Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Scottish councillor: ‘Gays are sad and atheists are damned to hell’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Kenneth, MY imaginary friend dosn’t like YOU either.

  2. Sad, stupid, gullible man!

  3. namesRhard 3 Aug 2009, 5:54pm

    I’d love to meet these people who think man created everything. :P

  4. “so-called” gays as “really very sad people” and said that non-believers are “damned to hell”

    Well, nothing like good generalisations to keep his “Christian” spirits up.

    Does “the creator” really need help from fools like this?

  5. Will the Scouser 3 Aug 2009, 6:06pm

    Well, what do you expect from a pig but a grunt?

  6. What’s a “so called gay”? Does this mean he’s a “so called idiot” or a real idiot? One things is for sure, he prays to a so-called god.

    Where does he get the “sad” thing from, I’ve personally never been happier with my lot in life!

  7. Jen Marcus 3 Aug 2009, 6:17pm

    Well, any allegedly educated person and leader like Mr. Gunn, that goes around still allegedly believing and pontificating that the Bible is the literal unerrant Word of God and/or believes and preaches that places like Hell exist and were created by a supposedly loving God in the 21st century, then such a person is probably either not well, delusional, or operating from a malevolent, manipulative, power seeking and pandering to the masses agenda. Such people have no business in positions of leadership, power, authority or influence especially when their twisted opinions and half truths may incite and inflame hatred and bigotry in others too the point of unleashing “hell ” on earth for many innocent people that may become victims of their physical and/or emotional violence!

  8. George Broadhead 3 Aug 2009, 6:33pm

    “Well, any allegedly educated person and leader like Mr. Gunn, that goes around still allegedly believing and pontificating that the Bible is the literal unerrant Word of God and/or believes and preaches that places like Hell exist and were created by a supposedly loving God in the 21st century…”

    Well, as the Humanist philosopher Bertrand Russell points out in ‘Why I Am Not A Christian’, Christ certainly believed in Hell. He said to those who didn’t like his preaching: “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, can can ye escape the damnation of Hell.”

  9. Gays are only sad that some Christians find such hate within their own faith.

  10. Another Bible blockhead…. It is no offence to burn any holy book, whether it’s a bible, a koran, the book of mormon a torah or whatever – so long as it’s your own copy.

    The church invited people to give an honest opinion of what they thought of the hatred preached in their bible and people rightly gave an open and honest answer.

    The real answer of course, is to completely rip out most of the old testament, because it is dangerous nonsense. The book of deuteronomy and numbers give jews the authority to occupy land which isn’t theirs in palestine. It only takes one person to be fanatical enough to machine gun a crowd of muslims or gay people – both have happened in israel now.

    Crackpot Mr Gunn – possibly a loose canon within his party – should know that we too can be offended, and it’s about time people said so, and high time he got used to that.

  11. He is a social misfit and a silly old gum beater and should not have been let out to talk in public.

  12. In answer to Adrian, and as I have noted on another page, Jews base their claim to the land of Israel not on biblical texts but on 4,000 years of continuous occupation. Jews formed the population of that part of the world long before ‘Palestinians’ or Arabs for that matter appeared on the scene. Some people here seem determined to drag their anti-semitism into any topic.

  13. Simon Murphy 3 Aug 2009, 7:10pm

    Is this nutter going to face disciplinary action by the SNP?

    If he claimed that black people, jews or muslims were damned to hell he’d be expelled instantly. Are his insults against atheists or gay people acceptable to the SNP?

  14. Christina Engela 3 Aug 2009, 7:10pm

    It is a BOOK for crying out loud.

    A bundle of paper and ink and cardboard. Nothing more. Not for nothing is it made of wood – being useful to bash people over the head with…

  15. Brian Burton 3 Aug 2009, 7:33pm

    Who in their right minds would want to be Counciled by a Scotish Councillor who is a Homophobe and A obvious Fundy Religious nut? These Types want to govern an Independent Scotland. I wonder If the Leader of the SNP, Alex Salmond’s views are simular to one or more of his councillors?

  16. Rick George 3 Aug 2009, 7:37pm

    As far as I am concerned this man has lost himself all credibility to hold any position of authority. He has bought the SNP into disrepute and should resign

  17. “He continued: “When we all went to church on a Sunday morning and prayed to Jesus Christ, this was a much better country.”

    When would that be exactly then? When people burned innocent women as witches? When women were considered inferior and not allowed to vote? When some churches insisted that the Bible said interracial marriages were wrong? When people had to give a tenth of their income to the church?

    Oh, yes, that would be great. And his comment about gay people just shows his ignorance. I love the way all these people seem to believe they are guaranteed a place in heaven (if it exists). I’d hardly say he was following Jesus’ teaching by preaching hate and denigrating a section of humanity.

  18. I’ve been saying for years that the SNP are homophobic, this is just another example in a long line. No action will be taken against this bigot by the SNP leadership.

  19. Not Scotland again…!??!!

    What has IT ever done to deserve this daft King Cnut on top of the other daft King Cnut, wossisface…Isle of Lewis Tallach, King of No Sunday Ferry Land…!

    ‘Kinell..!!

    Keith

  20. Frankly, with enemies like this, who needs friends?

    It is not gays or atheists who should be worried (and I am happy to count myself as both), but those theists who are still trying to cling to a vestige of moral or intellectual credibility.

    Mr Gunn remonds me a bit of a drunk who warns us that his imaginary friend will beat us all up if we don’t show him a bit more respect. We should treat him accordingly.

    The SNP should quietly pension the poor old soul off. If they don’t they will find themselves looking just as rediculous.

  21. Echo what Jen Marcus so eloquently put. Manipulative, bigotted, religious hatred has no place in the 21st Century. Civilisation has to move forward or die out, and that applies across the globe.

    Gay people are treated as less than animals in some jurisdictions and religion is the cause. It is as bad as and possibly worse than racism – I call it “gay racism”. We should not tolerate people like this as political leaders in th UK. Our society knows better.

    Further, mankind should move on to a moral framework that does need some version of a “sky fairy” or prophet to teach a human code of conduct such as respect, honesty, non-violence, etc.

    Typical homophobia from Scotland unfortunately!

  22. I suspect that this “little” man really doesn’t intimately know any gay people. He looks like a very confident self-congratulatory big man who is probably a bully. Come on relations of his, come out of the closet now! Are you his son or daughter? Come out in public. Speak out against your father. Show the fool up for what he is.

  23. Anthony Carter 3 Aug 2009, 9:52pm

    I know Scottish gays who are perfectly happy, despite being Christian…

  24. Mr. Gunn.

    I would have thought that who gets into heaven and who does not, is really rather up to God ….much like invites to a birthday bash…no.?

    I doubt whether you’ll have much of a say in it…

    Concentrate on getting yourself there and leave others to do the same…’age quod agis’ …that’s Latin, my luv,…means ‘mind yer own biz’…

    I long ago dismissed the notion of HELL as a “parting-of-the-poor- -from-their-pennies”, scam….much favoured by the Roman Catholic Church..

    I cannot accept it, in principle…’Doctrine of Universal Salvation’ and all that upon which, I think, the jury is still out.

    Anyway, Mr. G….just neb out and see to yourself…you have enough problems choosing ties and if your choice of tie were to determine your everlasting fate, then you’ll be shuvlin’ coal ‘per omnia saecula saeculorum..’….no danger..!

    That’s also Latin, my luv,…it means fer evvvvvvver…!

    K

  25. Sadly it is people like this who do run countries – albeit small fry…a local councillor from scotland – anyway let my tax paying english pounds keep pumping the money up north.

  26. I agree that he should be kicked out of the party, but I’m sceptical that will happen.

    All he’s shown here, is that he’s a prick, but that’s an insult to pricks, I normally like pricks a lot, ;) but I wouldn’t touch this one with a barge pole.

  27. Dearly beloved, let’s take a moment or two to remind ourselves of exactly what orthodox Christian doctrine requires its credulous adherents to believe in order to avoid the damnation of eternal torment by its god:

    YHVH/Elohim/God “God the he Father” is God.
    Jesus “God the Son” is God.
    The Holy Spirit is God.

    God had to sacrifice Himself to Himself in order to save believers from the Wrath… of Himself!

    …and if we don’t believe this blasphemous nonsense we’ll be tortured mercilessly forever!

    Does any sane person believe the historical, Jewish Jesus believed that?

    “when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.”
    –Robert Pirsig

  28. Jen Marcus 4 Aug 2009, 4:23am

    In response to Mr. Brodhead’s statement “Christ certainly believed in Hell.” Can we be so sure as to what the historical Jesus, or the resurrected Christ actually said, or believed, or is this some interpretation, or misinterpretation of, or by, a pre scientific biblical unknown author in the ancient Mediterranean who allegedly wrote one of the Gospel narratives in the New Testament the first written in 70 CE (or one of maybe Paul’s epistles about 50 -62 CE) attributed to Mark and derived from some oral tradition allegedly by eye witnesses to make a particular theological point? But then again ancient peoples like the historical Jesus may have believed in demons, witches and evil spirits and that there was a dome over the sky, and the earth was flat, and there was an Adam & Eve, etc., and the earth was the center of the universe and the universe and earth were created in 7 days, etc., so who knows eh?

  29. Tiglathpileser 4 Aug 2009, 6:46am

    Come on children, it is time to get out of the sandpit as your mummies are here to take you home.

  30. Tiglathpileser 4 Aug 2009, 6:58am

    CE14-A bundle of paper and ink and cardboard. Nothing more. Not for nothing is it made of wood – being useful to bash people over the head with…

    Evidence please!!!

    KH21-Echo what Jen Marcus so eloquently put. Manipulative, bigotted, religious hatred has no place in the 21st Century.

    That means the gaystapo will have to ditch their religious hatred and bigotry against anyone who doesn’t agree with them. If they don’t your words are hypocrisy.

    Gay people are treated as less than animals in some jurisdictions and religion is the cause.

    Evidence please!!!

    Further, mankind should move on to a moral framework that does need some version of a “sky fairy” or prophet to teach a human code of conduct such as respect, honesty, non-violence, etc.

    I am glad that you see the need for some kind of “sky fairy”. Try the one in the bible as that teaches respect, honesty and non violence. Check out the ten commnadments in Exodus and the sermon on the mount in Matthew. Follow that teaching and you won’t need to be filled with religious hatred or bigotry.

  31. Sugar Plum Fairy has changed his name again to Tiglathpileser, I see?

    The raging anger is fairly indicative of a bi-polar mental condition, but the name changing, sheesh… that a whole new ball game of nutty!

  32. Mihangel apYrs 4 Aug 2009, 7:55am

    @Tiglathpileser
    why do you, and people like you think you, think that because you believe certain things everyone else should.

    While the SotM is a good quasi-humanist screed, it isn’t the only one – consider the sutras of the Buddha among others.

    You may believe in a supernatural power, I don’t. I also don’t want your belief shoved forward as the ethic bedrock of the law and civilisation, not least that its few gems do not obscure the deep viciousness inherent in it.

    And as far as “Gay people are treated as less than animals in some jurisdictions and religion is the cause”:
    consider the horrors perpetrated in Iraq by the religious fundies, and in other Islamic countries. Their “faith” is as valid and sincere as yours! There are also parts of the US where the religious right make life unpleasant and nasty, and sometimes dangerous for gay people, especially kids. Homophobic bullying, discrimination run rife. So please don’t come here sanctimoniously using your personal superstition as a bat to beat us with.

    And just why are you here? If you want to preach to the lost try it at your local gay bar on a Saturday night, then at least you’d be showing the courage of your convictions

  33. Funny chap, isn’t he? He says “We fought holy wars over the last 4,000 years to protect the Bible and, can I say, to protect the Holy Koran as well” – yes indeed: most of those ‘holy’ wars were fought BETWEEN people who said their “holy” book was more holy than the other (or, worse still, between people who venerated the same “holy” book but in a different way)!

    I don’t think those involved in the Crusades or the Reconquista were particularly concerned with protecting the Koran …

  34. Ashurbanipal 4 Aug 2009, 8:48am

    Indeed, Mr Kenneth Gunn a councillor of the Scottish National Party has recently made some very forthright statements on homosexuality.

    But should we not be pointing the search light more and more on ourselves as Paul does in Romans 2? How many of us would want all our thoughts to be put on a screen for all to see.
    Should we not highlight the fact that in Romans 1: 26 it says “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections”?
    Gave up who? Surely, as with Romans 2, the spotlight is on us, the 98- 98% of population who are men and women having sex with one another. Homosexuality is a consequence, a fruit of our idolatry. Homosexuality is the punishment for not giving God the glory, for not hallowing his name. God says, OK, I will release the reins and let you go and see where it takes you.

    It is both easy and difficult in the present climate to speak out against MSMs and WSWs, but neither are we going to be making friends with our straight family members and neighbours who according to Romans 1& 2 are responsible for the situation. Maybe we need to stop attacking the fruit and concentrate on the tree that is rotten to the core? Maybe if the homosexuals viewed themselves not so much as victims but as symptoms of a diseased society, this might help them to see the seriousness of their own situation.

  35. Tiglathpileser is now Ashurbanipal, it seems.

    “How many of us would want all our thoughts to be put on a screen for all to see.”

    That worries me. I wouldn’t mind that so why should you? Is your mind so filled with filth? You certainly seem to think about sex a lot.

    And stop quoting that silly and incorrect figure for the number of LGBT people in society. By the way, did you know that only 0.02% of the UK population believe in God? No, of course you didn’t – because I made it up. But that seems acceptable to you, so what the hell, eh?

    Romans 1:26? There are many interpretations of this, but I personally believe that Paul is expressing his own ignorance and prejudice, or, to be fairer, that of the culture he grew up in. The Bible also says that slavery is OK – do you really believe that? It says that women should marry their rapists – that OK with you too? And I could go on – particularly where the treatment of women is concerned.

  36. What a freak.

  37. The C*nt of Monte Crisco 4 Aug 2009, 9:11am

    I was thinking more, what a wanker! I bet he goes home and gets off to lezzie porn though!

  38. Well if the SNP leadership don’t throw him out over such remarks, we should rename the SNP – SICK NASTY PARTY.

  39. Sister Mary Clarence 4 Aug 2009, 9:35am

    Tiglathpileser – dead God, Exodus Old Testament, so you’re telling us you’re following Leviticus to the letter I hope.

    No pork (no even a couple those lovely cocktail sausage things wrapped in bacon at Christmas)

    No shellfish – crayfish, scallops, mussels and clams (possibly crabsticks though I guess – I’m not sure they actually are crab, might just be flavouring like prawn cocktail crisps)

    No rabbit (although in fairness who could eat a lovely cuddly little baby rabbit)

    No tattoos (in henna or otherwise)

    I trust you are neither bald, nor long-haired or clean shaven

    No polycotton (although to be fair that’s probably the most reasonable thing that ever spewed from Leviticus’ mouth) or other mixed fabrics.

    Sunday working? Ever cut the grass on a Sunday – you’ll be Hell-bound with th rest of us.

    Need I go on …..

    “Let him among you who is without sin be the first to send a stone ….”

    John 8:7

    Please don’t cone here cherry picking sections the Old Testament, when I’d damn sure you’re not following its teachings yourself.

    Christians have twisted the Bible for hundreds of years to persecute gay people, overlooking everything that is written in it about tolerance of diversity. Is it any wonder so many of us have turned against it? There no single text in the Bible that condemns homosexuality – prostitution yes, homosexuality no. Its about time Christians like you and Kenneth Gunn learned to tell the difference.

  40. an old man, trying sadly to make his last days count. An out of date way of thinking that was made on the foundation of fear. But you see now we know. There is no bogie man, there is no hell. And any man that thinks that war and waste of human life is worth fighting over for the sake of a book , is very sad

  41. Simon Murphy 4 Aug 2009, 10:33am

    To: snp.hq@snp.org
    Cc: kgunn@scotborders.gov.uk

    Dear SNP,

    It was with horror that I heard that Kenneth Gunn, a Scottish National Party councillor for Selkirk, made comments on a live BBC radio phone-in programme describing “so-called” gays as “really very sad people” and that non-believers are “damned to hell”.

    Now as far as I am concerned if Gunn made a similar comment about black, muslim or jewish people he would be regarded as a facist sympathiser – more suited to the BNP that the SNP.

    Is facism tolerated by the SNP? I sincerely hope not.

    Please confirm that Gunn is to be expelled from the SNP.

    A refusal by the SNP to take action against an intolerant bigot like Gunn would be indicative of how inappropriate Scottish independence would be if this type of bigotry is tolerated by the SNP.

    Yours sincerely

  42. Ashurbanipal –
    “How many of us would want all our thoughts to be put on a screen for all to see.”
    I heard some dumbass Cardiff preacher spouting that one last year… was it you by any chance?
    This sounds like thoughtcrime to me, and I’d wager your mind comes up with some pretty embarrassing stuff too. But the difference between us and fundamentalists is we don’t think having bad thoughts is a criminal act.
    If you spend your life censoring every thought you imagine you may be about to have before you even know what it is you’re about to think you’re well on your way to being a neurotic wreck. As Derren Brown would say “If I tell you not to think of a black cat, what’s the first thing you think of?”
    Catholics spend a disproportionate amount of thier time ‘not’ thinking about sex. That’s a cast iron guarantee that they’ll be obsessing about sex far more than most of us and all the things they’re not supposed to be doing.
    If you can be convicted of thoughtcrimes, sinning “In thought, and word and deed” frankly you’re screwed!
    And I bet you thought of some pretty filthy stuff while just reading this! Can we display it up on an IMAX screen like something out of 1984?

  43. Matthew 7:3

    3″Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

    Strange how Christians don’t follow the words of Jesus

  44. I wish Mr Gunn and others like him would stop involving me in their hate filled rants.

  45. I only get “sad” when I discover yet another bigot popping up; they are like moles in your best lawn (actuually no; moles are cute!)More like horrible big poisionous spiders creeping out of the undergrowth! Mr Salmoned shuld remind him its against the law to come out with this slanderous claptrap!

  46. Belshazzar 4 Aug 2009, 11:49am

    Sister Mary Clarence (39) I cannot find any where in the Bible the words to tolerance and diversity being used, certainly not in a post modern sense. In Romans chapter 2 it says, “You, therefore ( talking to the straights) have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. ( adultery, incest, bestiality, homosexuality every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity, envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice…..on and on). Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance? The word tolerance here is used in the same way that an engineer would use the word: working within set limits, beyond which the engineer is not prepared to go. Tolerance here means forebearing, suffering, put up with for a while; it certainly does not mean acceptance.

    Sister, the reason that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality is because like then as with now, such a Darwinian invention never existed; it speaks only of men having sex with men, or women have sex with women.
    Incidentally, the Bible does not speak of other disorders that are peculiar to our technological age such as drug – taking , breaking the speed limit, contraception, mass abortion, IVF and so on, simply because they did not exist then.
    Leviticus !8 1- 30 simply gives a list of those with whom one must not have sexual relations.
    (INCEST)
    ” ‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.
    ” ‘Do not dishonour your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonour your father.
    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonour you.
    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.
    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.
    ” ‘Do not dishonour your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.
    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonour your brother.
    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

    (POLYGAMY)
    ” ‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

    (SODOMY ?)

    ” ‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

    (ADULTERY)
    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbour’s wife and defile yourself with her.

    (ABORTION)
    ” ‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

    (HOMOSEXUALITY)
    ” ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

    (BESTIALITY)
    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

    ” ‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
    ” ‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.’ ”

    I don’t know sister Mary Clarence whether you have looked out the window lately, but society is in meltdown. Britain within our lifetime will disappear.

  47. Belshazzar, i cant be arsed to talk about your whole embaressing excuse for a post so i’ll concentrate on this

    ” ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”- i think you’ll find if you know anything about biology that its impossible to do that without the aid of a very strong drill.

    by the way, what exactly do you think your going to achieve? all your doing is making us ‘sick sinners’ more angry with christianity and less likely to accept it, you are driving us away from your version of god. if he wants us all to love him and worship him you are directly making sure we will not.if you really believe in that god id be afraid of how he’s going to ‘reward’ you after you die.

  48. I am too busy to rebuke you Belshazzar so I will leave that to Paul in Galatians 3:1-14

    Faith or Observance of the Law

    (1)You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. (2)I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? (3)Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? (4)Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? (5)Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

    (6)Consider Abraham: “He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (7)Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. (8)The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” (9)So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

    (10)All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” (11)Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.” (12)The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things will live by them.” (13)Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” (14)He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

  49. Are you Jewish Belshazzar, are you compelled to live by the old testament or are you a Christian and saved by grace.

    Its strange how a non Christian should teach you this.

  50. Sister Mary Clarence 4 Aug 2009, 12:34pm

    Belshazzar, you’re right, I think we might be due another visit from Jesus, to drive the merchants from the temple. It would appear that the self-righteous have taken over the world at the expense of the righteous.

    You will find only what you want to find, and you will, I am sure, interpret what you find only as you want to interpret it. Tolerance is there if you want to see it – seek and ye shall find:

    Religious Tolerance in the Hebrew Scriptures:

    World religions at peace with each other:

    The prophet Micah prophesied about a coming time when nations will stop making war. The various peoples of the world will live in peace and pursue their different religions, each worshipping their different Gods and Goddesses. Meanwhile, the Jews will continue to follow Jehovah. His prophesy came to pass for the known western world during the Roman Empire where religious were generally tolerated (except for the intermittent persecution of Christians). There has not been any period since the fall of the Roman Empire when tolerance of religious minorities has been generally observed worldwide.
    Micah 4:3-5 “…they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hat spoken it. For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever.” (KJV)

    Religious Tolerance in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament):

    Tolerance of other types of “Christianity”:

    Jesus’ disciples had rejected a healer who was exorcising demons in Jesus’ name, yet was not one of Jesus direct followers. Jesus criticized his disciples and accepted the healer. Mark and Luke report the incident in parallel passages:
    Mark 9:38-40 “…we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbade him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.” (KJV)
    Luke 9:49-50 “…we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.”

    Jesus refused to curse non-believers:

    Jesus’ teachings were rejected by the inhabitants of a village in Samaria. His disciples asked that he exterminate the people of the village by issuing a curse. Jesus refused to do it, and simply move on to the next village.
    Luke 9:52-56: “…they did not receive him…And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.”

    Jesus treats a Samaritan women with respect:

    Jesus initiates a conversation with a Samaritan woman in Sychar, Samaria. This is unusual in at least two ways: Jewish men did not talk to women who were not their wives or were not from their family. Also, Jews normally treated Samaritans with contempt. Jews did not have dealings with them, because they had deviated from Judaism.
    John 4:7-27: “There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink…Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water…Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father…And upon this came his disciples, and marveled that he talked with the woman…”

    Christians treating Jews with respect:

    The author of Luke and Acts comments that the Jews in Berea were more noble, fair-minded and receptive than the Jews of Thessalonica.
    Acts 17:10-13 “And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.”

    Tolerance of Pagans towards Christians:

    Paul was under house arrest in Rome for two years. The government granted him religious freedom and did not forbid him to preach.
    Acts 28:30-31 “And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.”

    Acceptance of non-Christians into Heaven:

    A common and often preached message in the Christian Scriptures is that trusting in Jesus is the only way to be saved, and that only those persons who hear the Gospel and accept it will attain Heaven. However Romans 2:14-16 delivers a different and contrasting message. Paul writes: “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” Paul is here discussing those individuals who have not heard of the Mosaic law. Their lives will be reviewed on Judgment Day; they may be saved and attain heaven if they performed sufficient good works while alive on Earth.

    Toleration of fellow Christians: St. Paul commented on the range of beliefs among Christians. It was not unlike the variety of beliefs and practices seen among Christian denominations today. He called for intra-faith harmony. Paul urged believers to be tolerant of others who may follow different dietary rules, or hold religious services on a different day. He recommends that believers avoid doing anything that might make a fellow believer stumble in this faith.
    Romans 14:1-23 “Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him…One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind…But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ…Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.” (NKJ)

    Avoid offending followers of other religions: St. Paul commented on the dietary habits of Christians.
    1 Corinthians 10:31-32 “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:”

    (religioustolerance.org)

  51. Gosh that’s me on two counts. LOL

  52. The Menstruator 4 Aug 2009, 1:21pm

    What the article doesn’t say is that Mr. Gunn is being serviced by 2 young swarthy vboys while that photo was being taken.

