Comments on A Clarification

Stormont is the parliament for Northern Ireland which means this was a Northern Irish (Ulster) politian, not an Irish one. Ulster is a part of the UK while Ireland is a seperate nation. Kind of like mixing up Canada and the U.S. in that respect. Otherwise I agree (with her being a moron, not the abomination bit). I always thought it was strange that being gay and eating shellfish are both referred to as "abominations" when eating fish (wink wink) is about as far away from gay as there is.

No surprise there. Iris is a member of the reverend Ian Paisley’s DUP in Norhtern Ireland, the right wing protestant coalition that governs Ulster along with Sinn Feinn.

Iris and Paisley are known homophobes. Unfortunately, they have a LOT of support amongst the unionists in NI. It is really surprise that attacks on gays in Belfast and other cities are rampant.

Another reminder of how much “better” the Europeans are. Imagine if Pat Robertson was the governor of Washington State. Hell, Ian Paisley makes Pat Robertson look like a moderate.

By the way Dan is Northern Ireland not the republic of Ireland. Ireland tends to be a bit more liberal than the disputed UK province which is co-governed by crazy right wing proddies,. Northern Ireland will be Ireland, but not yet…

That should read Is it really a surprise.

Also, I doubt that Iris is in any risk of losing her post or her UK MP status.

Here's to you, Mrs. Robinson--Jesus loves you more than he'll admit...

According to the Christian Bible, homosexual behavior *is* a sin, no? Even the most pro-gay Christians don't argue that that is what the Bible says. Of course, there's plenty of other crazy shit in the Good Book, and I've never understood why homosexual activity is considered an extra-special sin. Talking back to yo' mama is just as bad, as is having sex with a woman during her period.

SeMe's right about Paisley. He's the most hateful bastard in Europe, maybe anywhere. He used to regularly make statements that made Osama bin Laden sound moderate. I pretty much hate everything Sinn Fein stands for, but at least they've acknowledged that we don't live in the seventeenth century anymore. This Robinson bitch's statement is downright reasonable compared to some of the garbage Paisley used to spew. He's quieter now, simply because he's about 500 years old. The fact that Robinson is youngish, and still feels the way she does, shows just how difficult the Northern Irish situation is.

Do be aware, though, that literally EVERYTHING in Northern Ireland is colored by the sectarian divide, and that statements about the gays are no exception. Robinson isn't really talking about gays at all; she's talking about her threatened heritage. She's really talking about fear.

Sounds like a job for the Hulk.

Oh, and calling Paisley a "homophobe" is like calling Bill Gates "moderately well-off". Paisley thinks gays should be BURNED. He is ideologically about even with Fred Phelps.

whats funny is that without knowing it, dan gave the biggest Diss to Iris. he called her irish. to a loony unionist like iris, that is the worst of insults, they get red and angry as hell when u call them irish, unionist politician who cling like death to their british identity.

come on FNARF dont diss the Feinn- Gerry Adams aside, they are very liberal and way more progressive in their approach to goverment.

just cuz they were wee terrorists back in da day.

"their day will come"

It's only an abomination if you don't do it properly...like, dressing unstylishly or having poor fellatio skills.

The nice thing about Ian Paisley is that he will be dead soon, and I doubt his son has 1/2 the "charisma" that he does. The man is a bastard, no doubt, but a hell of a speaker. After he goes the Unionists will lose their most important touchstone.
@5 some X-tians do argue that the Bible doesn't prohibit teh gays. Certain gay christian groups say that "Thou shall not lie with a man as a woman" meant that sleeping with a man was ok, as long as you weren't demeaning or forced yourself on them. Basically consenual male "lying" was ok, just no rape.

@4. you beat me to saying that...

