Is Rick Santorum right to compare homosexuality to beastiality?

[Smash255]

Who said that, but it tends to be those who make the biggest issue about so called sexual immorality & homosexuals tend to go against the very theme of the bible & Jesus's overall teachings to "love thy neighbor" and "not to judge others"

His "overall teachings"?!  Jesus' teachings can be summed up in two words: faith and repentance.

So, you can single out love and judging others all you want, but if you refuse to repent of sin, you will perish.

"The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" (spoken by Jesus Christ, Mark 1:14)

"But unless you repent, you too will all perish." (spoken by Jesus Christ, Luke 13:3,5)

Point being the overall teachings of the bible, the overall message to "love thy neighbor" and not to judge others are something that many of the hoiler than thou gay bashers & morality detectors don't live by

[MODU]

Point being the overall teachings of the bible, the overall message to "love thy neighbor" and not to judge others are something that many of the hoiler than thou gay bashers & morality detectors don't live by

Yet you cannot pick and choose what you follow and still claim to be a follower.  As the Bible says, people are not to add OR take away from the teachings.  Saying you are a realist beause you enjoy having sex out of wedlock doesn't make it ok under the faith (hence my example of the 'holiday catholics.')

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Point being the overall teachings of the bible, the overall message to "love thy neighbor" and not to judge others are something that many of the hoiler than thou gay bashers & morality detectors don't live by

To the contrary, the point being the GREATEST COMMANDMENT of the bible is to "Love God" which is measured by your obedience to his commands, and the 2nd greatest commandment is to "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Mat 22:37-39 Jesus replied: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."  This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

John 14:15 Jesus said, "If you love me you will obey my commandments."

You simply can not separate love from obedience.

[KillerPollo]

You have no right to claim she is less 'Catholic' based on such sweeping assumptions. In Scotland most Catholics are realists; they have sex out of wedlock, the use contraception some even have abortions, that is their personal choice. Sex and sexual health has nothing to do with religion it is a personal thing and no one has the legitimacy to question another persons 'religiousness' as a result. Some of the biggest moral preachers who spew out all the 'hosannas, holy holies and thou shalt nots' are some of the biggest hypocrites on the planet.

P.S I'm Catholic too.

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

OH SNAP!

many people who claim to follow religion are just a bunch of charlatans who are doing this for money. christians who commit abortions, are gay, or have sex out of wedlock may be religious, but not faithful.

Who said that, but it tends to be those who make the biggest issue about so called sexual immorality & homosexuals tend to go against the very theme of the bible & Jesus's overall teachings to "love thy neighbor" and "not to judge others"

You are probably thinking of John 3:16, which says no such thing. The word translated "world" in that verse (kosmos) NEVER means every individual of mankind who has ever lived (see, e.g., John 17:9). Romans 9:13 says that God hated Esau, and Psalm 5:5 says that God hates all WORKERS of iniquity. Other examples are Proverbs 6:16-19, Psalm 11:5, and Malachi 1:3. Given these verses, how can you say God loves everyone? Can you really say "God loves everyone" when God says "I hated Esau?" Does God love the people in hell?

Or, you are thinking of "God is love." God certainly is love, toward His elect (His children). But He certainly is not love toward the reprobate (children of the devil). That's why His elect go to heaven, and the reprobate go to hell. In Romans 9:13, which says "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated", Jacob is a representative of God's elect, while Esau is a representative of the reprobate. In Romans 1, the word "reprobate" is used to describe homosexuals. They are reprobate. God hates reprobates. Therefore, God hates homosexuals.

Furthermore, God specifically says that He ABHORS people who engage in sodomy (as well as other forms of sexual perversion): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them...And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them." Leviticus 20:13,23. Understand?