  53. Sister Mary Clarence . . . is spot on with regards “Leviticus Living”

    As a book on holiness it is curious how Fundamentalist Christians pick and mix from it?

  54. Vincent Poffley 4 Aug 2009, 1:58pm

    Yet more evidence, as if any were needed, of how utterly pernicious religion can be. A profession of religious belief should prevent anyone from becoming a political figure, because by definition religious beliefs are all false beliefs. If they were true, and supported by evidence, they would not be religious – they would simply be facts. I do not want my country run by people who believe demonstrable falsehoods and lack the appropriate mental capacities to realise this.

  55. Paul Kidder 4 Aug 2009, 1:59pm

    Hilarious! I’ve never laughed so hard on a Tuesday morning! Now, if only these daft old sods had no influence, and all we had to do was wait for them to die along with their prejudice.

  56. George Broadhead 4 Aug 2009, 1:59pm

    “In response to Mr. Broadhead’s statement ‘Christ certainly believed in Hell’, can we be so sure as to what the historical Jesus, or the resurrected Christ actually said, or believed, or is this some interpretation, or misinterpretation…”

    The Gospels are the only source we have about what Jesus allegedly said and did.

    In Matthew in particular, he refers to: “the damnation of hell”, “a furnace of fire”, “everlasting fire” and “the fire that never shall be quenched”.

    It is clear that he relished the everlasting punishment which would be in store for those who were sceptical of his messianic pretensions.

  57. Simon Murphy 4 Aug 2009, 2:12pm

    N0 56: George Breadhead: You say: “The Gospels are the only source we have about what Jesus allegedly said and did. ”

    True but seeing as there were originally about 15 gospels and the that these were chopped and changed and rewritten about 1,000 years ago into the 4 gospels we know and laugh at today, it is perfectly clear that they are meaningless thrash designed to give comfort to the lives of stupid people.

    People should never forget that the word of ‘god’ has been written, interpreted and edited by humans. My view that it is meaningless, badly written schlock is just as valid an interpretatiion as the pope’s.

  58. As an out and proud gay man who lives in Selkirk, you can rest assured that I will campaign to oust this man from his post and make the wider population in his ward aware of the bigot that ‘represents’ them

  59. Vincent Poffley 4 Aug 2009, 2:16pm

    “My view that it is meaningless, badly written schlock is just as valid an interpretatiion as the pope’s.”

    Actually, no. Your view is a much more valid interpretation, because it has evidence to back it up…

  60. See you in hell….if i am given the right to enter the gates, i will hand them back so i can see your soul blunder every day….bring it on you bastered

  61. john sharp 4 Aug 2009, 4:00pm

    i am gay and happy
    athiest proud.
    i do not need fake religious leaders
    preaching lies that they representany god
    i needto see thesocalled gods
    and if there isarepresentative
    a duly singed power of atterny

  62. Belshazzar 4 Aug 2009, 4:24pm

    Abi 1975 ( 48,49), and Sister Mary Clarence (39,50)

    Though we have been set from the power of sin guilt and eternal death, we have not been set free to licence, to jump back into the slavery of sinful behaviour again. We have been bought with a price that none of us could possible pay; we are new creations, clothed in the righteousness of Christ’s clean clothes and now become his slaves – a slavery that is perfect freedom.

    Colossians Chapter 2 says

    13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
    Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink,( shrimps and pigs) or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

    Hebrews 10: 1-3
    The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

    11- 24Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

    The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
    “This is the covenant I will make with them
    after that time, says the Lord.
    I will put my laws in their hearts,
    and I will write them on their minds.” Then he adds:
    “Their sins and lawless acts
    I will remember no more.” And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds.

    26 -31 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

    As for Micah foretelling a time when everyone will follow their own religion, you could only have got that from the website religioustolerance.org, a thoroughly pagan and heretical site. Sister, you have well and truly been had.

    Philippians 2: 9 -11Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

    Colossians 1:19He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    Please note, not Belteshazzar, the name given to Daniel but Belshazzer, the ruler of Babylonia .

  63. Simon Murphy 4 Aug 2009, 4:37pm

    Belshazzar – can I just say that your ‘god’ sounds like a right dreary old miseryguts.

    Luckily ‘god’ is a fictional character eh?

    Otherwise he’d be a monstrous maniac for murdering all those 1st born Egyptian babies. What type of evil monster would do that?

  64. Give me an honest atheist with clear-cut ideas rather than a sad, rancid right-wing Christian who, by his own actions and speech, detracts from what Christianity is all about: Love One Another.
    Remember this, Mr Gunn, and be thoroughly ashamed.

  65. Oh…!!!
    Belshazzar….!
    Tigal-me-wiv-a feather-wot-ever….!!
    Ave-hur-banana-pal…!!!
    Nebuchadnezzar…!!!!
    Rehoboath…!!!!!!
    Marmaduke Montmorency De Lisle and Dudley..!!!
    Shadraq…Meshaq..Abednego..beget..begat..begot…begotten rotten.

    Me ‘ead! …me ‘ead!!….me ‘ead!!!…me ckuffin’ ‘ead… readin’ this lot…!!!

    I recant!
    I’ll be a good Catholic!

    Where do I sign, O Holy Father…Hail Mary’s x 3..!

    “Allah u akhbar”…..wot ever yer want, Mr. Have-a-Dinner-Jacket, there in Iran.

    WHERE DO I SIGN…!
    WHERE DO I SIGN…..!!

    Karl! Yer mother, Mrs. Marx, was a wonderful woman!
    Come and read that book to me, wot you wrote.

    Buddha, me luv…come and recite yer Baghadd-ryvita to me honey..!

    Adolf, precious! Yer Kampf wasn’t that campf at all, despite what they say; lovely little read and so well punctuated..

    Mao! Such a lovely shade of cerise…

    ANYTHING BUT THAT LOT UPSTAIRS THERE (except God’s at #44)

    Leave it out…!
    Lawk’s a mercy!!
    ‘Kinell!!

    Even poor old God, at #44, is fed up…(I liked that one, God, actually..!)
    Pithy!
    Witty!
    To the point.!

    All Gunn needs is a little bit of common sense and a LOT more dress sense.

    That tie…!
    Er…no, Mr. Gunn, chuck…no…!
    It looks like a cow’s tongue wot’s been at the mustard.
    Ask a queenie, luv; she’ll get yer dressed in a mornin’…
    Forget yer missus; she’s obvy clooless..!

    It’d be a lot less hassle if we just took him a selection of ties and helped him choose one or six; I’m sure that’s what’s wrong.

    He’s in necktie-denial.

    Keith.
    But soon to re-name myself Petula Paracetamol or Iris Ibuprofen…if tha’ keeps writing these long treatiseseseses, my fellow/fellowess contributors.

  66. WHAT WILL THE SNP DO ABOUT THIS? Alex Salmond – we are watching very closely to see what action will be taken on this man for his bigoted, hurtful, idiotic comments.

    I suggest everyone here contacts the SNP to ask the same.

  67. Sister Mary Clarence 4 Aug 2009, 5:53pm

    @ Belshazzar

    “…. But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ…Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.”

    Romans 14:1-23

  68. Brian Burton 4 Aug 2009, 5:54pm

    Simon Murphy is more Religious than he makes out. He is far better versed in the Holy Scriptures than anyone on the Pink Threads I’ve witnessed, and that includes a Gay Christian like me. This Councillor Idiot must have first hand Infomation on where atheiests are headed. Do you know Simon?

  69. Belshazzar, here’s a mad idea…. how about fucking off with the scripture, as its all interoperation, and thinking for yourself, eh? You might find that more challenging. Who care what the bible says, its contradictory rubbish to a non-believer. Who cares that you think we’re sinners, I think your inferior mentally, but hey, thatsd free will for you.

    So, if you don;t like gays, just fuckoff. Its really quite simple. You’ll be happier, we’ll be happier. Win-Win situation.

    Run along now, maybe you can find a good book to burn to cheer yourself up.

  70. alex.salmond.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

    Office of SNP’s leader. I have already e-mailed this, and SNP headquarters snp.hq@snp.org asking what action is taken. If this man is not expelled from the party, the SNP’s reputation will suffer and deservedly so. I won’t be voting for them again if this guy stays in the party.

  71. Actually, you mentioned the “Holy Spirit”…. I find this chap fascinating! Don’t you?

    Well, its a god who’s essentially a small white chicken, and the sum total of its abilities is to shit tiny drops of fire on kids heads. Now, to me that’s a right laugh, a chicken with a arson problem. Classic stuff. But do you think he got the raw deal on the god spectrum? I do. The other pair are sitting there with their “I’m god, and this is my son, smite this, smite that” and “my dad is god, and I got a trip to earth to play with 12 guys and a prostitute, beget this, begot that, yadda yadda”, and he’s just flapping around aimlessly like a retarded chicken shitting little packets of fire. And you say he “testifies”? Really? In between his shitting fire on people’s noggins, he also goes to court? Like CSI Heaven, you mean?

    Fantastic god, that holy spirit. Give’s me a right old laugh, he does. The useless god award goes to him, hands down.

    Anmf tell me, INRI overt the cross…. is that “I’m Nailed Right In”?

    Please tell me more fascinating religious stuff, I’m converted to the word of the Holy Chicken! Hallelujah!

  72. Brian Burton 4 Aug 2009, 6:46pm

    WHO IS THIS CLOWN BELSHAZZAR? SUGAR PLUMB FAIRY OR DAVID SKINNY-DIP OR REALLITY CHECK OR THE EMBRIO FROM OUTA SPACE? SHE NEED TO GO BACK TO WHEREVER……!

  73. @ Will – I saw a Mitchell and Webb sketch recently where they’re brainstorming the bible together.
    David Mitchell suggests “You know I’ve always thought we should have done more with the holy ghost” and Robert Webb retorts “The Holy Ghost has always been a non-starter…The Holy Ghost is like Mike in “the Young ones”.

  74. Oops – typo – should have read:

    “mankind should move on to a moral framework that does NOT need some version of a “sky fairy” or prophet …”

    btw Isn’t it hilarious that some people believe a story about some young girl who says she got pregnant without having sex. “Oh no, I didn’t have sex, it was the “sky fairy” who did it!” Out pops baby J. Must be true – simplest explanation!! If my daughter said that I’d believe it. LOL (yawn)

  75. Belshazzar 4 Aug 2009, 7:20pm

    Sister Mary Clarence(67)
    There were 613 specific commands of the Mosaic law that no longer govern our conduct. ( Shrimps, pork etc.). These laws were ceremonial laws in that they signified the separation of the Jews from their pagan neighbours. It was essential, until the time was right, the coming of Jesus Christ, that the Jews and those coming into the Jewish religion ( this was nothing to do with race) would remain a distinct people. Only they would have direct access to God through their high priest entering the holy of holies, once a year, in the temple at Jerusalem. Food, apparel and other observances distinguished them as the chosen people – not because they were better, cleverer or more virtuous than their neighbours but simply because they had been chosen to be the instrument for the salvation for the whole human race. If God is God, He is free to choose whom he likes. Who are we to question Him? Does the pot question the potter?

    When Jesus Christ died on the cross that salvation was effected. The great curtain, hanging in the Jerusalem temple, separating all – apart from the High priest – from the holy of holies was torn in two and access was available to us all. Jew and Gentile, slave and free, men and women – all have access to the Father.

    However, Jesus Christ has called us all into a new society, one established upon truth, righteousness and justice and his moral laws, the Ten Commandments. We are all called to separate ourselves from the world not by shrimps and pork but by holy living. This is what should distinguish us.
    This is impossible without , repenting of our sins, accepting Christ dying on our behalf, being made clean inside, being born again into a living relationship with God, being filled with the Holy Spirit and living in hope of an eternal home when Christ returns However, we do not automatically become mature, perfect Christians; this takes time. We are a work under construction. Naturally we will from time to time, daily even, blow it; but we have an advocate in Heaven, Jesus Christ who pleads on our behalf . If we confess our sins and truly repent we are forgiven again and again. Like troops or athletes we have to undergo training and testing, but the tests are never designed to break us – only strengthen us.

    However, if we presume upon his mercy and are not sincere in this repentance by wilfully return to immoral living like a dog to its vomit, or a pig to its muck, we run the risk of becoming hardened and no longer having the desire to change. The Bible does seem to suggest that it is possible to lose one’s salvation or at the least come under some kind of terrible judgment if we persist in living in disobedience.
    When Paul was talking about not judging your brother, he was talking about not judging him by the cut of his suit or the kind of hat he wore. Those laws were now obsolete, but the principles of keeping ourselves untainted from the rest of the world were not. No where in the Bible do we find Christ saying ,“What do you think? Your free now to do as you please.”

  76. Belshazzar, some questions I’d be interested to know your views on. I really am trying to understand where you’re coming from.

    1. Do you believe humans have only existed for a few thousand years?
    2. Do you also believe dinosaur bones are fake? And that fossils hundreds of millions (yes, hundreds of millions) of years old are also fake?

    If no, why is the Bible wrong on these things? If yes, what is your evidence for these beliefs, other than the Bible?

  77. Yes, Flapjack, the Holy Chicken is quite a conundrum, isn’t it? Flap, flap, flap. What’s even more curious is Jesus going around with twelve “single” men and a fag hag, talk about the origins of Gay Pride!

  78. Will the Scouser 4 Aug 2009, 7:50pm

    Belshazzar, I don’t wish to get deeply into this argument, but I would just like to make one appeal to you. PLEASE, drop this distinction between “moral” and “ceremonial” commands in the Mosaic Law. There is no justification for it whatsoever in the text of the Mosaic Law. ALL the commands of the Mosaic Law are represented as explicit commands of Yahweh, and there is no suggestion that any of them are of different status than others. There are clear and repeated reminders in the Book of Leviticus that each and every command is a divine one and severe divine retribution is threatened against those who fail to observe ANY of them. So please drop this fraudulent piece of argumentation; it reminds me of P.G. Wodehouse’s words about a terrier who will keep obstinately laying a dead rat on the drawing-room carpet.

  79. “its a god who’s essentially a small white chicken, and the sum total of its abilities is to shit tiny drops of fire on kids heads.”

    Brilliant, Will! A fire pooping chicken. Do you think that TGI Friday’s use “holy spirits” for their flaming chicken wings? They’re heavenly! :)

  80. Daniel Loftin 4 Aug 2009, 8:16pm

    #75-Belshazzar,you have sex dreams about men all the time, don’t you…
    #65-Keith, you’re a scream. I’d pick out ties with you any day.
    #59-The Pope is a Fascista, albeit one with excellent taste in shoes.
    #46-It’s interesting that polygamy is nowhere listed among the taboo acts in Leviticus. That’s because it’s not taboo! It is nowhere taboo in the Hebrew or Christian bible, except in one spot where it is forbidden to church leaders. Also, divorce is expressly forbidden, cited by Jesus as adultery. About 1/2 of your super righteous church leaders are divorced and remarried, which makes them adulterers, according to Jesus.
    While there is much fascinating and illuminating material contained in the pages of the bible, one runs into innumerable contradictions when one tries to take it as some sort of supernatural dictation. There really is no book that contains all of life’s answers. we just have to think for ourselves, as painful and worrisome as that might be.
    Good luck to you.

  81. People like this are the real reason that the church has lost its relevance in modern society. Few peope would want to align themselves with such nastiness. He may despise atheists but when he opens his moth and this kind of crap comes out he is doing them a huge favour and alienating the majority of young people.

  82. Lezabella 4 Aug 2009, 8:30pm

    Balthazaaaarrrrrrrrrrr-rrrrr-

    Look up Ruth and Naomi, two lesbians in the Bible who felt ‘dabaq’ towards eachother. ‘Dabaq’, when translated from Hebrew, is the sexual feeling a man felt towards his wife. Ruth and Naomi were not condemned in the book, they are celebrated.

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

    P.S

    Read Charles Darwin.

  83. # 80 DANIEL…!
    So I am a “scream”…you think…?
    Hahaha..
    Here to entertain!
    Here to entertain!

    I could not possibly compete with the erudition encountered on here, anyway.

    These clowns, Gunn et al, all take themselves too seriously; a few custard pies brings it all down to the farce that it all is; farce, that is, except that sadly, the end result of their mouthings is so much tragedy….that in Israel being the latest.

    I feel that a little more mockery…a little more irreverence and an absence of deference to these self-appointed ‘champions’ whether in Prada shoes, custard-coloured capes and matching mitres… or mustard coloured… and quite ridiculous …kipper ties…who think they are IT and who forget that they, too, shit and piss and fart and sneeze their ckuffing germs all over the place and bleed when they are stuck with a pin….just like me…yep, a little more mockery might just cool it.
    Something needs to.
    Something needs to stop the blood of innocents.

    And for what…?
    People pulling their hair out over old books written centuries ago…but costing the lives of 21st century children on the streets of today’s cities.

    Pointless.
    All of it, pointless.

    Gunn you are pointless.
    Ratzinger you are pointless.
    Nazir-Ali you are pointless.
    Rowan Williams you are pointless.
    Tallach you are pointless.

    And I am pointless, too.
    The difference is, I KNOW I AM…

    K

  84. bel-boy. you ignored my post.

    what will you tell god when he asks why you drove people away from him? because thats all your doing.

  85. Will the Scouser: “Belshazzar, I don’t wish to get deeply into this argument, but I would just like to make one appeal to you. PLEASE, drop this distinction between “moral” and “ceremonial” commands in the Mosaic Law.”

    But they ALL do that, don’t they? It’s the fundies excuse for ignoring the bits they don’t like. I’ve seen exactly the same excuse as Belshazzar posted on another forum. B and the homophobic, revoltingly self-righteous guy on there obviously listen to the same preacher.

    Of course, it saves having to think for yourself…

  86. I doubt the SNP will do anything about this. They are generally homophobic:

    1) They are funded by the biggest homophobe in Scotland, a man who spent 1 million pounds of his own money trying to keep a homophobic law on the statute books.

    2) Fiona Hyslop (Scottish Education Secretary) helped a catholic adotion agency to get around the discrimination laws so they could turn away same-sex couples.

    3) Fergus Ewing (Minister for Community Safety) supported the firemen who refused to hand out leaflets at a Gay Pride march in Glasgow.

    4) Roseanna Cunningham (Minister for Environment)voted against gay adoption in the Scottish Parliament saying, bizarrely, that it went against 1000 years of nature’s law (or something like that). She was given her ministerial job after she said this.

    How any LGBT person can vote fo the SNP is a mystery to me, and there are more of them than you’d imagine.

  87. The SNP already changed party policy on bus de-regulation (or something like that) to suit their financial donor after he promised them half a million quid. How do we know they won’t bow down to him over LGBT issues? They have also been actively courting the catholic vote in Scotland for a few years now, and seem to be succeeding. They are certain to keep these voters happy by continuing to be homophobic.

  88. By the way, what are all these religious crackpots doing on an LGBT website in the first place? A bit suspect if you ask me!

  89. Belashazzar said “No where in the Bible do we find Christ saying ,“What do you think? Your free now to do as you please.”

    – there are hundreds of translations of the bible
    – books, verses and chapters have been added, removed, doctored, edited, mistranslated, misprinted, willfully adjusted over the centuries. Books such as the Gospel of Thomas were left out as were hundreds of verses showing Jesus as a human being, also left out by third century theocrats who wanted to create a divine Jesus, so the church and its successors could have power in this world – not the next (for which there is no evidence).
    So any verses where the supposed Jesus (we only have the propaganda from St paul and his followers, 60 years later, to go on) is infact presented as a normal human being, have been eradicated.

    Belshazzar’s morality – believe in me or go to hell – (matt 25:41): this is the same ultimatum made by 9/11 suicide bombers and bin Laden. Evil, disgusting blackmail. Who but a slave wants this to be true? Glad it is nonsense and there is no celestial dictator watching over us every minute of the day.

  90. Har Davids 4 Aug 2009, 9:56pm

    “We fought holy wars over the last 4,000 years to protect the Bible”; all very nice, but what about the people these bible-huggers fought? I doubt Kenneth, who probably skips all the gory parts of the OT, ever gave those people a thought. If this thinks he’s being expected in heaven, I’ll gladly go to hell.

  91. I can think of few hells worse than spending eternity with these bitter fundamentalists. They try hard to put on an appearance of niceness because they have been told to by the bible. It’s not something that comes easy to them and is as false as my mother’s teeth. Those happy clappy fixed tense grins. Few things sadder.

  92. “I’ll gladly go to hell.”

    Me too…. if it existed, but if it does my partner will be there too, and well, then it won’t be hell, will it?

  93. Belshazzar 4 Aug 2009, 10:54pm

    Will the Scouser ( Table 78) and Iris (at table 85) .Sorry I had forgotten your order. it’s getting a bit busy in here tonight. I agree that keeping the law, any of it, cannot save us from eternal hell. We are all doomed – the least of which it is that it is not so much the evil that we had avoided doing but the good that we have failed to do.

    Coming back to the ceremonial and the moral. The way I see it is that the ceremonial law was an outward and visible show of purity which apart from the need for circumcision required the continual and extremely complicated sacrificial system, involving thousands of animals and birds each year at the temple in Jerusalem. The need for this finished when Jesus presented his own body, the spotless lamb, to be presented as a once for all and acceptable sacrifice for us all. However, what God requires is that the essence of these laws, summed up in the ten commandments, are written on our hearts.

    Jeremiah 31:33 – 34 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
    after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbour, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

    Romans 6: 1- 23 Says:

    Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more of his wonderful grace? Of course not! Since we have died to sin, how can we continue to live in it? Or have you forgotten that when we were joined with Christ Jesus in baptism, we joined him in his death? For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives.
    Since we have been united with him in his death, we will also be raised to life as he was. We know that our old sinful selves were crucified with Christ so that sin might lose its power in our lives. We are no longer slaves to sin. For when we died with Christ we were set free from the power of sin. And since we died with Christ, we know we will also live with him. We are sure of this because Christ was raised from the dead, and he will never die again. Death no longer has any power over him. When he died, he died once to break the power of sin. But now that he lives, he lives for the glory of God. So you also should consider yourselves to be dead to the power of sin and alive to God through Christ Jesus.
    Do not let sin control the way you live; do not give in to sinful desires. Do not let any part of your body become an instrument of evil to serve sin. Instead, give yourselves completely to God, for you were dead, but now you have new life. So use your whole body as an instrument to do what is right for the glory of God. Sin is no longer your master, for you no longer live under the requirements of the law. Instead, you live under the freedom of God’s grace.
    Well then, since God’s grace has set us free from the law, does that mean we can go on sinning? Of course not! Don’t you realize that you become the slave of whatever you choose to obey? You can be a slave to sin, which leads to death, or you can choose to obey God, which leads to righteous living. Thank God! Once you were slaves of sin, but now you wholeheartedly obey this teaching we have given you. Now you are free from your slavery to sin, and you have become slaves to righteous living.
    Because of the weakness of your human nature, I am using the illustration of slavery to help you understand all this. Previously, you let yourselves be slaves to impurity and lawlessness, which led ever deeper into sin. Now you must give yourselves to be slaves to righteous living so that you will become holy.
    When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the obligation to do right. And what was the result? You are now ashamed of the things you used to do, things that end in eternal doom. But now you are free from the power of sin and have become slaves of God. Now you do those things that lead to holiness and result in eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.

    So, I come back to it again. We are not our own; our lives are not our own. None of us is autonomous We are either owned by Satan or by Jesus Christ. ; we all bend the knee. But the question is: to which master?

    John(76) Why ask me these questions? I am no scientist. I would have thought that by simply googling words together like strata/ dinosaurs/ fossils you would be able to find these answers yourself. One thing that the fossil record does show is that life in the form of dinosaurs appeared suddenly, without any evidence for having evolved. . Check it out. Also, that so – called, early forms of life were incredibly complex and not at all simple or primitive. I tend to think John, that anything you are likely to find for yourself, is more likely to be believed than if it comes from me. As for man it is not so much the ascent but the descent.

    I am no expert on these matters as you see and am learning myself. Indeed I have learnt a great deal , strangely enough, just by coming here on Pink News.

