Preacher teaches his congregation how to avoid “foo-foo fruit loop” gay waiters

[humbleman]

If you can't choose the waiter in a restaurant then you won't be able one day to choose your favorite football team

 

[RavenSky]

A follower of Poe?

 

[Keith&Co.]

You see, one of the sexual acts homosexuals do is licking the anus of the another. .

Just a slight problem with your premise, there.
One of the sexual acts HUMANS perform is licking the anus of their partner. There's just no telling what your waiter, waitress, hostess, busboy or, sometimes, the person sitting across the table from you offering a bite of their chicken carbonera, is into.


But at least the city regularly inspects professional dining facilities to ensure they have safe practices so that no one is likely spreading icky diseases on your fine dining tools. I do not recall any of Doc's hygiene lectures for food service having extra steps for anyone based on their sexual practices or history...

But, hey, feel free to provide any fucking reason to think that someone who's lisping is significantly more dangerous to innocent bystanders than the motherly-type who could have a sex dungeon in her basement, for all the idiot in Jax can tell...

After that, most of your post is just meaningless noise.

Of course, when religion is implied, the doctrine teaches that God considers homosexuality an abomination.

Based on the same source document that teaches astrology and women in pants are abominations. I note the idiot in the OP doesn't say to avoid the motherly type if she's wearing slacks. Or if she reads her horoscope.
No, this is just meaningless noise, too. A rationalization for idiotic hate.

A follower of God is religiously doing the right thing by following and imitating his god.

When it suits him...

 

[Underseer]

Can someone just get away with that sort of overtly bigoted discrimination, out loud? What a sad wanker. And supposedly on other occasions he is someone preaching about loving one's neighbour.

Not beyond applauding mass murder (at a gay nightclub) either, apparently (from the OP article):

" this is the same guy who celebrated the Pulse massacre, saying, 'the earth is a little bit better place now.' "

(though on checking that appears to have been a different pastor from the same church who said that).

Not even capable of articulate speech. Starts with, "If I ever go to a restaurant and you sit down'.

This is America. Of course bigoted wankers can get away with it. In fact, if you complain about it even slightly (like you have just done), they will insist that they are the ones being "persecuted."

Conservatives are the biggest snowflakes.

 

[humbleman]

Just a slight problem with your premise, there.
One of the sexual acts HUMANS perform is licking the anus of their partner. There's just no telling what your waiter, waitress, hostess, busboy or, sometimes, the person sitting across the table from you offering a bite of their chicken carbonera, is into.


But at least the city regularly inspects professional dining facilities to ensure they have safe practices so that no one is likely spreading icky diseases on your fine dining tools. I do not recall any of Doc's hygiene lectures for food service having extra steps for anyone based on their sexual practices or history...

Come on, the whole thing is mostly covered up with cries of discrimination.

When the AIDS epidemic abrupt in the 80s, lots of people asked that dudes and gals with AIDS should show an identification that they carry the disease. I can tell you that this was the best measure to prevent the spreading faster than any other way.

In biblical times, the famous cry claiming discrimination for any reason wasn't invented yet. The ones with leprosy used to cry loud "Unclean! unclean!" to people when others were going close to them. This preventive order given by sufferers of leprosy avoided the spreading of the disease to others. Leprosy was contained when sufferers of the disease were isolated.

But, homosexuals knew that many of them should have been identified, and what happened? they cried "discrimination! discrimination! and the disease still is around societies and won't stop.

Sometimes measures must be taken strongly to protect the majorities, this is to say, the ones who don't get involved in drugs and perform unclean sexual acts.

But, hey, feel free to provide any fucking reason to think that someone who's lisping is significantly more dangerous to innocent bystanders than the motherly-type who could have a sex dungeon in her basement, for all the idiot in Jax can tell...

After that, most of your post is just meaningless noise.

Based on the same source document that teaches astrology and women in pants are abominations. I note the idiot in the OP doesn't say to avoid the motherly type if she's wearing slacks. Or if she reads her horoscope.
No, this is just meaningless noise, too. A rationalization for idiotic hate.

