DUP Minister for Gay Equality voices homosexual hatred…
AFTER one DUP minister spent most of the day lecturing other parties that they were in breach of the ministerial code, another DUP minister appears to be in breach of, um, the ministerial code. Junior Minister, Paisley Junior, says he’s “repulsed” by gays and added: “I think it is wrong. I think that those people harm themselves and – without caring about it – harm society.” As part of his daddy’s office, Junior is partly responsible for delivering equality – as well as £180,000 grant aid to gay, lesbian and bisexual support groups - and his Pledge of Office includes a commitment to “act in accordance with the general obligations on government to promote equality and prevent discrimination”, while the Code obliges him to “operate in a way conducive to promoting good community relations and equality of treatment”. Paisley Minor is entitled to his views, but as a minister isn’t he bound by a code that requires him to keep the prejudiced, bigoted or sectarian ones to himself?
I have limited sympathy for Baby Doc. The DUP failed in negotiations to address the fact that some of the equality issues spearheaded by the OFMDFM during the Direct Rule interregnum, which are in DUP in-trays, would be anathema to the party. They should have done so, given that the radical socially progressive agenda, embodied in things like the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SOR), broadly divides NI on political lines.
(One curious fact about the modern NI is the gradual disappearance of socially conservative Catholic Ireland with the decline of the church. 20 years ago I suspect there would have been cross-community opposition to the SORs. 30 years ago, the Save Ulster From Sodomy campaign, even though led by the world’s Number One anti-Catholic, is said to have received some Catholic support.)
Gram,
Yes, there are certain limits on freedom of expression, eg incitement, but in the UK these are rare, proportionate and imposed only where necessary for the protection of life. Nothing said by Junior could possibly fall within this category. I also don’t accept that there is any such entity as the “gay community” and that the segmentation of a society into multiple communities is divisive.
And now to Gonzo,
You haven’t addressed my point about “tolerance”, namely that there are different meanings of the term. My understanding of tolerance (and that of Junior, I suspect) is putting up with things with which you might disagree. It does not mean abandoning value judgments or voluntarily refusing to comment publicly on those you have made. Your concept of tolerance, which is much favoured by gay rights activists, seems to involve the abandonment of any value judgements on lifestyle choices. Ironically, it relies on bullying, in order to make it unacceptable for anyone to voice, however politely, criticism of lifestyle choices, especially from a conservative Christian perspective.
As for “harm to society”, anyone can attempt a definition, but what constitutes it will always be a matter for political debate. One can’t have a proper political debate about anything without freedom of expression, and it seems to me that you would like the pledge of office to be used to prevent any such debate taking place. Let me know if I’m wrong.
Of course, we don’t hear unionists or anyone else going on about children or mentally ill people disgusting them. Well, Junior did not say that gay people disgusted him. Instead he referred to being “pretty repulsed by gay and lesbianism”, which is something distinct and went on to stress that he did not hate gay people as people. To use an old expression, hating the sin is different from hating the sinner.
Freedom of expression does indeed come with responsibilities. But responsibilities, whether moral or in limited circumstances legal, should never be used to stifle free debate. I believe that many social liberals who are appalled by Junior’s remarks are all to ready to shout down and bully those who do not share their progressive agenda. Isn’t it ironic: plenty of liberals are just too blinkered to see their own bigotry and intolerance.
“Cahal
“Imagine a minister saying something like that in ANY other western country.â€
Never heard such issues debated in America? Never came across the views of the Polish prime minister and president?
”
American politicians are generally way too clever to actually come out with comments like this.
Real politicians tend to tone down their rhetoric when they are in ministerial positions. Particularly when they are supposed to be acting in the best interests of those they are repulsed by.
Anyway, as I said I am delighted by his comments. They only hurt unionism.
What unionists don’t realise is a great number of northern nationalists would be quite happy to live in the UK.
Just not the part populated by hard core unionists who espouse values which are completely alien in today’s Britain.
“Unionists ought to now encourage themselves that with support for the DUP they can not only remain the largest political grouping in Northern Ireland but can grow and emerge as a dominant force that can control any and all future governments here.”
http://www.ipjr.net/
Jeepers!
This tosser involved in ALL future government in NI! For ever and ever!
Help!
Sam Hanna your argument has no real weight.