  94. Belshazzar 4 Aug 2009, 11:11pm

    Will (92), think if the most hellish place on earth, a torture chamber in Belsen or present day North Korea. Even there God is present. There will be some sign or evidence of his love for us. It might be only the sound of another human voice or the sight of the sky. Hell is an altogether different place . It is a total absence of God – of all that is good: a place where other people are only a source of terror. It is a place of utter and eternal isolation. If that is where you wish to go, then that is your choice. This offer lasts only as long as you live, which might be ten, five or one year more – or even only another five minutes.

    In Luke 12: 4 – 5, Jesus says, “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.”

  95. Belshazzar 4 Aug 2009, 11:18pm

    Ray (91) Where have I been “nice” or even tried to put on a nice face? I can hardly be accused of that. I am just putting to the test what I think is the truth.
    For me therefore to tell you about my faith is not necessarily going to be received positively. Although my faith in Jesus Christ is a source of unspeakable comfort and assurance and although it is the best news that anyone could ever hear it does not initially sound like that. C.S. Lewis, talking about the Christian message, said:-
    “…. It does not begin in comfort; it begins in dismay…and it is no use at all trying to go on to that comfort without first going through that dismay. In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end. If you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth- only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair.”

  96. Don’t you low-life god-botherers have anything better to do? No one is impressed by your fascist nonsense.

  97. I wrote to Councillor Gunn. Below is my email. No response to date:
    Dear Mr Gunn
    I would like to share with you something about my life, and I suspect many of the folk for whom you act as a Councillor.
    I work as a senior manager for a global software company with responsibility for millions of pounds worth of revenue. My partner is Managing Director for a market research company.
    We work hard, pay our taxes and are very involved in our local community. I attend Church regularly, act on many of the Church committees, volunteer and attempt to balance, like you do I am sure, my family, work and social life.
    In short, we lead a busy, fulfilled life while enjoying the rewards of our hard work while appreciating the blessing of a 13 year committed, loving relationship that we share.
    Imagine our feelings then when we read that you described us, and hundreds of thousands of others, as leading a “sad life”.
    I struggle to recognise the view you hold of gay people and suggest that your comment is a reflection of someone who has not taken the trouble or time to get to know the diversity of the people he acts for. Your comments are not responsible, they are hurtful and inaccurate.
    All of my life I have had to work to overcome the prejudice and bigotry of individuals who have sought to de-humanise me for being gay. I did not choose to love the way I do. I did not seek out this life. For you to suggest I am incapable of having joy in my life as a blanket statement is something I think you should reflect on because truly the only sadness I feel is when I read comments like yours.

  98. Eagle Ashcroft 4 Aug 2009, 11:26pm

    This gay Scot might be sad, but I am not. I am as happy as I can be. Where does he get off that gay people are very sad? Maybe he is talking about his self. As far as Atheist going to Hell, they don’t believe in hell or a god as atheist means you do not believe in a god, PERIOD! How does this guy even know there is a hell? Has he been there and back again? No one as far as I know has been to heaven or hell and returned to tell about it. When I can really see a so-called-ghost tell me he has been to heaven and back I’ll believe it. Insecure people are so gullible to believe in the Bible as a book of truth that they have some nerve dictating to others they are holier-than-thou and trying to stir up violence against minorities. I for one am a gay atheist Jew and very happy, but unhappy that some Scottish idiot across the ocean is spreading hatred against my brothers and sisters world wide by trying to stir up unrest and violence against them.

  99. “Although my faith in Jesus Christ is a source of unspeakable comfort and assurance and although it is the best news that anyone could ever hear it does not initially sound like that.”

    – well, if your prayers are somehow miraculously heard (and what evidence, please, do you have that god is present in North Korea and Belsen? Give yourself a break), it must also be said there are many people whose prayers have been ignored. Cancer patients, murder victims, for instance. Where was gentle Jesus for all the people at the top of the world trade centre?

    One of the most disgusting reports came from the newly wedded couple who happened to change their flying arrangements out of Brazil on 31 may this year – opting to fly on a later Air France flight to paris. The first thing they did when they heard that the plane they should have flown on had plunged into the Atlantic was to thank God. But for what, exactly? Really, they were thanking God that someone else had taken their place. Surely, if believers are so looking forward to departing this world and entering the next, there can be nothing better, if they really believe what they say they believe, than knowing the plane they are on is about to crash.

    The only happy miraculous stories we hear are from those people who had the good fortune to survive. Statistics tell us, there is alays someone who will change a flight.

  100. Actually, I can believe God is presnet in North Korea.

    What is heaven actually like, if you read Revealtion and St Paul’s screeds?

    Eternal praise, constant surveillance, any dissent leading to unimaginable endless punishment, all its inmates are doomed to spend eternity worshipping the Great Leader and his son, the Dear Leader. North Korea was modelled on Christianity. But at least in North Korea you can escape by dying.

  101. What a sad old prick. Shame, because I like the SNP.

  102. Belshazzar 4 Aug 2009, 11:50pm

    Lezabella(82) we have already discussed Ruth and Naomi. Last time you said something along the lines that the reason Ruth had a child from the obliging, sperm donor, Boaz , was that he was too old to care if she had an extra – marital arrangement with Naomi, whereas she would have had trouble with a younger man. (n this day age, I suppose you would have suggested that Ruth had IVF).This completely ignores the fact that Boaz, as described in the book is obviously in love with Ruth but does not allow his own desires to overrule finding the best outcome for Ruth. He therefore looks around for a better suitor than himself. Having tried but failed, he is more than happy to marry her and they had a son, Obed, who became the father of Jesse, the father of David. Both Ruth and Boaz come from outside the Jewish nation.
    For Ruth to hoodwink and deceive Boaz by having an adulterous affair with Naomi would make her a very immoral person indeed. Whereas this is not how she is described in the Bible. Not only that but that she would have been committing a kind of incest by having sex with her mother- in – law.
    Finally, you asked where else do we find a statement in the Bible like the one that says in chapter 4:17, ‘And the women of the neighbourhood gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.”’ In Isaiah 9:6 it says “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given.” I also said that when I was ten, I ran into my class at school, shouting “ I have a had a baby”, when I discovered that my younger brother had been born.

    Lezabella your take on this beautiful story is just a piece of monstrous and perverted diversity.

    Goodnight

  103. In Deathly Hallows P192:V15 it says Dumbledore is gay & one of the best wizards around. MY fairy tail book says its ok so its bloody well ok.
    Reconing 192: 15

    PS Buddha says chillax man.
    PPS I’m voting Scottish Greens. the only reasonable party left – wanna prove me wrong?

  104. Belshazzar 5 Aug 2009, 12:05am

    Adrian T(99) , Before I say goodnight to you too, all the incidence that you mentioned were either directly or indirectly due to human cause. If God were to step in and stop every murder, every terrorist attack we would be rendered as automatons, or we would live in a world in which there was no cause and effect due to God’s constant interference. No sir, we have free will.

  105. ‘If God were to step in…..’ then Belshazzar, we’re only taking your word for the existence of such a being. We have to stand with Epicurus at this point:

    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
    Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing?
    Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing?
    Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing?
    Then why call him God?

    goedenacht / bonsoir

  106. Major Health Warning – Another Christian Fundamentalist Nut-case hijacking these threads.

    “Belshazzar the Bible Basher”

    Belshazzar we are not interested in the following:
    * Your Pick and mix bible quotations
    * Your violent Old Testament warlord Gods
    * Your endless manic homophobic graffiti

    Belshazzar . . . use the Brain in your head that God gave you

    . . . or P * *s Off into gargar land

  107. “..a local councillor from scotland – anyway let my tax paying english pounds keep pumping the money up north.” Julian, may Scottish Oil continue to pay for your dole cheques! Twat.

  108. Don’t worry JK, look this is a model way of dealing with fundamentalists – Christopher Hitchens takes on some christian radio shock-jock who plays this game of ‘what if it were true?’
    Hitch anihilates as usual….! click my name below or go to this link:

    youtube.com/watch?v=EZB0lLIcXIA

  109. Here is another example, even better:
    youtube .com/watch?v=lXC8VldIKEc&feature=related

  110. Vo Dong Cung 5 Aug 2009, 3:28am

    To Mr Gunn,
    I don’t want to argue or even discus about the book. But I am sure there are 6 billion people out there do not believe what said in that book. With them that book is nothing except some people want to use it as a tool to brainwash human being.

  111. Jean-Paul 5 Aug 2009, 6:30am

    I agree with all of you who denounce homophobia whether it be in the churches, the governments, the schools…ANYWHERE. Homophobia is a mental illness.

    I am eapecailly glad to see Scots contributing here, e.g. AnthonyB (18,86,87,88), and also delighted to see Sr Mary Clarence back among us where she belongs.
    Love it.
    Of course we should be focussing on the stag(Gunn), not the runt, what’s-his-name today Bats-in-the-Belfry!
    But what the hell, give him a good run. All he/she/it is doing is copy and paste, copy and paste, and I believe snorting coke.

  112. “One thing that the fossil record does show is that life in the form of dinosaurs appeared suddenly, without any evidence for having evolved”

    LOL! Really? Who said this? And where? Please, enlighten me, its a good laugh!

    This is utter nonsense of the highest calibre!

    There is irrefutable proof that dinosaurs ranged over 160 million years, and clearly evolved into different species. In fact the most OBVIOUS, even to the untrained eye is the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, namely Archaeopteryx.

    Two words for you, simpleton, carbon dating. If you are wrong, (and boy how wrong you are) on this simple statement, isn’t it logical to assume that you are completely wrong on everything else?

    Its either that, or your a liar. Maybe both?

  113. “It is a total absence of God – of all that is good:”

    Oh, I don’t care, I was being facetious. God doesn’t exist. I’m sure of that.

    God is simply an derangement of your mind to ease your suffering in your troubled life, a defence mechanism per say, possibly from an early trauma.

    In fact, evolutionary psychology of religion is based on the hypothesis that religious belief can be explained by the evolution of the human brain. IT is suggested that it may confer a survival benefit even if it is over-sensitive: better avoid an imaginary predator than be killed by a real one. This would tend to encourage belief in ghosts and spirits.

    In other words, you are simple genetically a throwback to earlier days, that’s why you believe in all this mumbo jumbo.

    Simple really.

  114. Belshazzar 5 Aug 2009, 7:56am

    Anthony (88)

    I just love your comment, “By the way, what are all these religious crackpots doing on an LGBT website in the first place?”

    This is so refreshingly unsophisticated, but the sad reality, Anthony, is that we now have to be diverse, tolerant, inclusive and non- discriminatory . Under the equal opportunities regulations we are going to be forced have to allow these religious crackpots freedom of speech as well. Be patient; we will silence them in time.

  115. Jean-Paul 5 Aug 2009, 8:05am

    I’ve just been to hell. I was thrown out because my name isn’t Belshazzar. Rejected again. Boo-hoo.

  116. Tiglathpileser 5 Aug 2009, 8:05am

    WIL 71
    Mar 3:29 But if you persist in your slanders against God’s Holy Spirit, you are repudiating the very One who forgives, sawing off the branch on which you’re sitting, severing by your own perversity all connection with the One who forgives.”

    Luk 12:10 If you speak against the Son of Man, you can be forgiven, but if you speak against the Holy Spirit, you cannot be forgiven.

    You have cooked your goose now. Be as flippant as you want. There is no way back for you.

  117. Jean-Paul 5 Aug 2009, 8:07am

    AdrianT:

    I’ve seen the Christopher Hitchens clip. What an education!

  118. Jean-Paul 5 Aug 2009, 8:18am

    Tiglathpileser:

    As flippant as I want? Really?? OK.

    Yo mama is so stupid she tripped over the cord of a cell phone.

    Pass the goose gravy, please.

  119. Tiglathpileser 5 Aug 2009, 8:19am

    WTS78-PLEASE, drop this distinction between “moral” and “ceremonial” commands in the Mosaic Law. There is no justification for it whatsoever in the text of the Mosaic Law.

    You say that because you do not understand biblical exegesis.
    1. The OT was written to the Jews who were not redeemed by God’s sacrifice on calvary. It is evident that the Moral Law carried more weight that the ceremonial law and they had different purposes.
    2. Jesus came to fulfill the law for us when he died on the cross indicating that he was the only one who could fulfil the law as the perfect son of God.
    3. After the cross, believers are under grace not the law.
    4. Jesus said that if we love him we will keep his commandments. There are 10 of them and do not include the ceremonial law. By God’s grace, we will keeep those 10 commandments.
    5. There is no indication at all that under the grace of God for any requirement to keep the ceremonial law.
    6. Gal 3:10 Anyone who tries to please God by obeying the Law is under a curse. The Scriptures say, “Everyone who doesn’t obey everything in the Law is under a curse.” There is a difference between the law and the commandments. This verse talks about the law, not the commandments.
    7. Today, we are not under the law and through the grace of God we keep the commandments.

  120. Jean-Paul 5 Aug 2009, 8:24am

    More?? Oh alright.

    All the good knights were leaving for the Crusades. One knight told his best friend –

    “My bride is without doubt one of the most beautiful women in the world. It would be a terrible waste if no man could have her. Therefore, as my best and most trusted friend, I am leaving you the key to her chastity belt to use should I not return from the Crusade.”

    The company of knights were only a mile or so out of town when they noticed a cloud of dust approaching. Thinking it might be an important message from the town the column halted. A horseman approached. It was the knight’s best friend.

    He yells – “Hey, you gave me the wrong key!!”

  121. Tiglathpileser 5 Aug 2009, 8:30am

    L82-Look up Ruth and Naomi, two lesbians in the Bible who felt ‘dabaq’ towards eachother.

    I have checked every reference to them and that word does not appear in any passage relating to them. I guess when we are desperate to justify our sin, we invent anything that will allow us to avoid the obvious.

  122. Jean-Paul 5 Aug 2009, 8:34am

    Another one?? Are you sure? Well, OK. This one is about effeciency in the kitchen:

    An efficiency expert concluded his lecture with a note of caution.

    “You need to be careful about trying these techniques at home.”

    “Why?” asked somebody from the audience.

    “I watched my wife’s routine at dinner for years,” the expert explained. “She made lots of trips between the refrigerator, stove, table and cabinets, often carrying a single item at a time. One day I told her, ‘Honey, why don’t you try carrying several things at once?’

    “Did it save time?” the guy in the audience asked.

    “Actually, yes,” replied the expert. “It used to take her 30 minutes to make dinner. Now I do it in ten…”

    What, no more roast goose!

  123. Don’t you just love it when Christians who claim to be so humble, then make such arrogant claims, for themselves, too? Reality Check now refers to himself as ‘king of kings’ – which is what tigalethpileser regarded himself as in what is now Iraq. A megalomaniac just like Saddam Hussein.

    Anyhow, here is a wonderful piece by Christopher Hitchens, again showing how the story of Jesus is fake, the doctrine of Christianity is immoral.
    For a follwer of Greek philosophy, it doesn’t matter that Socrates never existed. It’s enough that someone advanced thought, and rational thinking. However with gently Jesus, meek and mild, you have to believe his mother never slept with anyone, he was nailed to the cross, came back to life and went to heaven.

    The incoherence in the gospels is a fanatical attempt to make it all right – the inconsistencies, incoherent preachment, deluded and simple followers, feeble evidence all poorly cobbled together – a cheap, tawdry piece of propaganda. A very human, intelligable, pitiable practice of fraud that worked on simple peasants on Jerusalem but should have gone no further. They may be excused for being idiots, but people in 21st century America like Reality Check, have no excuse. Click on AdrianT below for the link.

    youtube .com/watch?v=fkZx8vW5_6s&feature=related

  124. (Here is the link, below – a perfect way to answer such crackpots)

  125. “You have cooked your goose now. Be as flippant as you want. There is no way back for you.”

    Oh, NO! Boo fucking hoo! The holy chicken won’t shit fire on my head and god with smite me! Help! Help!

    Oh, wait. He hasn’t. Ego, he doesn’t exist. And should you really be talking about “cooked gooses” in front of the Holy Chicken? But seriously, roasted dove is FAR nicer anyway… watch out holy chicken spirit, I’m coming to get you! Yum yum!

    Who gives a monkeys f*ck what you think. LOL! What a joke you are! Do you really think I am going to take a intellectually retarded old crackpot like you seriously?!?

    There is no god, no hell, and no stupid little white chicken shitting fire on my head. Your belief in a deity is the result of a genetic throwback to pre-civilised days, that’s all.

  126. Tiglathpileser 5 Aug 2009, 8:49am

    T81-People like this are the real reason that the church has lost its relevance in modern society.

    According ot the book of world statistics of the christian faith, in the year 2000 there were 1,999,563,838 christians on the planet. In terms of growth that is currently taking place, it is estimated that in 2025 there will be 2,616,670,052 christians. In 2050 there will be 3,051,564,342.

    Not exactly an example of a church losing its way. More a case of a society that is losing its way and people turning to the tried and tested for their direction in life.

  127. Jean-Paul 5 Aug 2009, 8:49am

    Did I hear somebody say: Encore?

    In ancient Israel, it came to pass that a trader by the name of Abraham Com, did take unto himself a young wife by the name of Dot. And Dot Com was a comely woman, broad of shoulder and long of leg.

    Indeed, she had been called Amazon Dot Com.

    She said unto Abraham, her husband, “Why doth thou travel far from town to town with thy goods when thou can trade without ever leaving thy tent?” And Abraham did look at her as though she were several saddle bags short of a camel load, but simply said, “How, Dear?”

    And Dot replied, “I will place drums in all the towns and drums in between to send messages saying what you have for sale and they will reply telling you which hath the best price. And the sale can be made on the drums and delivery made by Uriah’s Pony Stable (UPS).”

    Abraham thought long and decided he would let Dot have her way with the drums. The drums rang out and were an immediate success. Abraham sold all the goods he had at the top price, without ever moving from his tent. But this success did arouse envy.

    A man named Maccabia did secret himself inside Abraham’s drum and was accused of insider trading. And the young man did take to Dot Com’s trading as doth the greedy horsefly take to camel dung. They were called Nomadic Ecclesiastical Rich Dominican Siderites, or NERDS for short.

    And lo, the land was so feverish with joy at the new riches and the deafening sound of drums, that no one noticed that the real riches were going to the drum maker, one Brother William of Gates, who bought up every drum company in the land. And indeed did insist on making drums that would work only with Brother Gates’ drumheads and drumsticks.

    Dot did say, “Oh, Abraham, what we have started is being taken over by others.” And as Abraham looked out over the Bay of Ezekiel, or as it came to be known “eBay” he said, “we need a name that reflects what we are,” and Dot replied, “Young Ambitious Hebrew Owner Operators.”

    “YAHOO”, said Abraham. And that is how it all began, It wasn’t Al Gore after all.
    I’m flattered, now let me see…

  128. Tiglathpileser 5 Aug 2009, 9:00am

    W122-There is irrefutable proof that dinosaurs ranged over 160 million years, and clearly evolved into different species. In fact the most OBVIOUS, even to the untrained eye is the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, namely Archaeopteryx.

    Human Evolution: What is it?
    Human evolution is not supported by the fossil evidence. Much of the alleged evidence that filled text books over the last 50 years has now been reclassified or rejected altogether. The missing links are still missing.

    Human Evolution: The Legacy of the Fossil Evidence
    Human evolution has many issues, including the realities of genetics, biochemistry, design theory, irreducible complexity, DNA structure, and information systems. However, the reality of the human fossil record alone is enough to reject the theory of human evolution all together. Here are just a few of the major problems with the alleged fossil record of the past century:

    Ramapithecus was widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans. It is now established that he was merely an extinct type of orangutan.

    Piltdown man was hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years. He was a fraud based on a human skull cap and an orangutan’s jaw.

    Nebraska man was a fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of pig.

    Java man was based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skull cap and three teeth found within a wide area over a one year period. It turns out the bones were found in an area of human remains, and now the femur is considered human and the skull cap from a large ape.

    Neandertal man was traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man. It is now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

    Human Evolution: The Current Tree
    Human evolution has its currently fashionable specimens that lead from small ape-like creatures to Homo sapiens. These are examples of the most recent alleged links:

    Australopithecus afarensis, or “Lucy,” has been considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes. She was not on her way to becoming human.

    Homo erectus has been found throughout the world. He is smaller than the average human of today, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo sapiens. Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting coexistence. Australopithecus africanus and Peking man were presented as ape-men missing links for years, but are now both considered Homo erectus.

    Homo habilis is now generally considered to be comprised of pieces of various other types of creatures, such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and is not generally viewed as a valid classification.

    Human Evolution: The Most Recent Find
    In July 2002, anthropologists announced the discovery of a skull in Chad with “an unusual mixture of primitive and humanlike features.” The find was dubbed “Toumai” (the name give to children in Chad born close to the dry season) and was immediately hailed as “the earliest member of the human family found so far.” By October 2002, a number of scientists went on record to criticize the premature claim — declaring that the discovery is merely the fossil of an ape.

    Human Evolution: The Theory Has No Support in the Fossil Record
    Human evolution is a theory in denial. With all of this fossil evidence (or lack thereof) it becomes increasingly clear to an earnest seeker that human evolution did not happen at all.

  129. Jean-Paul 5 Aug 2009, 9:02am

    What do you call a pig that does karate?

    A pork chop.

  130. JERRY COYNE: WHY EVOLUTIN IS TRUE – review, NewScientist, June 2009

    The first “why” that struck me on seeing Why Evolution is True was why do we need yet another book on evolution? There are lots of good ones out there already and nothing less than a mountain of evidence to support the reality of evolution by natural selection.

    But we do need another, insists Jerry Coyne, a professor of evolutionary genetics at the University of Chicago, because creationism is spreading.

    And he’s right – creationism is all over the place, not just in the US, where it often gains huge amounts of publicity. In December, a UK poll found that 29% of science teachers thought that creationism should be taught in science classes alongside evolution; a state of affairs that Richard Dawkins called “a national disgrace”. It is also on the rise in Islamic countries.

    Careful persuasion
    Creationism, Coyne tells us in this wide-ranging, beautifully written account, is like a roly-poly clown that pops back up when you punch it. But he resists the temptation to punch. He seeks to persuade, by carefully leading the reader through the overwhelming evidence, that evolution is a fact.

    The audience is those who are uncertain about explanations of life’s diversity. The book is not aimed at people who hold faith-based positions – Coyne considers them to be lost causes – but you have to wonder how many people who are “uncertain” will be won over.

    Coyne describes, for example, giving a talk on evolution versus intelligent design/creationism to a group of rich Chicago businessmen. You would think that people in the business world might think that evidence for something is worth taking into account, but this was the response Coyne got from one audience member after his lecture: “I found your evidence for evolution very convincing – but I still don’t believe it”.

    Wedding present
    It is unfortunate that there are large numbers of people for whom no amount of evidence and elegant argument will do. For those of us comfortable with the fact of evolution, even those already familiar with many of the arguments and the examples demonstrating evolution, there is much in his book that is new and stimulating, even refreshing.

    I loved reading of how Raymond Dart was literally handed the greatest fossil find of the twentieth century – the “missing link” between apes and modern man – while dressing for a wedding. Other highlights include a section on the remnant signs of evolution, such as the vestigial tail at the end of our spines, and a fascinating account of how evolution and even speciation can be seen occurring before our very eyes in the lab.

    Coyne ends by asking where evolution leaves us, and shows that it ennobles us, that human civilisation has improved despite our animal nature. That’s why, when creationism is spreading to the extent that there is even a creationist church in the main town in the Galapagos, of all places, that we need another book on evolution. This is a marvellous one.

  131. Jean-Paul 5 Aug 2009, 9:08am

    What do you call a song sung in an automobile?

    A cartoon.

  132. Tiglathpileser 5 Aug 2009, 9:09am

    “Even more jaw-droppingly, Dawkins said that, rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet. Leave aside the question of where that extra-terrestrial intelligence had itself come from, is it not remarkable that the arch-apostle of reason finds the concept of God more unlikely as an explanation of the universe than the existence and plenipotentiary power of extra-terrestrial little green men?”

  133. Jean-Paul 5 Aug 2009, 9:12am

    What do you get if you cross a chicken with a cement mixer?

    A brick layer!

  134. Tiglathpileser 5 Aug 2009, 9:12am

    It was put to Dawkins, since he is prepared to believe that the origin of all matter was an entirely spontaneous event, he therefore believes that something can be created out of nothing — and that since such a belief runs counter to the very scientific principles of verifiable evidence which he tells us should govern all our thinking, this is itself precisely the kind of irrationality, or ‘magic’, which he scorns.

