Why is being gay considered wrong?

[pdoel]

Would someone PLEASE, for the love of God, ban this idiot? He is being very abusive, hate-mongering, harrassing, and generally is NOT adding any intelligence to this forum. All he is succeeding in doing is pissing everyone off and making us all angry and ruining our good days. And it seems that no one is going to take the advice I gave (DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS), so the only way to stop this insanity is to ban him. Hasn't he done more than enough to justify it, yet?

To be honest, I don't mind people like this posting. To me, they do more harm to their cause than they do good. I would imagine maybe people who don't understand homosexuality, or who may think it is wrong or a sin, would read his posts, and see how ignorant some people can be. It's an eye opener.

 

[pdoel]

Homosexuality is considered wrong because two of the same sex cannot reproduce. By two being a couple, it is logical to assume that they will end up having sex at one point or another. The fact that reproduction, which is the obvious purpose of sex and life, can naturally be done only by a male and a female, homosexuality is considered wrong.

I've heard that argument before, and it makes me laugh.

I would guess that a man or woman who are unable to reproduce, would be "wrong" to enter a relationship or marriage and *GASP* have sex? Because wouldn't (by this explanation) also be wrong?

If our only purpose in life is to reproduce, anyone who can't, wouldn't they be wrong, no matter what they do? What about people who marry with no intent to ever reproduce? Isn't that wrong?

 

[Aqualung]

Well, when you bring up such matters, you open up the debate. Sure, this debate is about homosexuality. However, when you bring up matters such as having to pay for health benefits of homosexuals, then it opens the debate up to such matters as I have stated, where I, as a homosexual, must pay for things that are a result of straight people. So, if you don't want such matters discussed, I suggest you not use them in your argument.

No. I don't think that sort of discussion is valid. I may argue about why I think I don't have to pay for things related to homosexuals, and you may argue why I should. But to derail the thread and start talking about all the other things we are paying for which we see as injust would not appropriate in this thread.

Actually, this is not true, and there are many studies which have proven it. The only real problems that children of gay parents seem to have, is how they are treated by other children. i.e. children of homophobic intolerant parents, who teach their children to hate. This is really the only problem children of gay parents seem to have in common. So, while you may claim that all things being equal blah blah blah, that is in fact, incorrect.

how can you even make an "all things being equal" study that confirms this sort of things. Perhaps the studies thought they were having all things equal, but the fact is, they weren't.

 

[Aqualung]

If I were a child, I'd rather have two loving mommies than a to be raised by someone like you. Children are naturally accepting of all people, it is only adult brainwashing (aided by the cults they call organized religions) that changes this.

Kat, who is intolerant of intolerance, idiocy, and resistence to change

Funny. Wasn't it you who was bashing Cold-Stone for personal attacks? I'm just stating my opinion. Never once did I turn it on any particular person.

I would rather be raised by one loving mommy and one loving daddy than a person who won't even teach their kids to think for themselves - instead of blindly accepting what society tells them is okay - and who don't even teach their kids about whichever religion they profess to beleive to a good enough extent that they can decide for themselves what things they should beleive are sins.

 

[pdoel]

No. I don't think that sort of discussion is valid. I may argue about why I think I don't have to pay for things related to homosexuals, and you may argue why I should. But to derail the thread and start talking about all the other things we are paying for which we see as injust would not appropriate in this thread.

I disagree. You saying you don't like homosexuals because you have to pay for their health costs, most definitely opens up the debate to allow me to point out all the things that we, as homosexuals, have to pay for straight people, such as school taxes. Like it or not, it's a valid argument.

how can you even make an "all things being equal" study that confirms this sort of things. Perhaps the studies thought they were having all things equal, but the fact is, they weren't.

I don't have to make a study. Many exist. Not sure if you realize this or not, but there are millions of children in the US that have been raised by two gay parents. And there have been MANY studies about these families. The children are just as well rounded and adjusted as any other child. EVERY single study has shown this, and EVERY study has shown that the only real problems these children experience compared to the children of straight parents, is the treatment they receive by ignorant children.

Otherwise, they are perfectly happy, well adjusted children.

 

[pdoel]

I would rather be raised by one loving mommy and one loving daddy than a person who won't even teach their kids to think for themselves - instead of blindly accepting what society tells them is okay - and who don't even teach their kids about whichever religion they profess to beleive to a good enough extent that they can decide for themselves what things they should beleive are sins.