If you are going to examine nature vs nurture you will need to use comparisons that are not chosen by the subjects. For example, christian schools vs male boarding schools is about the fairest example you offered, because it is something that most children don’t have a say in.
I don´t know where you get your statistics about christian schools, rugby teams and ministers though… I don’t know how many ministers are open about being gay but I’m sure lots of them exist. The same goes for all those poor graduated christian schoolers who married young because their girlfriends thought sex was dirty and therefore they didn’t have to do it much, just enough to have a child or two. Afterwards they’ll have internet and perhaps fantasize about meeting rentboys when their wife is asleep.
Anywhere where natural sexuality (read “all sexuality”) is repressed, is going to result in lots of hidden closet cases. Especially in *gasp* christian schools, etc. Therefore the statistics you claim to have at your disposal could never be relied upon anyway.
And if you ever actually witnessed how homo-erotic the average rugby team “male bonding” experience is, I’m sure you wouldn’t have made that comment in the first place.
And, for the record, any “straight” person who spends their time getting hot under the collar about other people’s private business has some sort of vested interest in it. If you spend a lot of your time contemplating “the poor lost sodomite souls”, you need to start doing some soul searching yourself, because we don’t even consider your sex life. It doesn’t disgust us, it’s neither here nor there.
Be comfortable with your christianity and the fact that you believe you will go to heaven. Listen to your god and live and let live. Lead by example not by divide and conquer.
“Imagine the man who discovers that his girlfriend once had a relationship with a woman? How should he feel? ”
As long as she recorded it for me to watch, I wouldn´t be to bothered.
What about these lads, Sam Hanna?
http://www.igrab.net/
What a wild , or should that be ‘Wilde’ thread.
Ian Paisley Jnr is entitled to say whatever he feels about homosexuality.
Those who support him are entitled to do so as cheeringly as they wish.
Those who oppose him are entitled to do so as vehemently as they wish.
Here endeth the lesson.
“Look as soon as you Cafflicks and gays turn towards the one true God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and abandon your heathen ways the better.”
Ah … part of the speech that the good doctor only wishes he could actually get away with saying in public. What is it with the seemingly complete lack of intellect amongst the DUP? Was this homophobia of Ian Junior’s just rumbling so much inside him that he had to let it out?
A word of advice – next time before you speak have a think about it before opening that gub of yours, even ask your father what he thinks and if he goes on a rant then its definitely best to shut up.
I’m so proud to be a Protestant right now. Seems that it’s only OK to have sex if its in the missionary position and it is for pro-creation. Plus all signs of enjoyment must be suppressed during the act itself.
By the way I don’t hate the DUP, I just hate what they do – they are harming themselves (and me) by being in government – idiots.
We cannot have a proper debate on this if the pink lobby keeps living in denial that their behaviour is unnatural, increases AIDS, and is not linked to nurture.
It is axiomatic that small children are not attracted to those of the same sex and there is even groups set up of former sodomites who have converted to Christianity and are now living normal lives as civilized men and women in heterosexual lives. How much more imperical evidence do the gay lobby want.
If everyone that opposes them is really a repressed sodomite then are all those here who oppose or repulsed by paedophilia repressed paedophiles?
I remember hearing of a prominent gay man who in explaining his chosen proclivities said that he was not merely attracted to other men but that he found women deeply unattractive. He mentioned that to him a woman’s vulva made him think of that of a cow’s and as such the thought of having sex with a woman was truly repulsive.
Now this is how he feels, that’s his opinion, sex with females was to him personally repulsive.
Is he a bigot? Should he be castigated for his feelings? Is he unfit for public office?
Scientific evidence that gayness is genetically-based:
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20050128/is-there-gay-gene
“Jan. 28, 2005 – The genes a man gets from his mother and father may play an important role in determining whether he is gay or not, according to a new study likely to reignite the “gay gene” debate.
Researchers say it’s the first time the entire human genetic makeup has been scanned in search of possible genetic determinants of male sexual orientation. The results suggest that several genetic regions may influence homosexuality.
“It builds on previous studies that have consistently found evidence of genetic influence on sexual orientation, but our study is the first to look at exactly where those genes are located,” says researcher Brian Mustanski, PhD, a psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Those previous studies looked only at the genes located on the X chromosome. Genes on this chromosome are only passed to a son from his mother. But this study examined genetic information on all chromosomes, including genes from the father.