    In reply he said that, although he agreed this was a problematic position, he did indeed believe that the first particle arose spontaneously from nothing, because the alternative explanation – God – was more incredible. Later, he amplified this by saying that physics was coming up with theories to show how matter could spontaneously be created from nothing. But as far as I can see – and as Anthony Flew elaborates – these theories cannot answer the crucial question of how the purpose-carrying codes which gave rise to self–reproduction in life-forms arose out of matter from which any sense of purpose was totally absent. So such a belief, whether adduced by physicists or anyone else, does not rest upon rational foundations.”

  135. All rubbish. Tiglathpileser and his “christian” interpretations of science and evolution. I wont dignify that nonsense with a repose.

  136. fluffy bunny 5 Aug 2009, 9:13am

    can I book my pitchfork, please? I’d rather go to hell than spend eternity in heaven with bigots like Kenneth Gunn

  137. Jean-Paul 5 Aug 2009, 9:14am

    What do you get if you cross an insect with the Easter rabbit?

    Bugs Bunny.

  138. James Rennie fan 5 Aug 2009, 9:16am

    Stewart( 97), inspired by your action , I too am going to write to Councillor Gunn.

    Below is my letter.

    I would like to share with you something about our lives, and I suspect many of the folk for whom you act as Councillor.
    I am a former teacher and am the chief executive of Lesbian Gay,Bisexual and Transsexual Youth Scotland. I have advised the Scottish government on gay issues and have also met Tony Blair and the Queen.
    My partners , one of whom holds a very high position in his church, are John Murphy, Neil Strachan, Ross Webber,.Colin Slaven, Craig Boath, John Milligan and Neil Campbell. We all work hard, pay our taxes and are very, very, very involved in our local community and like you attempt to balance, like you do I am sure, our family, work and social life

    In short, we lead busy, fulfilled lives, enjoying the rewards of our hard work while appreciating the blessing of years of committed, loving and consensual relationships that we share with young children.
    Imagine our feelings then when we read that you described us, and hundreds of thousands of others, as leading a “sad life”.
    I struggle to recognise the view you hold of gay people and suggest that your comment is a reflection of someone who has not taken the trouble or time to get to know the diversity of the people he acts for. Your comments are not responsible, they are hurtful and inaccurate.

    I am yours sincerely

    James Rennie

    (from a prison somewhere in Scotland)

  139. Jean-Paul 5 Aug 2009, 9:19am

    What do you get when you cross a stream and a brook?

    Wet feet.

  140. TIGALETHPILESER: LYING FOR JESUS, AGAIN
    Tigalethpileser blindly and ignorantly cuts and pastes soem Creationist nonsense from a creatinist pamphlet without giving any scientific sources. You cannot get away with that here, matey – we don’t say ‘y’all’ or live in Oklahoma, and are used to checking the facts.

    First off: name ONE scientist, fine me ONE scientific paper that says Lucy was a chimp. name one.

    Talkorigins.org investigated all these claims so I will give a selection of its commentary for lay readers about those ridiculous statements, which obviously come from Creation Ministries International and Jack Chick’s silly tracts on ‘big daddy’ – which promises helfire to people who accepot science.

    “…..This is a typical rehashing of the usual creationist chestnuts. It ignores almost all the the real evidence, misrepresents the real fossils that are discussed (Heidelberg Man, Peking Man, Neandertal Man), of course mentions Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man, and finally lists some fossils that have never been claimed to be anything but Homo sapiens (New Guinea Man, Cro-Magnon Man)…

    ….The real oddity in Chick’s list is “New Guinea Man”. As far as I know, no one has ever proposed this as any sort of transitional form. It presumably refers to fragments of a fossil modern human skull thought to be about 5000 years old found at Aitape (now Eitape) about 60 years ago. This is the only human fossil ever found in New Guinea, and is very obscure; I have never seen it even mentioned in any mainstream scientific or popular literature on human origins. The only place (other than Big Daddy) I have ever seen it referred to is a 1961 book by Canadian creationist Evan Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution. Shute merely mentions the existence of this fossil in a list of many other fossils and does not discuss it individually, so Chick may have found out about this fossil from another unknown source.

    This little list has been widely copied. If you see a reference to New Guinea Man, or read that Heidelberg Man was “built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human” or that Peking Man is “supposedly 500,000 years old, but all evidence has disappeared”, you’ll know it was cribbed from this little booklet.

    The 2nd edition of Big Daddy? has only minor differences from the 1st edition. A few of the hoarier old creationist chestnuts have been abandoned, to be be replaced by some almost equally bad arguments. As far as the human evolution section goes, the only significant change is the addition of Lucy to the lineup:

    “… most experts now agree that Lucy was only an unusual chimpanzee not a missing link.”
    and
    “Nearly all experts agree Lucy was just a 3 foot tall chimpanzee.”
    For details on both of these statements, the reader is referred to videos from “Dr.” Kent Hovind (who, according to his website, rewrote Big Daddy?). Hovind is presumably referring to claims by some scientists (e.g. Zilhman et. al. 1978) that bonobos (often called pygmy chimpanzees) are the best living prototype for the common ancestor of humans, chimps and gorillas.
    These statements about Lucy are completely fictitious. I am not aware of a single reputable scientist, let alone most, who would claim that Lucy was “only an unusual chimpanzee”. Even Zihlman, who is probably the most vocal defender of the resemblances between Lucy and pygmy chimps, has never said that Lucy is a chimp, and points out differences between them, the most obvious being that Lucy has a bipedal pelvis rather than a quadrupedal one (Zihlman 1984).

    ————-

    If you enjoyed Big Daddy?, you’ll also get a kick out of Primal Man, one of a series of comic books published by Jack Chick. As you’d expect (if you’re at all familiar with Chick’s work), the ‘evolutionists’ are unattractive, money-grubbing sleazebags with no redeeming qualities, while the Christian heroes are so handsome and pure you’ll feel like gagging. Also as you’d expect, the creationist arguments and “science” are so hopelessly outdated and incompetent that even many creationists would be embarrassed by them. Ya gotta laugh!

    And for dessert, there’s Chick’s Evolution Poster, a send-up of the classic “March of Progress” illustration, and showing most of the lineup that appeared in Big Daddy?.

    See the link at:http: talkorigins .org/faqs/homs/bigdaddy .html

    or click on the link below:

  141. JEAN-PAUL…!

    Will you STOP it…!
    I am wetting myself..!

    Well, it’s a change from reading the CUT & PASTE merchant who precedes your lovely pearls.

    Jesus!
    If I had wanted and anthropology les……I’d ha…..

    ‘Kinell…!

  142. Jean-Paul 5 Aug 2009, 9:23am

    Hi Keith:

    How are things in Kookamonga?

  143. #135…WILL…!!!

    Hahaha..!

    So you won’t dignify Doo-Dah’s wotsit with a “repose”, eh…?

    Well, that is exactly how I ‘dignified’ it….
    z
    zz
    zzz
    zzzz
    zzzzz
    zzzzzz
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…!

    Hahaha.!

    Luv it..!

    ‘War and Peace..’ was easier!

    Sweet J.C. !!!

  144. JEAN-PAUL..
    De tings in Kookamonga am jess great…et dans l’Acadie, aussi, j’espere…?

  145. JEAN-PAUL…!
    Cher Acadien..!

    Glad to see that your flippancies more than match my inanities; still wetting mesel’..!
    And so pithy..!

    Gawd, dunnit get hot in ‘ere…?

    ……philosopothophy…anthropologoly…lobotomy..dichotomy…wind-baggery…

    Any more jokes, Jean-Paul..?

    I’ve just found a whole new packet of underpants…

    Fire awayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy…!

    K

  146. king kong 5 Aug 2009, 9:54am

    Lezabella, Sister Mary Clancy and Iris I have been thinking about Paul’s letter to the Romans and perhaps you and relgioustolerance. com are right after all.

    So when Paul says in chapter 1: 24- 27
    “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
    Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

    What he is actually saying is that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, heterosexuality, objectumsexuality, coprosexuality, incest, paedophilia, bestiality , sado- masochism and necrophilia etc., if these are people’s natural and immutable sexual orientations. What is unnatural and indecent is when one leaves one’s natural orientation, such paedophilia and starts to engage in something else. In other words stick to drinking from your own well

    right?

  147. Jean-Paul 5 Aug 2009, 9:55am

    Hello-o-o! Where’s Tlagipissthserhtbeelzeeebubbb? hre’s one for you, dearie:

    How do you make a hot dog stand?

    Steal its chair.

  148. Boy George appreciation society 5 Aug 2009, 10:09am

    Stewart( 97), inspired by your action , I too am going to write to Councillor Gunn.
    Below is my letter.

    Dear Councillor Gunn,

    I would like to share with you something about our lives, and I suspect many of the folk for whom you act as Councillor.
    I am a former teacher and am the chief executive of Lesbian Gay,Bisexual and Transsexual Youth Scotland. I have advised the Scottish government on gay issues and have also met Tony Blair and the Queen.
    My partners , one of whom holds a very high position in his church, are John Murphy, Neil Strachan, Ross Webber,.Colin Slaven, Craig Boath, John Milligan and Neil Campbell. We all work hard, pay our taxes and are very, very, very involved in our local community and like you attempt to balance, like you do I am sure, our family, work and social life
    In short, we lead busy, fulfilled lives, enjoying the rewards of our hard work while appreciating the blessing of years of committed, loving and consensual relationships that we share with young children – especially toddlers.
    Imagine our feelings then when we read that you described us, and hundreds of thousands of others, as leading a “sad life”.

    I could speak for many others such as Thomas Hamilton, respected scout leader, William Beggs respected conservative student leader, Anthony Morely, Mr Gay UK, Boy George, Elton John, Robert King, highly respected conductor of the highly acclaimed baroque orchestra, the Kings Consort. As for MPs and peers, well. Where does one begin?
    I struggle to recognise the view you hold of gay people and suggest that your comment is a reflection of someone who has not taken the trouble or time to get to know the diversity of the people you acts for. Your comments are not responsible, they are hurtful and inaccurate.

    I am yours sincerely
    James Rennie
    (from a prison somewhere in Scotland)

  149. Keith:

    Ben oui, mon tchum, ça va ben pi tou’l’monde s’aprête à fêter la tintamare à Caraquet pi moé tou!

    (That’s Acadian advanced cultutal linguistics for ‘Well yes, all is well and so am I, and everyone is getting ready to celebrate the Acadian National Holiday on the 15 of August. That’s August 15)

    What’s today? February 6th? That don’t sound right, February 6th was on February 6th. It’s the National Day of the Acadians on August 15th all over the place, flags as far as the eye can see, fireworks like the 4th of July (well, almost), singin’ and dancin’ and fiddle playin’, you know all dem tings that the Middle Ages fundamentalists built all those bonfires for to thrown the garbage…I mean the sodomites in. What’s a sodomite? A human being! Oh. Is that what you’d call a…a….what’s that word that he used on the mount…a…a charitable…that’s it, a charitable ting toodoo? Don’t ass me, well, not right now, OK.

    YAHOO!

  150. Ding Dong!! I mean King Kong!

    Q: What can a goose do, that a duck can’t do and a lawyer should do?

    A: Stick his bill up his ass.

  151. Simon Murphy 5 Aug 2009, 10:34am

    Why do people bother responding to god-botherers like Belshazzar. He is talking his ‘god’ – do not attempt to engage him. He is not reasonable.

    All the people who have been arguing theology or the bible with him would be better off writing to Alex Salmond and the SNP to request the expulsion of Gunn for his extremist beliefs.

    God-botherers believe in some vengeful ‘god’ f*ckface. How do you possibly think you will win an arguement with someone who believes in goblins and devils? I mean really people. Don’t engage with him. It makes reading this thread very boring.

  152. “Even more jaw-droppingly, Dawkins said that, rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet. Leave aside the question of where that extra-terrestrial intelligence had itself come from, is it not remarkable that the arch-apostle of reason finds the concept of God more unlikely as an explanation of the universe than the existence and plenipotentiary power of extra-terrestrial little green men?”

    Clearly you’ve never heard of Drake’s Equation. Not surprising, really, your grasp on all levels of science is embarrassingly poor indeed.

    Be sure to cut’n’paste some more religious right wing propaganda from your favourite nonsensical christonazi site, it amuses me to see how dying dogma thinks.

  153. Oh, and here’s an expository (a what) method i learned from an ex-gay fundamentalist homophobic redneck bigot who actually thinks he’s smarter than Will and AdrianT…of all the noive!

    Here’s what not to do when looking for your next job, Sugar Plum Fairy:

    A survey of top personnel executives of 100 major American corporations asking for stories of unusual behavior by job applicants revealed the following low-lights:

    1. ”… stretched out on the floor to fill out the job application.”

    2. ”She wore a Walkman and said she could listen to me and the music at the same time.”

    3. ”A balding candidate abruptly excused himself. Returned to office a few minutes later, wearing a hairpiece.”

    4. ”… asked to see interviewer’s resume to see if the personnel executive was qualified to judge the candidate.”

    5. ”… announced she hadn’t had lunch and proceeded to eat a hamburger and french fries in the interviewer’s office – wiping the ketchup on her sleeve”

    6. ”Stated that, if he were hired, he would demonstrate his loyalty by having the corporate logo tattooed on his forearm.”

    7. ”Interrupted to phone his therapist for advice on answering specific interview questions.”

    8. ”When I asked him about his hobbies, he stood up and started tap dancing around my office.”

    9 . ”At the end of the interview, while I stood there dumbstruck, went through his briefcase, took out a brush, brushed his hair, and left.”

    10. ”… pulled out a Polaroid camera and snapped a flash picture of me. Said he collected photos of everyone who interviewed him.”

    11. ”Said he wasn’t interested because the position paid too much.”

    12. ”While I was on a long-distance phone call, the applicant took out a copy of Penthouse, and looked through the photos only, stopping longest at the centerfold.”

    13. ”During the interview, an alarm clock went off from the candidate’s brief case. He took it out, shut it off, apologized and said he had to leave for another interview.”

    14. ”A telephone call came in for the job applicant. It was from his wife. His side of the conversation went like this: ”’Which company? When do I start? What’s the salary?’ I said, ‘I assume you’re not interested in conducting the interview any further.’ He promptly responded, ‘I am as long as you’ll pay me more.’ I didn’t hire him, but later found out there was no other job offer. It was a scam to get a higher offer.”

    15. ”His attache [case] opened when he picked it up and the contents spilled, revealing ladies’ undergarments and assorted makeup and perfume.”

    16. ”Candidate said he really didn’t want to get a job, but the unemployment office needed proof that he was looking for one.”

    17. ”… asked who the lovely babe was, pointing to the picture on my desk. When I said it was my wife, he asked if she was home now and wanted my phone number. I called security.”

    18. ”Pointing to a black case he carried into my office, he said that if he was not hired, the bomb would go off. Disbelieving, I began to state why he would never be hired and that I was going to call the police. He then reached down to the case, flipped a switch and ran. No one was injured, but I did need to get a new desk.’

    Coffee break already? Tempus fuc…I mean fugit.

    Be back when you’ll least expect me, said the mad scientist, hahahahahahahahahaha…ha.

  154. Simon Murphy:

    Common sense, at last.

    I gotta bone to pick with you. Now, now, none of that.

    Why are you not part of our team? Huh?

    All you gotta do is read my post 105 and follow the steps and surprise!!!

    Been looking, all over for ya. C’mon now. We need your input, really.

    You too KEITH ! !

  155. The comment by “Boy George appreciation society” (six or so comments above this) should be ignored by all – do not feed the troll, simply wait for the moderators to remove his crap. We could go down the line of listing heterosexual abusers/killers but let’s not sink to his level. Probably some sad loner who is repressed/closeted, still living with his mother and with a pointless existence. Why is he on a gay website anyway and even caring about us? Obviously he can’t come to terms with his own homosexuality so lashes out in jealousy at us who have… *snicker* :)

    Will – excellent comments as usual on the absurdity of religion! Your responses make me giggle. These religious loonies really are living on another planet, mentally, aren’t they?

    As for “Councillor” Gunn, I have e-mailed the SNP and if this man is not removed from the party they have lost the vote of myself and my friends.

  156. Absolutely John L – ‘Boy George appreciation’ syntax, style looks exactly like David Skinner’s – clearly a miraculous co-incidence. ;-)

  157. Simon Murphy 5 Aug 2009, 3:08pm

    Q: What’s green and smells of pork?

    A: Kermit’s froghood

  158. “Absolutely John L – ‘Boy George appreciation’ syntax, style looks exactly like David Skinner’s – clearly a miraculous co-incidence.”

    You are referring to the fact that both comments look like they were banged out on the keyboard by lobotomy survivors with their faces?

    (To John L, thank you! Glad someone else is getting the same cheap giggles that I am out of these muppets!)

  159. LOL @ Will #158.

  160. #157

    Oh…! SIMON MURPHY….!!
    Do YOU MIND…??????!!!!!!!

    You’ve just put me off me soddin’ tea, there mate…!!!!

    (Didn’t make me sick…just couldn’t stop laffin’!!! hahah..)

    Us comics on ‘ere had better behave…this is a serious forum…that prefeck’ll be ‘ere…that RobN and we’ll have to lick his……………………………………….
    …………………………………………..boots clean.

    K

  161. I’m a bit late with this one
    Luke 17:34
    ‘I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.’
    Gays at it again – yes yes yes – it is ok to be gay – ‘two men in one bed’ – keep it coming. To me this means it is ok to be gay

  162. I used to vote for the SNP. I stopped when they took money from a homophobe. Their subsequent instances of homophobia have just confirmed that they are a homophobic party. Imagine what an indenpendent Scotland could be like, run completely by this lot of bigots? I’d never tell anyone who to vote for, but I’m dismayed at the number of LGBT people who continue to vote for a homophobic party. What will it take for them to see the SNP for what they are? By the way, I’m not a member or supporter of any political party. I also realise that the other parties aren’t all gay-friendly, but I feel that the SNP are by far the worst, they’ve betrayed the LGBT community for power.

  163. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Benthamj 5 Aug 2009, 8:15pm

    Simon Murphy:

    Why did the moron throw the butter out the window?

    He wanted to see a butterfly.

    Har har har!!!

  164. Let’s also not forget the SNP’s (largely successful) attempts to get the “muslim vote” and funding certain muslim group(s) that aren’t exactly gay friendly.

    The relationship with homophobic Brian Souter is also disturbing.

  165. Lezabella 5 Aug 2009, 8:18pm

    Bathazar AKA David Skinner (since the last time I mentioned Ruth and Naomi was to him)-

    Ruth and Naomi felt ‘dabaq’ towards eachother, the Hebrew translation of this is the ‘sexual feeling between a man and a wife’, here:

    “It begins in Ruth 1:14 with Orpah leaving Naomi but Ruth clinging to her (”dabaq”). It is right to say that this is the same Hebrew used in Gen 2:24 to talk of a man “holding fast” to his wife, and is also used to describe how Adam felt towards Eve,”

    Then we have the baby being born to Naomi, and NOT Boaz. “A son was born to Naomi”

    How much evidence do we need? Ruth and Naomi felt the same towards eachother as a man to his wife, and as Adam did to Eve. Call a spade a spade and stop twisting it. They were lesbians and loved eachother very much.

    King Kong- Homosexual relationships are between two CONSENTING ADULTS. Paedophillia, bestiality and necrophillia are all PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS.Duuuuuuh! Educate yourself before making stupid comments you specimen!

  166. theotherone 5 Aug 2009, 10:02pm

    the SNP do this all the bloody time.

    They havce an MP in Glasgow how dosn’t suport Queer Rites and wants and end to abortion, they fielded a candate for theformerspeakers seat that has similer views, their health minister called for treatment for Transpeople to be withdrawn from the NHS and then tried to derail Gay adoption, another perspective MP has strong links to Muslim Extremists…

    They’re a party of bigots and fools.

    Oh BTW: if anyone sees Lesebela can you offer my apoligies for the last time we crossed paths? Ta much.

  167. Lezabella, the Bible could say “If you love someone of the same sex, that’s fine and just as acceptable as if you love someone of the opposite sex” and the fundies would STILL argue that homosexuality’s a sin. The truth is they WANT it to be. They want the Bible to justify their own mean-spirited prejudice and sanction their hate.

    You have to wonder what kind of sad lives such people have that they feel the need to attack others. They are really the sad ones.

  168. @King Kong – Thread 146

    I have been thinking about Pauls letter to the Romans chapter 1:24 – 27. . .

    I am about to say that you have missed understood the letter, but before I address St Pauls letter we need a little bit of hermeneutic mindedness.

    When you say . . .
    “What he is actually saying is that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, heterosexuality, objectumsexuality, coprosexuality, incest, paedophilia, bestiality , sado- masochism and necrophilia etc.,”

    I need to stop you right there. . . No No No No No. You cannot apply 19th, 20th and 21st century medical and sexological thinking to St Paul . . . Homosexuality is a term that only comes into existence in the later part of the 19th century. This can only lead to superficial and flawed exegesis, St Paul is not talking about homosexuality; the term does not exist in the period in which he is writing. Problematically, also when you use the term homosexuality you are not only using a term steep in the meaning of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, but you are also using a term which continues to evolve.

    When St Paul refers to what is natural or unnatural . . . we can only place this in the context of reproduction and survival which are major themes and existential realities running throughout his instructions about earlier church life: and his concerns with management development and evangelisation.

    The extent of same sex sexuality is not absent from the bible, but does not carry the 19th 20th and 21st century labels and categories that we are used to, so if you want to identify it semioticaly speaking the signs will be more subtle and so do not expect it to be immediately obvious.

    Again sexuality is problematic, even if we use the term “Sodomite” we are not referring to homosexual sex, but sex per se; which could equally be same sex as well as opposite sex sodomy.

    With these things in mind i.e. sexual practice, reproduction, same sex as well as opposite sex sexuality . . . the context of St Paul’s letter. So when he refers to the issue of what is “natural and unnatural” St Paul is most likely to be proposing something more subtle and subjective . . . It us unlikely that St Paul is condemning Roman sexual morays, but it is likely that his challenging people to be true to their sexuality. This is not the same as condemning or favouring a particular sexuality . . . it is simply not that black white as you imply. St Paul is very cautious of this type of thinking, hence his analogy further on about seeing things only partially.

  169. theotherone 6 Aug 2009, 11:30am

    john K: I think it’s also worth pointing out at this point that we can not enter into the compartiivly modern thinking around sexuality which defines identity through action. As Foucault pointed out (and I paraphrase as I do not have a copy of The Hisdtory Of Sexuality to hand) ‘in the 19th centery Homosexuality became a person rather than an act.

    You are corect that you will not find ‘Homosexuals’ in the bible as ‘Homosexuals’ only came into existance in the late 19th centery – before that there where people who engaged in ‘Homosexual Acts.’ I beleve that Corinthians 2 is commenly held to discuss Temple Prostitution, the literal mixing of the Sacred and the Profane.

  170. According to today’s Scotsman newspaper, the SNP have officilally said that they will not be taking any action against this bigot as his religious views are a personal matter.

    news.scotsman.com/politics/SNP-attacked-for-failing-to.5528279.jp

  171. The most iniquitous thing about this government is that is has said that there should be a clear distinction between public and private morality; and the ‘real world’ and religion. Whilst the government wants to compartmentalise private and public, and secular and religious it does not hesitate to intrude into every area of our lives; it legislates for every thought, emotion and sneeze. No longer is the Department of Education called as such but, instead, the Department of Children Schools and Families. It has blatantly assumed the role of social engineer and reduced parents to becoming mere operatives. In addition, Dr, Katherine Rake of the government funded Family and Parenting Institute has said,” We want to transform the most intimate and private relations between women and men.”

    No doubt Anthony B, you would argue that this man, being in the public position that he is in, should have kept his private opinions to himself. Nevertheless, whether public or private, I think that even this would not satisfy you and that only a complete endorsement of homosexuality would save him from disapprobation and compulsory attendance at a diversity course.

  172. Arthur – We have to ask if a man in his postion can be objective when we know what his feelings towards gay people are. What if he was approached by a constituent about funding for a gay support group, for example? What would he do then? Can we be sure that he wouldn’t allow his personal feelings to influence his actions/decisions? Also, if he had said the same thing about black or jewish people then he’d have been carpeted immediately, and rightly so. It just seems to me that some forms of bigotry, i.e. homophobia, are still acceptable in today’s society.