Perhaps from your point of view, what is a value in the bible is just nonsense to you.

What impede me then, to think the same about your values like homosexuality and licking the others anus when you have sex?

And now, when we are discussing about this topic, let me ask you a question, because is a curiosity of mine.

I see a lot -in their marchers- that sodomites feel proud of being homosexuals.

Very well. So, lets say Gregory is homosexual and he goes to the parade with a sign that says "gay pride".

Good.

So, Gregory likes having a man doing intercourse with him. I tell you this: there is nothing wrong with that. Gregory likes a man introducing his male organ thru his back.

Fine. If that is what Gregory likes, then nobody can judge him, because such is what makes Gregory happy.

Understood?

Good.

My question is:

Gregory is having sex with a man, The other man has introduced his male organ into the rectum of Gregory. Please tell, right here, in this moment when this sexual act is in progress, what exactly is making Gregory feel "proud" about it?

 

[Tars Tarkus]

I think the 'pride' part of Gay Pride is standing up for who you are in a society that places a stigma on it than hiding who you really are.

 

[RavenSky]

Come on, <snipped - refuse to quote that wall of false bullshit> [/B]

No, YOU "come on"

Currently, 51% of the people living with HIV/AIDS are heterosexual women.

In addition to poverty and lack of access to healthcare, a big factor in this adverse affect on heterosexual women is RELIGION.

YOUR religion.

Your religion that treats women as "lesser than"... your religion that encourages child/young brides ala Roy Moore... your religion that - at its core - demeans women.

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. Exodus 20:17

If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. Exodus 21:7

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Deuteronomy 22:28-29

If, however the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. Deuteronomy 22:20-21

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. Numbers 31:17-18

When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Leviticus 12

When a young woman still living in her father’s household makes a vow to the LORD or obligates herself by a pledge... if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand... if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Numbers 30

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 1 Corinthians 14:34
Wives should submit to their husband’s instructions and desires: Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Colossians 3:18

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Ephesians 5:22-24

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 1 Timothy 2

For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 1 Corinthians 11

Guess which demographic has the lowest incidence of HIV/AIDS.

GAY women. Yep.

So you'd better hope that matronly woman you so want waiting on you has caught teh gay, else you might catch a dreaded disease if she's a true believer christian woman.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Come on, the whole thing is mostly covered up with cries of discrimination.

Yeah... I wonder if that might be from all the discrimination?

When the AIDS epidemic abrupt

Yeah, i hate autocorrect, too.

in the 80s, lots of people asked that dudes and gals with AIDS should show an identification that they carry the disease. I can tell you that this was the best measure to prevent the spreading faster than any other way.

Um.... Bullshit.
That would actually have accelerated the spread.
People would definitely have demonized those showing the signs. Demonized, discriminated, assaulted.
Which means people would have stopped being tested.
I mean, who'd get a blood test if it might get you lynched?

Also, i note that no other communicable disease is being treated that way. In the 80's, this was seen strictly as a gay disease, affecting the gays, God's punishment against the gays. AIDs stood for 'adios ignorant dick sucker,' i was told. Education was what was needed, not discrimination.

In biblical times, the famous cry claiming discrimination for any reason wasn't invented yet.

You really do hate that you're not allowed to discriminate, don't you?

But, homosexuals knew that many of them should have been identified, and what happened? they cried "discrimination! discrimination! and the disease still is around societies and won't stop.

Maybe because of the mindless discrimination. You stil haven't countered any of my actual argument against the OP....

Gotta go, back later.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In biblical times, .... The ones with leprosy used to cry loud "Unclean! unclean!" to people when others were going close to them. This preventive order given by sufferers of leprosy avoided the spreading of the disease to others.

Except they had no real way to know how the disease was spread, did they? The cry of 'unclean' was more of a moral judgment than a rational effort at quarantine. And the disease still spread when people who thought they were being generous ministered to the lepers, but lacked the magical protections they thought their faith would give them...

Leprosy was contained when sufferers of the disease were isolated.

WOULD have been, except for the missionaries, right?