Even funnier, is how MOST gay people were raised by 1 mommy and 1 daddy. Hmmmmm.

Also, personally, I'd rather be raised by parents who teach of a loving God, and who teach that all people are created equally, and that we should all strive to be the best we can, without judging others.

I don't like the idea of being raised by parents who teach me to judge, who teach me that this or that is a sin, and point their fingers at all the sinners, while they constantly sin themselves. Living that way is just a defense mechanism. Some people can only feel good about themselves by pointing out the wrongs in other people. It's funny. The people who seem to be filled with the most hate, are quite often, they people who are some of the biggest sinners themselves. The only way they can feel just in what they do, is to point out what everyone else has done wrong.

 

[Cold-Stone]

I'm not sure why Indigo is so upset with me? I simply have presented accurately the system I hold to (Judeo Christian). So you're not emotional really towards me, but towards the system I adopt (biblical thinking).

Like I mentioned somewhat before. I agree with the DMS III Manual which implied homosexuality as being a type of psycological disorder. I believe this is the case. And I believe they changed their position for political reasons.

My system of thought (Judeo-Christianity) refers to this type of psycological disorder as sin. And since ***admin edit*** pagans pretend that they are able to keep Thelma's law as long as it doesn't hurt anybody, this system self explodes in light of my system since sin hurts several people in ways undetected.

But even the secular APA agreed with my system for a time. And many psychologists would agree to this day.

I'm curious as to why my pagan brothers and sisters on here think homosexuality is OKAY? Why is it right? What good is there to it and what does it mean to be good? What does it mean to love?

A dipped Dairy cone is what helped factor the destruction of sodom and Gommorrah.

The real issue is your distaste towards God and your love for humanism. Since no homosexual can ever be a Christian, isn't this the real issue?

Cold-Stone Advantage

 

[Aqualung]

I disagree. You saying you don't like homosexuals because you have to pay for their health costs, most definitely opens up the debate to allow me to point out all the things that we, as homosexuals, have to pay for straight people, such as school taxes. Like it or not, it's a valid argument.

How is it a valid argument. I also don't think you should have pay for straight things. That doesn't change the fact that I think I shouldn't have to pay for gay things. (Boy. That was sure constructive. I'm glad you convinced me to argue about that!)

I don't have to make a study. Many exist. Not sure if you realize this or not, but there are millions of children in the US that have been raised by two gay parents. And there have been MANY studies about these families. The children are just as well rounded and adjusted as any other child. EVERY single study has shown this, and EVERY study has shown that the only real problems these children experience compared to the children of straight parents, is the treatment they receive by ignorant children.

Are they really as well rounded, or are these exceptionally good gay parents creating children that are just as well rounded as those created by "average" or "mediocre" families. I still maintain that if the gay parents were exactly equal to the straight ones, their children wouldn't be as good.

 

[Green Gaia]

Like I mentioned somewhat before. I agree with the DMS III Manual which implied homosexuality as being a type of psycological disorder. I believe this is the case. And I believe they changed their position for political reasons.

OK, prove it.

But even the secular APA agreed with my system for a time. And many psychologists would agree to this day.

Perhaps you missed by post from last night to you:

The American Psychological Association, The American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics and The American Psychiatric Association have ALL renounced the idea that homosexuality is a disorder or mental illness. You can read their statements on the issue.

Now do you have some medical or psychological proof that homosexuality is a disorder? The last time I check the Bible was not a reference used in mainstream psychological practice.

Please produce a list of psychologists who are not in a Christian-based practice who support your claims.

The real issue is your distaste towards God and your love for humanism. Since no homosexual can ever be a Christian, isn't this the real issue?

Not even remotely close. Don't you realize you are hurting your cause more than helping it?

 

[Aqualung]

Even funnier, is how MOST gay people were raised by 1 mommy and 1 daddy. Hmmmmm.

Wow. That was relevant

Also, personally, I'd rather be raised by parents who teach of a loving God, and who teach that all people are created equally, and that we should all strive to be the best we can, without judging others.