The findings show that identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes were shared by about 60% of gay brothers in the study compared to the about 50% normally expected by chance.
A heated debate over the existence of a “gay gene” emerged from a 1993 report published in the journal Science by then-NIH researcher Dean Hamer, PhD. That study linked DNA markers on the X chromosome to male sexual orientation.”
Sam Hanna, I saw some stats a few months ago that actually proved that there are more straight people with aids and other STD’s than homosexuals. We’ve learned our lessons the hard way and are a lot more careful than we where 10 years ago.
Seeing what some people in here have written has disappointed me. I really felt that NI was finally starting to wake up to the fact that we won’t ever move forward properly, and certainly not in the eyes of the rest of the world, if we continue to get ourselves worked up about other peoples business whether it be sexuality, religion or colour, etc.
My workplace is completely accepting and therefore the majority of gay people are comfortably out, and in fact we have gone on staff nights out to gay places as a lot of people recognise that they are actually very good craic.
I really hope that those who still refer to gay sex as “sodomy” and preach from atop their high horse of religion are a representation of the “Olde Ulster” of the past and not representative of popular opinion today.
All of my older relatives, including regular churchgoers (both catholic and protestant) have been completely fine with me being gay and with any partners I’ve had, even buying them presents at christmas. So I really do pray (almost) that the homophobes in here who pride themselves on being disgusted by sodomites but tolerating them, are all as sad, old, irrelevant and dated as their comments and will therefore soon meet their maker and be replaced by a more truly accepting and non-judgmental society. Amen.
Who believes the bible anyway?
I put away religion the same time I put away my GI Joes and other childish things. In my opinion organised religon is merely the oldest con game in the world, suitable for a time when we thought the earth was flat and the hight of art was hand prints in your cave. We’ve evolved, time to move on.
“So I really do pray (almost) that the homophobes in here who pride themselves on being disgusted by sodomites but tolerating them, are all as sad, old, irrelevant and dated as their comments and will therefore soon meet their maker and be replaced by a more truly accepting and non-judgmental society. Amen”
Don’t lecture the rest of us on tolerance, Dave, until you learn to be tolerant yourself. And perhaps less sanctimonious.
Sam Hanna,
“It is interesting that noone is born an atheist either.”
I beg to differ. I was born an atheist, and thanks to my godfree parents (and my own commonsense), I remain an atheist to this day.
Apparently the non-judgmental Dave says we are “homophobes” and “sad, old, irrrelevant” – anyone see the irony?
Brian – stop playing the gay gene nonsense. Despite billions of dollars in research not a scrap of evidence has bee brought forth. However, there is abundant evidence of former sodomites changed by the grace of God to being a normal person again,
http://www.peoplecanchange.com/
http://www.stoptheparade.com/links.htm
“Brian – stop playing the gay gene nonsense. Despite billions of dollars in research not a scrap of evidence has bee brought forth. However, there is abundant evidence of former sodomites changed by the grace of God to being a normal person again,”
Ok, let’s assume for a second that your thesis that there is no genetic component is true.
So what?
”Brian – stop playing the gay gene nonsense. Despite billions of dollars in research not a scrap of evidence has bee brought forth. However, there is abundant evidence of former sodomites changed by the grace of God to being a normal person again”
FFS, Nordy Iron badly needs to get over it’s religious hang ups. Sam Hanna are you serious or just having a laugh?
Sam Hanna,
“However, there is abundant evidence of former sodomites changed by the grace of God to being a normal person again”
Evidence? It’ll stand up in court then?
Thought not.
There is no such thing as a saved gay. There is only a sad miserable men brain washed by manipulative preachers to deny their own nature. Homosexuality is not a choice, give the vitrol homosexuals get no-one in their right mind would choose that for themselves. I’m sure Brian will back me up there.
Can you imagine if a member of Blair’s cabinet or the Scottish & Welsh executive had come out with a similar remark? There would either have been a resignation or a sacking, purely and simple. That such comments are said by ‘politicians’ with regularity in NI shows this place up for the backward sectarian wasteland that it is. That there are people coming onto this site to register their support or indifference to what IPJ said is truly astonishing.