But, homosexuals knew that many of them should have been identified, and what happened? they cried "discrimination! discrimination! and the disease still is around societies and won't stop.

But it IS discrimination. You and the OP pastor keep treating gays as a distinct threat of disease. But as far as i know, there's no sexual practice among homosexuals that isn't practiced by heterosexuals.
Also, not ALL homosexuals practice the anus licking or the butt penetration. So, again, singling THEM out for this treatment is a prejudice. Thus 'the famous cry of discrimination,' because that's what you're trying to do.

Sometimes measures must be taken strongly to protect the majorities, this is to say, the ones who don't get involved in drugs and perform unclean sexual acts.

I could agree with that. Except for the fact that these 'unclean' practices are not limited to the foo-foo fruit loops.'

But, hey, feel free to provide any fucking reason to think that someone who's lisping is significantly more dangerous to innocent bystanders than the motherly-type who could have a sex dungeon in her basement, for all the idiot in Jax can tell...

Perhaps from your point of view, what is a value in the bible is just nonsense to you.

It is, but the point here is that what's 'of value' in the Bible doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
You've yet to show that a lisping waiter is any different from the motherly type, so you've yet to provide a reason to treat teh gays any differently.

What impede me then, to think the same about your values like homosexuality and licking the others anus when you have sex?

Nothing impedes you to make a judgment against me for my opinion.
Just like i have an opinion on the practices in the OP, and the discrimination you're trying to rationalize. You're singling people out but it doesn't make any rational sense. You haven't supported the practice.

And now, when we are discussing about this topic, let me ask you a question, because is a curiosity of mine.

I see a lot -in their marchers- that sodomites feel proud of being homosexuals.

Are you sure they're proud of 'being homosexuals?' Or may the 'pride' be about something else?

Very well. So, lets say Gregory is homosexual and he goes to the parade with a sign that says "gay pride".

Good.

So, Gregory likes having a man doing intercourse with him. I tell you this: there is nothing wrong with that. Gregory likes a man introducing his male organ thru his back.

As it's a hypothetical, okay. You DO understand that not all gay men practice anal sex, though, right?

Fine. If that is what Gregory likes, then nobody can judge him, because such is what makes Gregory happy.

Understood?

Good.

My question is:

Gregory is having sex with a man, The other man has introduced his male organ into the rectum of Gregory. Please tell, right here, in this moment when this sexual act is in progress, what exactly is making Gregory feel "proud" about it?

Ah.
YOU find it icky, and you would find it demeaning, so you cannot understand participating in a 'pride' march.
Got it.

Okay, well, i can only speak for myself, you understand? What i THINK is happening is this:

I have an interest in size-gap sexual fantasy. Gulliver's Travels, Land of the Giants, Beanstalk settings. I wouldn't exactly say that i'm 'proud' of the idea of holding a woman in my hand, or being dangled between two fingers. But it does attract and excite me. Thing is, I AM proud of the fact that i'm willing to discuss it openly. That i'm able to claim the interest/kink, to participate in groups that share the interest, to publish my fantasies online. I understand you likely won't share this interest, and many people see totally unjustified connotations connected to the interest.
But those people, and you, are not going to shame me because of the interest.
Your judgments are yours, and nothing to do with me.
I will not allow you to treat me as something 'unclean' for my interests, not as if my fantasies make me different, or a lesser being, no matter how you would place me in your world.

So i could imagine participating in a GTS/SW 'pride' event, if only to tell the judgmental that i'm not ashamed of what turns me on.

Does that help?

 

[FwL]

If ever there was a thread in need of an "eat da poo poo" video drop, this would be it.

 

[funinspace]

Unless the waiter is sticking his stink-finger into my soup, I can't see how his sexuality matters to me. I mean, I'm out on a date night with my wife. I'm paying attention to HER, and maybe to the TV if there's one in sight.

I tend to imagine that the staff has covered for each other a time or two, also. So discriminating against one has a good chance of getting another to spit in your food...

I'm not sure if you are completely right.

