H*m*ph*bic Vs. Christianphobic.

[ikester7579 19]

The reason Christian are h*m*ph*bic is because it is not natural. And is considered a sin. But we are called this if we bring up the subject. And for what reason?

 

Guilt, shame and peer pressure is the best tool to get someone to either back off, or conform through fear of ridicule. So where does this type of control come from when one person controls another in this fashion?

 

It's a form of witchcraft. When one person is controlled by another, and is forced to do things against their will through all the things mentioned above. It's a form of witchcraft. It is more so when you use these things to keep someone from doing what is right, and make them do what is wrong.

 

But what about the Christianphobics? Are they really against all religion, or only one religion? Let us take the Islamic candidate for U.S. President. Do we hear separation of church and state while this guy tries to run? Do we hear that he may try and turn the nation into a religion through his faith? NO!

 

And You won't hear it either. Even from the side that he is running on which always makes it a subject if the opposing side has a candidate that is Christian. So by their own admission, they admit who they really are against. And also admit who the real God is. because if all deities were the problem. This Islamic candidate would have run into as much problem as any person who was Christian would have. Just like they did when Bush ran for office, and used his Christian faith.

 

So will any Athiest speak out against the Islamic Candidate? Or is the A, in front of theist only for one God? One by your actions even admits to who the real God is.

 

What does God's word have to say about this action, and why it happens like this?

 

mt 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

 

lk 11:18 If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.

[D R 0]

But what about the Christianphobics? Are they really against all religion, or only one religion? Let us take the Islamic candidate for U.S. President. Do we hear separation of church and state while this guy tries to run? Do we hear that he may try and turn the nation into a religion through his faith? NO!

11700[/snapback]

I too have given some thought as to why atheist and liberals seem to only attack Christianity. My conclusion is Christianity is the only one they view as a relegion. All others they view as cultural. As liberal lexicon mandates all cultures are equal, all other religions are therefore off limits where critisism is concerned.

 

Furthermore, they don't really view all cultures as equal. In thier view western culture is the root of all evil and as such all other cultures are equal on a plane above it. Christianity is part of western culture and is therefore fair game.

 

In addition to suffering from Christaphobia, they also suffer from ethnocentricity.

[jason78 0]

But what about the Christianphobics? Are they really against all religion, or only one religion? Let us take the Islamic candidate for U.S. President. Do we hear separation of church and state while this guy tries to run? Do we hear that he may try and turn the nation into a religion through his faith? NO!

11700[/snapback]

Who is this islamic candidate? We aren't all up on US domestic politics here.

 

So will any Athiest speak out against the Islamic Candidate? Or is the A, in front of theist only for one God? One by your actions even admits to who the real God is.

11700[/snapback]

I believe there are no gods. Plual. I'd be pretty surprised if Baal or Ahura Mazda turned up on my doorstep tomorrow morning

[D R 0]

Who is this islamic candidate? We aren't all up on US domestic politics here.

I believe there are no gods.  Plual.  I'd be pretty surprised if Baal or Ahura Mazda turned up on my doorstep tomorrow morning

11715[/snapback]

He is Keith Ellison, a Democrat from Minneapolis.

 

Also, at the recent 2007 Democratic National Committee Winter Meeting they had a Muslim Imam with known ties to radical groups open with a pray to Allah. In his pray he basically asked that Allah help defeat the US, help the US see the error of their ways and to embrace Islam.

 

I can only imagine what their reaction would be if someone opened by praying in the name of Jesus, asking for his help and guidance for them to see the error of their ways. It would probably be far worse than the hisses and boos they flung at Boy Scouts when they dared to exercise their 1st amendment rights.

[chance 1]

A couple of observations:

 

The reason Christian are h*m*ph*bic is because it is not natural.

IMO anyone, Christian or otherwise, who is h*m*ph*bic is that way because it is natural to feel that way. We (And yes I mean everyone) see difference (S@xual orientation, race, political allegiance, etc) as being a threat at some level. However, it is how you act upon these feelings that is most important, i.e. do you submit to the internal disgust you feel and then persecute those that are different from you, or can you divorce yourself from you feelings and give those that are different from you equality, sympathy, aid, communication?