It’s very simple and I’ll spell it out for all those hermetically sealed off from the 21st century and the Enlightenment:
IPJ is entitled to hold whatever bigoted views he likes. However, the fact he’s a junior minister in the Office of the First/Deputy Minister, i.e. our government, is NOT incidental, a footnote to the story or irrelevant. It matters a great deal. If comments like this from elected representatives are condoned then what next? This ‘love the sinner and hate the sin’ is a cop-out defence because it ends up saying the same thing. It’s like saying I love black people but hate Africans. IPJ hates gay people and has attempted to get around it by disassociating gay people from what they are. Whatever his opinions or views, save it for the dinner party with your redneck mates – but as my elected representative, keep them to yourself, know what I mean?
“This ‘love the sinner and hate the sin’ is a cop-out defence because it ends up saying the same thing. It’s like saying I love black people but hate Africans.”
Can you really not distinguish between people and practice, Ms Wiz? Do you not understand the difference?
It’s like saying I don’t hate Catholics, I just hate Catholicism. Which is, of course, another of the Paisley opinions.
Watchman
I don’t see how saying a particular group damages society without caring how promotes tolerance, even by your own (which is also my) definition.
How do think gay people damage themselves and society?
Even if you do, when critics accuse, for example, the Orange Order of damaging themselves and society without caring, do you think to yourself: “My, what a tolerant person. After hearing that, I can sleep easy tonight knowing that people are more likely to put with us.”
Those critics might be able to point up some evidence to support their argument (sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly), which is more than Baby Doc did on how the fabric of society has been rendered in twain by the behind-doors activities of a few queers.
I’d like to hear an explanation from him, but given he’s not going to comment, I’m sure you can fill in. You’re more articulate anyway.
Why do the gay fascists here refuse to accept the testimonies of a multitude of former sodomites who state they have left their previous abnormal lives and are satisfied in normal heterosexual lives.
It is the same as a former drug addict, alcoholic who is genuinely converted by the grace of God.
http://www.peoplecanchange.com/
Most here hate Free Presbyterianism but are able to distinguish this from hating the members (i would hope)so what is inconsistent with Baby Doc’s position?
Sam Hanna
You know, not everything you read on the internet is true! The test of intelligence is being able to think about the intentions of those writing something, cutting through their rhetoric. But Christian fundamentalism (as opposed to the type of Christianity that lets you think) doesn’t really encourage reflection does it? A bit like the DUP, don’t you think? Just accept what you’re told, from the preachers and from Paisley.
Sam Hanna,
“Why do the gay fascists here refuse to accept the testimonies of a multitude of former sodomites who state they have left their previous abnormal lives and are satisfied in normal heterosexual lives.”
I don’t know about the “gay fascists” but personally I’d like to see your evidence. (I believe I already asked for this.)
And how do you know the “sodomites” were converted by the “grace of God” as opposed to the intercession of the tooth fairy?
Any proof we could take a look at, or is it all in your mind?
That’s conservative unionism for you, you need only look at the recent sex shop owners’ case to see that not only do they despise homosexuals they despise heterosexual pleasures too.
As it has been mentioned already on this thread, it seems Ian Paisley Jnr’s mind is fixed firmly against sexual expresssion sought through the body – an act of pure passion outside of the confines of married and blessed love; in Junior’s feeble mind, skewed from over indulging in his father’s fearful rhetoric, you must only use your body to procreate, otherwise you’re clearly a sinner.
Everyone who likes to have fun must be thinking stuff DUP politics, Paisley Jnr is so sexually antiquated I feel sorry for his wife (I wonder if she is happy in love, or a desperate housewife?) Sorry Junior, that was a personal comment, it’s my freedom of expression to say that but I reckon you must sexually frustrate her.
Most importantly of all though, why is Junior so concerned with other people’s sexual acts and even more to the point, if we are to be judged, it will be after death and certainly not by a sickly politician like him.
Yes we all realise that we are perceived by Christians as sinners in doing things that the bible tells us that we shouldn’t do; but we also accept that people should be free from critical judgement until that point so Junior really should stop trying to play God.
The American Psychiatric Association says: “The potential risks of ‘reparative therapy’ are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient.
“Many patients who have undergone ‘reparative therapy’ relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction.”