You see, one of the sexual acts homosexuals do is licking the anus of the another. It happens that this action might cause the acquiring of hepatitis.

Now well, if the infected with hepatitis doesn't get medical attention, then he might be spreading around this disease to others. There are types of hepatitis, and one of them is contagious by "touch". An infected person touches the silverware and gives it to you, and you are exposed to acquire that type of hepatitis when you receive the silverware in your hand.

I'm not claiming that this is a possible epidemic or whatever.

The point is that it is known that homosexuals when having sex acquire several diseases, and many of them contagious by touch or just by saliva when they talk to you and their little drops of saliva hits your food.

Suggesting to avoid a person who has sexual acts which are known to produce several diseases is a better "preaching" over avoiding the person just because is a sodomite.

You imply a fairly fearful and paranoid life to live. I'd recommend avoiding female waitresses, paper money, and public toilets as well...
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/news/a36431/everyone-having-anal-without-me/

40 percent of us, ages 20 to 24, have tried anal sex, up from 16 percent in 1992, found a survey published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine in 2010. The number of women ages 20 to 39 who say they've done anal in the past year doubled to 20 percent. And 20 percent of women in relationships have had anal sex in the last three months.

Of course, when religion is implied, the doctrine teaches that God considers homosexuality an abomination.

A follower of God is religiously doing the right thing by following and imitating his god.

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” ― Mahatma Gandhi

Though your verbiage sounds like the words of a 2000+ year old Pharisee...

 

[funinspace]

beyond not being an epidemic, this is the most asinine justification for obnoxious religious bigotry I have ever had the misfortune of reading

You don't read a lot do you?

 

[J842P]

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” ― Mahatma Gandhi

Though your verbiage sounds like the words of a 2000+ year old Pharisee...

Sounds a lot like Jesus to me.

 

[funinspace]

An abomination here, an abomination there, an abomination everywhere

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” ― Mahatma Gandhi

Though your verbiage sounds like the words of a 2000+ year old Pharisee...

Sounds a lot like Jesus to me.

I said that due to the irony of humbleman dredging up the word ‘abomination’ to dis homosexuals, implying that somehow this ‘sin’ is special.

Suggesting to avoid a person who has sexual acts which are known to produce several diseases is a better "preaching" over avoiding the person just because is a sodomite. Of course, when religion is implied, the doctrine teaches that God considers homosexuality an abomination.

The word abomination is only used twice in the NT by most any translation. Now in Revelations, it doesn’t really help as it doesn’t really discuss what the Reveler thought abomination meant in this time and context. However, the Jesus character did utilize the word once talking about those who lust after money in Luke…yeah people like Don the Con.

Revelation 21:27: “But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.”

Luke 16:14-15 “Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him. 15 And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves [l]in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God.”

To tie homosexuality to the word abomination one needs to go back to that tribal god Yahweh. And with that…well then, most people practice abominations, and probably even includes Mr. Humbleman.

One of my favorites is Ezekiel 18:10-13, where all that trade in interest are committing an abomination. I would think that would anyone who has any bonds, including in their IRA/401k.
“Then he may [g]have a violent son who sheds blood and who does any of these things to a brother 11 (though he himself did not do any of these things), that is, he even eats at the mountain shrines, and defiles his neighbor’s wife, 12 oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore a pledge, but lifts up his eyes to the idols and commits abomination, 13 he lends money on interest and takes increase; will he live? He will not live! He has committed all these abominations, he will surely be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.

On the sexy side, there is Leviticus 18:19 where later in the paragraph it is shown to be part of “do not defile yourself”…
Lev 18:19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

Then there is this fun one where fundagelicals make a mockery of the pretentiousness about the 10 commandments (The Sabbath is not an unknown period of the week):
Exodus 35:2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death. 3 Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day.”

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I said that due to the irony of humbleman dredging up the word ‘abomination’ to dis homosexuals, implying that somehow this ‘sin’ is special.

Suggesting to avoid a person who has sexual acts which are known to produce several diseases is a better "preaching" over avoiding the person just because is a sodomite. Of course, when religion is implied, the doctrine teaches that God considers homosexuality an abomination.