  173. I’ve looked at his constituency website for key words like gay and out of 100 pages on there website they only
    have one word relating to something they should be doing on hate crime in 2007
    and that’s it!!! Here check it out for
    your self: 
    gay site:brs-snp.org
    However if you enter the key words "Black" or "Ethnic"
    you will also see he’s a RACIST too!!!!!!!!!!!

  174. Anthony B ( 172) who are we to question whether or not his attitude towards gay people is informed by subjective or objective criteria? Have you questioned him? Even if he were to attempt to give an objective response would you give him a hearing? It could even be that he himself has “gay” tendencies or that members of his family are gay. In which case his motivation for saying what he did must emanate from elsewhere other than his own personal sensitivities. Do you not think your own view is highly subjective?
    The accusation of being branded as being homophobic is a neat piece of psychological warfare, a product that contains three crimes for the price of one: first up, one is mentally unbalanced; secondly one is old and not fit the 21st century; and thirdly one is possessed by bigoted klu-Klux clan – type hatred. So Mr Gunn will have to make his choice: is it the mental home; the old people’s home or prison?

    Finally this tired and threadbare attempt to link homosexuality with race is not even held by the most avant garde homosexual lobbyists who now simply demand that it is their human right to identify themselves however they wish.

    An Australian homosexual activist has said:

    “I think the idea that sexuality is genetic is crap. There is absolutely no evidence for it at the moment, and I think it is unhealthy that people want to embrace this idea. It does reflect a desire to say, ‘it’s not our fault’, as a way of deflecting our critics. We have achieved what we have achieved by defiance, not by concessions. I think we should be recruiting people to homosexuality. It’s a great lifestyle and something everybody should have the right to experience. If you believe it’s genetic, how are you going to make the effort?” Or as he put it elsewhere: “On the question of recruiting to homosexuality – well, of course, I am in favour of this. I believe homosexuality to be a perfectly valid lifestyle choice. . . . I am naturally keen to encourage people to participate in [the gay lifestyle].”

    A leading Australian feminist and lesbian has also made it clear that choice is a major component of the lifestyle. Melbourne University academic Sheila Jeffreys became a feminist in her twenties, when she was involved in “perfectly good” relationships with men. She then decided to become a lesbian: “At the time,” she says, we “made the decision to become political lesbians, as we called it.”
    She says that “you can learn to be heterosexual and you can learn to be lesbian”. When challenged by an interviewer that sexuality is more innate than that, she continues, “I don’t think there’s anything natural about sexuality; you do learn it. And you can unlearn it, go in a different direction, and change it.” She says that her own experience proves this, as does
    that of many other women who decided to switch to lesbianism in the ‘70s.
    Other homosexuals have admitted that choice plays at least a partial role in the overall equation. Indeed, there is even an overall equation. Indeed, there is even an entire website devoted to those who say they have chosen the homosexual lifestyle, Queer by Choice dot come.

    Perhaps the clincher is Peter Tatchell’s article in Spiked on line, entitled Homosexuality: it isn’t natural. It is worth a read.

    We could equally ask what if was approached by a constituent about the funding for a support group, for example.

    Homophobia is neat product because it gives three psychological weapons for the price of one:

    The phrase in the above quote, “the powerful forces of fear,” serves the double purpose of reducing the god given emotion of hatred to irrationality, phobia and at the same time to uncool, Neanderthal prejudice – racism. We are therefore being accused of being mentally unbalanced, out of date and prejudiced on a par with racism.

  175. Wow… Tiglathpileser seems to have mkore names than brioan cells!

    Arthur Archdeacon Brian Hurtin King Kong Tiglathpileser Sugar Plum Fairy Reality Check…

    ….talk about personality disorder! Freak!

    The real key is the endless repetition of the SAME unsubstantiated or anecdotal references. That and the fact he clearly lacks any brain power to give his “personalities” any individuality!

    He should stick to colouring in those free internet degrees. More productive.

  176. There is nothing unsubstantiated or anecdotal here. What is the SAME is the predictable “gay” reply that descends into personal attack and mindless temper tantrums.

  177. Arthur – You’re obviously not someone who can be reasoned with. I will not engage you in further debate. This man is a homophobe, plain and simple.

  178. “There is nothing unsubstantiated or anecdotal here.”

    Oh, really “Alice”, and you think we would listen the the unsubstantiated claimes from a man who can’t decide on his name, and thinks the earth is 6000 year old, a proven liar, and has all comprehension skills of retarded monkey? Is THIS your version of substantiated claims?

    You must be as big a fool as he is, or you are another of this twat’s “personalities”. Either way, like him, you’re of no relevance to us.

  179. Tony: “The real key is the endless repetition of the SAME unsubstantiated or anecdotal references. That and the fact he clearly lacks any brain power to give his “personalities” any individuality!”

    Indeed! He’ll be finding an excuse to post his favourite poem soon ;)

    Arthur: “We are therefore being accused of being mentally unbalanced, out of date and prejudiced on a par with racism.”

    You got it in one….

  180. Which lies, Will? Unless your can name me one, you are lying. Were you born a liar or was it culturally conditioned. I have never mentioned anything, ever about the age of the earth. You just have though.

    And what’s in a name? I can have as many or as few names as I wish. Pablo Picasso had quite a lot: Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Mártir Patricio Ruiz y Picasso. “Olay!” as the Spanish chicken clucked .
    What is relevant is that I have decided most definitely that I was born a man. Whereas, you……who knows what you might turn into next, a cross Welsh – dresser or a poached egg??

  181. I see reading isn’t one of your strong points, sweetie.

    Did I refer to you? I was referring to your “support” of that lying moron, Tiglathpileser. One fool is usually followed by more fools.

    You stupid cow.

  182. “What is relevant is that I have decided most definitely that I was born a man.”

    You DECIDED? When? Can you decide to be a woman? Its optional for you, is it?

    Will’s right… you are a stupid cow, no matter what gender you “decide”.

  183. Take it slowly Tony , very slowly:
    “I have decided most definitely…( in my mind and in my understanding ) …that ( yes indeed ) I was born a man.

    But, having said, that if you can decide that you were born a homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, poly-sexual, or whatever, why shouldn’t I be able decide that I was born a woman? Isn’t that’s outrageous trans phobic discrimination?

    Good night.

  184. Yes, there is no point engaging in discussion with young earth creationists – not in any serious capacity. They are total morons.

  185. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 7 Aug 2009, 1:08am

    comment from the peanut gallery:

    I was speaking to someone on another thread today about a problem I had with posting comments a few eeks ago. All my comments were being rejected… time and time again, and it baffled me.

    So I tried using another name and an alternative e-mail addrss and guess what…my comment got through no problem at all. Then I started using that pseudonym and my comments were never again rejected.

    When I saw what’s-his-name switching identities so often, I began to feel uncomfortable using a pseudonym so I tried posting using my real name and presto…it works. So now I’m back using my real name and I love it.

    The point is that on the off-chance that this site is being monitored, somebody may be deciding who gets to comment. For example, when it becomes evident that what’s-his-name is harassing us (there is a difference between the right of free speech and harassment, I believe), then ‘someone’ up there puts an end to comments made under that particular name. This would explain why what’s-his-name has to change his what’s-his-name so often.

    This is absolutely not an attempt to allow what’s-his-name to walk out of the psychaitric ward. I’m just trying to be realistic. (what? Me realistic? Oh no! I’d much rather have fun!))

  186. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 7 Aug 2009, 1:14am

    John K (168):

    Sigh, youse is so smart. I agree with you totally, buddy. Good work.

  187. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 7 Aug 2009, 1:51am

    theotherone (169):

    Foucault? Michel Foucault pronounced foo-co? The same Michel Foucault who is classed among world-famous intellectuals such as Jean-Paul Sartre, Roland Barthes, Jacques Lacan, and Claude Levi-Strauss?

    Didn’t he start the truism: Knowledge is Power?

    Sacré-blue, but of course!

    Suppose we start with the statement that “KNOWLEDGE IS POWER” but doubt that we have any knowledge of absolute truth.

    Then, if you take away the idea of absolute truth, what does knowledge mean?

    Maybe knowledge would be just what a group of people get together and decide is true.

    But, but, but, what could possibly motivate a contemporary French intellectual to doubt the existence of absolute truth?

    Dah, Justice?

    But, but, but, didn’t Francis Bacon (1561-1626) say more or less the same thing in his “Advancement of Learning, 1605″ when he said that if knowledge is power, then the force exerted by a powerful minority is capable of imposing their idea of the ‘right’ on the majority?

    Unlike the Roman Catholic Church (did I say that?), Michel Foucault didn’t believe in economics as the basis for history.

    To him “discourse” is everything.

    Dah, what is discourse?? Garçon, another beer, s’il te plait.

    In its broadest sense it means anything written or said or communicated using signs.

    For instance, the discourse on madness, produced by psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and other Experts define the role of craziness, and thus also the roles of normalcy that we take on.

    What is it about this thread that prompts me to speak about madness? Hm-m.

    Oh yes, didn’t Foucault say that we could have power over madness simply by sitting and listening?

    Ding!! Time’s up. Off to the golf course. See you next time. 5 cents, please.

  188. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 7 Aug 2009, 1:55am

    Speaking of golf, an invention of the noble Scots, I believe:

    A priest pretends to be ill to skip saying mass and goes to the golf course instead.

    God and St. Peter are watching from above and St. Peter says, “That’s terrible, God, you’ll have to punish him.”

    So God waves his hand and the priest gets a hole in one.

    St. Peter asks, “Why did you do that, God?”

    God replies, “Well, he won’t be able to tell anyone about it, will he? And even if he does, who’ll believe him?”

    Yuk yuk!

  189. Jean-Paul 7 Aug 2009, 4:52am

    There is nothing unsubstantiated or anecdotal here. What is the SAME is the predictable “ex-gay” Arthurian reply that descends into personal attack and mindless temper tantrums.

  190. Jean-Paul 7 Aug 2009, 5:03am

    “I have decided most definitely (in my mind and in my understanding)that(yes indeed) I was born a man.”

    Signed: Alice

    You know what that means…Need I say more?

    One of these days, Alice…POW, right to da Moon!!!

    R.I.P. Jackie Gleason

  191. Jean-Paul 7 Aug 2009, 5:57am

    theotherone(169)

    I looked everywhere for it, and finally I found my copy of Michel Foucault’s ‘The History of Sexuality’.

    Kenneth Glumm was clutching it with one hand in the upstairs closet, and in the other he held something that looked like a luminous latex baton.

    Shall I quote? Well OK, if you insist:

    “In the Renaissance, sodomy was a category of forbidden acts…
    The 19th century homosexual became a personage, a past, a case history, and a childhood, in addition to being a type of life, a life form, and a morphology, with an indiscreet anatomy and possibly a mysterous physiology.

    The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species.”

    -Michel Foucault

    What do you suppose he was doing in the upstairs closet with a luminous latex baton in his hand?

    Is this the text to which you were refering, my friend?

    From this we get the most striking claim that the homosexual and homosexuality were invented in the 19th century.

    Holy King Kong, Batman! Look at the size of that luminous latex baton now!!

    Holy

  192. Jean-Paul 7 Aug 2009, 6:10am

    @ Alice (180):

    “And what’s in a name?”

    Splendid! At last I know how to rebutal St. John’s obscure sentence in Revelations 3:5 where he says:

    “I will blot out his name out of the book of life.”

    What’s in a name!

    POW, right in the kisser. R.I.P. Jackie Gleason

  193. #185

    JEAN-PAUL…

    So?
    You were being “rejected”…?
    We’ve all been that, luvvie…!

    And there’s silly me thinkin’ you was on ‘oliday…!

    And your… ‘on the off-chance’…?

    What’s with the “off-chance”….??!!!!

    You betcha sweet bippy we is bein’ monitored…!

    I liked your bit of francais acadien the other day, by the way, and thanks.

    I’d got it all but thanks anyway for your translation but I’D LOVE TO ACTUALLY ‘HEAR’ IT….

    Does it sound very different to mod. day Fr….?

    K……..thanks again for that.

  194. “I have decided most definitely…( in my mind and in my understanding ) …that ( yes indeed ) I was born a man.”

    Yes. Unlike you, I can read. You statement implies a choice where none exists.

    “But, having said, that if you can decide that you were born a homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, poly-sexual, or whatever, why shouldn’t I be able decide that I was born a woman?”

    What an excellent example, Alice. You’re right, you CAN’T decide if you were born a man or a woman…. just like being gay. You can’t decide that either. Thank you for illustrating our point beautifully, and with such delightful grammar.

    What you CAN decide is to be a total f*cking idiot in this life with all the mental prowess of a road kill. Well done. I love to see people reach their goals in life.

    You’re a bigger fool that I though. I smell something wrong here…. same stupid examples, same backward logic…. curious.

    I think we found “personality” of that SPF twat…. now he’s backing HIMSELF up.

  195. Jean-Paul 7 Aug 2009, 8:17am

    Hello Keith!

    So good to be me again. I musta bin a ba-a-a-a-d boy to be rejected like that. But how can that be? Define bad!

    You would like spoken Acadian. It’s actually very casual and musical. My partner, who is from the southern part of the province, speaks it fluently and even studies it with a special dictionary.

    I believe the Scots have a dialect that everybody speaks in their daily lives, a dialect that barely resembles modern English.

    The Acadian dialect incorporates words from 17th century France, which is the language that was spoken by the first European settlers of the New World; me ancesters, but you really don’t want to get me started on that. Ha ha.

    Ain’t this thread fun!

  196. “”But, having said, that if you can decide that you were born a homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, poly-sexual, or whatever, why shouldn’t I be able decide that I was born a woman?”

    What an excellent example, Alice. You’re right, you CAN’T decide if you were born a man or a woman…. just like being gay. You can’t decide that either. Thank you for illustrating our point beautifully, and with such delightful grammar.

    What you CAN decide is to be a total f*cking idiot in this life with all the mental prowess of a road kill. Well done. I love to see people reach their goals in life.”

    I’m laughing and applauding at the same time – well done, Sean! Yes, people are born gay, but people aren’t born religious. That’s why I personally don’t believe that religious beliefs should have any protection in law. As we can see on this thread, there are a number of ‘christians’ who believe utterly bizarre things and seek permission to discriminate against other human beings. I don’t see Alice/Arthur/Tiggy’s belief’s as any more valid or morally acceptable that those of white supremacists.

    Normal Christians are disgusted at what you’ve written here, Tiggy et al.

    Although I have saved Tiggy’s comments in Post 119:
    “5. There is no indication at all that under the grace of God for any requirement to keep the ceremonial law”

    I’ll be quoting straight from the mouth of the king of kings next time some loony tries to use Leviticus here. Thanks, Tiggy!

  197. the other half 7 Aug 2009, 10:31am

    ‘Knowlage is power’ from Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. This relates to the power relationships that form the basis of the Panopticon which he takes as the dominant for for the modification and ‘corection’ of behavious, bodily states, postures, thoughts, moral systems and bodies themselfs…

    The Convict/ soldier/ Pupil and (by extention) every member of sociaty is observed, patholigised, their day controled, every act and every moment dictated and corected even down to their posture and how they hold a pen and sit at a writing desk untill ‘corect’ behaviours are internialised…

    It is not ‘knowlage’ that is ‘power’ but knowlage of other people which allowes power over them.

    But then my reading of this passage could be completly wrong.

    ‘Golf is a good walk spoiled’ – Groucho Marx.

  198. the other half 7 Aug 2009, 10:38am

    I don’t think ‘Homosexuality’ is something you are ‘born’ or even something you choose or even something you ‘are.’ When we enter into these debates we leaved ourselfs open to the atacks of Right-Wing Christian GodBotherers and reduce ourselfs to the level of chrilren crying in the dark looking for a ‘reason’ for who we are. There is no reason, we just do what we do.

  199. #195.

    JEAN-PAUL.
    It is (fun) with your jokes…
    Luv ‘em…!
    The golfing joke was a hoot.
    Such a relief from Tigalpflat-flock-wallper company or is it one and the same…
    Keep ‘em comin’…!
    K

  200. the other half:

    In my opinion, to limit the truism ‘KNOWLEDGE IS POWER’ to Michel Foucault’s ‘Discipline and Punish’ would deprive it of all meaning concerning the origin of the homosexual as a person, a face, a history and a species.

    To be fair, wouldn’t you agree that the statement runs through Foucault’s entire work and not only the obscure ‘Disciple and Punish’?

    Your reading of this passage is your reading of this passage. It can be neither right nor wrong. Reading is not a question of morality.

    It may be correct or incorrect; it may be read or misread.

    It all depends on how you understand or misunderstand this passage with regard to the whole, I suppose.

    Are you familiar with Foucault’s entire work?

    I would venture a guess that your ability to read 20th century French philosophy is comparable to your ability to spell or misspell words,e.g. ‘knowlage’, ‘behavious’, ‘themselfs’, ‘sociaty’, ‘patholigised’, ‘their day’, ‘corected’, ‘internialised’, ‘allowes’.

    There must be a reason because without reason emotions can become not only vacuous but also dangerous. To think or not to think; to be powerful or not to be powerful; that is the question.

    Wasn’t it Groucho Marx who said:

    “Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.”

  201. Hi Keith:

    Comment ça va, mon capitaine?

    It’s your very own pearls of wisdom that enlighten these weighty fundamentalist pedantries, not my stupid jokes. Oh, here’s something that just dropped out of my left ear:

    A male streaker ran into a convent and the Mother Superior had a stroke, but the other nuns weren’t quick enough.

  202. Auntie Jack 7 Aug 2009, 12:44pm

    Iris( 196) You say, “I’m laughing and applauding at the same time – well done, Sean! Yes, people are born gay, but people aren’t born religious. That’s why I personally don’t believe that religious beliefs should have any protection in law. As we can see on this thread, there are a number of ‘christians’ who believe utterly bizarre things and seek permission to discriminate against other human beings.”

    It is said that we live in a secular age and that the post war generations, especially since the sixties have taken it as a self evident truth that our lives are autonomous: the rights of the individual are absolute and sacred. Like “Home Alone” kids, we believe that we have become liberated from the inhibitions, constraints boundaries of our cultural past – and particularly of our Christian “prejudices.“

    But the reality is that the man in the street and the girl working at the check – out counter whilst believing they are absolutely free, cannot live forever in a philosophical vacuum.
    Unless they wish to go insane, like those who undergo spending too long a time in a sensory depravation chamber, they are forced to view the world through another grid or mesh in order to interpret and make some sense of it. Consequently they have merely submitted to another set of presuppositions, regarding truth, existence and morals. This world view or faith has not just arrived but has been trickling down through society, over a period of several hundred years from intellectuals in the first instance, to artists and composers. until finally it is has spread through general culture, multi- culturalism and finally to sex, feminism and homosexuality.

    It is a view of the world that believes that everything simply came by accident out of nothing ( that really is a step of blind faith), that nothing is knowable apart from that which the senses perceive. It is the idea that all of existence can be reduced to impersonal energy, mathematics, mechanics and to bio/socio/economical systems of chemicals, which have evolved over an unimaginable time scale. All of life operates within a sealed box within which only the laws of chance and probability operate.
    We live lives where the spiritual world is non-existent and where our actions are governed only by impulse, instinct and our physical passions. Man is less than a machine: simply a small pile of chemicals or as one writer said “…a little puddle of water whose only freedom is death.”
    There is no absolute truth or as some one said “no true truth”– everything is relative, there being as many answers to the big questions as there are individuals. You may give legitimacy to an argument by saying it is tolerant, inclusive, modern, enlightened, socialist, stark, progressive, courageous, scientific, technological, post modern, 21st century, but you must never, never, ever, ever – on pain of public ridicule – say that this is right or wrong, true or false. Categories disappear; boundaries and definitions that we have lived with suddenly seem to be totally artificial. Hence the disappearance of distinctions between left and right , up and down, male and female, married and unmarried, guilty and the innocent, victim and perpetrator, good and evil etc. Everything is a matter of individual and shifting perception.
    If life, indeed has no objective meaning, then the logical conclusion is that nothing has any value. Life is absurd.

    If atheists and secularists were able to consistently demonstrate that they did live as materialist, like animals in the field, or chimpanzees that are content merely to say “ Here I am in this field, eating this grass and that this is all there is to existence, then their claim might carry some weight. But they do not walk the talk. Animals, though demonstrating “ tooth and claw” do not demonstrate either the heights or depths of human behaviour- certainly not the excesses of the Folsom Street Fair.

    Secularists, unable to accept the meaninglessness of a materialist world make a transcendent, religious leap into sex, art, music, drugs, violence, the occult, homosexuality, alcoholism, suicide and obsessive behaviour. In other words, the only escape is into virtual reality, compensatory obsessions and comfort or stimulation that will blot out the pain of man’s existential isolation. Homosexuality leads to inevitable isolation.

    Iris, though the homosexual and atheist deny religion there is obviously a battle for possession of the Bible. For instance it is repeatedly said by some here that the sin of Sodom was not sodomy at all, but inhospitality. Well there are other references to Sodom in the Bible where clearly the sin being talked about is adultery and sexual perversion . Apart from Jude verse 7, Ezekiel chapter 16 deserves careful reading. This chapter is never read in public simply because it is too graphic. But I cannot imagine it would shock you.

  203. the other half 7 Aug 2009, 1:15pm

    JP: I would never seek to limit ‘knowlage is power’ to one work (not, as you state, an obscure one but one which is celebrated and widely discussed) but to point out that it is not the individual that is empowerd through ataining knowlage but that the individual that is disempowered through others gaining knowlage of them. It’s all a question of Discorse, a Question of Power.

    Isn’t this getting off topic…

    As to Mr ‘I’m not gay but I like being tied up and whiped': there is no ‘complete work,’ no ‘body of work’ to even discuss this is to misunderstand his work. He wrote in an unpublished essay (I do not, again, have this to hand as a small disaster resulted in me loosing much of my books and notes several years ago) that he regarded his works not as lofty Philosiphy but as tools to be used by individuals in their day to day lifes and (as importenly) their Jobs i.e. a Judge or law maker may use the ideas contained in Disiplin and Punish, a psychiatrist or psychiatric nurse may use The History of Madness, a doctor working in the field of sex and sexuality may use The History of Sexuality but – and here’s the clincher – they are not intended to be used together by these people, they are for their use and can be used as (to use an anoligy) individual modules rather than as a whole. There can be no Post Modernist as to say that one is a Post Modernist is to misunderstand Post Modernism. To read one book by thatfrenchpoofwhowouldn’tsayhewasapoof is as valid as reading every one of them.

    BTW: reason and undeason? That’s a bipoler discorse, that’s a Power Relationship, that’s Discorse and should be examined using the tools given to us by Post Modernism. Aint you read Derrida?

  204. the other half 7 Aug 2009, 1:23pm

    Auntie Jack: you are a Noe-Platonist and I claim my £5 for discuvering you!

    We are animals plain and simple. If you wish to argue otherwise then can you explain wherein lies ‘The Soul,’ how it is imparted and how it impacts on the price of fish?

    Animals display trates similer in apearance to our ideas of ‘compassion,’ ‘love,’ hate and so on. Animals (I mean, ofcorse, other animals) display complex social paterns and (I’m sure this will disgust you) homosexuality and the use of sex for bonding, social cohesion and goodoldfassioned fun.

    You may try to come across as an intilectual but you can’t help showing you revultion towards ‘Homosexuality’ when you say: ‘Secularists, unable to accept the meaninglessness of a materialist world make a transcendent, religious leap into sex, art, music, drugs, violence, the occult, homosexuality, alcoholism, suicide and obsessive behaviour. Wasn’t hitler acatholic?

  205. the other half 7 Aug 2009, 1:24pm

    sorry JP: that should have read ‘bipoler opposition.’

  206. “Unless they wish to go insane”

    Like you? Religion is a sickness of the mind.

    I don’t need to prove that, as you feel you don’t prove any of your crap.

  207. theotherone 7 Aug 2009, 2:41pm

    Ezekiel chapter 16? What am i looking for? I see sexual imorality (if we are to interpite the passage as refering to that but it may also refer to ‘whoring’ their nationhood to the highest bidder) but nothing about Homosexuality.