A study by Shidlo and Schroeder of 202 individuals who attempted sexual orientation therapy found that only 3 percent were able to rid themselves of same-sex attractions while 78 percent of respondents experienced long-term psychological distress as a result of the attempt. Of the 3 per cent, it is unknown how many later reverted to their previous sexual orientation or who were bisexual. And these were people who wanted to change!
The British Medical Journal stated this year: “Society must not be allowed to use pseudoscience to justify controls on the behaviour and interpersonal relationships of those who are same-sex oriented.”
In short, there’s plenty of evidence that “conversion therapy” doesn’t work and is in fact dangerous. It’s worth pointing out that no “study” by any of the groups who claim to perform these conversions has ever been conducted under scientific methodology so that it could be peer-reviewed or published in a reputable scientific journal.
Perhaps Sam could tell us why fundamentalists like him waste so much time and hot air on this matter, or why the “sin” of homosexuality is to be so especially hated, above and beyond, seemingly, drug-dealing or even murder.
Let me explain. Where are the Christian protestors outside pubs where drug dealing takes place? Where are they outside the courts when someone is convicted of murder? Yet, when the first civil partnership took place at Belfast City Hall, there they were in their droves, with hatred written all over their contorted faces.
Could the difference be that they are frightened to death of what might happen to them if they protest outside a rough bar? By contrast, they know they have nothing to fear from a peaceable and law-abiding section of the community. That’s the behaviour of hypocrites, milksops and cowards.
As I’ve said already, there is a fundamental problem with ethics and morals that are based on “God-given truths”. The problem is that it pays no heed to rationality, empathy, social contracts, or understanding.
Instead, it is right because God says so. The bigger problem is that what God says is the subject of wildly differing interpretations, even within one religion such as christianity, and is always influenced by the prevailing social mores of the time.
As for the entirely loathsome attempts to equate homosexuality with paedophila, that myth has been exploded time and time and time again by authoritative scientific research – Link
Moreover, the hate-mongers are always obsessed with the the sexual act itself, never the notion that gay partners have an actual life together, and might just love each other, pay taxes, contribute to society, etc.
Anyway, did IPJ break the Ministerial Code? On a literal reading, it probably could not be proved that he did. Is he intolerant, narrow-minded, prejudiced, and very wrong? You bet. Big shock.
Very kind Gonzo, but I’m en route to Geneva, the Protestant Rome.
Listen Gay fascists – yes, I use the Bible as my infallible rule of life. What is yours?
You attack Christian Fundamentalism, polygamy, bestiality etc on what moral basis?
There are numerous websites our there with testimonies of former sodomites who have learned how to behave like natural human beings. Indeed, I have met some in church. There is even a programme on TBN on SKY dedicated to former queers who now are married happily. So what more evidence do you want? You are a bit like the people who keep telling us we are all “irish.”
Watchman
Ahhh, but on the world wide web, you can’t escape an internet debate!
;o)
Hope the weather stays nice for ya.
See Paisley’s News Letter interview today? He said the interview was given before he took office. I don’t that really diminishes any of my points, although being in breach of the ministerial code is probably off the agenda.
Paisley did the same as you and argued this was a PC agenda trying to curtail his freedom of expression, although I’m not convinced this is really the issue, since enough latitude exists to make personal opinions known without demonising an entire section of people.
What I really want to know is if – since the substantial News Letter interview never dealt with this – Paisley will actually explain what he meant by gay people causing harm to themselves and society without caring.
“Listen Gay fascists – yes, I use the Bible as my infallible rule of life. What is yours?”
Sam, I do hope you aren’t in automotive design. Your “infallible” Bible seems to be totally ignorant of the existence of Ï€. I’d be a little nervous relying on wheels built by a Christian fundamentalist like your good self.
The Bible is paleolithic superstition. Do move on and greet the 21st century.
“I use the Bible as my infallible rule of life.”
Which parts to you deem “infallible”?…
- John’s gospel which states that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, or the gospels of Matthew and Luke, which state that he was?
- Matthew’s chronicle of Joseph’s ancestry through 28 generations, or Luke’s list of 41 generations (which bear no relation to each other)?
- Which of the three versions of Jesus’ last words reported by Matthew, Luke and John?
Which translation do you believe? Do you care that the proper translation of the phrase “love thy neighbour” is actually “love your fellow Jew”?
“There are numerous websites our [sic] there with testimonies of former sodomites who have learned how to behave like natural human beings. Indeed, I have met some in church. There is even a programme on TBN on SKY dedicated to former queers who now are married happily.”
