't HATE black people, but they disapprove of their race?

I understand that most people don't like comparing the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement, and I understand the difference is that being black is a physical trait, and being gay involves an emotional aspect. However, there are two key similarities in that neither is a choice, and neither is wrong/defective.

Anyone who feels otherwise is simply expressing a well-insulated version of hatred/intolerance.

0

logicsound04 7 years, 1 month ago

Boy do I feel like an @ss.

Yes, Martin Luther King was meant to read Martin Luther.

If I could tint my words red, I would. :)

0

Das_Ubermime 7 years, 1 month ago

anxiousatheist,

As an atheist, I do disagree with every word, but agreement is not the issue here. Disagreement is not a basis for a lack of civility. For the record, my 'moral text book' does include "interpretation". There are bounds on which "interpretations" are allowable, but as long as a person does not advocate hate, violence, or other morally incorrect behavior towards another person. Telling a person that they do not agree with their lifestyle is not morally incorrect behavior, it is voicing an opinion. In voicing his opinion, oldenuf clearly states that he disagrees with attacking people for their choices and advocates loving the person regardless of one's feelings towards the action. If you need a refresher on where he says it, here it is:

"Decry the behavior and stand your moral ground out of obedience to Christ, but do not attack people. Hate the behavior and the sin, but realize that 'while we were yet sinners, Christ died for the unGodly' applies to you and I as well. WWJD? He'd love them, while explaining how their sin is killing their souls."

I am an atheist, but I am an American as well and if I cannot afford those whose views differ from my own respect and civility, why should I expect any in return?

0

Dambudzo 7 years, 1 month ago

Posted by Marion (Marion Lynn) on February 20, 2007 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dambuzo:

You got a real problem, there, Bud.

I oopose abortion on demand but I am not a Christian.

My new book which will be released in the next few weeks will help you understand my position on the matter.

PM me with your mailing address and I'll send you an autographed copy.

Thanks.

Marion.

Thanks for the book offer.

Pissing off enemies of your enemies is bad mojo.

0

Clint Gentry 7 years, 1 month ago

"Their sin is killing their souls"-oldenuf-, now tell me "mein Ubermime", what part of this statement do you agree with? This is exactly what he has said. As an atheist you should disagree with every word. "Simply his interpretation of the bible"? Come on ubermime, if your moral text book takes "interpretation" then what good is it? I understand your call for civility, but come on, do really think that oldenuf is "against hate"? I refer you to the quote at the top of this post.

0

Das_Ubermime 7 years, 1 month ago

Speaking as an atheist,

You are out of line, anxiousatheist. Oldenuf's views are not sad, nor are they dumb, but simply his interpretation of the Bible. As far as I am concerned, as long as he is against hate and violence, he should be allowed his own expression of his views. Your scorn is unwarranted.

0

Clint Gentry 7 years, 1 month ago

"oldenuf2Byurdad"? how about "dumenuf2Bachristian"? But seriously, you proved Mr. Craven right. What is sad "dad" is that you can't see it...

0

75x55 7 years, 1 month ago

Interesting to see what kinds of moths the flame-bait brings out.

Yawn.

0

jrlii 7 years, 1 month ago

A hundred sixty-odd years ago James Russell Lowell hit upon a problem of religions with a closed canon:

"New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth, They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of truth."

Christianity has (as they say in the Java world) "depreciated" parts of the Old Testament. But other than the dietary laws (which were thrown out wholesale in the days of the Apostles) there is no clear rule as to what scripture has what status.

In any case, granting much beyond mythic authority to a document, the newest parts of which may as well been carved in stone nearly 2000 years ago, is foolish.

The Bible does teach us a lot about the relationship of God and Man. (As a good myth should.) However, as a moral rulebook it leaves much to be desired. It does contain one of the best and most universal guides to morality: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

When it comes down to it, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is a complete guide to being moral and just. All else is empty elaboration or the provision of pre-thought shortcuts.

The Old Testament, however, was a pretty good rulebook for the desert tribes of 2500+ years ago. In that context the prohibition of homosexuality makes a lot of sense: In those days any tribe member who refused to reproduce endangered the very continuing existence of the tribe. In today's cheek-by-jowl world that prohibition makes a lot less sense.

0

Agnostick 7 years, 1 month ago

On the other hand, Martin Luther probably had a dream, too... ;)

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

Das_Ubermime 7 years, 1 month ago

I think that Martin Luther King may have just had a dream of nailing his 95 theses on the church door. I'm pretty sure the person who actually did it went by the name Martin Luther.

Sorta takes the punch out of you calling that person 'moronic' now doesn't it?

0

logicsound04 7 years, 1 month ago

"2 - The writings in NEW COVENANT simply CANNOT be construed to mean anything other than "homosexuality is a perversion". "


Care to cite?

0

logicsound04 7 years, 1 month ago

"Steve is not a student of God's word."


The idea that you must be a "student of God's word" in order to interpret the Bible is as moronic as it is antiquated.

There was a time when the only way to read/interpret scripture was through a third-party (Priests). This led to major corruption--taking money for admittance to heaven, etc... As a result, Martin Luther King formed the Protestant movement, so that the people could rightly have a direct line to God.

Are you a priest, OldEnuf? Or are you just saying that you have to be a Christian to ignore--I mean "understand"--the contradictions and vague sections of the Bible?

0

Das_Ubermime 7 years, 1 month ago

"Just hold the book on end and shake it. If He's in there, odds are He'll tumble out."

Nice, jonas. I give that one 10/10.