    Prey Auntie, enlighten me.

  208. theotherone 7 Aug 2009, 2:44pm

    oh and BTW: Jude verse 7 – I take it you mean 1:7? The vast majority of translations say nothing about ‘homosexuality.’

  209. David North 7 Aug 2009, 4:15pm

    Following on from the religious utterings of our phobic friends.

    As George Bernard Shaw so eloquently put it:

    “No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.”

    “You cant reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.”

  210. Auntie Jack 7 Aug 2009, 4:18pm

    Both Ezekiel and Jude refer to Sodom that has the homosexual seal of condemnation attached to it.

  211. David North 7 Aug 2009, 4:23pm

    # 210 “Both Ezekiel and Jude refer to Sodom that has the homosexual seal of condemnation attached to it.”

    Of course they do.

    Given that the word “Homosexual” was not coined until the 19th century they must have been early time travellers.

    To reiterate:

    “You cant reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.”

  212. Auntie Jack – “But the reality is that the man in the street and the girl working at the check – out counter whilst believing they are absolutely free, cannot live forever in a philosophical vacuum.
    Unless they wish to go insane, like those who undergo spending too long a time in a sensory depravation chamber, they are forced to view the world through another grid or mesh in order to interpret and make some sense of it. Consequently they have merely submitted to another set of presuppositions, regarding truth, existence and morals. This world view or faith has not just arrived but has been trickling down through society, over a period of several hundred years from intellectuals in the first instance, to artists and composers. until finally it is has spread through general culture, multi- culturalism and finally to sex, feminism and homosexuality”

    You’re wrong. People haven’t replaced religion with another set of suppositions, they have individually chosen to believe that relgion is wrong and individually replaced it with morality based on a respect for human beings. You don’t need the Bible to do that. In fact, didn’t Dawkins book have statistics saying the most religious states of the US were also the most CRIMINAL?

    Religion hasn’t been replaced with sex (what IS this obsession with sex?). Sex has been around since the year dot. And feminism?? What? You’re saying it’s a bad thing that women are treated as equal to men? How offensive. Homosexuality? No, that’s not replaced religion either. Again, it’s always been part of life. If you feel that LGBT people are turning away from religion, then you might like to consider how much of that is caused by fundies promoting prejudice and hate…

    “Iris, though the homosexual and atheist deny religion there is obviously a battle for possession of the Bible. For instance it is repeatedly said by some here that the sin of Sodom was not sodomy at all, but inhospitality. Well there are other references to Sodom in the Bible where clearly the sin being talked about is adultery and sexual perversion .”

    Here we go again. Adultery and sexual perversion could mean anything. I know some people who think oral sex is a ‘perversion’. Loving, consensual homosexual relationships between adults are NOT. Since you mentioned Ezekiel, here’s a bit about Sodom from that book of the Bible:

    Ezekiel 16: 48-50 “As surely as I live, says the Sovereign Lord, Sodom and her daughters were never as wicked as you and your daughters.Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door.”

    OK? Sodom was destroyed because its inhabitants were inhospitable to strangers and were arrogant.

  213. “Both Ezekiel and Jude refer to Sodom that has the homosexual seal of condemnation attached to it.”

    Who gives a fuck? Its the bible! Its not to be taken seriously. These are stories from long ago. Unfounded. Unproven. And for a different audience/time. When these silly stories were used to condemn people, they thought the earth was flat, and the sun went around it, for crying out loud. They have only literal relevance but in the minds of as few anal half wits like you. Grow up, and move on. We simply don’t care what bthat book says. I’m here. I know I was born gay., So do all the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS AROUND THE WORLD. So, if you don’t like gay people, so what? You don’t have to, our lives are simply none of your bloody business, are they?

    We don’t condemn you for your staggering stupidity, do we? Even those stupid people are the scourge of humanity. But hey, you were born that way. Its an affliction, I understand that. But don’t flaunt that infantile bible rubbish at us, and expect us to applaud your ignorance for it.

  214. Jean-Paul 7 Aug 2009, 6:24pm

    Will:

    Well put. I would add that there comes a point where the freedom of speech inherent in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights becomes out-and-out harassment, and harassment causes some serious damage.

    Imagine, for example, if an ex-gay fundamentalist bigot was employed as a personnel manager and that an employee was gay.

    Guess who would be gradually overworked. Guess whose performance and effeciency would be constantly brought up in public at weekly personnel meetings. Guess who would be intimidated to the point of being afraid to complain to the administration about the manager and who would be more likely to have a burn-out or a down and out suicidal depression.

    It can never be stressed enough that fundies are seen as the worse kind of heretics within the framework of mainstream Christian churches because they are hopelessly entrenched in a literal interpretation of the Bible. For all we know the crackpots who spend so much of their time transfixed on gay sites are seen as heretics by the most right-wing Christian denominations as well. My question as to their adherance to a church has gone without an answer time and time again. You would think they insist on identifying themselves in terms of their religious group. Not only do they go well beyond the limits of civilized free speech and change their identities without explanation, they lack the common pride and dignity to introduce themselves as members of a Christian denomination.

    AdrianT is spot on when he says it’s a complete waste of time trying to dialogue intelligently with these guys.

    As you say, they can hardly expect us to applaud their ignorance.

  215. John K(168)

    So what you seem to be saying is that it is only by virtue of the science of genetics that we now recognise evolved sub -species like homosexuals, Downs syndrome children and those with ADHD. These have always been around but no one really recognised the homosexual signifiers or symbols then as we do today. Is that what you are saying?

    And when Paul has concern about people abandoning the “natural” use of sex, used not only for perpetuating racial purity but also for the survival of the Jewish race, you seem to be saying that he does not really understand or conceive of its use for creating caring, stable, loving homosexual and other diverse relationships or the fact it might be a manifestation of an objectively recognisable human type? No doubt if he had known then that babies could have been created without the need of a father (and maybe soon without the need of mother), he might have been less anxious, or as you put it subjective.

    What you also seem to be saying is that when people saw the supposedly gay relationships of Ruth and Naomi; David, Jonathan and Saul; the centurion and his servant – and Jesus even with John – no one objected to this; these relationships might have seemed a little strange, diverse, quaint, or as you put subtle, but, by and large, they were accepted as being like any other?

    As for the city of Sodom being linked with what we term as homosexuality, you seem to dismiss this because both the men of Sodom and the Benjamites, living in Gibeah, had sex with men and women. However, but in both cases their preferred choice was with men.

    As for it being unlikely that Paul is condemning Roman morays – the suggestion behind this, I presume, is that the Romans were into homosexual practice in a big way- the fact is that when one reads the evidence from witnesses of the time, society as whole also frowned upon it- for exactly the same reason that Paul did: it was unnatural. In Romans 1:18-23, he talks of all men, universally, knowing God’s creational laws. “so they have not excuse.” he says when they break them.

    “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

    Two other references in the Bible that re enforce the belief that the sin of Sodom was not inhospitality but sexual sin is.

    Ezekiel 17: 50 : “She ( Sodom) was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen” and Jude 7: “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

    Sure they were guilty of inhospitality; but that would be the least of it! If any host city raped its guests it would be guilty sexual immorality and perversion big time.

    The homosexual act has always been around but it is only today that it is being claimed as state of being. The truth is by nature we are children of wrath.

  216. * Perversion is a medical/Sexological term which evloved in, and is partuclar to the 19th centry not a biblical times

    * Inhospitality is a universal and is not particlar to any time period

    KingKong the reason you bring this issue up is because since you are gulity of the later sin, you have now been force to under go a transmogrification from Mr Skinner to an APE

    . . . Praise the Lord

  217. The problem is Iris( 212, a human being is only identified with those who are fit to survive, only those who are stronger than others. If you are a baby in the womb, you have no human rights. If you are an elderly person and too expensive to keep by the state, Euthanasia will soon be forced on you. If your ontological, moral and epistemological beliefs run contrary to those of the state, you certainly won’t have any human rights. Not only that but if human beings are regarded as being no more significant than whales and foxes then their human rights will disappear altogether. You may not have realised this, Iris, but the government has been encouraging our children to develop their own moral code. Too bad if their code and can say to hell with everyone else’s rights, without reference to any object truth.

    As I say Iris, people don’t turn away from religion, they replace it with another; it’s called idolatry

  218. King Kong . . . if your ontological and epistemological beliefs about homosexuality result in the progation of incitment to homophobic violence . . . thats right the state will prosecute you.

    I am glad that you are finally beginning to understand the Law of the Land.

  219. “sub -species like homosexuals”???

    The statement of a nazi. Lost you argument instantly. Seig Heil!

    Monkey by name, monkey by nature.

    “The truth is by nature we are children of wrath.”

    You certainly are. But please, don’t project on us, we’re far above you.

    And whats this “king” nonsense? Seriously. Its rather embarrassing for you. Tiglathpileser, King Kong, Arthur (as in “king” Arthur), and Belshazzar, also a king. Are we looking into the mind of a deluded narcissistic idiot? I think so. King of what, I wonder?

    Well, King Kong fell of a building. Not too bright. He was an ape, after all. Ironically, Belshazzar saw “the writing on the wall”, but you have shown us you have all the diction and grammatical prowess of an dead farm help. Poor quality internet degrees, I’m sure.

    What a laughable creature you are, Tiglathpileser. How proud your mother must be of an retarded afterbirth like you:- a bigot, a fool, a lair, and a self absorbed moron. “King of the Fools”. “Brava!

  220. “people don’t turn away from religion, they replace it with another; it’s called idolatry”

    Oh, are we talking about the retarded chick god that calls itself the “holy spirit”? I LOVE that chicken god! Shit fire here, shit fire there! Witness this, witness that! Fantastic.

    Who’s your favourite imaginary deity?

  221. John K, homosexuality is violent. It is a violation of the truth, reason, the natural order, of marriage, families and above all children. The distinguishing mark of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gibeah was their violence. The homosexuals Ernst Rohm and Hitler join the ranks of many of the worst serial murderers of history that include Giles de Rais and other homosexual cannibals. Why do you think that participants in the Folsom Street Fair practise sado – masochism and wear nazi- like leather apparel?

    The language of those on this blog is violent, obscene, blasphemous and offensive. I agree one hundred per cent with Mr Kenneth Gunn, who suggested that homosexuals are damned to hell.

    I have taken the liberty of modifying Churchill’s famous speech of
    1899 that he made about Islam.

    How dreadful are the curses which homosexuality lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful Darwinian fatalism. Disgusting and perverted habits, dishonesty, deceit, denial, deconstruction, disorder destabilisation and death exist wherever the followers of Stonewall rule or live. A degraded and
    strutting sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in in a misogynistic society dominated by homosexuals women become worthless – and are treated merely as carriers of embryos – must delay the final extinction of slavery, bondage and addiction until
    homosexuality has ceased to be a great power among men.””Individual homosexuals may show splendid qualities. Some become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die of Aids. But the influence of the homosexual ideology destroys the social fabric of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, homosexuality is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout western European civilisation , raising militants at every step. Nothing can stop it apart from and Islam.

  222. “The language of those on this blog is violent, obscene, blasphemous and offensive.”Far from being moribund, homosexuality is a militant and proselytising faith.

    “Far from being moribund, homosexuality is a militant and proselytising faith.”

    . . . so why do you keep coming back to these threads.

  223. No Will, this is actually david skinner. you can tell by his over-use of adjectives.

  224. #201
    JEAN-PAUL.
    Now that’s it!
    Enough!
    I have run out of knickers..! Ha!

  225. Auntie Jack 8 Aug 2009, 9:44am

    John K, ( table 222) where else would one have the opportunity of getting to know the mind of craftiness, deception, deviance and dissembling apart from on this site? I must thank you in particular for revealing more than anyone else the way the word of God is appropriated, deconstructed and finally discarded. This really is done, as you say yourself, with some sophistication and subtlety. You have opened up a whole new world, a parallel universe of which I never knew existed. . Far from the homosexuals and their supporters being ignored, I believe that they must be engaged in conversation at every possible opportunity, with “conversations” like the one I had with Katherine Jefferts Schori in Salisbury Cathedral last year, or the ones I have had with Peter Tatchell and Ben Summerskill.

    However as you and I know; there are others perhaps listening in to these chats and I trust that they are taking note of every word spoken. Maybe it is to these that I am really speaking.

  226. Sister Mary Clarence 8 Aug 2009, 10:36am

    @ Auntie Jack

    “But the reality is that the man in the street and the girl working at the check – out counter whilst believing they are absolutely free, cannot live forever in a philosophical vacuum.
    Unless they wish to go insane, like those who undergo spending too long a time in a sensory depravation chamber, they are forced to view the world through another grid or mesh in order to interpret and make some sense of it. Consequently they have merely submitted to another set of presuppositions, regarding truth, existence and morals”

    I was okay with almost all of that. We don’t like in a vacuum, actions have consequences not only to ourselves but also to others, and whilst I do believe in self determination rather than fate and destiny, I have to accept that others steering a path through life often have some impact on my journey (although to counter that I subsequently then make further decisions about my route based on events as they occur, and so the repeating cycle continues).

    However, you lose it a bit for me with the word ‘morals’. I follow no God and my view is that religion is a crutch for the weak. I have no great issue with religion and those that need the support it provides any more than I have with a cripple needing a crutch. Should I be standing minding my business one day and said cripple starts to beat me with that crutch, I’ll wrap it round his f*cking head, but if crutch is doing the job its supposed to and the cripple is living his (or her) life without directly acting to the detriment of mine, then I fully respect his (or her) right to live as (s)he so pleases, using what supports and aids (s)he needs to do so, and in fact, I wish him (or her) the very best in life.

    Your assertion that we all have to succumb to one or another set of presupposed morals seems to me to be a little flawed. It appears to work on the basis that a person is not able to make a determination whether something is good or bad. That a person has no ability to benchmark behaviour on a scale of what is just or unjust, right or wrong, desirable or undesirable. I fully accept that some people cannot and therefore the aforementioned crutch is a huge help, I can also fully accept that some people choose not to and again here, the aforementioned crutch would have been a huge help. Instead where the ability to determine right from wrong is missing, and in the absence of the crutch, we have the law.

    There are however those of us who are able to use, or listen to, our own in-build ability to determine right from wrong (I like to think of it as a moral compass). I don’t need religion or law to tell me its wrong to kill, I am able to determine that myself from. I find to quite frustration and frightening that there might actually be people walking around that genuinely need to refer to a book to help them with this, whether is be religious or legal statute to tell them that its wrong.

    Stealing – again who actually needs to be told that God said ‘Thou must not steal’? Its not exactly ground-breaking stuff is it? Surely everyone has something inside them that tells them right from wrong, if they choose to listen to it.

    These might be obvious examples, but the theory holds true for any and every circumstance in life.

    The answer is of course that people often choose not to listen to the ability that is inside them. There are competing abilities that often down others out, greed, jealousy, and all manner of others, and of course, why should they listen. There is a little book they can look at, Bible, Koran, umpteen others, that will guide them on what is right and what is wrong.

    Some down sides to the following a little book option being that you may not always find what you are looking for at the time (although it may well be there), so you go off and shag another man’s wife, blissfully ignorant that you are doing a naughty.

    You might misunderstand the instructions. Who hasn’t fastened piece of wood A back to front with piece of wood D, with fixing L, when building that gazebo from B&Q and ended up with a walk-in shower.

    You might also refer to someone else for an interpretation of what the little book says on a particular issue. Unwilling to appear a total space cadet who does understand himself, or seeing an opportunity to exert his own will, that someone else might actually provide a biased or incorrect summary of the guidance contained, resulting in you paying homage the snake God, David Ike, in error.

    The following a book option is fraught with problems, and offers an excuse if mistakes are made, absolving people of responsibility for their actions. Far better surely that we educate people to develop their skills in determining right from wrong? By all means have a little book as a back up, but we need to move away from people living their lives only by what they read in a little book and looking down on others who do not need to refer to it every hour of every day.

    There are good people who follow religion and there are good people who don’t, just as there are bad people who follow religion and bad people who don’t. Morality is not exclusive to those who follow religion, but it best practiced by those who understand the rational and reasoning of it – whether you can do this by ‘book learning’ it I am very unsure.

  227. Auntie Jack – I wouldn’t get too smug about your little reconnaissance mission if I were you. We’re learning a lot about you every time you visit, and as a representative of your faith you couldn’t have done a worse PR job if you tried.
    We are not for converting, we never asked to be converted and the ills you accuse us of are more or less the result of the constant barage of fundamentalist aggression we get on our own webpage.
    If we came on to your Christian website and attempted to turn everyone gay, you’d be pissed off with us too, and may even have the temerity to answer back. Would it then be fair of me to say “Christians are always crafty deceptive and deviant and disassemble everything I say”?
    Seems to me you have a confirmation bias, and it isn’t doing YOU any favours.
    As for King Kong… that’s the most ropey propaganda exercise I’ve ever encountered.

  228. Autie Jack:

    To write with a broken pencil is pointless.

  229. Will, Iris, John K, AdrianT, flapjack, Sister Mary Clarence, David North, Keith:

    Youse are the wind beneath my wings. Love ya!

  230. A country preacher decided to skip services one Sunday to spend the day hiking in the wilderness.

    Rounding a sharp bend in the trail, he collided with a bear and was sent tumbling down a steep grade. He landed on a rock and broke both legs.

    With the ferocious bear charging at him from a distance, the preacher prayed:

    “O Lord, I’m so sorry for skipping services today. Please forgive me and grant me just one wish–make a Christian out of that bear that’s coming at me!”

    At that very instant, the bear skidded to a halt, fell to his knees, clasped his paws together, and began to pray aloud at the preacher’s feet:

    “Dear God, please bless this food I am about to receive.”

  231. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 8 Aug 2009, 11:29am

    My comments are being rejected again! Cheez.

  232. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 8 Aug 2009, 11:32am

    Three nuns in church on a hot day decide to remove their robes because of the heat. Not an unusual habit on a hot day.

    So about a half hour later, the door bell rings while their robes are slumped over pews clear across the huge chapel.

    They ask who it is. “The blind man,” a voice replies.

    The three nuns decide to simply open the door because the man is blind. He walks in, looks at the nuns and says:

    “Nice! Where do you want me to install these blinds?”

  233. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 8 Aug 2009, 11:37am

    A woman had two female parrots who were always yelling:

    “We’re prostitutes, wanna have a little fun?”

    One day, she was talking to her Preacher about this. He said he had two male parrots and all they did was read the Bible. He thought perhaps they would be a good influence on the two females.

    So they put the four parrots together, and the females yelled at the male parrots:

    “We’re prostitutes, wanna have a little fun?”

    One male parrot said to the other:

    “Put the Bibles away! We’ve made it to heaven!”

  234. “The language of those on this blog is violent, obscene, blasphemous and offensive”

    So what? You’re easily offended. If god doesn’t like it he can come down and tell me himself. Until that day, Its a democratic country, we can say with we want. If your religious is so strong, it should be able to withstand scrutiny. It doesn’t, does it? And if you don’t like it, as Adrian says, get lost. I’d like that dumb ass pigeon god, the “holy spirit”, to “witness” that! Ha!

    “there are others perhaps listening in to these chats and I trust that they are taking note of every word spoken. Maybe it is to these that I am really speaking.”

    Don’t fool yourself. We’re showing those reading this site that its easy to stand up to your religious nonsense. No one hear agrees with you other than mentally deficient pond floaters like Hank and DS.

    Sorry, you’re a lost cause. One of humanity’s lesser individuals.

  235. “The language of those on this blog is violent, obscene, blasphemous and offensive”

    How ironic. From what I read, you are also “violent, obscene, blasphemous and offensive” in your debase language towards your fellow man.

  236. theotherone 8 Aug 2009, 12:07pm

    Canbibals? Fachists? Jesus! Talk about a rant!If we’re traiding insults around the Nazi party: Gerbels was Her and had an embarasing affair with a Jewsih Night Club singer (I’m sure a Christian and Jew having a relationship would disgust our Christian friends) who was ferited out of the country to safety by Nazi high comand.

    I also thought Hitler was married and (hilariously but true) quite the Ladys Man and didn’t The Party use Rhom’s Homosexuality as a pathetic excuse to justify Nacht der langen Messer?

  237. King Kong: “How dreadful are the curses which homosexuality lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful Darwinian fatalism. Disgusting and perverted habits, dishonesty, deceit, denial, deconstruction, disorder destabilisation and death exist wherever the followers of Stonewall rule or live. A degraded and
    strutting sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in in a misogynistic society dominated by homosexuals women become worthless – and are treated merely as carriers of embryos – must delay the final extinction of slavery, bondage and addiction until
    homosexuality has ceased to be a great power among men.””Individual homosexuals may show splendid qualities. Some become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die of Aids. But the influence of the homosexual ideology destroys the social fabric of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, homosexuality is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout western European civilisation , raising militants at every step. Nothing can stop it apart from and Islam”

    Yep, I’m going for David Skinner aswell. That rant is truly insane. Not only that, DS has tried to pretend that gay men hate women before. Actually, DS, it’s STRAIGHT men who exhibit the most violence – verbal and physical – towards women.

    Homosexuality’s not a faith *rolls eyes* The only reason LGBT people have had to speak up is that they’ve been denied equal rights for some time and are now being attacked by people like you. There is no homosexual ideology, just a HUMAN one. There is no agenda.

    Of course, you seem to have a burning need to have someone or something to fight against – some illusory threat that you have to enter into combat with (as proven by your ‘king’ names). I think that’s sad – ‘sad’ as in ‘unhappy’. Your life must be pretty unfulfilled and miserable.

  238. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 8 Aug 2009, 1:17pm

    Homophobia is an irrational fear and hatred for homosexuality and gay and lesbian people in general.

    It occasionally disappears when they discover that a close family relative is gay, but not always.

    This has been a growing question in our minds, after spending much time trying to understand homophobia in order to try to help end it.

    One of the problems is that a ‘phobia’ is a fear, but ‘homophobia’ is generally understood as a hate.

    So supposing we do define it as a fear, then what do we have?

    People who are afraid of gay people (consequential questions: afraid of becoming gay or being gay? afraid of gay people? afraid of associating with gay people or being associated with gay people?…); and

    Gay people who are afraid of being gay (or ashamed of it), or afraid of the consequences (real or imagined) of admitting to being gay, or afraid of the real or perceived implications of being gay, fear of disappointing loved ones (in our experience, this is a really big part — and on one level you could say it’s self-inflicted)

    Don’t you think both parts of this ‘fear’ definition are really important?

    Then, if we think about the ‘gay hate’ definition, we also find some difficult questions there.

    We mean there are very obvious parts – being beaten-up because of being gay or being perceived as gay (heterosexuals can also suffer homophobic bullying), or being ostracised (often by people in the name of their religion).

    But there are also things that are said, that to one person may be classed as ‘homophobia’ and to another one (We offer myself as an example) could be taken as a compliment. Some illustrations:

    “You’re gay!” – Our reaction is sincere happiness

    “I’m glad you noticed”. Some people’s reaction is that it’s homophobia.

    “It’s so gay!” – Our honest reaction “hum, is it? Then We’ll try to live up to the stereotype :)

    But it’s certainly stereotyping (which is not unique to any state of being at all). Some people would call it a form of homophobia. It’s certainly often a non-malicious remark said as playground banter: perhaps ill-considered and even wrong, but anyway said with no hate-intent.

    “You’re a queer!” – Our genuine feeling is pride:

    “I am queer, queer I am, lucky boy am I.”

    We would feel so even if it was said with malice.

    So we have words which are sent with homophobic intent that may or may not be received as homophobic bullying; and we have words which could be logically statements of fact which may be received as homophobic bullying; and we have ill-considered statements of no homophobic intent whatsoever that may be received as homophobic bullying.

    Of course, we can say things like “intention is important” and “how they are received may depend on whether someone is comfortable with their sexuality”, but we’ve seen that people are being disciplined in schools as homophobic bullies for saying “That’s so gay!”. (We think that is as bad as allowing homophobic bullying.)

    OK, do you see where we are coming from? Whatever point of view you personally have about what constitutes homophobia and what doesn’t, we guess you can see that it’s quite difficult to arrive at a consensus.

    Without understanding (maybe reaching a consensus about) what is homophobia, it’s quite difficult deal with it in the right way.

  239. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 8 Aug 2009, 1:22pm

    How many fundamentalists does it take to change a light bulb?