The word abomination is only used twice in the NT by most any translation. Now in Revelations, it doesn’t really help as it doesn’t really discuss what the Reveler thought abomination meant in this time and context. However, the Jesus character did utilize the word once talking about those who lust after money in Luke…yeah people like Don the Con.

Revelation 21:27: “But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.”

Luke 16:14-15 “Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him. 15 And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves [l]in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God.”

To tie homosexuality to the word abomination one needs to go back to that tribal god Yahweh. And with that…well then, most people practice abominations, and probably even includes Mr. Humbleman.

One of my favorites is Ezekiel 18:10-13, where all that trade in interest are committing an abomination. I would think that would anyone who has any bonds, including in their IRA/401k.
“Then he may [g]have a violent son who sheds blood and who does any of these things to a brother 11 (though he himself did not do any of these things), that is, he even eats at the mountain shrines, and defiles his neighbor’s wife, 12 oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore a pledge, but lifts up his eyes to the idols and commits abomination, 13 he lends money on interest and takes increase; will he live? He will not live! He has committed all these abominations, he will surely be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.

On the sexy side, there is Leviticus 18:19 where later in the paragraph it is shown to be part of “do not defile yourself”…
Lev 18:19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

Then there is this fun one where fundagelicals make a mockery of the pretentiousness about the 10 commandments (The Sabbath is not an unknown period of the week):
Exodus 35:2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death. 3 Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day.”

I was going to suggest that bible believers need to celebrate their abominations on a holy day but most obviously do judging from those quotes. Just about everyday is a Holy Day of Abomination for them.

 

[humbleman]

I said that due to the irony of humbleman dredging up the word ‘abomination’ to dis homosexuals, implying that somehow this ‘sin’ is special.

The word abomination is only used twice in the NT by most any translation. Now in Revelations, it doesn’t really help as it doesn’t really discuss what the Reveler thought abomination meant in this time and context. However, the Jesus character did utilize the word once talking about those who lust after money in Luke…yeah people like Don the Con.

Revelation 21:27: “But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.”

Luke 16:14-15 “Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him. 15 And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves [l]in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God.”

To tie homosexuality to the word abomination one needs to go back to that tribal god Yahweh. And with that…well then, most people practice abominations, and probably even includes Mr. Humbleman.

One of my favorites is Ezekiel 18:10-13, where all that trade in interest are committing an abomination. I would think that would anyone who has any bonds, including in their IRA/401k.
“Then he may [g]have a violent son who sheds blood and who does any of these things to a brother 11 (though he himself did not do any of these things), that is, he even eats at the mountain shrines, and defiles his neighbor’s wife, 12 oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore a pledge, but lifts up his eyes to the idols and commits abomination, 13 he lends money on interest and takes increase; will he live? He will not live! He has committed all these abominations, he will surely be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.

On the sexy side, there is Leviticus 18:19 where later in the paragraph it is shown to be part of “do not defile yourself”…
Lev 18:19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

Then there is this fun one where fundagelicals make a mockery of the pretentiousness about the 10 commandments (The Sabbath is not an unknown period of the week):
Exodus 35:2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death. 3 Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day.”

Using a switch to turn the light On it requires your finger moving it like this... see it? Lights are On! Wow!

In those times, making fire required work.

But, such is not the main issue here.

Your message is correct in so many things that I will leave it like it is, it's a very good point of view and deserves to be read and understood properly.

However, I will go the other way, a way you didn't mention, so you probably will have the chance to expand yourself again, if such is your will of course, I don't think will be that important, it might be good as your message from above, but good is not synonymous of important... or special.

The god of the bible prohibited prostitutes and "dogs" to bring offerings from their sexual perversions profits.

Who were the "dogs"? Well, this nickname appears right when the god the bible condemns homosexuality as well.

But, this is not the god father who will define homosexuals or male prostitutes as dogs, but also Jesus did it.

In the book of Revelation., Jesus, who is the one talking to John, told him that no liars, adulterers, blah blah blah... "dogs"... and blah blah blah won't enter to the new Jerusalem.