God bless you, please, Mrs. Robinson.
Heaven holds a place for those who pray

@11:
What the hell? I'm trying to dissect what you're saying...lying with a man "as a woman" means rape...because that's the proper way to lie with a woman, right? It seems "as a woman" is just there to clarify what sort of "lying" we're talking about. In the same way, people say "I knew her...in the biblical sense" to mean kinda the same thing.

And that's not the only verse on homosexuality, the ones in the new testament are pretty clear.

I'd hope for a point where people can find homosexuality a sin without legislating that belief, being preachy about it (unless they're preaching to their congregation), or treating gay people as anything other than people. One would hope, provided a Christian keeps their moral judgements within the church, they might be spared the term "bigot" and "homophobe" for having the opinion that the bible includes that in its list of sexually immoral behavior.

The argument isn't really mine, but what the Gay evangelist group who proffered it says is: Back in Biblical times women were property and had no say in matters of "lying" or "knowing". They were just property to be used in whatever manner the husband wanted. The group (I forget what they are called, they are quoted in "A Year of Living Bibically) says that the quote was meant to dissuade soldiers from raping their defeated enemies (a common practice at the time).
Like I say it isn't my theory but it raises and interesting take on things.
BTW you can feel whatever you want is a sin, I could care less. A schizophrenic can think the sky is made of grape juice if they want, as long as they don't try to hurt any one or legislate against those who believe differently.
You are both delusional. At least the schizo has chemical imbalance as their excuse, what's yours?

Calling someone delusional isn't really an argument.

My excuse is Jesus. As I read the Gospels, I come to the conclusion that all of the wisdom and knowledge and kindness and character of God were incarnated in this man, and so I seek to be faithful to Him and His teachings.

I mean, since you asked. I wouldn't want to be preachy or anything.

You did miss one point: a Christian doesn't want to keep their opinions to theirself (sic) but rather to themselves. A Christian Pastor should be able to say "homosexuality is a sin" to his congregation without being labeled a homophobe or a bigot...provided they do it right. Homophobic language, singling out homosexuality as being "dirtier" or "filthier" than other sins, and whatever other presentation method are of course, grounds for denunciation as a homophobe or a bigot.

Does that make sense?

people overreact to the word abomination.

For example. eating shelled sea life is an abomination, yet i had some abomination chowder for lunch.

It was delicious.

@11,

So any sex between a man and a woman is rape. Where have I heard that before?

@17: from Erica?

@15: no, it does not.

It doesn't matter how they do it, telling your congregation that homosexuality is a sin is bigotry, period.

For a pastor, or anyone else, to suggest that they have a perfect understanding of what Jesus was, especially based on the rather flimsy basis of an English translation of a book written thousands of years ago, with no cultural understanding of those times -- or these -- is, in fact, delusional.

You might have some ideas, but you don't know the truth. The book CANNOT be taken at face value; after all, the bible strongly endorses slavery, which no christians today defend. The book MUST be interpreted according to your own cultural understanding, and that interpretation is as much a reflection of you as it is this person called Jesus.

How much do you wanna bet that she eats shellfish?

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Mr Joshua, I call you delusional, not because you believe in God, although that certainly doesn't hurt, but because you believe in the Bible.
Even if you Jesus did exist and was the son of God, even if God spoke personally to every person who wrote the different books of the Bible, the Bible is still not the perfect word of God. Why? Because for hundreds of years the Bible was only written in Greek, Hebrew or Latin, and not in the common tongue. The only people who spoke these languages were the clergy and the royalty. So even if the first Bible was the unadulterated word of God, it spent hundreds of years in the hands of people who could , and did, change it to suit their agenda's.
King James (who many historians believe was gay BTW) was deathly afraid of witches and in his version he changed the translation of Exodus 22:18 (Thou shall not suffer a poisoner to live) to Thou shall not suffer a witch to live.
He changed the Bible to suit his own agenda. Which means that it isn't the literal word of God. It provides you no footing to judge the actions of others, especially the acts of 2 consenting adults.
Try thinking for yourself rather than relying on a book someone told you was magic.