God's hatred is one of His holy attributes, whereby He reveals Himself as having a fixed and immutable determination to punish the finally impenitent with eternal perdition. God's hatred is not like man's hatred. His hatred is holy, pure, unchanging, while man's hatred is a sinful, fickle emotion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. Does that mean to lie to him and tell him what he wants to hear? No. It means to tell him the truth, and warn him to flee from the wrath to come. As we are commanded in Leviticus 19:17, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him." Here, loving your neighbour is defined as rebuking him, and not allowing sin to come upon him. The purest, most exalted form of love is to tell people the truth, especially about weighty matters such as life and death, sin, righteousness, judgment to come, Heaven and Hell.

PS: i did not use the word "fag". I am not trying to be rude, nor offend anyone.

[opebo]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

[KillerPollo]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

Opebo. are you a descendant of a citizen of Sodom and Gomorrah?

[opebo]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

Opebo. are you a descendant of a citizen of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Yes, of course.

[Everett]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

And I assume that you think that you, in all of your glory and power, are Jesus? You fit that description so nicely that I wasn't quite sure if you were talking about Jesus or yourself.

[opebo]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

And I assume that you think that you, in all of your glory and power, are Jesus? You fit that description so nicely that I wasn't quite sure if you were talking about Jesus or yourself.

No, I deny the existence of objective morality, like any rational person, everett.

Also I would never presume to tell a person where he should stick his member, though I might in friendly fashion exhort him to enjoy sticking it wherever he likes.

[Everett]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

And I assume that you think that you, in all of your glory and power, are Jesus? You fit that description so nicely that I wasn't quite sure if you were talking about Jesus or yourself.

No, I deny the existence of objective morality, like any rational person, everett.

Also I would never presume to tell a person where he should stick his member, though I might in friendly fashion exhort him to enjoy sticking it wherever he likes.

If you deny the existence of an objective morality, then why do you so freely place value judgements on religion and people who disagree with your views?

And as long as it has something to do with sex, it's glory to God - oops, I mean opebo - in your book, so that doesn't necessarily count.

[opebo]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

And I assume that you think that you, in all of your glory and power, are Jesus? You fit that description so nicely that I wasn't quite sure if you were talking about Jesus or yourself.

No, I deny the existence of objective morality, like any rational person, everett.

Also I would never presume to tell a person where he should stick his member, though I might in friendly fashion exhort him to enjoy sticking it wherever he likes.

If you deny the existence of an objective morality, then why do you so freely place value judgements on religion and people who disagree with your views?

You poor simpleton, as I have repeated for your benefit about a thousand times by now - I do not object to their having stupid subjective preferences, what I object to is their claim that there is an objective morality.  In other words, go ahead and hate gays if you're an ignorant hick, but once you claim that they are objectively 'bad', I shall have to advocate feeding you to the lions.

[Everett]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

And I assume that you think that you, in all of your glory and power, are Jesus? You fit that description so nicely that I wasn't quite sure if you were talking about Jesus or yourself.

No, I deny the existence of objective morality, like any rational person, everett.

Also I would never presume to tell a person where he should stick his member, though I might in friendly fashion exhort him to enjoy sticking it wherever he likes.

If you deny the existence of an objective morality, then why do you so freely place value judgements on religion and people who disagree with your views?

You poor simpleton, as I have repeated for your benefit about a thousand times by now - I do not object to their having stupid subjective preferences, what I object to is their claim that there is an objective morality.  In other words, go ahead and hate gays if you're an ignorant hick, but once you claim that they are objectively 'bad', I shall have to advocate feeding you to the lions.

So basically you want everyone who disagrees with you to be fed to the lions. Good job.

[KillerPollo]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

And I assume that you think that you, in all of your glory and power, are Jesus? You fit that description so nicely that I wasn't quite sure if you were talking about Jesus or yourself.

No, I deny the existence of objective morality, like any rational person, everett.

Also I would never presume to tell a person where he should stick his member, though I might in friendly fashion exhort him to enjoy sticking it wherever he likes.

If you deny the existence of an objective morality, then why do you so freely place value judgements on religion and people who disagree with your views?