 

So will any Athiest speak out against the Islamic Candidate? Or is the A, in front of theist only for one God?

I would speak out against Islamic candidates if it was their platform to change our democratic way of life into a theocracy.

But I assume that an Islamic candidate like any other, takes an oath of office that he will uphold the law of the land, and if elected, would be expected to do so.

 

I seem to recall that President Kennedy had to defend his catholic religion in much the same manor, i.e. that he would not let his religion influence laws or decisions favouring one group over another.

[Guest 92g]

But I assume that an Islamic candidate like any other, takes an oath of office that he will uphold the law of the land, and if elected, would be expected to do so. 

Hitler upheld the law of the land as well. He just changed it so he had all of the power.

 

Terry

[chance 1]

I too have given some thought as to why atheist and liberals seem to only attack Christianity. My conclusion is Christianity is the only one they view as a relegion.

IMO it’s nothing more complicated than you are in a majority are more vocal and more political, when compared to Islamic equivalents.

 

Christianity is part of western culture and is therefore fair game.

I think there is some truth to this aspect.

 

In addition to suffering from Christaphobia, they also suffer from ethnocentricity.

Not sure I understand what you mean here. I presume you are implying some sort of ethnic division amongst Christians that is also the focus of attention by the opposition.

[chance 1]

Hitler upheld the law of the land as well. He just changed it so he had all of the power.

One might dismiss this as being a quip, but it's not, it is actually a very real danger. I’ll throw this one open – "how does one protect oneself form this scenario"?

[ikester7579 19]

Who is this islamic candidate? We aren't all up on US domestic politics here.

I believe there are no gods.  Plual.  I'd be pretty surprised if Baal or Ahura Mazda turned up on my doorstep tomorrow morning

11715[/snapback]

Obama is running for president here.

 

As far as not believing there are any Gods, you would be agnostic if you truly believed that. And like most agnostics, you would not be here, or on other websites debating the issue all the time. Because you would know that debating what you do not believe in, is a waste of time.

 

It's like waging war against an enemy you say does not exist. Who would you bomb? Who would you have the soldiers fight? Thin air?

 

This is why I call atheist Christianphobics. For they have no real reason to fight what they don't believe exist, except they have a phobia about God that drives them to do it. And until they get rid of the phobia, they can never become a agnostic.

[D R 0]

 

Who is this islamic candidate?   We aren't all up on US domestic politics here.

11715[/snapback]

Obama is running for president here.

11753[/snapback]

Barak Obama professes to be Christian.

 

Please refer to the following….

 

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call...ress/index.html

 

'Call to Renewal' Keynote Address (Wednesday, June 28, 2006)

 

"It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn't fall out in church. The questions I had didn't magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth."

[jason78 0]

Don't all candidates running for election in the US have to have some kind of religion? I've read that it is very difficult in the US to get the vote if you claim to be an atheist.

 

Back to the original point of the topic. Homophobia is the irrational fear of h*m*sexuals. Why are you afraid of them? It's not like they are out to get you.

[Guest 92g]

One might dismiss this as being a quip, but it's not, it is actually a very real danger.  I’ll throw this one open – "how does one protect oneself form this scenario"?

11731[/snapback]

Its not a quip at all, and it is a very real danger.

 

From a human perspective, you make sure that the citizens are armed. Our founders knew that, and that's why the right to Keep and Bear Arms in specified as an individual right in our constitution.

 

From a Divine perspective:

 

PSA 33:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, The people whom He has chosen for His own inheritance.

 

Terry

[chance 1]

chance>

One might dismiss this as being a quip, but it's not, it is actually a very real danger.  I’ll throw this one open – "how does one protect oneself form this scenario"?

 

Its not a quip at all, and it is a very real danger.

(my bold)

 

We agree on this 100%

 

From a human perspective, you make sure that the citizens are armed. Our founders knew that, and that's why the right to Keep and Bear Arms in specified as an individual right in our constitution.

Arming citizens, only has one consequence, i.e. your opponents will likely do the same.