    Who cares? They’re in the dark if they change the bulb or not.

  240. Sister Mary Clarence 8 Aug 2009, 1:49pm

    I like the last one JP – going to use that!!!

  241. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 8 Aug 2009, 1:51pm

    Reading the Bible 101: Hilarious:

    www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ

  242. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 8 Aug 2009, 3:16pm

    A sailor and a priest were playing golf. The sailor took his first shot missed and said:

    “Fuck, I missed.”

    Surprised, the priest replied:

    “Don’t use that kind of language or god will punish you.”

    The sailor took aim and hit his shot second shot. Again he missed and under his breath the said:

    “I fucking missed again.”

    The priest overheard and replied:

    “My son, please don’t use that language or god will punish you.”

    The sailor took his third shot and once again he couldn’t help mutter:

    “Oh fuck”

    The priest said:

    “That’s it god will certainly punish you.”

    Suddenly a bolt of lightning came down and killed the priest. In the distance a deep voice said:

    “FUCK, I missed”.

  243. It’s a good thing he claims 4000 years of war were engaged to defend it. it’s exactly what it is, an excuse for people to be self-righteous and warmongerers. thanks for showing the true face of organized christianity.

    now get rid of it, and believe in unconditional love instead.

  244. You have all realised that the various homophobes on here are the same person but under different names?

    He/She needs to learn some facts, and I, being full of them, am happy to oblige:

    Ruth and Naomi were lesbians in the Bible and are celebrated. They felt ‘dabaq’ for one another (what Adam felt for Eve/how spouses feel towards eachother) and were not condemned in the slightest.

    Leviticus also states that people condemned are shellfish eaters and people who wear different clothing materials together. Why are you Bible bashers not picketing the ASDA for selling prawns et al? Because you’re homophobes who use a cherry-picked slice of Leviticus to justify your own personl prejudices whilst ignoring the rest of the shellfish-condemning text.

    Paedophillia, necrophillia and bestiality are all PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS which cannot be eradicated. Homosexuality is NOT a pathilogical trait.

    Homosexuality is often seen in the animal kingdom, hence it is perfectly natural. Please refrain from ignoring this fact.

    If you say we choose to be gay, then you, by default, MUST choose to be straight, as we cannot choose between being gay and nothing!

    Jesus Christ was only deemed ‘divine’ after a politically motivated move carried out at the Council Of Nicea.

    The majority of the worlds ills, be it war, murder, rape, violent assaults, paedophillia, and pollution are overwhelmingly, OVERWHELMINGLY, committed by HETEROSEXUAL MALES. Not gay men or women. And not even straight women! So please, go on to a “Lad’s mag” board and preach to them since their demograph causes the most trouble in the world.

    And finally- piss off and get a life.

    Yours sincerely,

    GoFuckYourself

  245. #244
    Do you know, Lezabella, presh…I couldn’t have put it better myself…Luv it…!
    Keith.
    x

  246. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 9 Aug 2009, 12:45am

    Lezabella:

    Tell me this: Where have you bin, girlfriend? I’ve been looking all over creation for you. Yea, you.

    We need you to form a part of a ‘welcoming team’ for our ex-gay fundamentalist fundies. They really do need more of an…shall I say, planned reception.

    First, you gotta become a member. It’s free. Go to the upper left hand corner of the grey bar on the front page of PinkNews and click on ‘My’.

    That will bring you into the Forum and dating area of Pink.

    Register under any name you want, you can lie about your age in your profile, and join Adrian’s Forum(s). There’s a bunch of us there already, but as I say, we needs ya. Compris? Love ya.

  247. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 9 Aug 2009, 12:48am

    Oh and Keith:

    There’s no reason for you to be so stand-offish. Come and join us on Adrian’s Forum and bring sweet Eddy with ya. That’s an order, mon capitain !!!

  248. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 9 Aug 2009, 12:51am

    In a Podiatrist’s office:

    “Time wounds all heels.”

    Yuk, yuk!

  249. Lezabella 9 Aug 2009, 1:22am

    Sorry Bentham, I switched jobs where I was just too busy to go on the computer.

    I’ll become a member!

    :)

  250. Lezabella 9 Aug 2009, 1:24am

    Thanks Keith, I just get so annoyed with bigots. We’re all PEOPLE and all EQUAL. They just don’t seem to realise it.

    xxx

  251. upandatem 9 Aug 2009, 2:59am

    L250-Thanks Keith, I just get so annoyed with bigots. We’re all PEOPLE and all EQUAL. They just don’t seem to realise it.

    And everyone is equal if they don’t disagree with the homonazi

  252. Lezabella 9 Aug 2009, 3:16am

    ‘homonazi’???

    Yeah, ignore all my facts as above and resort to calling me a ‘homonazi’. Which isn’t even a word by the way. You’re the same type of man who, when in a discussion with a woman who wants equal rights for all females, you call her a ‘feminazi’. So predictable and boring!!!!

    So infantile mate. Learn to give up when you’re wrong.

  253. upandatem 9 Aug 2009, 3:17am

    L244-Ruth and Naomi were lesbians in the Bible and are celebrated.

    Ignorance is bliss I guess. The word you quoted ‘dabaq’ is not int he passage you quoted, but then I guess you never let the truth ruin a good story.

    As for your other bible references, all they do is show that you have no idea what the bible teaches. Your just one of those supercilious twits who picks out one verse and says “there you are, that proves what I said” when all it does is show that you have no idea what it does says.

    A bit like me reading an article on a particular car which says the diesel version is better and me saying “there you are, it says that diesel cars are better than petrol ones.”

    “Homosexuality is often seen in the animal kingdom, hence it is perfectly natural. Please refrain from ignoring this fact.”

    And please refrain from ignoring the fact that H is not seen in the animal kingdom

    Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, wrote:

    “ Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals…. For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.

    ” Not gay men or women”

    They don’t have time they are too busy killing each other.

    Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S. who is a former commander of Bronx homicide for the New York City Police Department stated in 1995 regarding homosexual murders that homosexual murders are relatively common and these murders may involve male victims murdered by other males or may involve female victims who are in some type of lesbian relationship and they are murdered by another female.

    In 2005, Dr. Harnam Singh, Dr. Luv Sharma, and Dr. Dhattarwal reported in the Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine in regards to homosexuality and murders that homosexual murders are quite common and that these murders may involve both sexes either as victims or as assailants.

    Dr. William Eckert was a world-renowned authority in the field of pathology and he worked on major murder cases including the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the Charles Manson murders. Dr. Eckert founded the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. Dr. Eckert was a pioneer who encouraged collaborative effort between law-enforcement and forensics teams.”

    Dr. Eckert wrote regarding homosexual murders the following:

    “Equally high is the number of homicides, many probably related to transient attachments, which often lead to suspicion, jealousy, and murder. When murder does occur it is exceptionally brutal with an overkill appearance… Overkill, as it is seen in homosexual and lesbian murders, is certainly a form of sadistic crime. In these instances multiple stabbing and other brutal injuries…are common findings…”

    “Jesus Christ was only deemed ‘divine’ after a politically motivated move carried out at the Council Of Nicea.”

    Evidence please and you might like to provide the evidence for the other 25 times you lot have been asked and have not given. I won’t hold my breath as you have made it clear that you do not consider evidence relevant, more a case of twisted logic to massage damaged egos.

  254. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 9 Aug 2009, 4:11am

    Two lawyers are in a bank, when, suddenly, armed robbers burst in, waving guns and yelling for everyone to freeze.

    While several of the robbers take the money from the tellers, others line the customers, including the lawyers, up against a wall, and proceed to take their wallets, watches, and other valuables.

    While this is going on, one of the lawyers jams something into the other lawyer’s hand. Without looking down, the second lawyer whispers:

    “What is this?”

    The first lawyer replies:

    “It’s the $100 I owe you.”

  255. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 9 Aug 2009, 4:17am

    Keith:

    If you are really interested in hearing how Acadians speak, check the official site of the 2009 World Acadian Congress taking place in Caraquet, New Brunswick, this year. Festivities have already begun and will climax (did I say that?) on August 15th, the National Day of Acadians: www dot cma dot ca. Enjoy.

    Oh, and to stick to the topic, bring Gunn withcha!

  256. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 9 Aug 2009, 4:35am

    Pandamonium:

    I don’t care you are… you’re not walking on the water while I’m fishing.

  257. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 9 Aug 2009, 4:43am

    Three lawyers and three engineers are traveling by train to a conference. At the station, each of the three lawyers buys a ticket while the three engineers buy only one ticket.

    “How can the three of you travel on one ticket?” asks a lawyer.

    “Watch and you’ll see,” answers an engineer.

    Aboard the train the lawyers take their respective seats while all three engineers cram into the restroom and squeeze the door closed behind them.

    When the conductor comes around collecting tickets, he knocks on the restroom door and says, “Ticket, please.” The door opens a crack and a single arm emerges with a ticket in hand. The conductor takes it and moves on.

    The lawyers are impressed with this clever idea. One the way home from the conference, they decide to copy the engineers’ technique. At the station, they buy a single ticket for their return trip. To their astonishment, the engineers don’t buy a ticket at all!

    “How in the hell are you going to pull this off?” asks a lawyer.

    “Watch and you’ll see,” answers an engineer.

    They board the train. The three lawyers cram into one restroom and the three engineers cram into the other restroom.

    Shortly after the train departs, one of the engineers leaves his restroom and knocks on the other restroom door. “Ticket, please!”

  258. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 9 Aug 2009, 4:48am

    A Scotsman wearing a kilt was at a wedding in England.

    A fellow guest asks him:

    “Is there anything worn under your kilt?”

    The Scotsman replies:

    “Not at all, everything works fine!”

  259. 258 posts and going – goodness me. Folks, is this worth it?
    Are we having a reasoned debate or just feedling sad socially inept trolls? Discuss (I won’t be discussing. I have better things to do frankly)……………..

  260. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 9 Aug 2009, 10:55am

    AdrianT:

    AGREED. This ain’t worth it.

  261. Adrian, you’re right. The man’s a demented fool. He’s stuck in some infinite loop

    Lets laugh at him instead.

  262. upandatem – nobody’s listening to you because you don’t listen to others.

    You quoted some expert on the Australian MP thread and ignored my comment that you’d got that info from Conservapedia, and now here you are on this thread posting “In 2005, Dr. Harnam Singh, Dr. Luv Sharma, and Dr. Dhattarwal reported in the Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine in regards to homosexuality and murders that homosexual murders are quite common and that these murders may involve both sexes either as victims or as assailants.”

    …..which you’ve copied and pasted from – have a guess everyone – yep, Conservapedia:

    “http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_Murders”

    Now let me copy and paste something for YOU:

    “Conservapedia is one of many conservative and Christian-themed Web sites imitating the format of mainstream sites to provide a right-wing or fundamentalist Christian alternative.The site has been the subject of criticism, both inside and outside of its native United States, for bias and inaccuracies.”

    “Barking” was the adjective a friend used to describe Conservapedia, and I’d agree. I’d have had more respect for your argument if you’d posted something from a Noddy book. At least that doesn’t pretend to be anything other than fiction.

  263. What I’ve said about Ruth and Naomi is true, I’m not repeating it just because you’ve ‘denied’ it. Research it yourself, I won’t go around in circles just because you can’t be arsed to look it up.

    “They don’t have time they are too busy killing each other.”

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Seriously, look up the thousands and thousands of murderers in British jails and tell me how many are heterosexual males, i.e your demograph, and then come back to the table.

    The Council of Nicea was presided over by Constantine (The Emperor) who deemed Christ devine in an attempt to pander to, and gain support from, the growing numbers of ‘Christians’ at the time. Google it, go to a library, or whatever, and you’ll find it.

    You still haven’t addressed the fact that heterosexual males overwhelmingly cause the most violence in this world (war, murder, rape, violent assaults, paedophillia etc, etc) . Why won’t you admit that????????

    You let a 2000 year old book run your life rather than make decisions for yourself, a book containing a ‘Holy Trinity’ wherein the new son was born on December the 25th……hmmm where have I heard that before? Ah yes, in the trinity involving the goddess Isis, Ra and Horus (the son) who the Egyptians also said was born on the 25th of December. Coincidence??? Your religion is a mish-mash of paganism and Egyptian sun worship and is nothing more than a tool created by the elites over 1000s of years to control the masses; and guess what? You’re silly enough to fall for it.

    “Religion is the sign of the oppressed, it is the opium of the people”- Karl Marx. Religion is your opium because you’re afraid of death and you’re afraid to grow up and make your own decisions.

    Do you want me to post cherry-picked Doctor’s quotes to re-enforce my point? As I have a very good book written by Dr Helen Morrison M.D who has a lot to say about heterosexual male behaviour in relation to serial killers. Is that what you want me to do?

    And I don’t need an ‘ego massage’, if I did I would go onto a Christian board and stir up shit just for the fun of it to try and make myself feel better, like you do here. The only massage I get is from my beuatiful girl every night, in bed.

    Seriously, why are you here? And why haven’t you gone on to a “Lad’s Mag” board like I told you to, and preach at them since heterosexual males are the problem in this world. Why haven’t you done that? Obsessed with homosexuality much? You have issues dude.

  264. Well done Iris. I knew his ‘sources’ were flawed.

    Cheers :)

  265. well exposed Lezabella :-)

  266. Rick George 9 Aug 2009, 11:10pm

    Thought for the day…Religion = the dumbing down of God.

  267. Rick George 10 Aug 2009, 12:18am

    upandatem aka sugarplumfairy, yes I know who you are. Im tired od trying to have a rational, intelligent conversation with you, its obviously a pointless endeavour. Just go and have a wank or something, you obviously need one. I really dont care about whatever rigid, inflexible, oppressive belief system you want to follow, you just go right on ahead with it sunshine. Why dont you just get on with your own life and leave us to get on with ours? I mean, no one here is stopping you from marrying your cousin so why dont you just mind your own business cos what you think of us is none of our business and we dont want to hear it. So carry on with your happy clappy God hates fags non-sense to your hearts content and leave us well out of it cos there aint no one here who is remotely interested. We dont want your unsolicited literature shoved through our letter boxes on a regular basis and we have voted with our feet as far as weird, vindictive, angry religions are concerned so sod off and prosthelytise elsewhere!!!

  268. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 10 Aug 2009, 3:57am

    Will, Adrian, Iris, Lezabella, Rick George:

    Group hug, ya knows ah loves ya. but, but, but…why are we not all on Adrian’s Forum. We need to talk, sérieusement…and yesterday. Ha ha.

  269. RG267 A nice rant for someone who says he is a christian perhpas you would like to read this verse…

    Col 4:6 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer each one.

    I guess this one is not part of your gaystapo religion so you choose to ignore it.

    If no one is remotely interested, why do they keep reading what I write? Just another one of your lies I guess.

  270. RG267-upandatem aka sugarplumfairy, yes I know who you are.

    No you don’t. There are ten of us around the country using the various names and you have no idea who it is using which one. I might be the sugarplumfairy one day and someone else another day, so when you respond with abuse and foul language, you are probably talking to someone who never wrote the post that you are trying to avoid.

  271. L252-Yeah, ignore all my facts as above and resort to calling me a ‘homonazi’. Which isn’t even a word by the way.

    And ignore my facts that you only believe in equality if people agree with you as this exert proves.

    Dr. Chuck McIlhenny served as pastor of San Francisco’s First Orthodox Presbyterian Church for numerous years. In 1978 Dr. McIlhenny co-authored a book which recounted how he was threatened and his church and home firebombed by homosexual activists subsequent to a lawsuit he won regarding the church’s right to fire its organist who was homosexual. Dr. McIlhenny’s home was firebombed while his family was sleeping inside. No one was ever prosecuted for the arson attacks and Dr. McIlhenny was reported to be still counseling homosexuals 20 years later. The title of Dr. McIlhenny’s 1978 book recounting his experiences is titled When the Wicked Seize a City.

    In 1989, Dr. Mcilhenny helped defeat a domestic partnership law that would have treated two homosexuals as a family. For three years, the Mcilnhenny household received thousands of threatening and harassing phone calls 24 hours a day. Some of the callers threatened to sodomize and kill Dr. McIlhenny’s three young daughters. In 1990, repeatedly vandalism occurred to his church and home with graffiti such as “Dykes for Choice”. In addition, the church’s windows were broken so repeatedly that the churches congregates boarded them up permanently.

    Repeated death threats from homosexual activists towards Dr. Mcilhenny have occurred.

    I look forward to your childish and infantile response to defend the indefensible.

  272. I 262-I’d have had more respect for your argument if you’d posted something from a Noddy book. At least that doesn’t pretend to be anything other than fiction.

    Now that’s a good idea. It is about the level of intelligence that you can cope with.

  273. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 10 Aug 2009, 11:18am

    What lies on its back, one hundred feet in the air?

    A dead centipede.

  274. I 262-I’d have had more respect for your argument if you’d posted something from a Noddy book. At least that doesn’t pretend to be anything other than fiction.

    Now that’s a good idea. It is about the level of intelligence that you can cope with.

  275. L263-What I’ve said about Ruth and Naomi is true, I’m not repeating it just because you’ve ‘denied’ it. Research it yourself, I won’t go around in circles just because you can’t be arsed to look it up.

    As usual you resort to ridicule when you are up the creek without a paddle. If you are convinced please quote the verse where the word ‘dabaq’ is in the Hebrew and I will check it in my Hebrew Bible.

    I know you won’t do that because I know you can’t. All you are doing is parroting what some lesbian has said to massage their ego and all they have done is to make themselves complete and utter fools.

  276. A guy is walking past a high, solid wooden fence at the insane asylum and he hears all the residents inside chanting:

    “Thirteen! Thirteen! Thirteen!”

    He continues walking along the long fence, but, being a curious person, he can’t help but wonder why they are chanting “Thirteen!” over and over.

    Could it be that they are chugging beer? Are they perhaps taking turns beating one of the inmates? Maybe they are counting the number of patients that have leapt off of the roof thus far.

    His curiosity peaks and he frantically searches for a hole in the fence so that he may see what is going on.

    Finally, he spots one a few feet ahead. The hole is low in the fence and he has to kneel down to peer inside.

    He moves into position and peeks into the hole. As he looks in, someone inside pokes him in the eye! Then everyone inside the asylum starts chanting:

    “Fourteen! Fourteen! Fourteen!”

  277. Don Quixote 10 Aug 2009, 11:30am

    275.

    L263-What I’ve said about Ruth and Naomi is true, I’m not repeating it just because you’ve ‘denied’ it. Research it yourself, I won’t go around in circles just because you can’t be arsed to look it up.

    As usual you resort to ridicule when you are up the creek without a paddle. If you are convinced please quote the verse where the word ‘dabaq’ is in the Hebrew and I will check it in my Hebrew Bible.

    I know you won’t do that because I know you can’t. All you are doing is parroting what some lesbian has said to massage their ego and all they have done is to make themselves complete and utter FOOLS. ahahahahahahahahahaha!! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

  278. NARTH is not scientific.

    Never was.

    This is where you (and your many personalities) source your nonsense. Lets have a look at the lies, shall we:-

    2008 May: THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PSYCHIATRISTS, expressed the opinion that not only do the methods recommended by the NARTH group of Christian Psychiatrists not work, but that the methods create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.

    July 2009 NARTH: “a singular conclusion: Homosexuality is not innate, immutable or without significant risk to medical, psychological, and relational health.” Yet, despite the fact that NARTH concludes that homosexuality develops after a person is born, they provide no review of the evidence which addresses that topic. How very unscientific of them.

    Surely the evidence is in abundance as they suggest? No? Clearly not.

    NARTH’s Dr. Spitzer’s “Archives of Sexual Behaviour” paper has been criticized for using non-random sampling and poor criteria for success:-
    – The then APA president, Lawrence Hartmann, a professor at Harvard Medical School, called Spitzer’s study “too flawed to publish.”
    – Psychologist Douglas Haldeman of the University of Washington commented that there is no credible scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed, “and this study doesn’t prove that either.”

    The key issue here was all or almost all of the 200 subjects interviewed were referred by reparative therapists or by Christian transformational ministries. Apparently all or almost all of the clients were evangelical Christians.

    …one can only conclude after reading this appallingly written study that he found his MD in a dumster. Why would he produced a flawed and biased paper if the evidence was so easy to get? Conclusion is that there is not evidence for his ridiculous theories, and the poor fool had to make some up. Sad. So sad.

    All the following Organisations have spoken out against NARTH, stating that NARTH is not scientific, and anti-gay agenda driven:-

    – American Psychiatric Association
    – American Psychological Association
    – American Counseling Association
    – National Association of Social Workers
    – American Academy of Pediatrics
    – American Association of School Administrators
    – American Federation of Teachers
    – National Association of School Psychologists
    – National Education Association

    Wow. Thats a lot. And Agenda driven? So, its NARTH that are the propaganda nazi’s? What a surprise. What shall we call this, then, the “antihomostapo”?

    Your lies are simply the rantings of a foolish, and uneducated old nobody, who doesn’t have the brains even to imagine an argument that’s not a house of cards.

    Pathetic.

  279. Just reading this now:-
    “There are ten of us around the country using the various names and you have no idea who it is using which one.”

    Ten????? ONLY TEN?????

    Ha! Ha! Ha! We’re MILLIONS!

    Lads, we’re talking to some right wing nut group of TEN!!!!! The sum total of their influence wouldn’t be enough for a pub quiz! LOL! What a joke.

    Whooooooo, so many of them, we should be scared….!

    You pack of (ten) fucking idiots!

    LOL! I am still laughing!

  280. LOL @ Will. Two great posts (#278 #279), the second one made me laugh!
    What I want to know, if there are 10, why are all ten writing the EXACT same way, and all ten have the very same poor intelligence. Coincidence?

  281. the other half 10 Aug 2009, 12:22pm

    Lesebelia: you’re spot on about Constantine. He declaired Christianity as the State religion, declaired CHrist Devine (depends on your taste in men I supose)and, henseforth, all hell broke loose.

    Interestingly it was about this time that the Crusifix (a phalocentric symbol) became the dominent ‘Christian’ symbol. Before that it was a pictogram of a fish.

    BTW: sorry for my rants the last time we met here.

  282. I’m soory, Will. Of course, you’re right. You are all right and I’ve been such a fool. I’m gay. Nothing will ever change that. Please can I be your friend? The fundies just don’t have a sense of humour, and nothing they say is based on scientific proof. They forced me to say all those things. I didn’y want to do it. Hinest. Please forgive me, ple-e-e-e-ase.

  283. Yes, upandatem. You are forgiven for your stupidity. We forgive you, because we’re better than you.

    This is the word of me, mightiest of all the fictitious gods.

  284. the other half 10 Aug 2009, 12:33pm

    upandatem: I had to move from the city I was born in after constant death threats, my block being broken into and abuse scrawled into my door with a knife, after I was sacked from Job after Job because of my sexuality, after a friend was driven into psychiatric care by the abuse she sufferd, after another friend was injured when heir car was overturned by a gang shouting homophobic abuse…

    You want to konw how it feals to be on the end of abuse and violence? Ask Queers, they’ve got alot of experence of it.

    Now fuck off you lackwit, fuck off back to your fundi church and wank off over your sadomasicistic ‘Christ on the Cross.’

    (I’ll go and lie down in a darkend room after that rant.)

  285. Oh Will. You know it’s been awhile since I…you know..had any. Are you free, can I rim you sometime…soon? Pretty please.

  286. Holy Spirit Chicken 10 Aug 2009, 12:46pm

    I am the Holy Spirit.

    Although I look like a small white chicken, I have many powers, including flapping my wings and squeezing out a drop of fire on your noggin.

    I forgive you, upandatem, even though you are hated by god for your prejudice towards the beautiful gay people, who are made in gos’s image. He told me so… look at jesus, hanging around in the sun half naked with 12 men… puts Mykonos to shame!

    But yeyah, the lord is frickin great, and smite you he will not, on the grounds you are retarded nazi.

    Jesus is off somewhere biting his nails…. I told him to stop that bad habit, he’ll fall off the cross if he doesn’t stop, I’ll tell ya!

    Go now upandatem, and spread the word of forgiveness, not hate, or stupidity… mostly stupidity, because you’re one seriously dumb f*ck! (All 10 of you…. apparently)

    This is the word of the Holy Pigeon.

