"I think organised religion is a blight on the globe"? His previous posts about the time in the seminary?

Xavius was in the seminary? WTF.

I swear I've read about it somewhere, but the only source with any conflict I've seen is this one.

I also recall reading about a Latino woman who was harassed for attempting to remove offensive material from the LDS property. She wasn't even a member of the Church, herself.

(Admittedly, considering the heat coming from all sides, I should start taking most of this with a grain of salt.)

didn't look very hard?

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/prop...}&dist=hppr

Why else would he be so hateful?

Ohh. Verithrax was in the seminary too?

clearly ok good point.

I don't think it's very fair to apply those news stories to the gay community anymore than it is to apply the stories of violent hate crimes against gays to the entire heterosexual community. You can make any group look bad if you just hand out certain pieces of information.

This is true, however the gay community is out there saying that the whole religious community is hateful and evil and terrible people, while declaring that they the opposite.

Again, you generalize. Personally, I don't. I'm actually a fairly religious person. I think the majority of people are misguided. But I think that when shown the truth, that most of us aren't all that different from most straight people, I think that when confronted with that basic truth most people are willing to swallow their pride and admit they're in the wrong. But then, I tend to believe that about almost every issue. Because I choose to believe that people are neither inherently evil, nor inherently foolish.

The way those protesters acted is a damn shame. However, This might surprise you coming from me, I think the heterosexuals holdings signs shouting things like 'God hates fags' or 'Die Fag's, etc, are bad too. I'll agree with Xavius that THOSE people are idiots. It is my personal belief that God doesn't hate anybody. That doesn't however mean that there is nothing you can do wrong. If you have a child that's disobedient, you don't hate them, and that's the same way God feels about gays. He loves them just as much as anybody else. I personally don't have anything against gay people. I just don't agree with their lifestyles, but then, there are a lot of things in life that i may or may not agree with. Hell, at my college, the group of people i hang around includes a gay man. We treat him just like we treat the rest of the group. We have all kinds of civilized and enjoyable discussions at lunch or dinner, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with or support what he does. So calling me a bigot really strikes a nerve with me. Does everybody have to unconditionally agree with and condone any behavior to be a good person? If so, then Xavius is just as big of a bigot, for his intolerance of all things religious.

I just love how the Mormon temple just received an envolope with white powder in it... *sigh*

I feel obligated to point out that it's far more likely a random RL troll/joker sent that just to rile the two sides up than it is a gay person. Hell, they always send white-powder envelopes whenever something related to politics happens- I remember some being sent to a McCain campaign centre, for example, during the election.

I agree with Furien. It probably is some random idiot wanting to stir the pot, although it does tick me off that anybody would do that.

I haven't been reading this thread closely, but there are a couple of points here that I doubt have been made. I have actually engaged in academic study of the bible and its teachings on a number of fronts, and I often find it very distressing how many people appeal to it to support this or that claim about what God thinks without even having closely read the book, or understood it within its own historical context.

During the times that the bible was written, the sexual practices that are forbidden have nothing to do with a same-gendered couple who are in love wanting to live in a monogamous marriage. All of the sexual practices prohibited by the bible (that are commonly referred to in modern language as homosexual acts) are prohibited as a reaction to pagan religious observances or the "unnatural" acts of married women engaging in sexual impropriety due to "neglect" on the part of their husbands (this prohibition, by the way, does not come from Jesus, but from Paul, who very specifically says he's speaking from HIS opinion not GOD'S), or the acts engaged in by various Roman male citizens who used sexual acts with lower ranked males to assert their dominance over them. The acts that are being prohibited in the bible have to do with the worshipping of false gods, behaving in a manner that is contrary to your nature, and being overpowered for political reasons/ambitions, which is the context in which "homosexual acts" were understood over the long span of history during which the various books of the bible were written.

The shorter version of that is that there is actually nothing in the bible, when taken in the historical context in which it was written, that prohibits the loving marriage between two individuals of the same gender. All prohibitions that appear to be speaking of "homosexual acts" are talking about very specific circumstances that are -not- the same as a loving, monogamous marriage.

You cannot divorce understanding of the bible and its teachings from its historical context. You cannot pick and choose which verses you want to understand within context, and those you prefer to understand outside of context. Using the bible to support the idea that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry in our times is cherry-picking of the worst kind.

Then why do we see it so often?

Well, you sure can decide how to interpret it. Actually, the church as an institution changes its interpretations to defend the faith when the times change and people get to understand the world better. You hear all the time how you shouldn't take the bible literally - but people used to.
Soon the church will decide that contraception and homosexuality are not sins because the flock will scatter if they don't. I'd laugh so hard, the few remaining bigots would be like "WTF, we were wrong? It's not a sin and it was us who actually sinned with hate?".
Something like that.

Perhaps I should have said "should not" instead of "cannot". Clearly it's possible to do so, but it is intellectually and morally dishonest to do so.

Now, perhaps you are talking about the gospel books here, but when it comes to the 5 books of Moses, I believe you to be very inccorrect.

The list of forbidden relationships, are specifically talking about forbiden relationships for marrage. For example, one of the ways we know who is allowed to be secluded in a locked room together, without it consituting a valid witness for a marriage, is from the list in levitucus. Meaning, if you are secluded in a room with your Wife's sister, we do not worry that you have made a second marrage with the sister, because you arn't allowed to. Same thing with another man. Since two men are not allowed to be married to eachother, then we are not concerned if two men are secluded in a room together either. There are 11 such relationships.

In fact, in the story of Noach and the ark (you know, the one, ironically associated with the rainbow), you have the following commentary: (from the 1st century CE)

"Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Joseph, 'The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage documents for the union of a man to a male or to an animal.'"


Now maybe its different for christians, and Jesus repealed those laws also, but it is pretty clearly written, that marriage is much worse than just a casual or experimental relationship.

Yrael, where did you get the 40k comics in your photobucket from?