 

Aside: Nations do the same, one only has to witness the ‘arms race’. The reason we have a military is specifically because We do not trust our neighbours, its insurance.

 

 

But Hitler, Stalin etc did not ‘initially’ get to where they were by direct conflict, they manipulated the existing system, they persuaded people to follow them, they bullied and threatened opposition, key people ‘disappeared’, they became the quintessential 1984 big brother, with out a shot being fired (metaphor)!

 

 

 

 

 

From a Divine perspective:

 

PSA 33:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, The people whom He has chosen for His own inheritance.

I’m not sure of the relevance of this quote.

[Guest 92g]

Arming citizens, only has one consequence, i.e. your opponents will likely do the same.

In this case, the oppents of the Citizens, e.g. a standing army and police forces, are already armed, so you would only be somewhat equalizing the playing field. If no one had guns, that would be fine, but we both know its not going to be that way.

 

As has been pointed out, we are off topic, so I would appreciate it if you would direct further discussion to me via PM, or another thread if you are really interested in understanding what our Founding Fathers felt we as a people should be armed.

 

Terry

[jason78 0]

In this case, the oppents of the Citizens, e.g. a standing army and police forces, are already armed, so you would only be somewhat equalizing the playing field.  If no one had guns, that would be fine, but we both know its not going to be that way.

 

As has been pointed out, we are off topic, so I would appreciate it if you would direct further discussion to me via PM, or another thread if you are really interested in understanding what our Founding Fathers felt we as a people should be armed.

 

Terry

11792[/snapback]

You could also argue that the army and the police are made up of those same citizens. It made sense to have a well armed militia made up of ordinary citizens when you had the prospect of the king of England knocking on your front door at any moment. But today the army and the national guard can deploy far quicker than any civilian militia can.

[ikester7579 19]

The usual derail. Let's get back on topic.

[Guest kega]

Don't all candidates running for election in the US have to have some kind of religion?  I've read that it is very difficult in the US to get the vote if you claim to be an atheist.

11778[/snapback]

Its difficult because no one will vote for an atheist.

 

 

Back to the original point of the topic.  Homophobia is the irrational fear of h*m*sexuals.  Why are you afraid of them?  It's not like they are out to get you.

11778[/snapback]

Because they sin. After being told they are sinning, they continue to do so and even celebrate thier sin. The Holy Bible even warns us to watch out for people that behave like this.

[ikester7579 19]

Don't all candidates running for election in the US have to have some kind of religion?  I've read that it is very difficult in the US to get the vote if you claim to be an atheist.

Some lied about what they believe and got in.

 

Back to the original point of the topic.  Homophobia is the irrational fear of h*m*sexuals.  Why are you afraid of them?  It's not like they are out to get you.

11778[/snapback]

Just like Christianphobia, same difference.

[jason78 0]

Some lied about what they believe and got in.

Just like Christianphobia, same difference.

11878[/snapback]

But it's not like H*m*sexuals are knocking on your door on Sunday afternoons, handing you leaflets that say if you don't turn g*y you will tortured for the rest of your existence.

[D R 0]

But it's not like H*m*sexuals are knocking on your door on Sunday afternoons, handing you leaflets that say if you don't turn g*y you will tortured for the rest of your existence.

11888[/snapback]

No, they do it in the legislature and in the courts and threaten you with financial ruin and/or jail time if you dare to simply disagree with them.

 

Please note the word disagree... there in nothing phobic or hostile about disagreement but that is what it has now come to mean.

 

Now before you feign puzzlement over evidence for this, spend a little time doing research. It's all over the place and not that hard to find. I see articles almost every day without even trying. I'll give you a hint to get you started... (pastor, hate-crime, Sweden)

[ikester7579 19]

But it's not like H*m*sexuals are knocking on your door on Sunday afternoons, handing you leaflets that say if you don't turn g*y you will tortured for the rest of your existence.

11888[/snapback]

You know where the trash can is, correct? If you don't want to read the stuff, toss it. It's your choice.

 

But h*m*sexuals do call churches and test them on what they allow to go on in their church. This is so they will record what they say pertaining to their lifestyle. And if they can make them say the wrong thing, they get together and file a class action lawsuit to sue the church right out of bussiness.