I teach of a loving God. I have no doubt that He loves you just as much as he loves me, because we both sin.
I have no doubt that we were both created equally. You just succomed to different temptions than I did. (and I also don't get that argument. If everyone were created equally, shouldn't everyone be straight?)
I do strive to be the best that I can, and I'm not judging you or anyone else on this forum. I'm just posting my beleifs in a forum that someone else created expressly for the purpose of expressing beleifs about homosexuality. In fact, if we were to just meet in real life, I doubt I would know you were gay (I probably woudn't care enough to even look at the signs), nor would you know that I thought being gay were a sin (I generally don't go around yelling my beleifs to people that I know in person. It's only in threads created expressly for the purpose of stating my beleifs that I state them.)

I don't like the idea of being raised by parents who teach me to judge,

there's a difference between judging and reading whatever scripture you adhere to. I can read the bible and objectively say "homosexual actions are sinful" while still not judging every homosexual I come into contact with.

who teach me that this or that is a sin,

so, I guess you woudn't want a family that instills religouis values into you. That's what you want, but I would definitely want a family that does.

and point their fingers at all the sinners, while they constantly sin themselves.

I'm not pointing fingers at sinners. I'm pointing it at the sin. And if anybody wants to start threads about the sins that I practise, feel free. And you know what I would do? Because I can recognise my sins, I would go to that forum and argue that they are indeed sins, and, without actually judging people specifically, would post my opinion of the action.l

Living that way is just a defense mechanism. Some people can only feel good about themselves by pointing out the wrongs in other people.

Trust me. I don't feel good about myself. Because no matter how much you perceive me as "pointing out the wrongs in others" (which I'm not. I'm pointing out wrongs, but not in others) I do it infinitely times more to myself, and I'm actually pointing at me, not just the sin.

It's funny. The people who seem to be filled with the most hate, are quite often, they people who are some of the biggest sinners themselves. The only way they can feel just in what they do, is to point out what everyone else has done wrong.

I am a big sinner. But I don't think you are any better (or worse) than I am. And I don't do this to feel good. I say once again that I wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't for this thread. I just enjoy debating, and I have strong opinions aobut homosexual behaviour (though I have no feelings about homosexuals themselves, and could generally care less what someone's sexual orientaiotn is.

 

[turk179]

I'm curious as to why my pagan brothers and sisters on here think homosexuality is OKAY? Why is it right? What good is there to it and what does it mean to be good? What does it mean to love?

Why would someone think that homsexuality is wrong if it is only wrong in a belief system that they do not believe in?

A dipped Dairy cone is what helped factor the destruction of sodom and Gommorrah.

I didn't know they had ice cream back then. :biglaugh:

The real issue is your distaste towards God and your love for humanism. Since no homosexual can ever be a Christian, isn't this the real issue?

I have no distaste for God because in my belief system that is a generalized term. I understand that you feel that Pagans And homosexuals go hand in hand, but the last time I checked I only had one line of thought and its not guys. I have known a couple of Christian gay men and women and they had no distaste for God either. I have know some some gay men that were not Christian and they still did not have any distate for God.

 

[IndigoChild]

Funny. Wasn't it you who was bashing Cold-Stone for personal attacks? I'm just stating my opinion. Never once did I turn it on any particular person.

I usually practice "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," but some people just BEG for the Satanic version: "do unto others as they do unto you."

I would rather be raised by one loving mommy and one loving daddy than a person who won't even teach their kids to think for themselves - instead of blindly accepting what society tells them is okay - and who don't even teach their kids about whichever religion they profess to beleive to a good enough extent that they can decide for themselves what things they should beleive are sins.

I don't disagree with any of that, save that it does not have to be a straight relationship. Your words there also imply that single mothers and widows and grandparents or aunts and uncles raising orphaned children are not valid family systems.

Kat

 

[pdoel]

How is it a valid argument. I also don't think you should have pay for straight things. That doesn't change the fact that I think I shouldn't have to pay for gay things. (Boy. That was sure constructive. I'm glad you convinced me to argue about that!)

It is a valid argument, and here's why. This thread is actually about "Why is homosexuality wrong". You actually gave reasons why you have a beef against homosexuals. One of your reasons was because you didn't like having to pay for people with AIDs. You brought up that argument, and therefore, made it something I have a right to cross examine. Any judge in this country would over rule your objections, and force you to answer any questions I had on this subject. You brought it up, therefore, it's open for debate.