  287. Will No.278 superb post. Very informative. Shows these lairs for their true colours.

  288. Oh Will,

    I suppose that means you won’t let me rim you, eh.

    Aw-w-w-w-w-w-w

  289. the other half 10 Aug 2009, 1:00pm

    Holy Spirit Chicken! Will you combine with the other parts of your Holy Trinity (Holy Spirit Oven and Holy Spirit Rost Potato and redem us poor sinners who partack of Strange Flesh?

  290. Jacques Derrida 10 Aug 2009, 1:15pm

    What, no gravy?

    Holy John Hopkins, Batman! Deconstruct this.

  291. This is NOT a comedy.

  292. I too like Will’s comment from posting 278. Very nice bit of research Will.

  293. theotherone 10 Aug 2009, 2:04pm

    the grays is our prayers

  294. theotherone 10 Aug 2009, 2:05pm

    oops! the Gravy is our prayers

  295. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 10 Aug 2009, 3:02pm

    UPANDATEM:

    You get over here and insult us right now, or forever hold your peace. Now. Right this minute.

  296. theotherone- No problem, I apologise too :) and yes you’re right Constantine did make it the national religion, and again you’re right in stating that the Crucifix (a phalocentric symbol) became the dominant ‘Christian’ symbol as before that it was a pictogram of a fish- correct on all accounts. And as I already stated, the ‘Holy Trinity’ was already present in ancient Egypt being made up of Ra, Isis the goddess and Horus (the son) who was also said to be born on December the 25th. It’s all paganism and sun-worship rolled into one, hence the sun behind the cross we constantly see.

    upandatem (or whatever other username you’re using) -why do you think posting about the odd homosexual murder is somehow relevant when 99% are carried out by heterosexual males, against women, might I add. Why haven’t you gone on to a “Lad’s Mag” board to preach at them? Like I’ve now told you to twice, since their demograph commits the most murders.
    You are awre of that fact aren’t you? Or does ‘Conservapedia’ (LOL) not say this?

    – You know full well I cannot write the Hebrew text here as it will make no sense, they don’t even have the same alphabet; instead I shall post something from a reliable source (not that you would know what they are Conservapedia boy…), my source is The Metropolitan Community Church (one of your lot):

    “The Hebrew word used in Ruth 1:14 to describe those feelings is quite telling. The text says, “Ruth clung to [Naomi].” The Hebrew word for “clung” is “dabaq.” This is precisely the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt toward Eve.”

    “The next verse in the text then draws an important theological conclusion from Adam’s experience. It says that, for this reason (i.e., the need for companionship), a man should leave his father and mother when he grows up and “cling” (“dabaq”) to his wife. (Genesis 2:24) And, of course, for the vast majority of human beings, that is God’s will for them — for a man and woman to leave their parents home and form a relationship with each other that is so close, so intimate, that they can be described as “clinging” to one another.”

    “But what about people who aren’t heterosexual? Is it possible for them, with God’s blessing, to form that type of intimate relationship with someone of their own gender?
    The Holy Spirit answers that question definitively in Ruth 1:14. There the Scriptures say — without apology, embarrassment, or qualification — that Ruth felt the same way toward Naomi as spouses are supposed to feel toward each other. Far from being condemned, Ruth’s feelings are celebrated.”

    “No mention is made of Ruth’s love for her husband. And, when Ruth finally bears a son from her marriage, the text focuses on Naomi and her reaction to the great news, not on the father. In fact, the women of the village (and the author) ignore the father entirely, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.” (Ruth 4:17) They remind her that Ruth “who loves you, is more to you than seven sons.” (Ruth 4:15) Everyone seems to understand that, for Ruth and Naomi, their most important relationship is the one they share.”

    “Here then is the story the Bible tells: Ruth felt toward Naomi as Adam felt toward Eve; she gave up everything so she could be with Naomi; she put her own life at risk, so she could spend it caring for Naomi; and, even after she married a man, her most important relationship remained the one she shared with Naomi. These actions and emotions are difficult, almost impossible, to explain as mere friendship. If we set aside our preconceptions of what is possible in the Bible, the book of Ruth reads like the story of two women in love.”

    There, spoken from the horse’s mouth, and dare I say, by people more knowledgeable of the scripture than you!

    You have the temerity and cheek to insult Iris’s intellect when she has exposed you as nothing more than a troll, a silly one at that, who uses CONSERVAPEDIA!!!!!!! Ahahahahaha she’s found you out mate, give it up. You’ve been debunked and corrected by all of us and now, the final nail in the coffin, courtesey of my friend Iris, is that you use a very crappy, biased source to back-up your own prejudices. Hilarious.

  297. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 10 Aug 2009, 5:58pm

    I wonder if Kenneth Gunn would still think that gays are sad people if he read this thread. The Fundies are the ones with no sense of humour; they are the sad ones. What a pity; a mind is such a valuable thing to waste.

  298. Rick George 10 Aug 2009, 6:27pm

    Re 271, Yes its all very easy for both sides of the argument to quote terrible accounts that such and such did so and so because of such and such. Its easy to point the finger and aportion blame but where do you go from there?

    It seems apparent that there were some people who obviously felt very strongly that an injustice had been done in these cases and were prepared to take the law into their own hands to make their feelings known. Now I do not condone violence in any way but I can understand that human beings with their flaws can do stupid and terrible things when they feel strongly that they are being denied freedom and justice and cant seem to get what they want by normal, sensible means. Take a look at history, the suffragette movement for example. Now Im sure that not many of us would argue that what they were campaigning for and protesting about was not of the noblest raison detre. But at the same time there were some who engaged in some pretty aggressive direct action having been frustrated by getting nowhere through normal, sensible, within the law channels. Now there do seem to be some parralels between this and the account you’ve given.

    Now I’m still not saying its right and Im not condoning what was done but in one case you’ve quoted, the man who was fired from his job had sought to go through normal legal channels to get justice but was denied this even by the law. Now thats bound to generate some frustration and anger. Now perhaps the man himself was not involved in any future direct action but a political movement with a vested interest may have seized upon this, presumably there was media coverage at the time, and taken direct action, percieving that justice had not been served. Also in the case of a bill to promote fairer treatment being defeated, its easy to see that for some that may generate alot of frustration and resentment. They’ve tried to go through conventional legal channels to get fairer treatment and again, like the suffragette movement in its time, have not been given what they percieve as justice by going through those channels so they take direct action, perhaps even of an aggressive and violent nature as some of the suffragette movement did. Now again I want to make it clear that I do not condone in any way the violent and aggressive behaviour engaged in by some of those protesting against this percieved injustice. I say some because even in the suffragette movement there were those who took a less aggressive approach and im sure that not all of those who felt aggrieved about the unfair sacking and the overturned bill in the account you’ve provided would have been involved in the kind of behaviour you have described. Thinking about the parallels with suffragette action, smashing windows-starting fires, while arguably unjustifiable to some, can you begin to understand the depth of frustration that may have been a catalyst for such behaviour?

    Not everyone who disagrees with abortion plants bombs in doctors cars. Not all Muslims advocate terrorism. Not all suffragettes engaged in starting fires and smashing windows. And not all those who felt aggrieved by the cases you describe would have engaged in the kinds of ‘indefensible’ behaviour you have highlighted, in protest.
    You will encounter extremists, those who go to extremes, in most human ideologies, thought systems, political movements etc. And while its all very easy to judge and condemn those people, try to understand where they are and why they are where they are. What circumstances and conditions have we all helped to create in our world that make the existence of such people a possibility? And what can we do collectively and individually to change the circumstances and conditions in our world that lead to extreme instances of violence and aggression? Certainly I dont think that the kind of thing that I understand to have created the problem, namely hatred and fear, will go any way to solving it. Put another way – you cannot solve a problem with the same kind of energy that created it. You cant fight fire with fire basically. Im reminded of the saying ‘one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter’. No doubt on both sides of the suffragette argument on the one side you’d have those who said they were terrorists, anarhcists, bringing down the status quo and the natural order of things. And from the suffragettes perspective and those who expoused their cause they were heroic fighters for social justice.

    People can do some pretty crazy things when they are denied freedom. Choice is part of freedom, equality is part of freedom, self determination is part of freedom, isnt it? Perhaps in one way what you’ve described is a sign that when human freedom is denied of the length people will go to achieve it. Maybe that tells you that it shouldnt be denied.

    Nothing Ive said here is intended to justify violence, but isnt the denial of freedom, in the context of the two cases you outlined, in itself a form of violence. And what is a typical human response to violence? Not in every instance and all of the time, but most of the time? And could it not be argued that the violence you describe was in itself perpetuated by the ‘violence’ of denial of freedom in the two cases you desribed? What kinds of behaviour do our instincts guide us towards when freedom is denied us?

    Anyway, a bit of a round the houses response to your comment, but I hope something of food for further discussion of a complex issue. I dont neccessarily agree with everything Ive written here myself, Ive just sought to present different ideas about the issues youve raised to try to broaden the discussion.

  299. Great posts Lezabella and Will – not that upandatem and all his sad friends will read them. But all the casual readers of Pink News will and they’ll see these fundies for what they are – bigots who use the Bible to justify their own hatred.

    I hope Pink News shows Hebrew lettering:-
    Ruth 1:14 from the Hebrew Bible
    ותשנה קולן ותבכינה עוד ותשק ערפה לחמותה ורות
    דבקה בה׃

  300. Well done Iris, I didn’t think it would post the Hebrew lettering either, and even if it did I knew he’d ignore it/wouldn’t understand it.

    Now he has the Hebrew AND church-translated text to prove WE are right, and he is wrong.

    Well done :)

  301. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 10 Aug 2009, 10:05pm

    but, but, but…where’s uppiatdem? Last we heard he was trying to seduce Will. Can you imagine. The noive!

    I suggest we send this entire thread to Kenneth Gunn just to show him who the ‘sad’ ones are, and exactly who is on a one way street to hell, besides him I mean.

  302. 284-upandatem: I had to move from the city I was born in after constant death threats, my block being broken into and abuse scrawled into my door with a knife, after I was sacked from Job after Job because of my sexuality, after a friend was driven into psychiatric care by the abuse she sufferd, after another friend was injured when heir car was overturned by a gang shouting homophobic abuse…

    In the words of one well known homosexual on this site…LIAR!!!

  303. 280-What I want to know, if there are 10, why are all ten writing the EXACT same way, and all ten have the very same poor intelligence. Coincidence?

    The usual trashy response from someone who is gramtically challenged and unable to put together a coherent response.

  304. 279-Ha! Ha! Ha! We’re MILLIONS!

    Evidence please!!!

  305. 279-You pack of (ten) fucking idiots!

    Don’t you think it is time for you to go to school and learn to speak english?

  306. 281-Interestingly it was about this time that the Crusifix (a phalocentric symbol) became the dominent ‘Christian’ symbol. Before that it was a pictogram of a fish.

    Evidence please !!!!

  307. 287-Although I look like a small white chicken, I have many powers, including flapping my wings and squeezing out a drop of fire on your noggin.

    Another brain dead inbecile who thinks he has a sense of humour.

  308. As I thought Iris, you are just parroting what you have been told.

    I will try and help you interpret the bible but it will probably fall on deaf ears because it doesn’t support your delusions. As I said, you obviously are just parroting what you have been told.

    As usual, you have taken one verse of scripture and said “There you are, that proves what I am saying.” which is complete rubbish.

    No doctrine is ever based on one verse of scripture. You need to find the whole revelation of the bible which is contained in many verses.

    There are 770 verses in the bible that talk about marriage. Not one mentions Adam and Steve or Mary and Jane. That means the only marriage that is acceptable in the bible is between Adam and Eve. if that is too subtle for you, between a man and a woman.

    The word that you say proves they were lesbians doesn’t for the simple reason that it is used in the context of Adam and Eve originally. The same word would not have different meaning unless different tenses were used and its not on this occasion.

    That fact that it is used originally in terms of male/female love means that it does not have any connotation of lesbian love.

    In addition all sex outside of marriage is roundly condemmed in the scriptures whether it is herosexual or homosexual.

    so the idea that Ruth and Naomi were in a lesbian relationship is quuite ridiculous and not supported by any exegetical authority on the scripture.

    All you have done to make it say what you want it to say.

    I look forward to your supercilious and childish response.

  309. 297-upandatem (or whatever other username you’re using) -why do you think posting about the odd homosexual murder is somehow relevant when 99% are carried out by heterosexual males,

    And why do you think posting about the odd Fred Phelps is indicative of all christians. He seems to turn up on every homo site in the world as an example of what chirstians are like.

    How intelligent is that?

  310. 297-The Metropolitan Community Church (one of your lot):

    This church a reliable source !!!! you do live in la la land.

    I don’t think a so called church that is run by homosexuals and lesbians who want God to approve of their sin…reliable. I would use the word…biased and very unreliable and they are not one of us as every christian christian denomination has disowned them.

  311. 297-“But what about people who aren’t heterosexual? Is it possible for them, with God’s blessing, to form that type of intimate relationship with someone of their own gender?

    Of course you conveniently forget one thing. When the event happened with Adam and Eve and when it was written, the concept of lesbians was unknown, so the word could not have any same sex conotation. As it says in Genesis, God created Adam and
    Eve, not Adam and Steve.

    One other thing that is puzzling. All of you have made it very clear that you hate the bible. You don’t believe a word of it as it was written by ancient neanderthals as one person said, but you you don’t waste anytime quoting it if it suits your purpose.

    That my dear lezbella is what as known as hypocrisy.

  312. 279-Ha! Ha! Ha! We’re MILLIONS!

    Evidence please!!!

    Simple math. 6%-10% of the population are gay. This equates to 390 to 650 million gay people. Your NARTH 2% is a fallacy and has no scientific evidence, so please do not insult my intellect by quoting it.

    Can you do simple math?

    Ask yourself why there are 1 MILLION people marching in London Pride, and how many christian bigoted nuts like you showed up…. three, four? Any at all? Dublin Pride had none of your kind. And the by standing public clapped. Hardly indicative of your beliefs, being accepted is it?

    One word: LOSING BATTLE…. for you.

    Now, how about YOU provide some proof of the 6000 year old earth and explain the fossil record?

  313. And why do you think posting about the odd Fred Phelps is indicative of all christians. He seems to turn up on every homo site in the world as an example of what chirstians are like.

    How intelligent is that?

    Well, you seem to mention one homosexual, and the remaining hundreds of millions of us are supposed to be just like him….

    ….how intelligent are you to ridicule your own examples?

  314. Given what I have read here, I would think you are very like Fred Phelps upandatem. Uncanny, actually.

  315. the other half 11 Aug 2009, 1:17pm

    why was my last comment not put up on this board?

  316. “In addition all sex outside of marriage is roundly condemmed in the scriptures whether it is herosexual or homosexual.”

    Who gives a toss what the “scriptures” say. Don;t impose your outdated sense of morality on others. If you don’t want sex, then fine. Don’t have it then. Who cares. Keep your religious prattling to yourself, religion is a private thing, lets keep it that way.

  317. the other half 11 Aug 2009, 2:16pm

    I’ll try to post again (as long as I’m not being moderated for upseting christians)…

    Up: you acuse me of being a lier but then you acuse my Brothers and Sisters of being canibals and nazi mass murderers so I supose lieing is nothing after invading Polend, anexing the Sudetenland and formulating and seeking to enact The Final Solution (albert speer’s been given some space in the kitchen to get on with his drawing.)

    To quote Kipling ‘all your lies are proved untrue’ and it is your lies not ours.

    You had an argument about the language of the bible and when you where proved a lier (‘all your lies are proved untrue’) you said it didn’t matter. Lier.

    You claimed that the MCP has been disowned by all Christian groups. Lier, only by the extremists.

    You said that Queers where killers. Lier.

    Realy are you not concerned for your eternal soul? You should watch the sin counter before you’re dragged down to hell.

    Your greatest lie, however, is to present polemic as reserch. Aint you ever heard of independent reserch? Independent thought?

    Lier. Lier and idiot.

  318. “And why do you think posting about the odd Fred Phelps is indicative of all christians. He seems to turn up on every homo site in the world as an example of what chirstians are like.”

    I don’t think Fred Phelps, or you, are a good representation of Christians. I just think you’re a pair of loons obsessed with homosexuality.

    Perhaps you have a personality disorder? Afterall, going on to an internet board specifically to have arguments about a sexual preference you ‘supposedly’ hate, cannot be attributed to a healthy mind.

    Iris has put the Hebrew translation there for all to see, backing up herself AND what I said.

    Did you read it? Did you compare it to your ‘Hebrew Bible’? Which I am guessing you don’t even have. If you had, and what Iris wrote was truly incorrect, you would have proof.

    In your words, ‘evidence please’.

    Iris has exposed you as a ‘Conservapedia’ troll ha ha talk about intelligence. My, my. You’re well and truly pissed off aren’t you?

    Iris has proven that she, and I, have a better understanding of Ruth and Naomi; and has posted the Hebrew eveidence as proof.

    Iris has also exposed you as using ‘Conservapedia’.

    You’re not credible.

    Go away.

  319. “I look forward to your supercilious and childish response.”

    Oh, dear :D You asked for the Hebrew version of that verse and when I posted it for you, you didn’t comment on its content, but just said it didn’t count because there were loads of other verses in the Bible.

    “That fact that it is used originally in terms of male/female love means that it does not have any connotation of lesbian love.”

    Rubbish. Words can only be used in one context? I’m deluded and twisting the Bible?? Er…no, mate – that’s YOU doing the twisting. You pick and choose bits and ignore any attempt at discussion. You asked Lezabella to post the Hebrew that contained the word ‘dabaq’ and I helped her out and posted that verse as you requested and you said “As usual, you have taken one verse of scripture and said ‘There you are, that proves what I am saying.’ which is complete rubbish” You’ve lost the plot a bit there.

    And I’m still waiting for you to tell me what denomination of Christianity you belong to.

    You can call me all the silly insults you want – it’s all water off a duck’s back. It just shows you’re flustered and angry. In fact, in the last few posts in various threads in which you’ve referred to me, you’ve tossed in an insult. Now where was that post you made with the nice quote about not being rude?….

  320. Rick George 11 Aug 2009, 6:24pm

    Is it really possible to make statements and pronouncements of absolute certainty as to what the bible does or doesnt say? With things like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gnostic Gospels and the Naghammidi Library surely this shows that the bible we know today is not the end of the story. I hear different interpretations of this and that passage and it gets so confusing and difficult to know for sure who’s right. Throw into the mix the complex language the bible was written in and the culture of those who wrote it and it clouds the issue even further. How is it possible to be absolutely sure about what the bible means and sort through the mish mash of contradictary claims about it?

  321. “Liar and idiot.”

    You said it. I have rarely witnessed such lies to backup a feverish belief in hate. There is something deeply, deeply wrong with this person….

    …but what a laugh they are! Such stupidity yo wouldn’t get in a bunch of clowns! Its like watching someone with a lobotomy banging out nonsense on a keyboard with their face!

  322. theotherone 12 Aug 2009, 11:32am

    Such stupidity yo wouldn’t get in a bunch of clowns!

    –watch out! Up’s pouring Holly Water down Christ’s pants from a Cristal Bucket!

    To referance classic ‘Clowning’ – the wheels have most defenatly fallen off his Christian car.

    Did I say holly water? Oops! That’s Catholic. For consertives that’s almost as ban as Christ being a Jew.

  323. 10- Simple math. 6%-10% of the population are gay. This equates to 390 to 650 million gay people. Your NARTH 2% is a fallacy and has no scientific evidence, so please do not insult my intellect by quoting it.
    All reliable data has put homos in the 1-2% bracket. The 10% came from Kinsey in 1957. All reputable organisations, you know the ones you keep talking about have debunked his research as flawed. I can’t insult your intelligence because you don’t have any.

    10-Ask yourself why there are 1 MILLION people marching in London Pride,

    Is that the same as the Sydney Pride in Australia who said 700,000 turned up but when it was analyzed by engineers it was discovered that it was a physical impossibility to get more than 125,000 in the space.

    10-Now, how about YOU provide some proof of the 6000 year old earth and explain the fossil record?

    The only “proof” you are interested in is the sort that prop up your delusions.

    10- Well, you seem to mention one homosexual, and the remaining hundreds of millions of us are supposed to be just like him….

    I hope that means you are going to drop the Fred Phelps stupidity to be true to your words.

    11-Given what I have read here, I would think you are very like Fred Phelps upandatem. Uncanny, actually.

    So boring and infantile.

    12-Who gives a toss what the “scriptures” say.

    In case you haven’t noticed, you lot do as you are quoting it all the time, out of context I might add.

    12-Keep your religious prattling to yourself, religion is a private thing, lets keep it that way.

    In that case, stop talking about it.

    13- I don’t think Fred Phelps, or you, are a good representation of Christians. I just think you’re a pair of loons obsessed with homosexuality.

    Then why do you keep using him as an example?

    13- Perhaps you have a personality disorder?

    When you have nothing to say you always attack the man not the ball.

    13-Did you read it? Did you compare it to your ‘Hebrew Bible’? Which I am guessing you don’t even have. If you had, and what Iris wrote was truly incorrect, you would have proof.

    You obviously did not read the correct translation I gave you and its context.

    13-Iris has exposed you as a ‘Conservapedia’ troll ha ha talk about intelligence. My, my. You’re well and truly pissed off aren’t you?

    No.

    13- Iris has proven that she, and I, have a better understanding of Ruth and Naomi; and has posted the Hebrew eveidence as proof.

    Don’t make me laugh. All you have done is posted your opinion which is not backed up by evidence. But then I should not be surprised as all you ever do is quote a bible (which you hate) so that it supports your warped view on life.

    13- Iris has also exposed you as using ‘Conservapedia’. You’re not credible.

    And you are when all you do is post your opinion.

    13-Go away.

    Is that an example of homo tolerance?

    14-Rubbish. Words can only be used in one context?

    This statement shows that you have no idea how to exegete the bible.

    14- I’m deluded and twisting the Bible??

    Yes.

    14- You pick and choose bits

    Quite the contrary.

    14- You asked Lezabella to post the Hebrew that contained the word ‘dabaq’ and I helped her out and posted that verse as you requested and you said “As usual, you have taken one verse of scripture and said ‘There you are, that proves what I am saying.’ which is complete rubbish”

    No it’s not because that is what you have done as I have explained.

    14- It just shows you’re flustered and angry.

    Not in the least. I sit here laughing at your pathetic attempts to justify your infantile prognostications.

    14- You said it. I have rarely witnessed such lies to backup a feverish belief in hate. There is something deeply, deeply wrong with this person….…but what a laugh they are! Such stupidity yo wouldn’t get in a bunch of clowns! Its like watching someone with a lobotomy banging out nonsense on a keyboard with their face!

    The usual childish trash and supercilious nonsense from someone who is devoid of intelligent comment.

    15- Such stupidity yo wouldn’t get in a bunch of clowns!

    But you would from a bunch of homos

  324. Yawn.

    What a load of twaddle.

    You’re insults are as infantile as your brain power. Get them in the playground, did you, when you were shouting obscenities at children?

    Now, why not run along and get a good book… you can use to to smack around that daft cow who thought it was smart to marry a piece of faecal afterbirth like you, or you can go line your kennel with it. You’re call.

  325. theotherone 15 Aug 2009, 1:12pm

    hahahahahahahahahahahaha

    still avoiding the point up, still lieing. why not just go off and play with yourself – god knows the world would benefit if you don’t breed

  326. Reality Check 18 Aug 2009, 2:11am

    325-Now, why not run along and get a good book… you can use to to smack around that daft cow who thought it was smart to marry a piece of faecal afterbirth like you, or you can go line your kennel with it. You’re call.

    You are getting desperate aren’t you !!!

    326-still avoiding the point up, still lieing. why not just go off and play with yourself – god knows the world would benefit if you don’t breed

    Your toilet humour is so overwhelmingly unfunny.

  327. LGBT Scottish Borders 28 Jul 2012, 3:15pm

    Just to say I know this all happened three years ago. My parents were both born in Selkirk and there parents lived there and I have family in Selkirk. Mr Gunn represents a small minority of people from Selkirk people in their late sixties. The new generation in selkirk will probably have more liberal views. Every year Selkirk has a common Riding were a standard bearng rides round the town on a horse with the flag which he casts. I can remember my mum saying there once was a gay standered bearer

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all