 

Now which is worse, the leaflets that can be thrown away?

Or being sued and your whole life ruined?

 

So don't try the guilt trip game here.

[chance 1]

No, they do it in the legislature and in the courts and threaten you with financial ruin and/or jail time if you dare to simply disagree with them.

Question, is the g*y rights movement equivalent to the Suffragette or black rights movements?

[jason78 0]

Question, is the g*y rights movement equivalent to the Suffragette or black rights movements?

11996[/snapback]

I wouldn't say it was exactly the same, but it is important that all people are afforded the same rights and privileges.

[D R 0]

 

No, they do it in the legislature and in the courts and threaten you with financial ruin and/or jail time if you dare to simply disagree with them.

 

Please note the word disagree... there in nothing phobic or hostile about disagreement but that is what it has now come to mean.

 

Now before you feign puzzlement over evidence for this, spend a little time doing research.  It's all over the place and not that hard to find.  I see articles almost every day without even trying.  I'll give you a hint to get you started... (pastor, hate-crime, Sweden)

11948[/snapback]

Question, is the g*y rights movement equivalent to the Suffragette or black rights movements?

11996[/snapback]

I'm not certain what comparison you are trying to make, but Suffragette or black rights (civil rights) has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

 

In simple terms, if I do not abandon my religious beliefs, I risk financial ruin and/or jail time.

 

Example: If I choose to read my Bible on my own break time at work, and a co-worker (who chooses to be h*m*se*u*l… even if I don’t know of it) happens to find out about it (not necessarily sees me do it, just finds out about it) they can run to the HR department and file a grievance against me for creating a “hostile work environmentâ€ÂÂ. I would then be hauled into the HR department and threatened with lose of my job if I don’t stop harassing my co-worker.

 

What I was pointing out is it is not enough that h*m*se*u*ls be allowed to live their lives as they choose. ALL other viewpoints which don’t openly embrace them must be wiped from the face of the earth (and then they dare to ask for a little tolerance.)

 

It is truly sad commentary of our times today, but at the same time it is encouraging because the Bible makes it clear the hatred and persecution of Christians will increase as the time of the second coming approaches. (It will get a lot worse than it currently is right now.) Unbeknownst to them, the h*m*se*u*l agenda is at this very moment is fulfilling Biblical prophecy.

 

Now please answer this question for me: How is my sitting by myself, in my own office or cubicle, read a book, silently to myself, harassment? (Please don’t try to say it MIGHT be perceived as leading to this, that or the other because that was not the scenario I presented. Please address solely the issue of sitting quietly and reading.)

[chance 1]

I'm not certain what comparison you are trying to make, but Suffragette or black rights (civil rights) has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

 

In simple terms, if I do not abandon my religious beliefs, I risk financial ruin and/or jail time.

My bad, I thought you were opposing g*y’s from expressing free speech, and equal rights etc.

 

 

 

Example: If I choose to read my Bible on my own break time at work, and a co-worker (who chooses to be h*m*se*u*l… even if I don’t know of it) happens to find out about it (not necessarily sees me do it, just finds out about it) they can run to the HR department and file a grievance against me for creating a “hostile work environmentâ€ÂÂ. I would then be hauled into the HR department and threatened with lose of my job if I don’t stop harassing my co-worker.

Wow! Really!!! (you mean just reading and minding your own business?) I’m appalled, how can such an action be justified!! That’s just a ridiculous policy.

 

Thinking a bit deeper

 

Companies of course can formulate policy (within the law) but to call reading quietly to yourself qualifying as harassment is a bit of a stretch.

I would guess that G*ys are offended by the passages in the bible that calls for them to be put to death. This then requires the leap of logic that all people interpret this as mandatory.

I then guess that companies take the easy road out and ban the bible just to avoid conflict, because if one complains to HR that you ‘feel offended’ they generally take that at face value.

A parallel of sorts can be drawn from the demise of ubiquitous “girly pictures†(even the tame ones) that used to frequent male dominated professions.

Soon you won’t be able to say “bless you†when you sneeze, political correctness gone mad.