As I said, and as you ignored, there is proper, verified, peer-reviewed scientific research which destroys the notion of “conversion therapy”. Professional bodies such as the American Psychiatric Association and the BMA condemn it as dangerous. In response, you and your like can only come up with anecdotal stories. The fact that you cite an obscure satellite channel as “evidence” says it all.
By the way, ABC’s “20/20″ programme recently lifted the lid on the TBN network, revealing that, among other findings, TBN has a cash reserve of $340 million, controls two multimillion-dollar California mansions, and owns a Learjet aircraft worth millions. Its founders, Paul and Jan Crouch, lives an opulent and lavish lifestyle, as the show demonstrated.
Speaking about his detractors, Crouch once said: “Quit blocking God’s bridges or God is going to shoot you, if I don’t.”
Another pearl from Mr Crouch: “If my heart really, honestly desires a nice Cadillac… would there be something terribly wrong with me saying, ‘Lord, it is the desire of my heart to have a nice car… and I’ll use it for your glory? I think I could do that and in time, as I walked in obedience with God, I believe I’d have it.”
Guess what – I’m more moral and ethical than that guy, or anyone who would hand their cash over to him to misuse.
“So what more evidence do you want?
ANY evidence would be just great. I suggest you look the word up in a dictionary. The testimony of some nutjobs on a discredited TV channel doesn’t cut it.
“You attack Christian Fundamentalism, polygamy, bestiality etc on what moral basis?
True morals and ethics come from empathy and understanding (the notion of “do as you would be done to” is far more ancient than the bible); rationality; social contracts; jurisprudence; philosophy; duty; compassion; reciprocal altruism, etc. None of those depend on the bible, and all of them preclude polygamy, bestiality, and yes, your brand of fundamentalism, the perniciousness of which is evident in your posts.
Why on earth would your faith-based morality be any superior to that of the Jew, Buddhist, Hindu or, indeed, the rational atheist?
The truth will set you free.
Gosh, TB, you really know how to put the boot in, don’t you?
And there I was thinking I was being critical :0)
Poor Sam. A lot to digest there.
” In fact, it specifically quotes him
“”That doesn’t mean to say that I hate them. I mean, I hate what they do.†”
–
” “I don’t hate homosexuals but I’m repulsed by them.†A complete nonsense statement, which only makes Baby Doc and those defending him look stupid. ”
Why is it nonsense? I find the thought of a 25 year old man having sex with a 70 year old woman pretty repulsive, but apparently that floats some peoples boats.
http://www.babylon.com/definition/anililagnia/English
Does that mean I must hate such people or think it should be banned behind closed doors?
“Paisley is entitled to make whatever comment he wishes, but there is an issue if it comes to the possibility that his office may run the risk of breaching human rights legislation. Biblical values do not enter into it, provided they are legal it is no problem. Most sensible people, including people who are religious conservatives, freely accept the need to main separation between church and state. This means that you keep your religious views to yourself.”
So there are no atheists who are repulsed by homosexuality? Vladimir Zhirinovsky is an atheist and he supports the *death penalty* for homosexuality.
**It’s like saying I don’t hate Catholics, I just hate Catholicism. Which is, of course, another of the Paisley opinions.**
Actually radical atheists like Richard Dawkins have precisely the same attitude, they have no hatred of religious people per se, it’s just that they are repulsed by religion and religious practices, often they openly sneer and ridicule religious people’s beliefs and way of life.
Should atheists be decried as “bigots”, should someone like Mr Dawkins be banned from ever holding public office?
Or does this intolerance only apply to religious people?
“Why is it nonsense? I find the thought of a 25 year old man having sex with a 70 year old woman pretty repulsive, but apparently that floats some peoples boats.
http://www.babylon.com/definition/anililagnia/English
Does that mean I must hate such people or think it should be banned behind closed doors?”
Also am I a bigot for thinking that?
“Matthew’s chronicle of Joseph’s ancestry through 28 generations, or Luke’s list of 41 generations (which bear no relation to each other)?”
