So about those gay people...

Saw this somewhere. Make of it what you will.

Just for fun:

Well, thanks!

Since I don't agree with where it's going, that doesn't bother me in the least. Bon voyage, assholes!

(Note that I don't give a shit what anyone does with their love lives, but that infographic is so staggeringly snotty and judgmental its-own-damn-self that it prompts mockery.)

Yes, it is certainly in-your-face and unapologetic about it. But it does make it's point, I think.

Keep in my mind, I did not make it and have no idea who made it. Just passing it along for comment.

Makes it hard to feel sympathy for what they get (within the bounds of words, strictly speaking) when they seem inclined to try to give just as good.

Yeah ... when you're discriminated against, it's so much classier if you just roll over and take it. Fighting back is so unseemly!

What part of "within the bounds of words, strictly speaking" slipped past you?

And no apologies -- if somebody's being a shithead, and the one they're being a shithead to is a shithead right back to them, I figure Shithead #2's got it handled.

It is wrong on several points.

1. Jesus didn't preach against same sex relationships directly - he did it by teaching the proper model. One man, one woman.
2. "The original language" argument would be OK if every translator in the world didn't laugh when they read it. Ironically, the point here is missed. Paul condemns homosexuality, but more than that, he is condemning brazen, unapologetic homosexuality. In other words, he is condemning unrepentant sin. There are gays who struggle, and I can appreciate that. Much sin is addictive.

1. Jesus never married (which is not correct, but just for the sake of argument we'll go with Christianity's idea of his life), so who the fuck was he to tell others who to love?

2. Paul was a murdering, power-hungry asshole. The fact that Christians continue to quote Paul and follow his dogma rather than listen to what Jesus had to say continues to be pathetic these thousands of years later.

Jesus taught that wine is delicious, that means beer is a sin.

I always tell myself that when I'm having a beer.

Did you marry a whore like Jesus did?

"Paul (said) women should be silent and never assume authority over a man."

I like where this Paul fellow's head is at.

That flow chart is poorly designed.

Clearly a woman made it.

It is never mentioned in Scripture that Jesus married.

Actually, Paul said that women should remain silent in church, and not teach men.

The "not teach men" thing is misleading.

Women were supposed to be silent in church (and the whole thing came up because women were socializing and gossiping during sermons and being rude) and they were not to teach men, again. in the church.

Wives are told to share their wisdom and insights with their husbands and they were to pass them along in the church setting. Exploring God's will together is supposed to be part of marriage, in the Christian sense.

Society was just as sexist back then as it was here for the longest time...in fact, incidents still happen today. Separating what was cultural and what is doctrine isn't always easy. And that includes anything about the gays.

The best test, in my opinion, is to ask yourself...does this come from a place of love and mercy? If the answer is no, then what your doing isn't properly Christian. And marginalizing, humiliating and treating gays differently than others is not coming from a place of love.

That's because all references to Jesus having a wife were removed by the early church. You couldn't expect the "Son of God" or "God on Earth" to have a wife or kids. Sex is sinful don't you know!

No, actually I don't know. In fact, I find no teachings in scripture that sex is anything but wonderful.

Sex outside a married relationship is fornication, and fornication is bad.

Next?

Y'know what I find a riot?

How some Christians claim that atheism leads to "social Darwinism", but all of the Biblical sex laws, and even the fucking wars, are exactly the worst-case-scenario for a "Darwinist", sort of society.
It's all about preserving your bloodline above all else, multiplying that bloodline at all costs, and wiping out all others.

The irony sails right over their heads.

Priceless...

Only if you're doing it wrong. Like in the ear or something.

Meg agrees!

Arguments from silence are invalid.

Jesus discusses a man asking you to walk with him an extra mile, thus Jesus is teaching that riding in a vehicle is against God's design?

since they don't, we're good on that point.

There are credible points in disagreement on almost every doctrine in Scripture and this is no exception. to deny the legitimacy of the alternate interpretation just because you disagree with the conclusion may satisfy the ego but it's not a compelling argument.

He also said "it's better to marry than to burn" in relation to sexual misbehavior.

Actually Jesus said that getting married at all was pointless, because the end-times were imminent.

Yep, and historically, after Christ died, and the end times didn't come, there was a big schism between the non-fuckers, and pro-fuckers, because...if no one bred, their little cult would die off.

The non-fuckers did indeed die off, and the pro-fuckers won that one in a rout.

So, before the invention of marriage, cavemen and their descendants were perpetual sinners?

I'm pretty sure that was in the letters, not in Jesus' own words.

Anyway, so I've just looked up the stuff about arsenokotoi, the word Paul uses and that might mean homosexuals. And that's been quite an education. Now koine Greek had words for homosexuality; of course, in the Hellenistic world, they did not necessarily carry a negative connotation (although pornoi comes close at the time), which Paul might be going for. But whatever he was going for, he's using a word that is otherwise unknown to us. That's pretty rare, and quite surprising. We have LOTS of texts from the time, but this word apparently ONLY happens in Paul.

Consider what that means. Any traditional interpretation of this word is identical to the tradition of interpreting these lines in Paul. There is no other correlate. It's pretty clear that it's some sexual act, and involves males or the male organ, but beyond that, it just feeds into itself. If you choose to believe homosexuality is arsenokoiteia, you end up with arsenokoiteia being homosexuality. If you'd rather put in masturbation, philandery, or whatever else you'd like to come up with, that's what you'll be left with.

In other words, the whole concept used for an aspect of sexuality here is limited to condemning said aspect of sexuality! I kind of feel that says more about Paul's text and its relation to our use of his language than any single well-interpreted commandment could.

From God's point of view, sex is marriage.

Adam and Eve didn't become husband and wive via vows and a party...Adam "knew" his wife and they were joined.

This is why multiple sexual partners is bad. To God you are "marrying" over and over and it is meaningless and makes it difficult to truly "become as one" with a mate as that connection is broken the moment you "cheat" and take another lover.

If God didn't like bed-hopping, why did he make humans horny?

You can fuck all you like...just with your chosen mate.

To confuse Apostle.