And, with that in mind. Since you have a beef with gays, because you have to pay health benefits, which means paying for people with AIDs. Do you also have a beef with fat people? You do realize that obesity is the biggest health problem facing Americans today, and more money goes to those health care costs, than any other?

What about cancer? That's #2. More money goes to cancer health costs, than it does to fighting AIDs.

Are they really as well rounded, or are these exceptionally good gay parents creating children that are just as well rounded as those created by "average" or "mediocre" families. I still maintain that if the gay parents were exactly equal to the straight ones, their children wouldn't be as good.

Unfortunately, you "thinking" this, doesn't make it so. Like I said. Many studies have been done on this subject, all of which have proven you wrong.

Well, one thing I think is important about debates is to keep an open mind. Sure, fight your battle all you want, but I think it's good to listen and keep an open mind to what others have said.

With that in mind, I have to say, I have changed a viewpoint, based on your posts. I used to think it was wrong that homosexuals had to pay for school taxes, considering this country won't allow them to marry, adopt children together, etc. So why pay for something they don't get to use. But now that I have read your posts, I have changed my mind. Maybe if I paid MORE for taxes, people like you would have received a decent education. Maybe you would have learned to use your mind for thinking, rather than to spew hate.

 

[IndigoChild]

Aqualung,

Just so you know, I have nothing against straight families... it's where gays and bis generally come from. I just have a problem with your insistence that any other model is not appropriate. If you want to believe that, then go ahead, but stop trying to force-feed us your beliefs. Try to force-feed your beliefs to people, and they're just going to end up gagging and puking all over you.

Kat

 

[Aqualung]

I usually practice "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," but some people just BEG for the Satanic version: "do unto others as they do unto you."


I don't disagree with any of that, save that it does not have to be a straight relationship. Your words there also imply that single mothers and widows and grandparents or aunts and uncles raising orphaned children are not valid family systems.

Kat

Sure. They're valid. But "rather" was the word I used.

 

[IndigoChild]

I'm not sure why Indigo is so upset with me? I simply have presented accurately the system I hold to (Judeo Christian). So you're not emotional really towards me, but towards the system I adopt (biblical thinking).

If you don't know why I'm agry with you, then you're either incredibly stupid or incredibly delusional. I don't care what you think, but your constant personal attacks and blatant hatred pollutes this forum. If you can't state your beliefs in at least a SEMBLANCE of civility, then you need to leave. Also, nagging at people about your beliefs, and trying to force-feed them to us, is rude and shows that you're afraid that your way of life is being crushed. Frankly, I think this shows a lack of faith. Why do you have to have other people believe as you do? Can't you feel secure in your beliefs without forcing others to think as you do?

The way you argue against us, it comes off like you're afraid you'll go to Hell if you don't "save us" from Hell. If there really is a Hell, and if we really are going there, then that's our choice. No matter how concerned you are for us (assuming that you really are), there comes a point when you either have to give up or just keep stressing yourself out unnecessarily.

The point is, when you ask us to accept Christ, NO MEANS NO. If we didn't say yes the first two hundred times, what makes you think it will work the next 200 times? You're wasting your time... go find someone who will listen. Because none of us are.

Kat

 

[pdoel]

So you're not emotional really towards me, but towards the system I adopt (biblical thinking).

Actually, I think it would be more towards your interpretation of the Bible. Let's face it. People today pick and choose what to believe and what not to believe, from God's teachings. We have waged war against a country because they treat women the way the Bible has described. Yet, we've thrown those views out a long time ago. There was a time when interracial couples were seen as abominations. Today, they are perfectly accepted. There was a time when divorce was considered one of the biggest sins. Today, we welcome it with no questions asked.

I believe there are a lot of laws in the Bible that no longer apply. Most of which, occurred in the old testament. But, something changed. God gave us his only Son, so that we may have a second chance. We have been reborn. It amazes me how many Christians do not understand what that means. I pray for them, that they may someday REALLY find Jesus, and understand what his life and death truely meant for all people.

The real issue is your distaste towards God and your love for humanism. Since no homosexual can ever be a Christian, isn't this the real issue?