0

Sandra Willis 7 years, 1 month ago

Good for You, Mr. Craven! While I have thought these same things my whole life, I learned to just keep my mouth shut when around Biblical Fanatics.

0

Confrontation 7 years, 1 month ago

"a religious double standard"

I've yet to discover any religion without a double standard.

0

sourpuss 7 years, 1 month ago

Actually, unless you read Old Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, you haven't actually read the Bible anyway. As well, there are lots of apocryphal books that didn't make the various church council cuts, but were written during the same period by Biblical actors.

Translations of the Bible can deviate wildly from strict meaning. Anyone who has done any translation work knows that you can often choose more than one word to denote meaning, and the word you pick will change the tone of the original. Sometimes, it is impossible to convey exactly the intent of the original language. Different sects also use different translations to skew writings to their own views. This has been happening since the Old Latin and subsequent Jerome Vulgate translations, and it is still happening.

Ultimately, nitpicking over what a book says is pointless. If you don't like homosexuals, then you don't like them, and it doesn't matter what your religion does or doesn't say about it. Humans believe what is convenient to them, and then go about justifying that belief in various ways. Morals are relative to the society that forms them, they are not Platonic Truths.

0

Kodiac 7 years, 1 month ago

One wonders how does one go to the bible to find out what is "right" with it.

I had no idea that the NT says that men and women were made plain by God. That explains everything....

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 1 month ago

Jonas:

You are TERRIBLE!

;)

Thanks.

Marion.

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 1 month ago

Dambuzo:

You got a real problem, there, Bud.

I oopose abortion on demand but I am not a Christian.

My new book which will be released in the next few weeks will help you understand my position on the matter.

PM me with your mailing address and I'll send you an autographed copy.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

jonas 7 years, 1 month ago

"Steve is not a student of God's word. He is, like so many others, a person to goes to the Bible to find out what's "wrong" with it. It would be a life-changing experience for him if he could pick it up and ask "Do I find GOD in here?""

Just hold the book on end and shake it. If He's in there, odds are He'll tumble out.

0

OldEnuf2BYurDad 7 years, 1 month ago

What Steve doesn't understand is:

1 - The Old Covenant passages he quoted above are true and correct and should have been applied that way FOR THOSE WHO LIVED UNDER THAT COVENANT. Contextually, those applied to those people (Hebrews under the Law of Moses), but do not apply the same way today.

2 - The writings in NEW COVENANT simply CANNOT be construed to mean anything other than "homosexuality is a perversion". You don't have to "twist" it or take it out of context to ANY degree to see how PLAINLY it says that it is contrary to how God made men and women to be.

Steve is not a student of God's word. He is, like so many others, a person to goes to the Bible to find out what's "wrong" with it. It would be a life-changing experience for him if he could pick it up and ask "Do I find GOD in here?"

In defense of Steve: many so-called Christians do the same thing he has done. It is not just the "liberal, atheistic" types who go to the Bible to find justification for their agendas. Religious conservatives use it the same way. Some of them simply fall into the "right" ditch instead of the "left" ditch. Either way, the reader is not finding a connection to God; and, either way, God is not honored [Mark 7:6]. If you are a Christian and you hate gays, you are NOT a Christian. You are a hater.

Decry the behavior and stand your moral ground out of obedience to Christ, but do not attack people. Hate the behavior and the sin, but realize that "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for the unGodly" applies to you and I as well. WWJD? He'd love them, while explaining how their sin is killing their souls.

0

Silence_Dogood 7 years, 1 month ago

All the bigots (KS, KayCee, etc.) who use Scripture to disguise their hatred will have a special place in Hell. God doesn't hate homosexuality; He hates those who legitimize hate in His name.

Amen, Steve.

0

i_tching 7 years, 1 month ago

Religious "truth," whatever that might be, has little place in the government of the people.

Bronze-Age mythologies are not of much practical use anymore. Some nice stories, that's about it.

There's far more wisdom to be found in so-called "pagan" writings such as the fables of Aesop and the dialogues of Plato.

The Founders knew this and applied it rigorously when crafting our Constitution, and it has offended mush-headed true-belivers in all the decades since. Too bad.

0

KayCee 7 years, 1 month ago

"Yes I wish they would get off the abortion thingy. Who do they think they are anyway!"

On this issue, tellers of the TRUTH. It won't go away, and we won't 'get off of it'.

0

conceptual_continuity 7 years, 1 month ago

dang, i thought this might be about my favorite 80's band, Twisted Sister.

the Bible is good for two things ... toilet paper, and rolling paper if you run out of Zig-Zags.

0

i_tching 7 years, 1 month ago

This is kind of thing the American founders anticipated when they wrote religion out of the Constitution.

0

Dambudzo 7 years, 1 month ago

Posted by Marion (Marion Lynn) on February 20, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Christians are the most hypocritical people on the planet.

Thanks.

Marion.

Yes I wish they would get off the abortion thingy. Who do they think they are anyway!

0

mom_of_three 7 years, 1 month ago

Scripture was also used to justify slavery.

Needless to say, those arguments were disproved also.

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 1 month ago

Christians are the most hypocritical people on the planet.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

jonas 7 years, 1 month ago

Nice try, Steve, but we've heard this argument before. By "we," of course, I tend to refer to people who would not have used those biblical arguments against homosexuality in the first place. The ones that do, unfortunately, will just glaze over as they read this, and go right back to using their same verses and flawed arguments on and on.

0

dragonwagon2 7 years, 1 month ago

I couldn't have said it better myself! Thanks, Steve for saying it so well.

0

KS 7 years, 1 month ago

You are right, Steve. It's just an opinion.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.