You poor simpleton, as I have repeated for your benefit about a thousand times by now - I do not object to their having stupid subjective preferences, what I object to is their claim that there is an objective morality.  In other words, go ahead and hate gays if you're an ignorant hick, but once you claim that they are objectively 'bad', I shall have to advocate feeding you to the lions.

since when does hating gays = ignorant? LOLOLOLOL
Look at yourself. you advocate that anyone who opposes your whacked out points of view, to be fed to the lions.

[opebo]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

And I assume that you think that you, in all of your glory and power, are Jesus? You fit that description so nicely that I wasn't quite sure if you were talking about Jesus or yourself.

No, I deny the existence of objective morality, like any rational person, everett.

Also I would never presume to tell a person where he should stick his member, though I might in friendly fashion exhort him to enjoy sticking it wherever he likes.

If you deny the existence of an objective morality, then why do you so freely place value judgements on religion and people who disagree with your views?

You poor simpleton, as I have repeated for your benefit about a thousand times by now - I do not object to their having stupid subjective preferences, what I object to is their claim that there is an objective morality.  In other words, go ahead and hate gays if you're an ignorant hick, but once you claim that they are objectively 'bad', I shall have to advocate feeding you to the lions.

So basically you want everyone who disagrees with you to be fed to the lions. Good job.

No, you are again missing the distinction.  I fear you are incapable of understanding.

[opebo]

since when does hating gays = ignorant? LOLOLOLOL
Look at yourself. you advocate that anyone who opposes your whacked out points of view, to be fed to the lions.

No, you have also misunderstood, but that is to be expected, as you are an ignorant.

[Everett]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

And I assume that you think that you, in all of your glory and power, are Jesus? You fit that description so nicely that I wasn't quite sure if you were talking about Jesus or yourself.

No, I deny the existence of objective morality, like any rational person, everett.

Also I would never presume to tell a person where he should stick his member, though I might in friendly fashion exhort him to enjoy sticking it wherever he likes.

If you deny the existence of an objective morality, then why do you so freely place value judgements on religion and people who disagree with your views?

You poor simpleton, as I have repeated for your benefit about a thousand times by now - I do not object to their having stupid subjective preferences, what I object to is their claim that there is an objective morality.  In other words, go ahead and hate gays if you're an ignorant hick, but once you claim that they are objectively 'bad', I shall have to advocate feeding you to the lions.

So basically you want everyone who disagrees with you to be fed to the lions. Good job.

No, you are again missing the distinction.  I fear you are incapable of understanding.

And proud of being incapable of understanding your warped lack of logic that quite a few Atlasians are still puzzled over.

[KillerPollo]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

And I assume that you think that you, in all of your glory and power, are Jesus? You fit that description so nicely that I wasn't quite sure if you were talking about Jesus or yourself.

No, I deny the existence of objective morality, like any rational person, everett.

Also I would never presume to tell a person where he should stick his member, though I might in friendly fashion exhort him to enjoy sticking it wherever he likes.

If you deny the existence of an objective morality, then why do you so freely place value judgements on religion and people who disagree with your views?

You poor simpleton, as I have repeated for your benefit about a thousand times by now - I do not object to their having stupid subjective preferences, what I object to is their claim that there is an objective morality.  In other words, go ahead and hate gays if you're an ignorant hick, but once you claim that they are objectively 'bad', I shall have to advocate feeding you to the lions.

So basically you want everyone who disagrees with you to be fed to the lions. Good job.

No, you are again missing the distinction.  I fear you are incapable of understanding.

And proud of being incapable of understanding your warped lack of logic that quite a few Atlasians are still puzzled over.

don't worry. according to yourself, me and opebo bring balance to the forums. right vs. left.

[opebo]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

And I assume that you think that you, in all of your glory and power, are Jesus? You fit that description so nicely that I wasn't quite sure if you were talking about Jesus or yourself.

No, I deny the existence of objective morality, like any rational person, everett.

Also I would never presume to tell a person where he should stick his member, though I might in friendly fashion exhort him to enjoy sticking it wherever he likes.