Oh contraire. I am a homosexual, and I'm a Christian, born and raised. Attended one of the strictest Presbyterian colleges in the country. I love God, attend Church, give to the Church, pray daily (many times a day). And hold his beliefs very true to my heart. Do I sin? Yes. Is sin inherint in my soul? Of course. Are my sins any different than anyone elses? No. Do I feel that someone who had pre-maritial sex, has been divorced, is overweight (glutan) cannot be Christians? Hardly.

We are all God's creatures. We are who and what we are because that is what God choose for us. To lay judgement on people, and to claim they are not Christians because they sin, isn't really our job. That's for God to decide.

It's kind of sad actually. People like you who profess to know God's will, and to speak out against Sin, are often the ones who seem to not really understand what it is to be a Christian. I pray for these types of people. I pray that someday, they may accept Christ, and find their way with him.

 

[michel]

Cold-stone, please do me a favour; please read:-

http://groups.msn.com/GayChristiansofWestTexas/fromthebible.msnw

The Bible and GLBT People


It is unfortunate that a democratic society should base its civil legislation on the Bible or any other sacred writing. And it is unfortunate that well-meaning people of faith think that the Bible justifies making sexual minority people second class citizens. Since both are realities, it is important to know what the Bible does and does not say on this subject. It is only when all of scripture is understood in its literary and historical context that its power and truth are revealed. A few examples:

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
These are the most often quoted verses by those who insist that the Bible condemns homosexuality. One principle of biblical interpretation is consistency. The verses immediately before and after these prohibit eating rabbit, lobster, shrimp and pork. They forbid women from wearing red dresses, and declare abomination for all who wear clothing made of mixed fabrics. They bar from ministry anyone with any physical defect. Shouldn't we question the motives and integrity of those who insist these two verses are the eternal word of God, but ignore everything else in the same document?

Genesis 19:4-11 and Judges 19:22
The best Hebrew scholars are in unanimous agreement that what happened at Sodom was about the violation of the ancient code of hospitality toward strangers involving a threatened homosexual rape. A parallel story in Judges tells the exact same core story except that the rape is heterosexual and actually did happen, resulting in the woman's death. Yet, no one suggests that is a condemnation of heterosexuality. Another principle of biblical interpretation is: let the Bible interpret itself. The books of the prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah and Jeremiah list the specific sins for which Sodom was destroyed. They list arrogance, adultery, oppression of the poor, insincere religion and political corruption. Homosexuality is not mentioned. In Luke 10:10-13, Jesus clearly states that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality.

Romans 1:26-32
St. Paul was suspicious, fearful and disapproving of all sexual acts. Homosexual acts were no exception. He clearly believed that all people were heterosexual and that those engaged in homosexual acts were doing so as conscious acts of rebellion against God­an idea totally alien to homosexual people. The exact words he uses to declare homosexual acts as "against nature," he also uses to describe men with long hair (even though Jesus, as a first century Jew, would certainly have had long hair). People who take the Bible seriously (as opposed to literally) have long since realized that many of Paul's comments on socio-cultural issues are not meant to be binding on twenty-first century Christians. Who today argues for a return to slavery, or that women are forbidden to speak in church?

I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:5-10
These two passages include the Greek words "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai." The best Greek scholars now admit that they are not sure what these words meant to the original writers. The word "malakoi" is now considered to have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. The word "arsenokoitai" has now been found in extra-biblical literature of the same period and apparantly referred to cultic temple prostitutes, not homosexuals. The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, translated by the world's greatest Hebrew and Greek scholars, contains a footnote to these two words which reads, "These Greek terms...do not refer to 'homosexuals,' as in inappropriate older translations."

The Gospels
If homosexuality were as critically important an issue as many seem to think, surely Jesus would have said something about it. He didn't.

Conclusion
Contrary to what you might think from listening to much of the current dialogue on this issue, the Bible is not about homosexuality. It is about a 5,000 year love affair between God and humankind.....a relationship in which God is always faithful, and we sometimes are and sometimes aren't...but in which God still chooses us to participate in bringing about a reign of peace, justice, compassion, love and salvation on the earth, and sent Christ to show us how to do that.

People must realize that to continue to insist that the Bible condemns homosexuality is to participate in the escalating spiritual and physical violence against sexual minority people. When people could not see, Jesus healed them. When they would not see, he condemned .......to see the full article, please see the source web page at the head of this reply.