There you go again.

Nothing special when a god calls dog to a person because his actions. Unless the person is "his best friend"... who knows... in this world anything can happen.

But surely, for the biblical god and his son, such nickname means nothing good, in those years dogs weren't pets as today, dogs were dogs... doing things like eating their own doo doo, young males having sex even when their own mothers when no other female dog was around... calling dog to someone wasn't a respectable nickname...

Hope no one here respond this message with barks.

Everybody has committed sins in front of the eyes of God.

Everybody still are committing sins in front of God.

A sin is a sin, this is to say, a disobedience to the word (law) of God.

The idea obtained from the bible is to recognize the committed sin, not to do it again, or try hard not to do it again, and change and do what is right.

We, as humans, of course, we don't want to respect even the 25 miles per hour speed limit, but this won't make the traffic laws wrong.

Your position with such good points of yours is that, you just can't do what is right, so you find the way to declare that the faulty part isn't you but God and his bible.

Good grief... sigh*

 

[funinspace]

Everybody has committed sins in front of the eyes of God.

Everybody still are committing sins in front of God.

A sin is a sin, this is to say, a disobedience to the word (law) of God.

The idea obtained from the bible is to recognize the committed sin, not to do it again, or try hard not to do it again, and change and do what is right.

We, as humans, of course, we don't want to respect even the 25 miles per hour speed limit, but this won't make the traffic laws wrong.

Sure ‘everyone sins’ is part and parcel of much of the Christian theological groupings. But then again, within the OT, about 400 thingies are basically called an abomination from the trivial of eating the wrong food, to lying, to the love of money/wealth, to like a woman wearing pants, to some of the BIG sins like murder & thieving. Yet somehow, I doubt the fun word of “abomination” rarely slips off your fingering presses upon the keyboard beyond the issue of homosexuality. Why would that be? Is that word being used in humility, or being used to single out and poke at some people?

Secondly, probably at least 75% of those obese people in the church pews could be called out for regularly and wantonly for not taking care of their temple like body and for being gluttonous. Yet does the preacher single them out for their lifestyle choices, for that is what it is. One can look for the medically driven obesity rates by looking at cultures like the Swiss and Japanese (recognizing that the medical rate is somewhere below theirs), and find that American obesity is largely a ‘choice’, and certainly more of a choice than being homosexual. Yet, where is that finger waving at the pervasive gluttony going on, cuz it’s like an epidemic? Where is that “you fat blob are going to hell”? Hell, Christians are regularly and yuugely having food orgies. It is like the preachers are playing 3 blind mice. Yet only 3-4% of Americans are LGBT, as compared to the roughly 36% that are obese. The theological cafeteria must be a fun place to pick and choose…

Your position with such good points of yours is that, you just can't do what is right, so you find the way to declare that the faulty part isn't you but God and his bible.

Uh, no that is not my position. I was pointing out your funky usage of the word abomination in relation to the totality of the Christian Bible(s). But on your inference here, my position is that I don't recognize that a god was involved in the writings within the Bible(s). I consider the Bible(s) a very human document constructing a god upon a narrow and tall pedestal.

 

[bilby]

I have never done anything in front of God or of God's eyes; And I can assure you that I have never sinned - because neither sin nor God are real things.

"Everybody is guilty of something" is an excellent tool for oppression, authoritarianism, and dictatorship. It has been used for centuries by various religious organizations, and even by nominally secular dictatorships - Joe Stalin learned well from his time in seminary, that if everyone is guilty, the authorities have legitimate reason to sanction any person, at any time, and to impose any punishment - the dictator is no longer seen as a capricious and evil ruler, but as a stern lawgiver punishing the guilty, who deserve their fate for their crimes.

Fuck that.