I will deal with this so-called error as I don’t have time to deal with the others. Your problem is that you are basing your allegations on a very superficial understanding of the Gospel accounts. The reason we have four is that they are all written to different audiences with different emphasis and objectives. They don’t claim to be chronological or plenary. Matthew, for instance, is written primarily to Jews hence he takes the genealogy of Christ through His legal father Joseph to show He fulfils the Messianic prohecies on that side. Matthew is a didactic gospel and uses groups of sevens – hence he only picks out the important persons in the genealogy for Jews. Luke, by contrast, was a Gentile and wrote much more eloquent Greek and set out to show that Christ was the Perfect Man which was what the Greeks in their philosophy and religion aspired to. Luke took the genealogy of Christ therefore through His mother’s line back to Adam to show that Christ was the Perfect Human.I could go on but anyone with a modicum of discernment has already got the point.
TBN is a joke as is Fox, Sky etc but that does not mean that a programme that is on it can be dismissed simply because of the owners of the satellite. TBN rents air space to all comers. Your problem is that you cannot accept no matter who is brought before you that a sodomite can change. Please don’t cite the Psychiatric association of whatever. They used to believe that sodomites were diseased, then sympathised with and now congenitally predetermined to this. It is strange that they don’t argue the same for paedophiles when they are sentenced in court.
I am amazed that the “golden rule” predates the Bible when the oldest source of it is the Bible! Again you give us no grounds for establishing any objective reason why we should be against beastiality or polygamy save for you just feel it is wrong. Sorry, try again with some logic!
My faith based morality has to be superior as opposite truths cannot be equal – a first year philosophy student could work that one out!
Sam Hanna,
Your account of the lineage of Joseph is specious nonsense – it makes no real sense. The two accounts name different fathers for Joseph, and they both trace him back to Abraham through two different sons of King David!
Your assertion that Luke’s account of Jesus’ lineage is actually through Mary’s line is a huge stretch. Luke’s account of Jesus’ lineage says that he was a son of “Joseph of Heli”. To perform cartwheels in suggesting that Heli was actually Mary’s father is a pretty wild interpretation – certainly no greater than those Christians who contextualise and interpret the bible in such a way as to allow gay relationships.
In any case, the two genealogies intersect. Besides starting with David and ending with Joseph, the lines share two names in common: Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, both commonly known from the period of the Babylonian captivity. If Matthew and Luke present two distinct parental genealogies, as you assert, there should be no intersection. The defence is that Shealtiel’s grandmother could have had two husbands and that her sons Jechoniah and Neri represent two distinct paternal lines. There’s not a shred of evidence for that, and it’s speculative to the point of utter nonsense.
Of course you can explain differences in two versions of a story by inserting all the fathers-in-law, numerical abbreviations and everything else that you want! But you cannot tell us the bible is “infallible” and then apply self-evidently flawed and fallible spin and interpretation to it.
I note your claim that you don’t have time to deal with some of the other examples I gave – largely randomly selected from thousands upon thousands.
“Please don’t cite the Psychiatric association of whatever. They used to believe that sodomites were diseased”
Dispassionate scientific research on whether homosexuality should be viewed as an illness was largely absent from the fields of psychiatry, psychology, and medicine until the first half of the twentieth century. Before that, it was the pernicious influence of fundamentalist religion that ensured those people led a miserable and condemned life.
Thankfully, empirical evidence disproves the idea that homosexuality is a form of mental illness or is inherently linked to psychopathology. Never mind the “American Association of whatever”, there isn’t a reputable scientific medical organisation in the western world that still views homosexuality as a disease, and you can include China and Russia in that group too. Perhaps you should stop visiting your doctor when you get ill – he or she’s probably a member of the “British Medical Whatever”. Didn’t they used to believe that thalidomide was a wonderful drug? Terrible mistakes happen – but we should learn our lessons from them, not try to perpetuate them.
As for TBN, again, anecdotal “evidence” is no more evidence than those who say they saw David Copperfield make a jumbo jet disappear.
My faith based morality has to be superior as opposite truths cannot be equal
My argument all along is that many religions hold entirely incompatible ideas of truth. Hindu reincarnation is not compatible with your Christianity, for example. But your only justification for upholding your “truth” is that you believe it to be true. You cannot prove it or demonstrate it – ever.
On the other hand, I have cited bodies of knowledge and facts that are demonstrable, provable, reviewable, and replicable. If two opposite truths cannot be equal, then the hypothesis has to be that yours is false, because mine can be proved, seen, and demostrated, and yours can’t. Not to mention the fact that your truth, as it applies to gay people (and goodness knows who else), is thoroughly nasty and vitriolic.