If you deny the existence of an objective morality, then why do you so freely place value judgements on religion and people who disagree with your views?

You poor simpleton, as I have repeated for your benefit about a thousand times by now - I do not object to their having stupid subjective preferences, what I object to is their claim that there is an objective morality.  In other words, go ahead and hate gays if you're an ignorant hick, but once you claim that they are objectively 'bad', I shall have to advocate feeding you to the lions.

So basically you want everyone who disagrees with you to be fed to the lions. Good job.

No, you are again missing the distinction.  I fear you are incapable of understanding.

And proud of being incapable of understanding your warped lack of logic that quite a few Atlasians are still puzzled over.

It is simple everett - I take great offense that one individual subjectivity would presume to judge another based on the fiction of objective morality.

[KillerPollo]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

And I assume that you think that you, in all of your glory and power, are Jesus? You fit that description so nicely that I wasn't quite sure if you were talking about Jesus or yourself.

No, I deny the existence of objective morality, like any rational person, everett.

Also I would never presume to tell a person where he should stick his member, though I might in friendly fashion exhort him to enjoy sticking it wherever he likes.

If you deny the existence of an objective morality, then why do you so freely place value judgements on religion and people who disagree with your views?

You poor simpleton, as I have repeated for your benefit about a thousand times by now - I do not object to their having stupid subjective preferences, what I object to is their claim that there is an objective morality.  In other words, go ahead and hate gays if you're an ignorant hick, but once you claim that they are objectively 'bad', I shall have to advocate feeding you to the lions.

So basically you want everyone who disagrees with you to be fed to the lions. Good job.

No, you are again missing the distinction.  I fear you are incapable of understanding.

And proud of being incapable of understanding your warped lack of logic that quite a few Atlasians are still puzzled over.

It is simple everett - I take great offense that one individual subjectivity would presume to judge another based on the fiction of objective morality.

ok. Killing is part of objective morality. Do you favor killing? oh wait... YOU DO!!! you advocate feeding ppl to the lions. OH YES!!

[A18]

It is a shame that this thread is 6 pages long.

It's a shame this thread is not 6 pages long.

[opebo]

So basically you want everyone who disagrees with you to be fed to the lions. Good job.

No, you are again missing the distinction.  I fear you are incapable of understanding.

And proud of being incapable of understanding your warped lack of logic that quite a few Atlasians are still puzzled over.

It is simple everett - I take great offense that one individual subjectivity would presume to judge another based on the fiction of objective morality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

ok. Killing is part of objective morality. Do you favor killing? oh wait... YOU DO!!! you advocate feeding ppl to the lions. OH YES!!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, killing has nothing whatsoever to do with objective morality.  Objective morality is merely an excuse for killing.  I advocate killing people even though I don't believe in objective morality.  The only real reasons for killing are power reasons - either self defense or agression, but those blur together at the edges.  I have nothing against killing people for practical purposes, I merely object to adding insult to injury by making the absurd claim that you've killed them because they 'deserved' it - that they were 'bad' based on some objective moral.

[Brandon H]

While not exactly the same thing, both are forms of sexual activity that will fail to produce offspring.

[opebo]

While not exactly the same thing, both are forms of sexual activity that will fail to produce offspring.

So is heterosexual sex which finishes with an ejaculation anywhere but the vagina.

[Inmate Trump]

What makes certain people so against homosexuality?  Is it strictly based on ones religious views or is there something else there?

I don't understand why some people can't just accept that someone's different and move on, rather than staying so focused on one small aspect of someone else's life.

[MODU]

What makes certain people so against homosexuality?  Is it strictly based on ones religious views or is there something else there?

I don't understand why some people can't just accept that someone's different and move on, rather than staying so focused on one small aspect of someone else's life.

I think there are multiple reasons.  Some are religious, so are just natural in leaning (gays cannot reproduce, therefore it's not what nature had intended), and others don't want to give into a special interest group claiming they deserve rights just because they choose to be gay.