Also, please read:-

http://www.detnews.com/2005/editorial/0504/25/A09-160784.htm


By Deb Price / The Detroit News

At 12 years old, John Shelby Spong received a Christmas gift that would shape the rest of his life: a Bible.
During the next six decades, he read the Bible cover-to-cover at least 20 times, tackled it with fellow Episcopalians as a priest and then, as a bishop, lectured about it at Harvard and other prominent universities, and became a progressive Christian force to be reckoned with after his books, including "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism," brought him acclaim.

But as the white, heterosexual Southerner worked for full inclusion of African-Americans, women and gays in the church community, opponents hurled snippet after snippet from the Bible at him and claimed God thought he was wrong.

At first, Spong told himself his foes were merely misusing the Bible, just as earlier verse-citers did in trying to justify such horrors as torturing "heretics" with stretching machines and spike collars during the Inquisition, enslaving blacks in early America, killing Jews in the Holocaust, permitting child beating and marital rape, and imprisoning and lobotomizing gay people.

"That, however, was a defensive and ultimately dishonest response," Spong concludes in his latest controversial book, "The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love."

"Much as I wanted to think otherwise," he says, "...sometimes (the Bible's) texts are terrible. It was not a comfortable insight, but it grew into a crusade to lift the Bible above its own destructiveness and to force the Christian church to face its own terrifying history that so often has been justified by quotations from 'the Scriptures.' "

The retired bishop challenges fellow Christians to have a mindful, not mindless relationship with the Bible, written over as much as a 1,200-year period by mortal men with human limitations.

God should not be saddled with passages endorsing oppression and violence, Spong argues. By rejecting these "dark" passages, he continues, the Christian community can liberate itself to focus on the essentials of being a faithful follower of Jesus.

That, he says, means working "to build a world in which every person can ... be all that God intends ... (and to) oppose everything that diminishes the life of a single human being."

Spong probes the human roots of verses cited to try to put God's stamp of approval on harming women, Jews, people of color, children and even the environment. When he turns his attention to dissecting the, at most, nine paltry passages -- sprinkled among the Bible's 66 books -- used as weapons against those of us who're gay, he sees human prejudice and ignorance.

What he doesn't see there -- in Leviticus, Genesis' Sodom story, and the writings of the Apostle Paul -- is anything that makes him think God is anti-gay or that gays should be denied full membership in modern society.

The Leviticus sex rules, he notes, were a tiny part of the complicated laws designed to help Jews maintain a group identity in exile by, for example, wearing their hair the same way, shunning fabric of two fibers, and never touching pigskin--hardly dictates followed today. The condemnation of male homosexual acts, he adds, reflected the ignorance of the times--the failure to grasp that being gay is a natural variation, like being left-handed.

And anyone who thinks the Sodom story is a tale of God's wiping out a wicked town for homosexuality might want to reread the bizarre account that seems to endorse offering up one's daughters for gang rape by men. Obviously, rape is wrong. Just as obviously, Spong stresses, rape has nothing to do with loving relationships, gay or heterosexual.

As for Paul, Spong's view is that his words show him to be a "deeply repressed, self-loathing" man ill at ease with sexuality.

Surely, our minds are a gift from God. Bishop Spong encourages us to use them to judge what's truly in keeping with Jesus' message of inclusive love.


http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html

http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/CoEvan/minorities/GLBT.html

Once you have read the above, if you are not convinced that you are mistaken in your beliefs, and have a way of looking at this whole subject from a view point that would be contrary to God's dictates, I will have to find more.

 

[IndigoChild]

I teach of a loving God. I have no doubt that He loves you just as much as he loves me, because we both sin.

A loving God would not punish anyone for eternity, no matter how bad the crime. Five minutes in Hell would be enough to convince most people of the error of their ways, assuming it existed.

To claim that you are the desciple of a loving God, and then spew hatred, is the same as saying "I love puppies" and then kicking a puppy down the stairs. It is hypocrisy in the extreme.

Kat

 

[michel]

A loving God would not punish anyone for eternity, no matter how bad the crime. Five minutes in Hell would be enough to convince most people of the error of their ways, assuming it existed.

To claim that you are the desciple of a loving God, and then spew hatred, is the same as saying "I love puppies" and then kicking a puppy down the stairs. It is hypocrisy in the extreme.

Kat

Quite right.