TB,
“On the other hand, I have cited bodies of knowledge and facts that are demonstrable, provable, reviewable, and replicable.”
Ah yes, but those are mere human facts and not truth in the divine sense. Divine truth transcends and is superior to all such mundanity. But you, being a mere moronic mortal, are incapable of understanding it!
How am I doing, Sam? :0)
Cheers Dawkins! But you forgot to mention bestiality – no post of Sam’s would be complete with it..
“But you forgot to mention bestiality – no post of Sam’s would be complete with it.”
Hmm, sometimes I really do regret not taking that PhD in Psychiatry :0)
Sorry TB, you still don’t get it as you are not comparing Scripture with Scripture. God is a lot smarter than you with your kindergarten hermeneutics. The Matthew genealogy is the line through Joseph and that is why you see the term “begat” to indicate this whereas there is no concept of begetting in Luke 3. The word son in Luke 3 is in italics as there is no word in Greek or Hebrew for son in law/grandson and refers to son in law of Heli (the father of Mary). The reason for this is prophetic,
Jer 22:28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?
Jer 22:29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.
Jer 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.
Coniah is Jehoiachin and he was cursed on the throne and anyone succeeding him is in cursed line. Christ is of the Royal line, yet is the offspring of a cursed line.
In Luke 3:23 this is a whole different genealogy until we get to v31 but then enters the same line. However, it splits off at David. Matt 1 will go the route of Solomon, but Luke 3 will go through the line of Nathan and continues down to Mary. The split is because of the problem of Coniah. Joseph inherits the Royal line and Jesus receives the inheritance of Jospeh because He is the Firstborn. However, because He is not born of Joseph He bypasses the curse so Christ gained the Royal Inheritance without the curse. Only God could have worked this out.
For the differing objectives of the Gospel writers see my comments before. I am happy to answer any objections against the Bible as with a little intelligent thinking they all cn be resolved. If you would do a little research, you would work this out before making a fool of yourself with village idiot objections.
WWJD?
What would Jesus do?
Well apparently he wouldn’t be making stuff out of wood, or even curing the sick. No he’d be walking up and down in front of city hall with a sign saying ‘GOD HATES FAGS!’ This uptight, bigoted sociopath version of Jesus many Christian fundamentalists tend to interpret from the Bible seems to be quite popular even though condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testement basically boils down to one or two words that may be interpreted in many different ways. For example Jesus’s use of the word ‘arsenokoites’ may mean ‘gay lover’, ‘male temple prostitute’ or even ‘gigalo for rich women’. But of course there just isn’t enough temple prostitutes left to rally against these days. And the Gigalos? Well they have some powerful friends.
But of course a book that is almost 2000 years old is a perfectly solid bedrock to build hatred and bigotry. Don Quixote is only 400 years old but feck if thats gonna stop me smashing windmills and saving fair maidens in its name!
And Ian Og just cements himself a slabber with some pathetic, small minded, hate filled little opinions. How exactly did Oscar Wilde, Freddie Mercury and Michelangelo harm society? isn’t it time he grew up and joined the restof us in society who don’t care what people get up to behind closed doors?
Sorry TB, your figures from the BMA state that it is possible to change. Is suspect that moct of those are down to conversion as the natural sinful man cannot change his sinful habits just like you cannot stop lying and cheating and lusting.
However, if you would use a modicum of wit you can simply google ex-sodomites testimonies in abundance on the net such as,
http://www.profamilynetwork.org/gregs_testimony.html
http://www.sbministries.org/media.html
http://www.sdnewsnotes.com/ed/articles/2003/1003rk.htm
http://exodus.blogs.com/liveoutloud/exodusformer_homosexuals/index.html
You are right that I cannot prove that my beliefs are true. Then again you cannot prove the scientific method is true as it is a tautological argument. You have to look at the most persuasive and take a leap of faith. The Bible is way ahead of any book in that area without doubt.
TTP,
“For example Jesus’s use of the word ‘arsenokoites’ may mean ‘gay lover’, ‘male temple prostitute’ or even ‘gigalo for rich women’.”
Please tell me that you made up “arsenokoites”! Arse-nookie-ites? LOL!