 

[Learner]

Secondly, probably at least 75% of those obese people in the church pews could be called out for regularly and wantonly for not taking care of their temple like body and for being gluttonous. Yet does the preacher single them out for their lifestyle choices, for that is what it is. One can look for the medically driven obesity rates by looking at cultures like the Swiss and Japanese (recognizing that the medical rate is somewhere below theirs), and find that American obesity is largely a ‘choice’, and certainly more of a choice than being homosexual. Yet, where is that finger waving at the pervasive gluttony going on, cuz it’s like an epidemic? Where is that “you fat blob are going to hell”? Hell, Christians are regularly and yuugely having food orgies. It is like the preachers are playing 3 blind mice. Yet only 3-4% of Americans are LGBT, as compared to the roughly 36% that are obese. The theological cafeteria must be a fun place to pick and choose…

Interestingly : What's not surprising (or IS surprising, depending on how one sees it). Alongside obesity amongst people, you have some of the healthiest communities in America like the "Quakers" and the "Amish" which I wouldn't doubt be as healthy as the Swiss and Japanese.

To some extent; people getting fat on the best choices that money can buy could be (not all) under a sinful nature of greed depending on the heart of the character and how fairly he got the means ... and those who get oversized by the enormous amounts of sugary or fatty content which is all they could afford with the cheap-and-cheerful within their grasp, could imo be quite forgivable ... even for the wealthy enjoyers of food group(s). Waving the finger at the guilty (so to speak) would have to be on an indvidual case by case basis by the circumstances (where a judgement is concerned imo) but would seem rather difficult to be instantly spontaneous against a variety of "big" people (detailed circumstances not known) in an everyday life scenario.

 

[funinspace]

I should point out that I am not recommending ostracizing anyone. This is merely commentary about the theological constructs within the Bible. Obesity has many issues driving it, and I don’t want to imply that it is a simple problem.

Secondly, probably at least 75% of those obese people in the church pews could be called out for regularly and wantonly for not taking care of their temple like body and for being gluttonous. Yet does the preacher single them out for their lifestyle choices, for that is what it is. One can look for the medically driven obesity rates by looking at cultures like the Swiss and Japanese (recognizing that the medical rate is somewhere below theirs), and find that American obesity is largely a ‘choice’, and certainly more of a choice than being homosexual. Yet, where is that finger waving at the pervasive gluttony going on, cuz it’s like an epidemic? Where is that “you fat blob are going to hell”? Hell, Christians are regularly and yuugely having food orgies. It is like the preachers are playing 3 blind mice. Yet only 3-4% of Americans are LGBT, as compared to the roughly 36% that are obese. The theological cafeteria must be a fun place to pick and choose…

Interestingly : What's not surprising (or IS surprising, depending on how one sees it). Alongside obesity amongst people, you have some of the healthiest communities in America like the "Quakers" and the "Amish" which I wouldn't doubt be as healthy as the Swiss and Japanese.

Yes, they and the Seventh Day Adventists create a lifestyle environment where obesity is significantly lower than the general population.

To some extent; people getting fat on the best choices that money can buy could be (not all) under a sinful nature of greed depending on the heart of the character and how fairly he got the means ... and those who get oversized by the enormous amounts of sugary or fatty content which is all they could afford with the cheap-and-cheerful within their grasp, could imo be quite forgivable ...

Sure, I get that there are those who live in areas that are often called food deserts, alongside the issue of poverty compounding the issue of being over weight.

even for the wealthy enjoyers of food group(s). Waving the finger at the guilty (so to speak) would have to be on an indvidual case by case basis by the circumstances (where a judgement is concerned imo) but would seem rather difficult to be instantly spontaneous against a variety of "big" people (detailed circumstances not known) in an everyday life scenario.

When the preacher stands before his crowd in the church and rails against the abomination of homosexuality, he isn’t singling any individual out. The US has a weight problem that could be reasonably called an epidemic. One would think it would be reasonable for preachers to spend a tad more time on talking about food choices in terms of the sin of gluttony and weight as an abuse of the human body(temple), than focusing on those ‘gays’ that generally aren’t in their church anyway. It is always easier to talk about the abominations (or sins) of ‘those people’, than to look inward. In fact, I would call it cowardly.

Taking individuals aside to address individual cases is a different issue and not something I was addresing.