@Fnarf Very nicely done, sir!

@19:
Okay, two points.

Regarding Christianity: of course people need to understand the times. Of course people have a biased understanding of the story. That certainly does not deny them the possibility of getting SOME understanding out of it. I might say, Shakespeare is a great writer, perhaps the best in the history of the English literary canon. A scholar of Elizabethan English might say that I didn't get half of the nuance of the Bard, but it is rather the common themes that resonate then as today so that someone totally ignorant of the era might really appreciate the writing without understanding the whole of it. It is perhaps that quality which makes the writing so powerful. In Christianity, sure someone might not understand and may misunderstand much of what Jesus says, but he talks about love, and suffering, and the universal moral failure of men, and forgiveness, and greed, and duty and righteousness which most people today can relate to. Without understanding the nuance, most people can get the message and make up their minds about it.



Regarding homosexuality: in my opinion, you're setting the bigotry bar very low. What made sexuality so sacred that no group can make moral statements about it within their own group? Or are people just bigots for "taking the bible literally"? Or are you just saying people are bigots for being Christians? Whose intolerant now? My point is, if (a specific group of) Christians have proscriptions for how Christians (of their specific group) should behave sexually, and they aren't hurting you, it's essentially behind closed doors between consenting adults, and who are you to judge what they say or do? Are people bigoted for having ethics based on the teachings of their religion? Or just for applying those ethics to other people who agree with them?

Now, regarding slavery. I actually agree with what the bible says about slavery, in the context of the time. The bible doesn't endorse slavery. It just merely doesn't prohibit it entirely. Much of the sections about slavery rather restrict what you can and can't do with a slave, how you can and can't treat a slave etc. You can't keep a slave longer than seven years. If you come across a runaway slave, you aren't allowed to return them to their master. Slaves came primarily from prisoners of war (at least they didn't kill them) or debtors (at least they didn't kill them/throw them in prison/break their kneecaps). Paul in the New Testament says if slaves are able to be free, they should do so. But he doesn't pass judgement on slaveowners (just tells them they should treat their slaves like they want God to treath THEM). He was just practicing tolerance and diversity.

@21:
Most modern translations you pick up these days come from the dead sea scrolls and early greek manuscripts from the second through fourth century. Certainly, not every text is this early, and they don't all agree, but really they do provide a consensus that what you mentioned is the exception and not the rule.

Regarding Jesus' words about homosexuality:

You might want to check your source material.

A good friend (who's also a priest and straight) says when he counsels "potential gays" about Jesus and the bible, he gives them a book titled "Jesus' Teachings on Homosexuality."

The book is entirely blank inside.

Find us one place in the new testament where Jesus cautions against homosexuality.

#25 is pointed at #23, BTW...

"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."
Mark 7:21-23 NASB

Jesus never cautions us against pornography, but he does talk about porneia, often translated "sexual immorality" or in this case, "fornication", which is used as a catch-all term for anything sexual considered immoral. I think you could make an argument based on the teachings of Paul and from the Old Testament (which Jesus taught from) as to what is and isn't sexually immoral.

@4 and @12 -- Koo-koo-ka-choo

@5:

If you look carefully at what's there in the Bible and don't add anything then no, it doesn't condemn homosexuality. To the contrary, in the Bible the three great pairs of lovers are all same sex: David and Johnathan, Ruth and Naomi, Jesus and John.

@29:
If you read the whole bible without adding anything to it, NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE LOVERS. There is no evidence of that. Basically, you're just demonstrating your own ignorance.

@30:

"...the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." 1 Samuel 18:22

In Samuel their love is said to have been greater that the love of a man for a woman. The love between Ruth and Naomi is legendary and oft celebrated as an example for other lovers. And Jesus and John, the beloved, were cuddled up together at the last supper, if you believe the Gospel of John. You'll note that in the old paintings you can always spot John. He's the pretty one.